Pro heritage fanatics have a well used strategy of targeting and then lobbying for the heritage listing of known dangerous, derelict structures when there is no funding available to repair them. Once successful in securing the heritage listing of an item in poor, derelict or dangerous condition, they publicly accuse the owner of 'demolition by neglect.' Unfortunately NSW Local Government And Shires Association and some Councils have worked 'hand in glove' with these heritage fanatics in repeatedly [but unsuccessfully] seeking criminal powers to use against such owners. SoHONSW is seeking an amendment to the Local Government Code of Conduct to make it a breach for any officer, Councillor or other to accuse an owner of 'demolition by neglect' without proof. SoHONSW is also encouraging owners subject to false and/or defamatory allegations they have indulged in 'demolition by neglect' to sue the Councillor or person making the claim as well as the Coumcil they are purporting to represent. There is clear evidence from the two government heritage reports that certain fanatical pro-heritage organisations and individuals regularly make this alarming claim when there is simply no credible evidence to back it up. SoHONSW's position is owners should make them pay in the event they defame us on this issue.
One of the mot appalling aspects of current heritage listing procedures is that heritage fanatics have successfully manipulated the system to exclude highly pertinent considerations during the heritage assessment and heritage listing period.
Pro heritage organisations, their members, heritage hobbyist and certain heritage specialists who earn their living off expanded heritage issues have maintained a philosophy that the only consideration permitted to be taken into account when nominating a item for heritage listing, assessing it and then making a decision to list or not, are pure heritage considerations. On a superficial glance, this may appear reasonable, however this extreme ideological approach to heritage has adverse real world consequences. It means highly pertinent matters are deliberately not inquired into [actively excluded], so that a heritage listing may proceed on ridiculous, uneconomic or even over well knowm highly dangerous items.
Examples of matters that heritage fanatics consider should be EXCLUDED as issues for consideration when heritage listing an item and which SoHONSW considers should be INCLUDED as legitimate criterion include:
- the degree of decay and decrepitude of a structure. In practice they have succeeded in excluding from consideration relevant matters like whether an item has deteriorated to such an extent that without significant funds being dedicated to repair at the time of listing or soon after. Proceeding to heritage list an dangerous item when there are no funds dedicated to its urgent preservation, or a timetable for repair or interim measures to ensure human safety are in place is reckless in the extreme. SoHONSW says the item should not be listed in such circumstances. Listing it is what we call a 'masturbatory heritage listing' ie., one that makes the person seeking the listing feel a warm inner glow for a few minutes and nothing more. In some cases these mastabatory heritage listings generate some paid consultancy work for the heritage mafia, which is often the real subtext behind the nomination. Masturbatory heritage listings are contrary to the public interest and should not be permitted. The heritage fanatics adhere to a familiar pattern - they identify a popular and well patronised item, such as the Tathra Wharf, proceed to attach a non-legally binding 'heritage classification status' by the NSW National Trust when its owners, the NSW Department of Planning sought to demolish it because it was so dangerous, then commence a campaign to have it listed lawfully via statutory means, which took years. During this entire period it was well known [notorious in fact] that the wharf was dangerous, there was no money at hand to remedy this and it was being visited by tourists and locals in large numbers;
- the degree of intactness of the interior fabric. The overwhelming majority of local government heritage listings in NSW have came about as a result of discredited 'walk by' or 'drive by' heritage assessments and/or without the application of professionally valid heritage assesment criteria. Such a superficial procedure only assesses how the structure 'appears' from the street ie., to someone walking or driving past - sometimes on photographs only. So primitive is the walk or drive by technique that faux Federation or other recently faked building styles have ben recommended for heritage listing! Almost all NSW local government heritage items [over 31,000] have been heritage listed this way. So anyone with a heritage item listed as a result of a walk by or drive no valid assessment being used is subject to an invalid heritage listing. No assessment is done of the interior. This was deliberately excluded as a requirement by heritage fanatics. It directly contributes to a heritage fraud phenomenon called 'over-listing'. In items where no or most original heritage interior features no longer exist and/or the cost of sourcing and reinstalling them by the owner is prohibitive, it is not in the public interest to proceed to heritage list the item; and
- general dangerousness and/or instability of the structure. Structures that are condemned by structural engineers as liable to fall down at any time or dangerous to humans to enter continue to be heritage classified and/or heritage listed, with no weight given to such considerations.SoHONSW says these factors not only must be included but must have serious weight accorded to them.
