Visit Sydney Australia

Early Parramatta

By the turn of the 19th century, Sydney had begun to grow beyond its origin restrictive boundaries and other localities began appearing on the map. When convicts completed their sentences, they were free to return to England or take up a grant in the colony. Most opted for that latter, more often than not because they were unable to afford the fare home. These emancipists were entitled to a grant of up to 100 acres. Officials and military personnel of the colony were also granted land and many took up large tracts in and around what is today the Sydney metropolitan area. When merchants began establishing their operations in Sydney, they too requested and were given land. The procedure of granting land continued until 1825 when land sales were first introduced. in 1831, the system of free land grants was totally abolished. By the middle of the 19th century, very little crown land remained in the Sydney metropolitan area as we know it today.

A condition of receiving a land grant was that it must be developed and farmers were encouraged to work towards being self sufficient as soon as possible. In order to afford farming equipment and the employment of hired labour to work their farms, many landowners subdivided their grants into smaller farms, selling sections of their property and using the proceeds of the sale as capital to develop their property.

Many of the military and wealthy men of the colony had obtained grants, but many were for speculation purposes only, and often subdivided and sold their properties immediately upon acquisition. Others had to fortfeit their grants because they had not developed them within the required time.

Much of the land granted was not fertile enough to grow cereal crops and was put to other uses. The turpentine forests which covered much of the Upper North Shore and St George districts made large areas unsuitable for farming, but ideal for timber getting. For many decades, timber cutters worked through these areas with great success. Once the timber was cleared, the land was subdivided into small farms and sold or let for orchards. The lighter wooded areas of the Sydney plains suffered from even poorer soil and were used for market gardens or grazing.


Dairy farm on Canada Bay

Early Farming Grants
During 1791 small grants were given to mainly emancipated convicts at Parramatta and the area surrounding including Prospect Hill, The Ponds and the Northern Boundary (North Parramatta). Several years later larger grants were made to ex-military, civil servants and to a smaller extent, free settlers. The soil at Prospect was quite fertile but access to water was sometimes a problem. The settlers in The Ponds and Northern Boundary districts were reasonably prosperous. The Government also established a Public Farm at Toongabbie and many hundreds of convicts worked here until it closed down around 1808.

The Hawkesbury district was settled in 1794 and the fertile floodplain produced much needed crops for the colony. The settlers, mostly emancipated convicts, were granted thirty acre lots and were very pleased with their farms as their crops were extremely productive. Unfortunately regular flooding meant that the Hawkesbury could not always be relied as the main food supply.

The first grants in the Liverpool district were granted from 1798 mainly along the George's River on the alluvial river flats. The town itself was established as a refuge for the settlers already living along the banks of the Georges River. Around 1800, several families settled without official permission, at Bird's Eye Corner, just north of Penrith. Official grants of land were made in 1803 along the Nepean River. The fertile land was quickly taken up in the Nepean and Hawkesbury districts and because of the ban on land around the Cow Pastures (now Camden) settlers were then established in the vicinity of South Creek (now St. Marys). In 1801 the Government Farm was established at Castle Hill. The first grants in the Baulkham Hills district commenced in the first decade of the nineteenth century. The land varied in suitability for agriculture, wheat and oats plus fruit growing as well as grazing lands.

Between 1810 and 1830 Governors Macquarie and Darling made grants of land in the Macarthur district occupied by the indigenous Dharawal. Emancipated convicts were granted 60 acres, military personnel 80 acres and free settlers were granted parcels of land according to their ability to farm and develop, The disastrous Hawkesbury floods of 1809 had destroyed crops, creating a food shortage in the fledgling Colony of New South Wales. The Government urgently sought new farming land which was not flood prone. The area selected was the District of Minto because the fertile land was in reasonable proximity to Sydney. Most small grants were along the Bow Bowing and Bunbury Curran Creeks while the larger estates were situated on the high ridges and slopes with corridors providing access to water.

The Ingleburn region was originally known as Soldier's Flat because four of the early grants were to William Hall. Joshua Alliott, Timothy Loughlin and William Neale, members of the NSW Cprps. David Noonan purchased Neale's 80 acres in 1826 and this grant became the site of the Ingleburn Railway Station and the Town Centre.



