Submission no. 21 Received 1 August 2013 Historic Buildings Restoration Committee (Inc) PO Box 217, Portland 3305 Inc. No. A003424OR ABN: 71 744 732 051

Submission to the Inquiry into Heritage Tourism and Ecotourism in

Authorised by the Executive of HBRC Inc.

This submission addresses Terms of Reference 2 and 3.

It provides for the consideration of the Committeee

 Extracts from the HBRC Inc. submission to the Planning Panel Hearing (18 & 19 March 2013) for Glenelg Shire Council’s Amendment C 55 Part 1 for Heritage Overlays (unfortunately not “best practice”) and indicates the problems for future heritage and ecotourism where there is unsympathetic land use planning by local government. Note Section 1 Part 2, Regional Context for Amendment C 55, p. 7, and Section B, Regional Tourism context for Amendment C 55, p. 9

 Extracts from the Planning Panel Report on Amendment C 55

Thank you for the opportunity to respond,

On behalf of Portland HBRC Inc.,

A.L.Chalmers HBRC member

1 Submission - Parliamentary Inquiry into Heritage Tourism and Ecotourism Portland HBRC Inc.

Relevant to Inquiry Terms of Reference 2 and 3

1. Extracts from the Portland Historic Buildings Restoration Committee Inc. (HBRC Inc.) submission to the Planning Panel Hearing for Glenelg Amendment C 55, Heritage Overlays -

HBRC Inc. members consider that proper land use planning is essential to support both heritage and ecotourism and as a concerned community group have participated in many efforts to achieve adequate support for Glenelg Shire’s heritage and environment; some are described here.

Environment and heritage are identified “strengths” of Glenelg Shire and have the potential to add value to visitor offerings, and to the economy of the Shire and the Region.

Inadequate land use planning however has the potential to undermine future development of ecotourism and heritage tourism in Glenelg, with the absence of Heritage Overlays and Significant Landscape Overlays in identified areas.

2. Extracts from the Planning Panel Report (May 2013) on Amendment C 55 for Heritage Overlays.

Planning Panel Submission Glenelg Shire Council Amendment C 55, Heritage Overlays Heywood, March 18th and 19th.

HBRC Inc. supports the introduction of the Heritage Overlay in the wider region of the Glenelg Shire, an area of early settlement, pastoral development, and associated industries, towns and villages…… …. Introduction

On behalf of HBRC Inc., … the identification and protection of up to 87 places is a significant step. However HBRC Inc. members regret the partial nature of the amendment and Council’s decision to abandon Part 2 of C 55, for precincts recognition of significant early settlement towns throughout the shire. The precincts would have extended some protection to a large number of the originally-identified (700 plus) places worthy of inclusion in the HO, as well as to streetscapes, pending further investigation.

The loss of Part 2a, after council decided to examine 100 sites “on the basis of limited funds and time constraints, with a focus on nine heritage precinct areas” (Expert Witness Statement) has in the view of HBRC members distorted outcomes for heritage in the district. The Expert Witness Statement Observations (p.11) refers to the limited themes now addressed by the Overlay. It is likely that Heritage Matters relied on “the focus on nine heritage precinct areas” to cover schools, hotels, factories

2 or industrial structures, post offices, train stations, police stations and court houses in the Precincts assessed. These are all-important in the story of development of South West Victoria.

The shire’s hinterland has previously been at a disadvantage in having no heritage protections in comparison with Portland, which had HOs in place when council amalgamations occurred in 1994. It still awaits a long-overdue review of its Portland Urban Conservation Study 1981 (PUCS).

As the Glenelg Heritage Study Stage 2a shows, the history of the wider shire is complex and interesting; and the Glenelg Shire Desktop Study of Cultural Heritage 2006 (Tardis Enterprises) – carried out at the same time as the Heritage Study 2a – confirms its depth and significance. See below, pp 12 – 15

Part 1: HBRC Inc. Perspectives - Background to Amendment C 55 –

Glenelg Community Attitudes to Heritage, Culture and Environment

General - i) HBRC Inc. members have experienced many community consultations for municipal strategies, most recently for the Glenelg Strategic Futures Plan (GSFP, 2009), which in 2005 was intended to improve “fairness and balance” in the Planning Scheme. We have observed that respondents to consultations always cite the region’s heritage and environment as strengths, and people are proud of them (see Attachment 2, extract - GS Tourism Strategic Plan 2005 -8); the New Format Planning Scheme 1998 had more submissions on heritage than any other subject. The low number of objections to C 55 may be attributable to general support for cultural heritage.

However until the GSFP 2009 Implementation Strategy 2009 recommendations to implement the conservation Amendments, (see Attachment 4), “actions” for heritage and environment following consultations tended to be for “promotion” rather than “identifying” and “protecting” the assets. Long deferral of the GSFP recommendations has in members’ view diluted their force…..

