New South Wales Australia: owners and heritage

Have you been searching for an organisation to assist and support you by providing independent information about your current or nominated heritage listed property?

 

The Society of Heritage Owners New South Wales [SoHONSW] prides ourselves on providing information, support and advice specifically tailored to meet heritage owner's interests - without any fanatical heritage propaganda or punitive, owner hating approach and/or condescending attitude that permeates almost all heritage advocacy in NSW.

SoHONSW is the only organisation in New South Wales [and indeed Australia] that actively champions the interests of property owners with a current or looming heritage listing.

 

NSW alone has over 31,000 heritage listings. Around 28,500 of those are heritage listed by NSW local government [Councils] - the lowest tier of government in this country,  but possessing the greatest unchecked heritage discretionary powers and the least accountability for their heritage decisions.  This has been the case for 30 years as a result of the cunning manner in which the NSW Heritage Act was drafted and the 'hands off' approach by the NSW Department of Local Government, who have failed spectacularly to do anything about the outrageous heritage abuses of NSW Councils.

 

To better inform yourself about the gross abuses, malpractices and outright corruption in local Council heritage practice, we refer you to our web page [see left hand side] titled Government Heritage Reports, which comprehensively document the matters we are highlighting. Reading these reports is important for owners and others. as the heritage mafia in NSW and this country continually make assertions about heritage listings which heritage owners not only find odious, but often untrue. Pro heritage organisations for example repeatedly commission "research" which always concludes heritage listings either have no detrimental effect on property values or enhance it. Owners who contact us provide detailed valuation reports from experts in real estate valuation demonstrating unequivocally that heritage listings, excepting for world class tourist sites like the Opera House or Ularu,  significantly damage property values, as well as adding massive holding and other heritage specific costs. When we carefully examine the methodology and other research parameters of this so called independent research about heritage,  what do we find? Carefully manicured research methodology and terms of reference which ensure  no other conclusion is reached. Pure propaganda. Often unfortunately paid for via tax payers money spent on subsidzing these proheritage organisations, which is then presented as "evidence" of owners ignorance about the adverse effects of heritage listing on their own properties.

 

Australia wide there are just under 200,000 heritage listings [see our Heritage Statistics page on the left for details]. The overwhelming majority are listed by local government [Councils]. So we are talking about nearly 200,000 heritage listed items in Australia - all owned by someone - and the vast majority relating to the last 200 years since white settlement/invasion in Australia.  

 

While it is difficult to state with precision how much of it is in private versus public hands, limited studies such as one undertaken by some of our members in the Wollongong NSW CBD indicate the majority of Council only heritage listed items are in fact in private ownership.  

 

Privately owned heritage listed property in Australia is valued in billions of dollars. A very, very big deal. One, therefore, in which every law, process, policy, procedure and documentation must be managed to the highest levels of ethics, lawfulness, and pristine probity. Why? Because Australia is not Zimbabwe, where the government can take whatever private property land rights you own which they arbitrarily decide they want, without adhering to a strict rules, without paying adequate or just compensation to affected owners and in breach of the Rule of Law - the very bedrock on which the entire western system of justice is predicated.

 

SoHONSW recognises that in certain circumstances, the government may acquire an interest of varying kinds or levels in privately owned property and that sometimes a government's interest may adversely affect the property's value, including its permissible usage. SoHONSW also recognises that the greater public good must be recognised in compelling cases,  and permit this to occur. For example, if much needed aging infrastructure such as electricity sub-stations require installing or expanding in order to meet electricity needs of citizens, that substation - as unattractive and as property devaluing as it is - needs to go somewhere. But if any private property in a modern, western, capitalist democracy is to be so burdened 'in the public interest', then each step, each decision maker and each determination must not only be ethically and legally pristine, but above reproach, including from a natural justice perspective. Otherwise it is nothing more than state sanctioned theft. 

 

Owners who experience property value losses for 'the social good' must be justly compensated to the best/highest use valuation. Our Australian Constitution requires that of the Federal government, yet local Councils, the lowest level of government and the one most likely to be sacked for incompetence, does not. A bizarre situation.

 

SoHONSW's primary focus is on local government heritage listings. This is because there exists voluminous documentation, including the two relatively recent government reports - demonstrating beyond any doubt that this is where the most eggregious heritage rorts occur.

 

Without giving NSW State government heritage listings our 'seal of approval', our general observation is they are more likely to be genuine heritage items [more particularly the recently listed items],  and the process tends to be more professional, with objective heritage standards being required. There also appears to be a genuine interest in 'lifting the game' even higher, including de-listing items no longer meeting heritage listing criteria. None of these factors apply to local Council heritage listings in NSW.

 

SoHONSW considers Australia's local government heritage listings - particularly those in NSW - to be a mess, with an abject failure to apply not just reasonable or lawful, but in too many instances, any professionally acceptable heritage criteria whatsoever.

