65 Homebush Road, Strathfield NSW 2135	Email council@strathfield.nsw.gov.au
PO Box 120, Strathfield NSW 2135	Web www.strathfield.nsw.gov.au Telephone 02 9748 9999 1 Facsimile 02 9764 1034 ABN 52 719 940 263
628B p3 David Hazeldine
STRATHFIELD
COUNCIL
Scanned copy of
original submission
22 February 2006
Heritage Inquiry Productivity Commission PO Box 80
BELCONNEN ACT 2616

Dear Sir/Madam

Re: Supplementary Submission on the Productivity Commission's Draft Report on the Conservation of Australia's Historic Heritage Places

In July 2005, Strathfield Municipal Council lodged a submission to the Productivity Commission on the Conservation of Australia's Historic Heritage Places. The attached supplementary submission addresses recommendations of the Commission's draft report.

Strathfield Council is pleased to note that the Commission appreciates the benefits of our historic heritage places to the wider community. However, Council has concerns with some of the recommendations in the draft report and asks that these be reviewed.

For further enquiries Councils A/Strategic Coordinator, can be contacted on 9748 9975.

Yours faithfully

DAVID BACKHOUSE GENERAL MANAGER

Supplementary comments on the draft report by the Productivity Commission on the Conservation of Australia's Historic Heritage Places

We note in particular the following. Draft Recommendation 7.5

State, Territory and local governments should. -
•	produce adequate conservation management plans for all government-owned statutory-listed properties; and
•	implement reporting systems that require government agencies and local governments with responsibility for historic heritage places to document and publicly report on the heritage -related costs associated with their conservation.

Comment

Strathfield Council has a comprehensive maintenance and management program of all Council owned assets, which includes buildings, parks and items. Costs such as a heritage conservation plan are clearly heritage-related. However, it would be difficult to separate heritage-related costs from normal maintenance costs. An essential part of conservation of built heritage items is regular painting, however this is also a normal maintenance requirement. Inclusion of costs of painting or other maintenance work such as re-roofing or cleaning of gutters as a separate heritage-related cost would result in inaccurate reporting and overstate the genuine costs of heritage conservation.

Strathfield Council seeks grant funding, where available, to assist with program expenditure. For instance, the restoration of the heritage listed Coronation Arch at Strathfield South was partially funded by the Federal Government's Centenary Grants Program in 2001. The availability of this funding program allowed the Council to undertake works to stabilise and restore this heritage item.

Draft Recommendation 8.1

Privately-owned properties should be included on a national, State, Territory, or local government statutory heritage list only after a negotiated conservation agreement has 4The private consultation stage, between Council and owners, was seven months in duration. During this time Council encouraged owners of properties on the proposed heritage listing to forward their comments for consideration by Council.

Independent Review Assessment [January 2005 - June 2005]

A second experienced heritage consultant was engaged by Council to assess the recommendations of the prior review and owners letters/submissions lodged during the private submission stage. Council stipulated in the tender process that the consultant should not have had previous involvement with past or current reviews to ensure the process was independently assessed.

All proposed items and conservation areas were reassessed and amended heritage inventories including statement of heritage significance was prepared. Assessment of heritage significance was conducted in accordance with NSW Heritage Office guidelines. The recommendations made for each item considered submissions of property owners.

The elected Council on 7 June 2005 considered the heritage review report entitled 'Assessment of the Strathfield Heritage Review'. Council resolved to prepare a draft local environmental plan to address heritage issues in Strathfield local government area.

Council resolved:

1. That recommendations of the 'Assessment of the Strathfield Heritage Review' report be adopted.
2. That no further action be taken on items and conservation areas not recommended by the review report
3. That items and conservation areas recommended be included in a draft
Local Environment Plan and placed on public exhibition.
4. That Local Environment Plan 94 containing 46 & 48 Beresford Road be
rescinded.
5. That Council place the draft Heritage Local Environment Plan on Public Exhibition for a period of 28 days in pursuant to the requirements of the EP & A Act 1979.
6. That Council determines the items and conservation areas for heritage listing after the public exhibition process has been finalised.

Draft Strathfield Local Environmental Plan No. 105 was subsequently prepared in accordance with Council's resolution. As part of the preparation of the draft plan the comments of relevant Government Authorities and adjoining Councils was sought in accordance with section 62 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979.

Draft Local Environment Plan 105 and Public Consultation Process

Draft Local Environmental Plan 105 was on public exhibition from 11 August 2005 to 9 September 2005. By way of notifying the public of the heritage proposals and the provisions of the draft plan the following actions were taken:

•	Advertisements were placed in the Mayoral Columns in the Inner Western
Weekly 11 August 2005 and Inner West Courier and Strathfield Scene
•	Information Postcards sent to all residences in Strathfield Local Government
Area
•	Letters to all affected property owners sent 9 August 2005 including copy of 'Heritage Submission Package'
•	Public Exhibition Display including Draft LEP, Inventory Reports, Mapping and photographic display at Councils Customer Service Centre and Central Library
•	Dedicated Heritage Review section on Councils web site including copy of Draft LEP 105
•	Consultative Panel Meetings were held on 17, 20, 24 & 31 August. A total of 24 meetings were held as requested by owners

Council consideration and finalisation of draft LEP 105

At a meeting of Strathfield Council held on 6 December 2005, the report considering issues raised during the public exhibition was presented. Owners of the affected properties were notified in writing of the report recommendations, which included amendments to the draft LEP, prior to this meeting.