Municipal Attitudes over time to Cultural Heritage and Environment

HBRC inc. members wish to provide our understanding of events which may have influenced Glenelg’s current approach to cultural heritage (see also Attachment 1, HBRC Inc. Timeline).

The New Format Planning Panel 1998 recommended that the Glenelg Planning Scheme’s policies for heritage and environment should be strengthened, and that the council should first identify and then protect its cultural heritage and environment assets, starting with the wider shire where there were no policies for protecting heritage. It suggested that places registered by the National Trust and /or noted and recommended by the Land Conservation Council South West Historic Places Study 1996 could be given protection “within 12 months,” and followed by formal Heritage Studies to confirm.

3 However this recommendation was not followed, and the Heritage Study Stage One was only commissioned in 2000. Work on it was slow – it was evident that the consultants had little council support.

Members have experienced distinct periods in municipal treatment of heritage of the area; we include information in the interests of the Panel understanding this context, which we consider is still influencing council attitudes to heritage.

 To 1994 – Pre-amalgamation; Positive Outcomes - over time the Town of Portland gained a positive approach to heritage to the benefit of local pride and tourism development. The Portland Urban Conservation Study (PUCS) 1981, and celebrations of Portland’s 150th Anniversary in 1984 attracted State, municipal and private investment in heritage places and buildings. A Heritage Advisory Board was appointed in 1983 and aided council understanding and experience of the issues. Portland gained a Heritage Overlay in 1993 which followed PUCS 1981 recommendations. As a transport hub Portland had frequent threats to heritage from large development proposals (e.g. in expectation of the Alcoa Smelter, some demolitions occurred to “clear” land for anticipated development), and this lead to some disputes over heritage values – and eventually to better appreciation of heritage issues in Portland.

 1994-2004 – Heritage at risk - After the City of Portland was amalgamated with the two smaller rural shires to its north, this hard-gained positive approach to heritage steadily disappeared. Loss of corporate knowledge and the rural shires’ previous lack of policy, funds for and experience in heritage issues, lead to heritage problems re-surfacing. Development was the priority, and the Commissioners appointed a pro- development CEO who appointed like-minded staff. In addition, in 1998 the new council appointed an external town planning contractor on a “self-managed” contract with little supervision. The TP was seen as able to “get things done” on behalf of developers. Decisions which did not respect the Portland HO and lack of mediation for objectors forced HBRC to be adversarial. In 2000 it succeeded in a VCAT review of a permit for demolition of a building on the HO (98 Percy St., Halliday’s). But adverse VCAT findings did not lead to improved management of the HO. Further HBRC objections to permits included places in the shire where both cultural heritage and environment were at risk. In the end, DSE and the Government Solicitor dealt with the most extreme problematic permits. A new CEO appointed in 2003 made some improvements to Glenelg planning practices and governance. Until then, Heritage Advisers had a high turnover.

 2004 - 2009 – Improvements in attitudes to conservation and heritage - From early 2004 planning improvements included termination of the external planning contract, and the appointment of internal planners and of a Delegated Planning Committee. Developments under the Heritage Overlay were properly advertised so that the community could participate in planning decisions under the HO.

4 The Auditor General investigated and reported on Community Planning Services in the Glenelg Shire 1998 – 2005 (Oct. 2005). The Report identified a pro-development culture among some councillors and officers which had lead to Glenelg ignoring conservation provisions in the Planning Scheme in the period reviewed. It provides a comprehensive overview of Glenelg planning issues, including several Case Studies (see list, Attachment 5).

With respect to heritage issues which had been contentious, the A-G Report recommended

“4. That the council: ……… • develops a heritage policy, … One of the objectives of planning in Victoria is to conserve and enhance those buildings, areas or other places which are of scientific, aesthetic, architectural or historical interest, or otherwise of special cultural value. The absence of a heritage policy, a neighbourhood character overlay, and a design and development overlay for the Portland town centre has also impacted on the ability of the council to preserve its heritage assets.