SoHONSW condemns the reckless behaviour of heritage fanatics and heritage listing authorities in their thrall who knows these structure will be used by adults and children [such as a popular tourist site or accommodation], and are well aware the structure is already in a derelict or dangerous state but simultaneously refuse to inquire or be satisfied that funds are available to remedy these structural problems or put human safety measures in place that meet contemporary standards. Its always 'someone else's problem.'
The sheer hypocrisy of these pro-heritage organisations and their members who nominate such properties for heritage listing, is highlighted by the fact that once they succeed it having it listed, then turn around and publicly accuse the owner of "demolition by neglect." Owners normally act just as they always have, but suddenly this behaviour is sought to be criminalised. Owners are regularly defamed this way and we are encouraging them to lodge Statements of Claim against any persons making such allegations against them and any organisations they work for or represent. Owners can then have an impartial Judge assess the claim. The accusers often conveniently ignore the fact that they nominated or supported the heritage listing of a notoriously derelict item, vigorously pursued its heritage listing, often over many years, refused at all material times to permit relevant factors to be taken into account such as its degree of dangerousness, decrepitude and/or whether finances were available to fix it.
It is astounding the number of times owners of properties that were heritage listed in a decayed, derelict or dangerous condition and where they demonstrably do not have the massive resources required to spend on bringing the item back to original or near original condition are publicly pilloried and defames by heritage fanatics as being the equivalent of heritage criminals.
It is the regular submission of the peak representative organisation for NSW Councils - the Local Government and Shires Association [LG&SA] - that their members want the NSW government to grant them criminal powers and more sanctions to further punish owners of such properties, including the right to imprison owners of properties they accuse of demolition by neglect, as well as the right to fine them, and/or force them to spend their money on heritage renovations.
SoHONSW reports with relief that the 2006 Productivity Commission Report into Preserving Historic Heritage and the 2008 released Review of the NSW Heritage Act rejected the LG&SA submission on this point in toto, the latter stating they provided no proof of a problem of demolition by neglact being anywhere near the scale they claimed.
In fact, the latter stated there was no evidence that owners of heritage listed properties were doing what the extremist LG&SA submission claimed, which was engaging in demolition by neglect.
SoHONSW notes the President of the NSW LG&SA is North Sydney Mayor Genia McCaffery. Her CV lists her as having been an employee of the NSW National Trust. She appears on stage at rallies organised by the NSW National Trust, including as recently as 2008. She led the charge to get rid of the previous NSW Planning Minister Frank Sartor. North Sydney Council has interestingly also featured in a damning judgement of manipulation of the heritage processes to the disadvanatge of owners in the 2008 NSW Land and Environment Court case, Castle Constructions Pty Ltd v North Sydney Council and Anor [2008] NSWLEC 131 (15 April 2008) which can be found at http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWLEC/2008/137.html
The hypocrisy of local Councils heritage listing the overwhelming majority of items in NSW via wholly discredited 'drive bys' or 'walk bys', failing to undertake any full interior and exterior assessment of intactness or dereliction, proceeding to heritage list regardless of such issues and then seeking draconian criminal sanctions to use against owners they say has a decayed, derelict and/or dangerous heritage listed structure is breath taking in its arrogance.