The decision of the Council meeting was to endorse the draft LEP with amendments to the schedule of heritage items and heritage conservation areas. This amended schedule replaces the public exhibition version of draft LEP 105. See attachments for link to this schedule.

The Council resolved to forward the draft Local Environmental Plan 105 to the Department of Planning under section 68[4] of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 with a request that the plan be referred to the Minister for Planning for approval and gazettal.

The list of items and places recommended for heritage listing altered as a result of reviews and consideration of issues raised during consultations with owners and the public.

All proposed heritage items and conservation areas have individual heritage inventory sheets, containing clear statements of significance. All owners of affected properties have been provided with copies of heritage inventory sheets. Heritage inventory sheets are also publicly available at the Council customer service centre and libraries. The inventory sheets formed part of the public exhibition of Local Environmental Plan 105.

Public exhibition of the Local Environmental Plan also involved exhibition of the proposed planning controls. These controls are adopted from the NSW Heritage Office 'model provisions'. These matters were taken into consideration before places were included on the heritage list.

The heritage items and conservation areas finally endorsed and included in draft Local Environmental Plan 85 were carefully considered by Council. Each proposed heritage item and conservation area has been subject to two independent heritage reviews. The report to Council on 2 December 2005, following the public exhibition of the LEP, considered a range of issues relating to the heritage listing.

The draft LEP has been forwarded to the Minister for Planning with recommendation that the plan be gazetted. At this point, the implementation of the plan rests with the State Government.

Individual items
The recommendation to have individual negotiated conservation agreements in force when places are heritage listed is not a workable idea in practice. If one party to the agreement decides they are no longer happy with the agreement and the place can then be removed from the statutory heritage list, then there is little point in negotiating such an agreement. There is also little point in Council's allocating public funds and resources to comprehensive and lengthy heritage reviews and assessment processes and to heritage assistance programs for property owners, if the statutory listing is regularly changed.

Many owners of heritage properties have undertaken restoration and conversation work in the belief that their property will be maintained as a heritage item beyond their ownership and into the future. The potential lack of certainty of statutory heritage listings would discourage property owners undertaking restoration and conservation work as the next owner may not enter into a conservation agreement and opt to demolish or unsympathetically alter the property.

Conservation areas
Of particular concern is the impact of conservation agreements on heritage conservation areas as opposed to individual heritage items. The significance of a heritage conservation area is based on associations with other properties of significance within the conservation area. If each property in a heritage conservation area requires a conservation agreement, then it is likely an area will have some properties in an agreement and some without. There will be little incentive for owners in conservation areas to enter into agreements, if other properties within the group are not subject to planning controls.

Resource impacts of conservation agreements

The practicalities of implementing a policy of conservation agreements would require a substantial budget and resource allocations. This would redirect resources and funds away from Council programs, which actively assist owners of heritage properties. At Strathfield Council this would affect heritage assistance programs such as the heritage assistance fund, access to the heritage advisor service, rebates of development application fees and other heritage programs such as awards. Strathfield Council believes that public funds are better directed to assisting owners of statutory listed heritage properties.

In practical terms, Council would need to increase either staff or consultants to negotiate conservation agreements. These additional costs would have an adverse impact on Council's entire budget and other programs.

It is likely that a system would develop where only some items are conserved, where other items which the community may perceive as having greater heritage significance would be not, because agreements can not be made with the owner.

Support from all tiers of government

In our previous submission, Strathfield Council argued that heritage conservation requires greater levels of support and financial assistance from all levels of government. Heritage does not neatly divide into local, state and commonwealth jurisdictions or responsibilities as suggested by the report. Many mechanisms for providing assistance to property owners are not within the jurisdiction of local government such as tax relief, land tax rebates and stamp duty reductions. It is the view of Strathfield Council that all tiers of government should be concerned and support heritage conservation. It is disappointing that these issues have not been addressed in the draft report.

Draft Recommendation 9.4

State governments should put in place systems for their local governments to request compulsory acquisition in cases where this becomes the only way to ensure cost-effective conservation of places of local significance.

Comment

Heritage listing is one of many potential planning constraints that can affect a property but Councils are not expected to acquire properties affected by other planning issues such as local overland flooding. Planning controls such as zoning, place constraints on the development potential of an individual property. Owners of property in Australia are not compensated for changes to land use zoning nor are owners taxed for obtaining financial gains from zoning changes leading to higher land values.

Heritage is a planning issue and not dissimilar from other planning issues. For instance, is the Productivity Commission suggesting that individual property owners should be compensated because they are unable to building high rise developments on land not zoned for that purpose? Is there a suggestion that a negotiated agreement is required for changes in planning controls such as zoning?

Councils do not compensate property owners when other planning controls are imposed nor do they receive a benefit when planning controls are changed to allow intensified development, which may result in increased land values.

It is not a reasonable expectation of local government to acquire properties for this purpose. It is more important that Councils have programs in place to assist property owners in dealing with any potential constraints.

Draft Recommendation 9.5
Strathfield Council Supplementary Submission	Feb 2006 Productivity Commission on the Conservation of Australia's Historic Heritage Places

Private owners of already listed properties, where the listing occurred after purchase of the property, should be able to apply for a negotiated conservation agreement and for listing to continue only if an agreement is reached.

Comment

As previously noted, the principle of negotiated conservation agreements for local government statutory heritage listings is not workable.

Draft Recommendation 9.6

Private owners of already listed properties, where the listing occurred prior to the purchase of that property, would remain covered by the existing `package' of restrictions and concessions (if any). These arrangements would be reassessed at the time of any substantive development application when negotiations for a new conservation agreement would occur and listing would continue only if an agreement is reached.