Lie 1 - that heritage listing has no or a positive effect on value.
It is repeatedly claimed by pro heritage organisations and their supporters that a heritage listing either has no effect on a property's value or in some cases. they claim there is a positive effect ie, that the items value is actually increased.
Fallback Position 1 - if you don't fall for Lie 1, then they take a heavy ideological position that heritage listings must not be concerned with the issue of owner's loss of value.
Fallback Position 2 - if you don't fall for Lie 1 and Fallback Position 1, and there is a loss of property value then this is not their problem to solve. After all, they are only interested in heritage, not in owners or owners taking a financial hit associated with their hobby.
Fallback Position 3 - if you press beyond the earlier claims, they claim its not their fault if an owners takes a financial hammering from a heritage listing, its the government's fault.
Fallback Position 4 - if all else fails, then they simply say no owner have absolute dominion over their property, that all sorts of restrictions are placed on land usage and owners have to cop losses associated with heritage listing 'in the public interest.'
Examples of loss in value directed attributable to an actual or proposed heritage listing:
A Vaucluse house built in the early 1970s for Sir Ian McFarlane, who died in 2008. The house was nominated for heritage listing by Woollahra Council but this was successfully opposed by McFarlane's solicitor, Robert Minter, in 2006. Mr McFarlane's valuer expert found a heritage listing would reduce that property's value by $4 million. Source: The Sydney Morning Herald 20 June 2009
What should be the rules when a local Council wants to slash the value of a property an owner paid full market price for ?
This is an important question for a modern western democracy.
For good or for ill, we live in a capitalist society in which our successive governments established systems, laws, policies and practices to reassure property owners that they will not operate like the rogue states, come in and capriciously, unfairly or without full quantum of due process, slash the value of your property.
Yet this is precisely what the lowest tier of government - local government [Councils] are able to do with heritage listings and heritage overlays.
Unlike the Commonwealth or state government, who are required to pay adversely affected owners 'just compensation,' local Councils have no such requirement. So not only can they capriciously or [using the word applied by the Expert Independent Reviewing the NSW Heritage Act] indulge in facetitious heritage listings, the discretionary nature of the listing and until recently Councils failure to often even bother telling owners of the nomination, the listing and/or their very limited appeal rights, meant Councils often did this while secreting their actions from the owner.
The 2006 Productivity Commission Report talked about the "perverse incentives" this heritage listing system gave Councils to overlist and abuse their heritage powers for purposes, including those that had nothing whatsoever to do with protecting genuine heritage.
Do you live in a CBD and the Council wants more open space, but refuses to buy sites from owners for their true value? No problem. Whack a heritage listing on an already gutted, derelict item, and if the owner lodges Development Application to demolish and rebuid, refuse it on the spurious heritage grounds that even though the heritage item did not exist in a non-derelict state when the Council heritage listed, the owner has somehow engaged in 'demolition by neglect' and therefore will never be permitted to develop on the site.
If you this this could not possibly be correct and we are exaggerating, we refer you to Sydney City Council actions on the gutted and derelict Edwin Davey Flour Mill in Pyrmont [below].
Three walls can’t hold up mill’s history
Category: City News Author: Angus Thompson Posted: Thursday, 30 April 2009
The former Edwin Davey flour mill was once a hub of industrial activity, right at home in Pyrmont’s working class roots, but the owner of the site, Mike Boulos, denies there is any history left in its disfigured remains.
A redevelopment plan for the 113-year-old flour mill will soon be submitted to Sydney City Council by Mr Boulos.
The three walled flour mill, heritage listed with Sydney Council since December 2005, was gutted by fire 20 years ago and its original machinery given to the Powerhouse Museum by Mr Boulos.
“It is not a building, it’s a few walls. I can understand if it was a building, you would have to maintain it, but it is not.
“Existing walls don’t tell you anything at all. I’m not sure what the three walls demonstrate or show,” Mr Boulos said.
According to reports, Mr Boulos’ redevelopment attempt in 1995 was rejected after planning officials, heritage consultants and the trust opposed his $25 million, multi-storey commercial and residential building proposal.
“We have done enough by donating all the equipment and taking video when it was an operational mill,” he said.
Councillor Phillip Black who helped establish the South Sydney Heritage Society, says the former mill appears to be suffering from demolition by neglect – destruction of a building caused by a failure to maintain it – but Council has no power to take action unless there is danger to the public.
“Protection from demolition by neglect is a role given by the State Government through NSW Heritage Office but unfortunately they have never used this power under the Heritage Act,” said Cr Black.
“[I’m] glad to see the owner is at last planning to do something with the site. After such a long time we will see if this plan ever eventuates.”
The flour mill could face a similar fate to other demolished heritage listed buildings such as the Harris St woolstore, the Pyrmont St power station and the Pyrmont Incinerator.
“[My vision is] a landmark commercial building that will house some of Australia’s finest technology and media services, consistent with other buildings around Pyrmont,” Mr Boulos said.
“It will be different, it will look spectacular. Something that people can be proud of.
“It’s time they developed the area and take into account the access to light rail underneath and incorporate the fish market which I think is one of Sydney’s greatest tourist destinations.
“There’s so much that can be done but the facade restricts the best possible building for the site,” he said.
Councillor McInerney, who was Sydney City Council town planner when Boulos’s last development proposal was rejected, says heritage requirements can be altered if the proposal demonstrates a good case for it and the development is preferable for the area.
“Current heritage listings do not allow for a demolition but says if possible the building should be incorporated and will assess the merits of the proposal once it is handed into council,” said Cr McInerney.
He says some examples where a façade is retained look ‘ridiculous'’ and cites the Martin Place Post office and Macquarie Bank building as good examples.
Comments on “Three walls can’t hold up mill’s history”
- Samantha Sinclair Smith said, * your comment is awaiting moderation.
April 30th, 2009 @ 9:04 am
So let me get this straight:
1. Sydney City Council and its heritage fanatics controlling the process CHOSE to nominate this property and had it heritag listed in 2005.
2. The fire that caused most of the damage to this property and gutted it occured 20 years ago ie., 15 years BEFORE Sydney City Council heritage listed it?
3. This heritage fanatic Sydney City Councillor Phillip Black who appears to have a conflict of interest here as he spends his spare time devoted to heritage causes, is now claiming the reason this property is is a poor state is because this owner neglected it?
4. And Councillor Black is demanding greater legal powers for NSW Councils to prosecute such owners?
How about we have laws that stop NSW Councils heritage listing gutted, dangerous and fire damaged structures? How about Mr Bloulos the owner sue COuncillor Black for defamation and make him pay for these false claims about this owner?
We also refer you to the speech given in the NSW Parliament by [insert name] in which they boasted about their extremist position that heritage listings must remain in place stopping all future development, even on sites where the purported heritage item no longer exists.
STILL UNDER CONSTRUCTION
| 
