Productivity Commission Inquiry
Conservation of Australia's Historic Heritage Places

Submission by Robert Clark,  Mosman NSW 2088 
Are market failures present in the conservation of-heritage places?
Are there impediments to commercial conservation activities (for example perception by owners that conservation costs are prohibitive compared to benefits to them)?

I believe the example described below answers both these questions in the affirmative.

How well do Local governments resolve conflicts between protecting private property rights and achieving legitimate heritage conservation objectives? Should governments (at any level) be required to compensate for their actions that infringe on the property rights of individual owners?

A major problem exists where an earlier building is listed as a heritage item in the midst of an area that has become zoned for higher density. The heritage item represents the low density of a much earlier, perhaps the first, phase of development and is by virtue of a heritage listing denied any chance of obtaining an equitable outcome in terms of the development potential of the site.

In the Sydney CBD, where land values were at a maximum, transferable FSR was introduced to help compensate for the loss of development potential achievable on a site whenever an historic building was to be retained. However no such system exists in suburban areas.

I believe that there is a need to look at the equity implications inherent in special cases such as the example quoted below where Council is most unlikely to agree to or be able to afford proper compensation. In this instance a compromise solution, such as developer funded conservation and relocation of the house to a Council nominated and owned site, may be appropriate.

An actual case study located at North Steyne, Manly, NSW.

A freestanding weatherboard cottage built in 1909 at North Steyne, Manly, NSW was endorsed for listing as a heritage item as the last freestanding house on the oceanfront by Manly Council. The Council was in the process of dealing with a Development Application for a 5 level building containing 13 apartments the site that complied with the Development Control Plan for the area (see plan and elevation). This process was terminated when the house was listed during 2003. In the meantime Council had approved a 5 storey apartment block on the northern side of the house removing a pair of single storey semi detached cottages built at about the same time as the weatherboard house thus removing any remaining sense of setting for the house and severely effecting its amenity. This was despite objections from the house owner that if the house were to be listed the adjoining cottages should not be demolished as they formed the only remaining context for the freestanding house (see photos).

The house now stands between a 9 level unit block on its southern side (built in the 1970s) and the newly completed 5 level block to the north (see photos).

The house has not been well maintained over the last few years by its elderly owner who believed it would be developed as soon as she moved out and was no longer able to return. As a result there are considerable costs involved in conserving the property.