Queensland’s heritage protection rules need an overhaul

QUEENSLAND’S convoluted heritage protection rules need to be replaced with a system where only places of importance are safeguarded and buildings are no longer sacrosanct just because they are old or look good, an expert has warned.

• Inner-city Brisbane residents battle proposed development
• Owners unknowingly buy into character house controversy

QUEENSLAND’S convoluted heritage protection rules need to be replaced with a system where only places of importance are safeguarded, an expert has warned.

The controversial call from heritage specialist Ben Gall, who has spearheaded some stunning building restorations, would mean places no longer became sacrosanct just because they were old or they looked good.

“If councils are using systems that rely on the look or age of a place, then that assessment criteria is less robust than those contained in the Queensland Heritage Act,” Mr Gall said.

An investigation by The Sunday Mail has uncovered an ad hoc system with inconsistencies across the state.

In Queensland, places of state significance are assessed under heritage legislation, which follows a strong set of principles contained in the Burra Charter – a document that pioneered modern heritage protection in Australia.

The document assesses places on aesthetic, historic, scientific or social values.

However, some of Queensland’s 77 local governments use an often-complex set of criteria contained in local planning tools to protect homes and buildings.

Queensland’s heritage protection rules need an overhaul. Picture: Jamie Hanson

The councils also use character-protection laws to place further controls on the look or feel of a neighbourhood.

Mr Gall said the councils that relied too heavily on character protection, which could be subjective, had caused more problems than they solved.

While character is a lower form of protection than heritage, the move effectively stops property owners demolishing or altering buildings, including old tin-and-timber homes, in areas that some councils have previously called demolition control precincts.

Mr Gall said councils needed to focus on assessing heritage values under the criteria outlined by the Queensland Heritage Act to ensure all local governments were on the same page.

His view found support from Housing Industry Association executive director Mike Roberts, who said heritage needed to be more streamlined between state and local governments.

“There’s always been this tension between state government listings and local government listings and the criteria that were used to list them,” Mr Roberts said.

However, National Trust Queensland boss Jonathan Fisher said he believed retaining character was an important part of preserving an area’s historical cache.

“We should be resourcing up councils that do account for character,” Mr Fisher said.

“I don’t agree with protecting for protection’s sake.

“But there is a need to evolve and repurpose buildings and make sure they in some way reflect a sense of time.”

Heritage protection has become a hot-button issue in Queensland since former premier Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen famously ordered the midnight demolition of Brisbane’s historic Bellevue Hotel in 1979 amid intense public backlash.

That demolition, among others around the same time, was the catalyst for landmark legislation to protect the state’s heritage places.

Since then, heritage protection has been an emotive issue in a city that fears losing its history, with regular protests against moves to develop over or near old buildings.

Brisbane City Council said it listened to these concerns, moving to further protect tin-and-timber suburbs from demolition as it places more buildings under character protection.

The city’s planning chairman Julian Simmonds said council was “open to any potential measures” the State Government suggested, including having a bigger role in assessing development applications that included heritage properties.

“Council’s planning process is administered in accordance with the State Government’s own Planning Act, and uses criteria comparable to the Queensland Department of Environment and Heritage Protection,” Cr Simmonds said.

Newly appointed Planning Minister Cameron Dick shied away from introducing any changes, telling The Sunday Mail that if councils used the same criteria as the Queensland Heritage Act it could result in duplication and further confusion, rather than a more “streamlined” system.

“Architectural character is different from heritage, but both are important factors in planning schemes,” Mr Dick said.

“In some cases, a building or place is of both character and heritage value.”