 

In case you consider heritage owners may be biased, we refer you to evidence from long standing pro-heritage activists and organisations.  Architectural historian Michael House told the Productivity Commission that many heritage assesssments were merely creative writing exercises in which all that was needed to heritage list was one sentence. ICOMOS told the PC inquiry that too often heritage conservation zones "are often used for non-heritage purposes", commented on the misuse of heritage listings and noted the lack of local government heritage expertise as a "major weakess. Even the NSW Heritage Office told the PC inquiry that local government used open-ended heritage listing criteria, which was subjective. Unsurprisingly, the PC inquiry found local government applied minimal rigor to heritage listings, set the threshhold bar too low and overlisted. SoHONSW agrees and wants this remedied.   

 

The undifferentiated, debased mess of local NSW Council non-genuine heritage listings is achieved via the deliberate manipulation of such loose, subjective and easy to abuse processess. Those responsible for this heritage listing system are the same people and organisations who benefit from its creation and from the continuation of heritage rorts -fanatical heritage hobbyists pursuing their personal hobby, blithely uncaring and even antipathetic to any losses sustained by owners and even more worryingly,  heritage specialist/consultants, whose private consultancy income directly benefits from ever expanding local Council heritage listings - irrespective of actual heritage merit. It could be argued the latter benefit the most from bogus or fraudulent Council heritage listings, as such listings boost the number of owners likely to consult their specialist heritage services.

 

When such considerations are coupled with an expensive, byzzatine nightmare of a system which only permitted affected NSW owners indirect and extremely expensive appeals against Council heritage listings, you may begin to appreciate why SoHONSW was formed and why we maintain a strong heritage reform agenda.

 

NSW local government heritage listings have chronically failed to meet even the most basic requirements of procedural fairness, despite the fact that natural justice principles must apply. Ironically, natural justice is lauded by heritage fanatics, who seem intent on applying it rigorously to all matters - excepting of course to owners of heritage listed or nominated properties. Why? They don't want it to get in the way of their heritage hobby or heritage dependent business.

 

'Natural justice' is and must be an integral part of the proper functioning of a modern democractic state, especially so when the government wishes to place a burden on privately owned property. For those unfamiliar with the term, it includes, but is not limited to:

 

- transparency in all heritage listings decisions, policies, laws and practices. In a heritage context is means the rules, standards applied and processes are not only fully documented, a decision based on them can be seen [be transparent] at each step along the way;

 

- banning of conflicts of interest for anyone undertaking heritage listing tasks or roles. This has been rampant for the past 30 years and is one of the major reasons why local government heritage listings are in such disrepute. Decision making and reporting roles must not be undertaken by any person, business or organistion with a conflict of interest. A conflict of interest does not just encompass one existing at the time the decision is made and it is not just for the conflicted person to decide if it exists or not. The NSW Department of Local Government and indeed NSW public sector agencies have been required for a very long time to not only avoid actual conflicts of interest, but also perceived or suspected ones as well.  A conflict of interest may be pecuniary [financial] or non-pecuniary [such as ideological] and

 

- full and proper documentation of each step in the heritage listing process as well as the identities of those who contributed, wrote reports, signed off on recommendations and so on. There can be no natural justice if any NSW Council is permitted to heritage list items in secret and without revealing the full documentation they relied on to do so as well as the identities of those involved. Other laws containing important rights for citizens in a democracy, such as the Freedom of Information Act will not work and is actively sabotaged if Councils have a practice - overt or covert - of destroying heritage listing documentation. Failing to properly retain such documents also breaches other NSW statutory laws, such as Archival laws but is also an effective method to deny decent owners appeal rights over decisions and/or the ability to review the ethics of participants in decisions to heritage list their property.

 

SoHONSW considers it maladministration [at best] and corruption [at worst] for members of pro heritage organisations, Councillors, Council staff or heritage consultants to be sitting and voting on or having a say about heritage listings that they, when their organisation and/or any of its members play any role whatsoever in the heritage nomination, heritage reporting on the item being assessed. It is a conflict of interest pure and simple and should preclude them from any role whatsoever.

 

SoHONSW says Council heritage listings must only occur via the application of valid, state approved heritage listing assessment tools that relate to the published [not secret] heritage criteria. Other considerations which fall outside the criteria must be banned from inclusion, including waffly ideas like "when ever I walk past that place I get a warm feeling for the past" or "I don't want a multi-storey building to be built there." These latter issues are just some examples of the type of irrelevent considerations that have infected local Council heritage listings in NSW for 30 years,  while other highly pertinent considerations, such as owner's opinion, the state of dereliction or lack of public safety, cost of repairs vis a vis the owners financial capacity,  were actively excluded.

 

All heritage listings using other, or non-approved heritage criteria is ultra vires [outside the legal power of the Council], and should be immediately banned.

 

There is strong evidence, including NSW Land and Environment Court judgements finding NSW Councils are heritage listing for non-heritage reasons and such Councils  still refuse to remove the item from their Local Environment Plan.  Such listings should be removed via Exective fiat,  such as by the Minister for Planning or the Minister for Local Government if they cannot get elected Councillors to do their job lawfully. SoHONSW suggest they start with North Sydney Council.

