PART A - Findings Relating to Local Government 

The Draft Report identified 21 Findings including several relating particularly to local government. is a more suitable approach to achieve 'voluntary conservation', than organised agreements that would see the protection of a select few places within a local government jurisdiction. 

9. At the State, Territory and local government levels, there is an over-reliance on prescriptive regulation to achieve heritage conservation objectives. In many cases, this has led to poor outcomes, through for example, inappropriate listing imposing unwarranted costs (such as denial of redevelopment opportunity) and possibly perverse effects (such as destruction to avoid maintenance costs). 

The regulation of heritage listed properties to achieve conservation objectives is appropriate within the planning context. It is difficult to ascertain in this instance what is meant by 'inappropriate listing' outlined within this finding. Is it inappropriate because it has inconvenienced the property developer who would like to demolish the place or inappropriate because it does not meet the threshold outlined within the principles of the Burra Charter. A local government cannot on the one hand promote heritage as a key asset to the character and integrity of the municipality and then denounce the use of prescriptive regulation which attempts to protects this heritage. Over a period of three financial years the Town of Vincent Heritage Officers have assessed 180 development applications requesting demolition. Of these 180 referrals to the Heritage Officers 156 (92.5 percent) were recommended approval for demolition. This strongly illustrates that the impact in which heritage has on the wishes of the individual property owner is miniscule and heritage clearly cannot be considered as an impediment to development within the Town of Vincent. 

10. At the local government level, the management of heritage conservation under local planning schemes is not working well, primarily because of: 
•	the imposition of unclear and uncertain restrictions on property owners
•	the failure to prepare a statement of significance for each place listed on a local list
•	inconsistent use and interpretation of heritage controls
•	the application of heritage controls to places that have little, if any, heritage significance in order to achieve other planning objectives. 

In owning a heritage listed property there is always going to be some degree of uncertainty in regards to the appropriate development. However the extent of this can certainly be diminished with proper assessment and management of heritage places that form part of local town planning schemes.

The central component of 'heritage listing' is the statement of significance, failing to include this statement in any heritage list that forms part of a local town planning scheme is not adhering to good heritage practice and leaves the responsible local government open to criticism. If a heritage list is going to be used within local planning schemes the statement of significance is central to guide development and to provide owners with a degree of certainty. 

Inconsistent use and interpretation of heritage controls and applying heritage controls to meet other planning objectives are dependent on having clear and concise guidelines provided in town planning schemes and associated policies which distinguish between 'character' and 'heritage' and well thought out procedures in place for adopting heritage controls in development applications. 

11. Conservation of historic heritage on privately owned heritage property could be more effectively achieved through negotiated conservation agreements between governments and owners. 

Managing privately owned heritage property through negotiated conservation agreements between governments and owners would neither be cost or administratively effective at local government level. Questions arise over how this is to be afforded and administered. The arrangement would not result in a simple pro forma being drawn up between the various parties involved. Each identified heritage place would have to be looked at independently in relation to its heritage significance and agreements would have to meet in regards to compensation. It is considered that a better use of resources would be to improve the existing framework for the management of heritage listed properties through prescriptive regulations with greater resources, than to adopt a system that undermines good heritage and town planning practice. 

PART B - The Report's Recommendation

Based on the Report's 'Findings', the Commission has made the following Key Recommendation. 

Privately owned properties should be included on a national, State and Territory, or local government statutory heritage list only after a negotiated conservation agreement has been entered into and should remain listed only while an agreement is in force. 

This recommendation raises the following concerns:  

•	The key recommendation does not provide a workable framework to alleviate the concerns that were raised in the initial inquiry. Instead it is considered that the Draft Report has selected arguments from the submissions which best suit a predetermined outcome that place current private economic interests above long term community goals in the protection of Australia's Historic Places. 

•	The key recommendation undermines all existing structures that have been put in place to assist in providing a workable framework for heritage to be considered within the town planning process. Statutory protection through prescriptive regulation of significant heritage places is an appropriate means of conserving cultural heritage. To allow solely on 'conservation agreements' is not considered to be an appropriate measure to protect historic heritage places. This approach strongly deviates from the Findings in Table 2.1 page 15 of the Draft Report which indicates that of those surveyed in relation to heritage - related benefits, 80.2 percent of people 'Strongly agree' and 'agree' that 'The historic houses in my area are an important part of the area's character and identity.' The protection of this heritage is not expected to be met with the proposed negotiated conservation agreements.    

•	The application of the conservation agreements is unclear and would be considered unworkable for local governments in its current state. Considerable resources would be required from local governments to monitor and constantly renegotiate such agreements. Furthermore local governments do not have the financial resources to 'compensate' all individual owners of heritage places which are considered to have significant heritage value to the local community.  

•	Developing conservation agreements between the relevant jurisdiction and owners as the principal vehicle for conservation and subsequent listing does not promote good heritage management practice. The notion of a heritage agreement suggests that an owner of a heritage listed place is disadvantaged and thus should be compensated. This approach will encourage only those who think that they are being 'rightfully compensated' to enter into an agreement. Given this scenario the opportunity to promote heritage as a long term benefit within the community is lost.