LETTERS

For too long, State heritage continues to be in a state of peril

There should be no conflict between heritage and development needs, if both sides think constructively but where is the guidance to allow this to happen?

Tasmanian heritage remains without an effective champion across all 3 levels of government 54 years after a National Trust was established in this State.

Many State government departments seem to operate in a heritage vacuum and if government does not take heritage seriously it cannot expect business and individuals to do so.

In 1984, Launceston’s shipping warehouse complex known as the C H Smith buildings, was listed on the Register of the National Estate; National Trust Register, and the Launceston City Council Heritage List.

In defiance of the law, new owners Redline Coaches, started demolition on 3 March 1990 causing LCC to stop the work with a Supreme Court injunction.

In 2010, 30 years after National and Local level heritage recognition, and 24 years after the Supreme Court injunction, the place was entered permanently on the Tasmanian Heritage Register.

It had been researched, and re-assessed and the status was fully accepted by the public and its owner, so it is now inconceivable that in recent days there is an application to demolition one of the essential parts, the so-called Cordial Factory, the old Supply River Flour Mill Store fronting Canal Street. The battle will now be re-ignited before the Planning Tribunal.

The latest government idea that State and local heritage lists be divided between the Tasmanian Heritage Council and local councils is a political stunt and means that no single authority will care for or adopt a singular stance.

Local Government has a responsibility to keep their planning schemes and heritage lists up to date by reviewing them every 5 years but Launceston, the largest and wealthiest municipality, has not delivered on these responsibilities.

Launceston’s interim planning scheme has a great number of errors, inconsistencies, omissions and inadequacies and many aspects of the previous scheme were not incorporated into the interim scheme.

When the Launceston Interim Planning Scheme was unveiled at the end of 2012, the following was evident:

• the heritage places schedule had not been updated since at least 1996
• the list of Significant Trees had not been updated since 1985 and has now been deleted;
• the heritage precincts list, part of the previous and earlier schemes has been deleted and some sort of alternative interim protection has been given to all individual properties within the pre-existing precincts, even those that have no heritage value in their own right;
• Aspects of precincts located within roadways and nature strips, such as trees, landscaping, stone gutters and stone retaining walls,  previously protected, are not protected at all.

New provisions of the state-wide model planning scheme that called for protection of archaeological sites, are blank pages in the Launceston Interim Planning Scheme:

• Launceston's burial grounds, some located under converted recreational grounds, both private and publicly owned, and on private residential land, are not protected at all;
• Archaeology in Launceston is unprotected by the planning scheme, and where there are highly regarded sites with potential for important archaeological 'finds' identified as having had buildings from the 1826 and 1835 surveys of Launceston, are disregarded.

What the Heritage Protection Society is seeking is consistent with the Government's view of greater consistency across the State and the Property Council of Australia made that very point to Government a year ago saying  that there is no consistency in dealing with heritage across the State.

The State Government, prompted by the cash-strapped Tasmanian Heritage Council is trying to push responsibility for "local" heritage places on to Local Government.

Local Government, other than Hobart, is not ready or resourced to take on this responsibility, and the outcome will endanger the preservation of heritage.

The Tasmanian community must oppose this move and insist that the Tasmanian Heritage Council progress with greater speed and efficiency to complete a state-wide Heritage Register, if necessary utilising the volunteer support of trained members of the community.

Legislation allows the Heritage Council to delegate some of its powers to Local Government, and once the sections of the Register have been completed, then perhaps specific and resourced Local Councils can assist in shouldering the administrative burden of the Register for their areas.

But that time is not yet now.

Lionel. J. Morrell

President

Heritage Protection Society (Tasmania) Inc.

Footnote: Lionel Morrell is a practising architect and heritage consultant; 3-term past State President of the National Trust in Tasmania and Director of the Australian Council Of National Trusts. He served on the Trust's Classification and Building Advisory Committee for over 20 years, and is a Life Member of the National Trust. In 1998 he was selected as a Tasmanian delegate to the Prime Minister's National Heritage Convention, with a COAG outcome to set out the roles and responsibilities of the Commonwealth States/Territories to identify criteria, standards and guidelines for each level of government, to protect heritage places.