 

SoHONSW wants  heritage corruption in decision making to end. A Council heritage listings should not persist as long as the item contines to meet the valid heritage listing assessment criteria and not meet the de-listing criteria. There must be a positive obligation on heritage listing authorites like Councils to regularly automatically review all items on their heritage schedule,  and immediately de-list any that fail to meet the requisite standards.

 

SoHONSW also demands that there be a simple, cheap, non-adversarial and easy to access direct appeal rights for any owners who dispute the validity of the heritage listing. The appeal system must be staffed by genuinely unbiased, independent persons steeped in procedural fairness principles and with an ability to apply and assess against the approved heritage listing criteria.  

Owners of heritage listed properties have contributed billions to the 'social good' via the part nationalisation of their property by the state. With older heritage listings at the local government level, this often occured without the owners knowledge, consent or effective ability to comment. In NSW, it also occured for most owners without them ever being advised of their appeal rights, in the event they disputed the validity of the listing. It occured with the knowledge of the listing local Council that even if an owner did find out what was happening and was aware of their limited appeal rights, the appeal system was so prohibitively expensive and cumbersome, few ever could afford it anyway.  

 

This scenario is of part nationalisation of a citizens' private property - without most owners concurrent knowledge and few real, accessible appeal rights - including the full financial burden associated with that listing falling on the owner - and virtually none on the listing Council.

 

SoHONSW says that for 30 years in NSW this truly Kafka-esque situation resulted in perverse incentives that encouraged Councils to actively over-list and widely abuse their discretionary heritage powers, including for non-genuine heritage purposes. 

 

When the Federal Liberal Party commissioned a Productivity Commission Report into this issue - independent of the heritage fanatics -  it came to exactly this conclusion.  While the NSW Heritage Act Review report was more moderate in its language, the critique of local council heritage listings  was along the same lines [see left column to access these Government heritage reports].   

 

Others citizens subject to eg., state imposed conscription such as war service, have medals stuck in their honour, receive taxation and other benefits, public recognition, acclaim and awards. Not the owners of private property that the state has part nationalised via heritage listings. All of the honours and public acclaim go to the fanatical heritage organisations, their members and wealthy heritage consultants who have made the lives of heritage listed property owners hell for the past 30 years in NSW. It is time for NSW to get their heritage priorities right and reverse this.

 

Why is it owners of heritge listed properties been so mistreated for the past 30 years by official heritage laws, structures, policies and heritage organisations? How did the heritage industry - those with their snouts shoved firmly in the heritage trough and those whose hobby was heritage - get away with such serious abuses of public sector legal, ethical and operational standards for 30 years in NSW?

 

This website goes part of the way towards explaining how the incestuous and internally self-referencing heritage mafia set up the heritage listing system and then ran it for their own benefit for 30 years. They demonised, marginalised or air brush out of the equation an fair consideration for affected owners. They ran a largely successful propaganda campaign, accusing anyone challenging their heritage hegemony, of the very things they were most deeply engaged in -lack of transparency, biased decision making, failure to consult, failure apply legitimate standards, failure to permit workable appeals system, rampant undeclared conflicts of interest, including financial self interest, maladministration and yes, even corruption. 

 

SoHONSW considers they were able to get away with it because of their mild mannered presentation, education levels and often their middle class backgrounds as historians, librarians, architects and so on, meant they managed to avoid being perceived as grossly self interested, grasping and/or anti-democratic. The class exploitation of heritage listings has been breathtaking,  particularly considering their penchant for exploiting the charictaure of the ogre developer or 'white shoe brigade' whenever owners rights were under consideration. Fanatics don't all dress in combat fatigues and sling an AK47 over their shoulder ala Che. Some of them wear Ferragamo shoes, live in the leafy Kur-ing-gai North Shore of Sydney, have post graduate qualifications, speak 'naicely' and spend their enormous slabs of free time on their heritage hobby horse. Problem is - they want other property owners, often less well off than they, to pay for and subsidize it. And we heritage owners, often working enormous hours and without the oodles of leisure time these Lady and Lord Bountifuls enjoy, are in a catch up game to get our criticisms across.   

 

Throufgh sheer dint of hard work and with zero government funding, owners and owners organisations like SoHONSW mounted compelling arguments for Federal and NSW state governments to investigate heritage problems. They have now publicly identified and made pungent criticisms of these long standing heritage abuses. They also come up with excellent reform programs to end these heritage abuses, rorts and fraud.   Unsurprisingly, these reforms were vigorously opposed by those that first created and then benefitted most from the existing, rotten local government heritage listing system. When that seemed to fail, they have started to give grudging, half hearted support for some reforms - whilst simultaneously working the political system hard to ensure that when there is a change of government in NSW, the NSW Liberals will ditch their Federal Liberal colleagues criticisms and engage in a serious of decisions which will have again the effect of opening the door wide to all these heritage malpractices once again.       

The Society of Heritage Owners NSW offers affected owners: