Heritage South Australia: What does the future of Adelaide’s past look like?

It’s an age-old dilemma that South Australia, along with other parts of the world, regularly grapple with: Protect and preserve the past or clean the slate in the hope of building a more prosperous future.

Members of the public hold placards during a protest against the demolition of Shed 26. Picture: Kelly Barnes/AAP

• The incredible Adelaide buildings we saved, and those we lost

It’s an age-old dilemma that South Australia, along with other parts of the world, regularly grapple with: Protect and preserve the past or clean the slate in the hope of building a more prosperous future.

Heritage buildings help shape our state’s identity. They recount history and serve as a reminder of how our cities, country towns and suburban neighbourhoods progressed from patches of dirt to where they are today.

Their architecture is often visually appealing, celebrating craftsmanship that, once destroyed, can never be replaced. Other sites hold stories of the industrial endeavour on which South Australia was built.

Historic buildings can also wither and end up as monuments to years of inaction; carcasses of bygone eras that are expensive to resurrect into spaces that people actually use.

Adelaide’s latest heritage battle is being fought on the banks of the Port River.

Shed 26, built in the 1950s, is the last remaining boatshed in the Port’s inner harbour.

The sawtooth, corrugated iron and brick structure is a reminder of the Port’s maritime history – a history many want to preserve.

Others are more concerned about Port Adelaide’s future.

Developer Cedar Woods has secured approval to demolish the shed as part of a $160 million housing project that will create 180 direct jobs.

The company had hoped to start bulldozing the shed this week, before bad weather and union concerns about asbestos put a temporary halt to demolition.

It comes at a time when the State Government is reviewing its approach to heritage as part of a wider overhaul of SA’s planning system.

About 12,000 historic buildings across Adelaide’s prestigious suburbs risk losing their automatic heritage protection under the changes.

A parliamentary inquiry into heritage reforms has also called for an audit of the state’s historical buildings, simplifying heritage listings and considering compulsory acquisition powers if owners deliberately neglect heritage properties.

Cedar Woods struck a deal with the former Labor government in 2016 to develop the Port’s long-abandoned Fletcher’s Slip, which houses Shed 26.

The company bought the site – encompassing five titles – for $10.

But Shed 26 had no heritage protection and there was no agreement it had to stay. Meanwhile, Renewal SA – the government agency responsible for selling the land – put out imagery showing Shed 26 as part of the new development.

Locals were pleased but their hopes were dashed when Cedar Woods had different ideas.

Following a community campaign, the SA Heritage Council voted to give the shed provisional heritage listing.

A fight emerged between a developer, which faced having to foot the bill to restore a building it was never told it must keep, and a community desperate to hang on to the remains of the working Port.

Then, as the Heritage Council tried to confirm the listing permanently, Environment Minister David Speirs last month overturned the decision on the basis of “public interest” – primarily that the new housing was vital for the Port.

Despite Cedar Woods’ insistence that the shed will be demolished, local campaigners have refused to give up hope.

“You never know how things will change,” heritage activist Emma Webb said.

She has been part of the campaign to save the shed since its inception. She has felt the wins, only to have them pulled away.

“The Port Adelaide community have pretty much had a gutful of this situation, and we’ve had it for well over a decade now,” Ms Webb says.

“It flies in the face of what port cities are doing all around the world.”

She cannot understand why Cedar Woods would seek to destroy the shed – given its “scale and striking presence” – and feels “quite duped” by the heritage process.

She and her fellow campaigners want one last meeting with the developers to try and sway them towards finding a new use for Shed 26.

But Cedar Woods says retaining the shed without investment from the Government would have made its development “unviable”.

The company has repeatedly said independent analysis showed it would cost $8.5 million to bring Shed 26 up to scratch.

The developer approached both the current Liberal and previous Labor governments about funding, but neither were willing to foot the bill.

“Cedar Woods explored a range of options for the retention of the shed, both independently and during consultation with community and special-interest groups,” a Cedar Woods spokesman said.

“None of the options explored proved viable.”

He said the company committed to exploring the possibility of keeping the shed, but never gave any promise that its retention was a done deal.

“The site needs to go forward rather than continue to sit as an idle wasteland. It’s therefore time to act, and we will not reverse or delay our decision.”

Property Council SA executive director Daniel Gannon said the Shed 26 saga proved South Australia’s heritage system was “broken and needs to be fixed”.

“What we’ve seen in recent times is a developer lodge plans to redevelop Shed 26 and then the goalposts have been shifted on them … at a time when SA needs investment coming into our state,” Mr Gannon said.

“We can’t afford for our heritage system to be used in an obstructionist way to threaten future investment.”

The property sector, he said, embraced heritage and “places with great character” – but Shed 26 did not fit that bill and exposed the folly of the current rules.

“SA’s heritage plays a really important role for the local community, but we shouldn’t be handcuffed to the past for the sake of it. Each asset needs to be looked at through the lens of merit.”

Darren Peacock, National Trust of SA chief executive, sees it differently.

“The Heritage Council are the experts and they decided (Shed 26) was worth saving,” he said. “But a contract was signed with the previous government, which makes it difficult. There are many examples around the world of these type of buildings being reused. The problem is the lack of imagination with some of these developments.”

Mr Peacock was also concerned about the State Government’s proposed changes to the heritage system, which he said would reduce protection and increase the number of buildings being demolished.

“There hasn’t been a proper debate about this issue.

“We want certainty. There is a lot of confusion about what is protected and how you get places protected.”

He also argued preserving heritage buildings made an important economic contribution to the state.

“Doing work to restore heritage place creates better quality jobs than knocking up new builds. They are a lot more labour intensive and highly skilled.”

He said areas with a high concentration of heritage homes enjoyed strong property prices, and there were other benefits that were impossible to put a price on.

“Adelaide’s heritage buildings tell a real story of how Adelaide was built. If we lose that, we lose touch with how Adelaide came into being.”