Grants of Town Allotments In Sydney, 1811
Until the year 1811 all the land which had hitherto been granted lay outside the borders of the town of Sydney, but in that year the Governor, with the authority of the Secretary of State, commenced to grant town allotments on lease only, for periods of fourteen or twenty-one years; the rents on these leases varied considerably from time to time according to the discretion of the Governor, by whom they were imposed. In 1824 and 1826 further regulations relating to grants to immigrants were issued by the Colonial Office. In 1829 leases were entirely abolished, grants of freehold estates being made in lieu, but five years later they were however, again introduced. As regards the payment of quit-rents generally, it appears that they were collected in a very perfunctory manner, and in later years the Government offered special inducements for their redemption.

Text of a Land Grant
By His Excellency Arthur Phillip Esquire., Captain General & Governor in Chief in & over His Majesty's Territory of New South Wales & its Dependencies.

WHEREAS full Power & Authority for Granting Lands in the Territory of New South Wales, to such Persons as may be desirous of becoming Settlers therein, is vested in me His Majesty's Captain General & Governor in Chief in & over the said Territory & its respectively the Twenty fifth Day of April, One Thousand seven hundred & eighty nine.

In PERSUANCE of the Power & Authority vested in me as aforesaid. I do by these Pretents. GIVE & GRANT unto NATHANIEL LUCAS His Heirs & Assigns to have & to hold for ever, Fifteen Acres of Land to be known by the name of LUCAS'S FARM, laying in Granville Valley, Sydney Township, Norfolk Island, the said Fifteen Acres of Land to be had & held by him the said Nathaniel Lucas, His Heirs & Assigns free from all Fees, Taxes, Quit Rents & other acknowledgments, for the space of Ten Years, from the Date of these Pretents; Provided that the said Nathaniel Lucas, His Heirs or Assigns shall reside within the same & proceed to the Improvement & Cultivation thereof; such timber as may be growing or to grow hereafter upon the said land, which may be deemed fit for Naval Purposes, to be reserved for the use of the Crown, & paying an annual Quit Rent of One Shilling after the expiration of the Term of Ten Years before mentioned.

IN TESTIMONY whereof I have hereunto set my Hand & Seal of the Territory, at Government House, Sydney in the Territory of New South Wales, this Third Day of January in the Year of Our Lord, One Thousand seven hundred and ninety two.

Signed & Sealed in Our Presence------ A. Phillip. (Signed) Geo. Johnston (Signed) John White (Signed) John Palmer By Command of His Excellency,

(Signed) David Collins,

Secretary. L.S.

Introduction of Land Sales, 1825
By this time the principle of granting of land by sale to free settlers had already been introduced under Sir Thomas Brisbane and under a Government order of the 24th March, 1825, land was allowed to be sold by private tender, at a minimum price of five shillings an acre, no person being allowed to buy more than 4000 acres, nor any family more than 5000 acres. The disposal of lands by sale did not, however, interfere with the ordinary method of alienating town allotments and country lands by grants subject to the payment of quit-rents. In 1830 the division of the eastern part of the colony of New South Wales into counties, hundreds and parishes had been completed by a commission of three persons appointed for that purpose. Dividing the territory into nineteen counties, covering about 34,505 square miles, they made a valuation of the whole of the lands with a view to fixing a fair price for future sales. This territory comprised a belt of land in what is now the middle of the Eastern Division of New South Wales, extending from the coast nearly as far as the boundary of the Central Division, and from the Macleay River in the north to the Moruya River in the south.

Free Grants Abolished, 1831
On the 14th February, 1831, it was notified by a Government order that no Crown lands were in the future to be disposed of except by public auction, the minimum price for country lands being fixed at five shillings an acre, which was raised to twelve shillings an acre in 1839, power being given in the latter year to select, at the upset price, land for which there was no bid at the auction, or upon which the deposit paid at the time of sale had been forfeited. This was the first introduction of the principle of selection into the land laws of Australia, and it was then applied to lands which had been put up for sale by auction.

Cheltenham Railway Station, 1900

The coming of the railway was the biggest impetus to the growth of the suburbs. Farmers in the railway corridors, particularly those in the vicinity of the first stations on each line, were offered previously unheard of prices for their land by speculators and developers. As fast as the land was subdivided into suburban allotments and sold, houses were built, and demand for more land increased, Neighbouring farms were quickly subdivided and sold and more houses were built. In time, more stations were added to each line and the cycle started all over again. The introduction of trams and horse buses in areas not serviced by trains had a similar effect and by the turn of the 20th century, the Sydney metropolitan area as we know it today had well and truly taken shape.