Many if not most of the items NSW Councils heritage list would fail the Building Code and/or the OH&S standards these same Councils would apply if an applicant lodged a Development Application for such a structure. Yet NSW Councils routinely and recklessly chose to exempt themselves from their own standards when a heritage item is under consideration.
Three examples of these issues include:
- the failure of Bega Shire Council who project managed well over a million dollars in tax payers grants on the heritage listed Tathra Wharf, with a number of expensive specialist heritage reports commissioned and many Council staff involved - yet no one bothered to spend a few thousand on a public safety barrier. The Tathra Wharf has been actively promoted by Tourism NSW and the Council as a tourist site. Visitors [adults and children] are on the wharf night and day, in all weathers, and it is a popular local fishing spot. Despite the tragic deaths of a a father and his two children in November 2008, local heritage fanatics are still claiming there should be no safety barrier as it would spoil the heritage "look" and heritage icon status of the wharf. This is a blatant example of a highly dangerous structure the owner was seeking to demolish on safety grounds being targeted by pro-heritage fanatics for heritage listing and decades passing with money rolling in but not considered worthy spending it on basic human safety, like safety barriers. An in depth history of how one-eyed heritage fanatics value their heritage hobby over and above human life will be added here in the near future;
- former Rockdale Councillor Gary Green's parents purchased some derelict terraces in Camperdown with no heritage listing on them. Consistent with the heritage listed gaps identified above, no interior or structural assessment was done and the responsible Council [initially South Sydney Council, now Sydney City Council since their amalgamation] proceeded to heritage list irrespective of the actual condition of the properties, which is poor and in one terrace, uninhabitable ; and
- Mr Murray Green owner of the Charcoal Tavern at 18 Regent Street Wollongong lodged a Development Application to demolish a dangerous heritage listed structure. One section of Wollongong City Council was seeking to prosecute him for having a dangerous structure yet one heritage obsessed Councillor [now a dismissed Wollongong Councillor after ICAC's finding that Wollongong City Council was "systemically corrupt"] managed to hold up consideration of this DA for around two years. In the interim, vandals further vandalised the property and the owner was publicly attacked by the heritage obsessed Councillor repeatedly in the local media. The owner, who was seeking a DA to demolish this structure but whose application was 'creatively delayed' for more than two years by heritage fanatics, was then accused of engaging in 'demolition by neglect'.
In the latter two cases, SoHONSW has no doubt that if the Councils had possessed the power to impose criminal sanctions [as the NSW Local Government and Shires Association had repeatedly sought] these two blameless owners would have been targeted for imprisonment, fines, garnisheeing of their bank accounts and/or confiscation of their property.
SoHONSW notes however, when the Councils own or are responsible for the cost of a heritage listed item, a totally different set of considerations is observed. Suddenly when its Council's money being drained via a heritage listing, the degree of intactness, the cost of rectification work vis a vis their budget and interior intactness magically become relevent considerations.
Some NSW Councils are cynically refusing private owners access to such legitimate considerations, but when it is the Councils own budget being adversely affected, suddenly they consider it is reasonable to take such matters into account.
Here is an example of a typical case where a NSW Council proceeded to heritage list a 113 year old, dangerous and mostly derelict property in December 2005 - one which was gutted by a fire 15 years before it was heritage listed - and then when the owner Mr Mike Boulos lodged a Development Application to make sensible use of this Sydney inner city site - a heritage mad Councillor publicly accused the owner of demolition by neglect and repeats the oft made call [but twice rejected in 2006 and 2008 as there was no credible evidence it was a genuine problem other than in the minds of heritage fanatics] for the government to introduce legislation allowing Councils to take legal action against owners. This is typical of the appalling treatment meted out of owners of properties these heritage fanatics nominate knowing full well they are in a seriously decayed state.
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.
The old Edwin Davey flour mill could soon be demolished
Story posted on Thursday, 30 April 2009, filed under City News. Follow responses via the RSSfeed.
No 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?
| 