After each farm or farmlet was sold, it was subdivided and re-sold as house allotments as an estate. These estates varied in size from a few streets or rows of houses to whole suburbs, depending on the size of the property being subdivided. More often than not, however, they were relatively small in size, a fragment of a much larger original grant. These estates were given names for advertising purposes, often recalling the name of the original property being subdivided or the name of its owner or developer.



Many of Sydney's inner suburbs are today made up of dozens of these much smaller estates butted up against each other. The biggest problem with this method of development, which was commonplace during the latter half of the 19th century, was that large suburban areas were created with little or no planning taking place. Often no space was left for community facilities such as churches, shopping areas, schools, gardens and public space and it was not in the developer's financial interests to allocate land for main roads in, out and through them and to ensure that those roads were wide and straight. Matters relating to the natural environment, including protection of local flora and fauna, were also forgotten. Consquently, these suburbs retain few or no areas of natural habitat and are today a maze of oddly shaped subdivisions and narrow streets which are difficult to find your way through and are often inadequate to carry today's level of traffic.

Charles O'Neill Way, Village of St Thomas, Lewisham

Like all cities and towns, Sydney as a city remains unfinished, in a constant state of change. We tend to believe that what we see today was planned that way, but that is not always the case. Take an area of Petersham at Taverners Hill, for example, where Canterbury Road has branched off Parramatta Road since the 1820s. The plan on the right shows the area around St Thomas Church back in 1855 when the land was first subdivided and put up for sale after the Sydney to Parramatta railway to its south became operational. What is shown as Uppper Canterbury Road is the original main road to Canterbury from Sydney. These days this major thoroughfare is nothing more than a dead-end side street. A new road to its east, called High Canterbury Road, is the northern end of what we know as Old Canterbury Road.

To the east of the new estate is New Cook's River Road which was intended to be the main road from Petersham to Marrickville and the Cook's River. Due mainly to the widening of the railway corridor to accommodate extra railway lines in the railway corridor over the next 70 years, New Cook's River Road has been truncated into a number of sections, the main one being Livingstone Road. The latter is still a major road but the rest of New Cook's River Road never grew into the main cross country road from Petersham to Marrickville that it was intended to be.

The widening of the railway corridor and erection of the Lewisham railway station near St Thomas Church some 20 years after subdivision led to the resumption of land alongside the railway. The station was erected where Upper Canterbury Road crossed the line, which resulted in Upper Canterbury Road being turned into a cul-de-sac and renamed Thomas Street. The traffic it once carried now uses High (now Old) Canterbury Road. New Canterbury Road was developed to the area's south when Upper Canterbury Road dceased to exist and is now the main road between Canterbury and the City. The two maps below show how the area used to be (left) and how it is today (right).



But just as the two streets on either side of this subdivision were planned as major roads but ended up being side streets, the subdivision itself was never developed to the original plan either. The Catholic Church bought the land on which St Thomas Church was built in 1840 to serve the growing Irish Catholic population which had moved into the surrounding district. Realising the prossible need for growth in the future on the church's opening in 1855, it then bought the whole subdivision. Railway Street, Ellis Street and Thomas Street were never created. As per the original subdivision, Church Street still gives rear access to the church, but was extended and is now called Charles O'Neill Way. Upper Canterbury Road was diverted into Fraziers Street and became a cul-de-sac named Thomas Street.

The Petersham cemetery was laid out behind the church in 1863, the first burial taking place in that year. It was closed in 1884 to make way for new buildings. The surviving gravestones, 90% of which have Irish connections, are now in Rookwood Cemetery. A new church was opened in 1887, at which time the old church became a school. In 1888 a convent was built on the adjoining land and the Lewisham Hospital was erected in the following year. Additions to the hospital now cover the site of the old cemetery. Brick schoolrooms were erected in 1901 and 1907 and the church has been enlarged and altered on a number of occasions.

Daceyville plan

The decade following the end of the First World War (1914-18) saw Australian cities spread at an unprecedented rate. Many suburbs occupying what we now call the middle ring of urban development owe their form directly and indirectly to ideals of social engineering propagated by the first generation of modern town planners whose ideal was the garden suburb.

The City of Canberra is Australia s most prominent planning enterprise of this era, its creators being the highly regarded architects from Chicago, USA, Walter Burley and Marion Mahony Griffin. Inner Canberra's circular and semi-circular road plans, interspersed with parks and gardens, epitomises the ideals of the garden city movement of the interwar years. These design features represented a radical break from the traditional grid patterns inherited from the industrial cities of Britain, with their endless rows of terrace houses that had been built to accommodate the influx of workers from outer rural areas who began moving to the cities seeking employment during the Industrial revolution.


Haig Avenue, Daceyville

The town planned  garden suburb was the preferred housing solution amongst post-World War I urban planning professionals in Britain, North America and Australasia as they strove to reform the ad hoc processes whereby new suburban residential environments were created. By the 1920s the diffusion of progressive planning ideas into the surveying profession coupled with a booming suburban land economy created a development climate conducive to the proliferation of town planning-styled subdivisions in Australia. In all garden suburb plans, the provision of open space in various forms  from playing fields through nature reserves to pocket parks and outsized traffic islands - was considered mandatory.

Australian planners almost always earmarked the open space they provided in their plans for recreational use. On the regional scale, green belts, large metropolitan parks and parkways  (something between a tree-bordered avenue and a park  by John Sulman's definition) were usually woven into the urban structure in projections of city development. On a local scale, innovations such as setbacks of houses from the street, small external  park areas at the end of triangular blocks, and grassed and treed traffic islands were included. The necessity of providing adequate access to sun and healthful breezes in residential areas, provided through density controls, was a cherished tenet of the planning movement.

The prevailing rule of thumb was that at least one-tenth of any subdivided area should be devoted to open space. Neighbourhood parks with geometric layouts, curvilinear streets, community centres, shopping precincts, picturesque streetscapes, and the linking of road width to function became near-universal features of planned subdivisions by the 1920s. This new vision of the suburb was a clear contrast with both inner city slums (where the street was the only playground for children) and uncoordinated sprawl (where the greed of speculators forced planners to maximise the amount of saleable lots). Even nineteenth-century leafy  suburbs tended to feature only minimal public open space. In the mind of the early twentieth-century social reformer, the provision of common open space was seen as a social and moral priority, intersecting with other themes which were strong in the public consciousness at the time, such as social control, eugenics and public health. In advocating public open space, reformers were quick to use rhetoric suggesting that provision was advantageous economically, as well as socially.


Banks Avenue, Daceyville

The internal reserve was one of the most distinctive and novel types of open space provided. Inspired by a mix of ideological, economic and pragmatic physical planning objectives, these spaces were intended primarily for inhabitants of the houses immediately surrounding them. The majority of internal reserves had no direct street frontage; users gained access either by narrow laneways or directly from gates at the rear of their properties. The planning movement promoted them variously as an enlightened world practice, socially responsible, community building, and - hidden away from saleable street frontage and contributing to residential amenity - potentially profitable.

For a movement which prided itself on its scientific underpinnings, there was surprisingly little consensus in the wider planning movement on the purpose of the internal reserve. Walter Burley Griffin stated in 1915 that internal reserves would serve the diverse needs of various kinds of families as to accommodation for children, for pleasure gardens, or for horticulture, and for individual preferences as to separate responsibility or neighbourhood co-operation in any of these directions .


The Citadel, a Walter Burlery Griffin house at Castlecrag

The internal reserve became one of the hallmarks of many planned garden suburbs of the early twentieth century. An idealistic conception with direct links to overseas planning theory, these spaces were not always well received by either local councils or residents; despite this, many survive today as legacies of early suburban reformism. Its reception in cities like Perth well captures the tensions between theoretical idealism, the realities of the suburban property market, and local government regulation which shaped the progress of the planning movement nation-wide.

The internal reserve concept was a constant in the subdivisional schemes by Griffin and his wife Marion Mahony after their relocation to Australia in 1914. At Castlecrag on Sydney s Middle Harbour, they were used as elements of an open space network to preserve and regenerate natural bushland. Internal reserves were earmarked by some designers as sewerage and drainage  reserves, a function which required underground pipes and drains but which did not preclude recreational use. For the most part, however, the Australian internal reserve was destined to become a recreation space, either for informal recreation, with little in the way of facilities, or as a site for active recreation, most notably tennis courts.

• Daceyville - The Modern Suburb
• Castlecrag - Walter Burley Griffin's Garden Suburb