RESPONSE provided by Glenelg Shire Council Recommendation agreed. Pre application meetings are held with council’s heritage advisor and all applications in heritage overlay areas are referred to the advisor. Council has completed stage 1 of the Heritage Study and is currently undertaking Stage 2. The heritage policy and design and development overlay are due for completion in October 2005. Council has assessed the neighbourhood character overlay is of a lower priority at this stage.” (p. 43)

“1998 Panel review In 1998, the then Minister for Planning established a panel and advisory committee to review the ‘new format’ Glenelg planning scheme. The panel’s report concluded that: • “the planning scheme represented “a balanced and forward looking response to the opportunities and constraints facing the Shire. Clear directions have been identified and the scheme has been formulated in a genuine attempt to respond to the expectations of the planning reform program” • the strategy statement “grasped the key issues facing the municipality. It is a comprehensive and logical development of a strategic response to the planning of the Shire”. However, the panel also noted that the scheme, while providing a framework to facilitate development, had insufficient regard for environmental and heritage issues: • “... despite the rich cultural heritage of the Shire and statements about its significance in the MSS, the actual identification of assets was patchy and consequently there were gaps in the level of protection. The Council acknowledged this and the need for a proper Shire-wide heritage study, but there was no evidence that there is a firm commitment to undertaking this within a defined time frame”. • “... the lack of any reference to heritage protection or assessment in the Corporate Plan 1997–2000, particularly among the performance indicators, is conspicuous, given the significance of heritage and tourism in the Council’s MSS”. In December 1998, the then Minister for Planning approved the planning scheme, notwithstanding several outstanding matters that council was to address as part of its ongoing review. These outstanding matters included: • “a review of the heritage provisions within the next 12 months and

5 development of a program to identify and protect all the shire’s heritage assets • …

“In 2002, the council considered the findings of the panel report, as part of its triennial municipal strategic statement review process. However, the council did not address any of these outstanding matters….. (p. 81 – 82) Stage 1 of a heritage study was completed in October 2002. A brief has been prepared for the final stage and this is due for completion at the end of 2005.”

For HBRC Inc., the A-G Report of Oct. 2005 seemed like a watershed moment, especially as in its Response to the Report, the council undertook to improve fairness and balance in its planning scheme management. The Council in 2005 / 6 - initiated the Heritage Study 2a, - initiated a Desktop Cultural Heritage Study of the shire’s archaeology (Tardis Enterprises 2006). Its concise listing …. of the many heritage and archaeological studies in the shire is of interest. - began the Glenelg Shire Strategic Futures Plan … which entailed many more studies before and after 2009 …. As well, DSE released its Coastal Spaces Landscape Assessment Study 2006, (CSLAS), providing foundation work for Significant Landscape Overlays (SLOs).

Distractions from Planning Scheme improvements since 2009.

 The GSFP 2009 was very time-consuming. It required many reports into e.g. transport, waste water, land use, and infrastructure, and was followed by more reports and studies…  Changes to personnel – Councillors, CEOs, planning staff – would have contributed to loss of corporate knowledge of the original impetus for the GSFP.  Until 2012 the council was also engaged in unravelling complex legal issues arising from poor planning decisions made between 1998 and 2005, including ministerial interventions and Advisory Committee hearings. These were costly to tax payers, developers and ratepayers and in members’ view diminished community support for heritage and environment.  Most of the disputed areas were in or close to Portland on the coast, and “hinterland” councillors must have wondered at the complexities.

In this climate, conservation amendments for the GPS were overlooked or delayed – while the council and community understanding of their essential nature in “keeping the planning scheme serviceable” faded.

In June 2012, council agreed to apply all planning funds for 2012 -13 to implementing Amendment C 73 arising from the GSSS 2012. This has effectively deprived the conservation amendments of the wherewithal for their proper implementation.

With hindsight, it now appears that council has once again been more concerned to pursue development issues. Amendment C 73 based on the GSSS 2012 was rapidly advanced during 2012, and its implementation will help council to re-zone areas to extend settlement “on the periphery of towns”.

6 Further reasons for Heritage Amendment delays –

The officer report on Amendment C 55 … states “The implementation of this study was delayed by legal issues arising in 2007”. Presumably, among these were VCAT issues over the Convincing Ground massacre site at Narrawong.

Also, as a submitter to the GSFP consultation, HBRC Inc. received a letter from council in May 2007 Update to submitters – Glenelg Strategic Futures Plan / Glenelg Industrial Land Use Plan - stating “The Cultural Heritage Review is however waiting on approval for release as it contains information about archaeological sites that may be sensitive.”

As well, i) It appears that uncertainties surrounding VCAT and DSE actions to resolve illegal Development Plan Overlays on the Convincing Ground coast from 2005 may have discouraged the council from including many highly significant North Shore and Narrawong early settlement and industrial sites in the consultant’s list for assessment in the Heritage Study 2a (2006). ii) In an effort to resolve disputes about the significance of the whole area for European as well as Indigenous people, in November 2005 HBRC Inc. and the Portland National Trust sought HV Registration of an area of land between the coast and Princes Highway, already of high significance for Aboriginal Affairs Victoria (AAV). Perhaps the HV nomination was used as another reason for council to be “hands off.” In the end HV only registered 7 ha, mostly under water, at the ship-building or flensing jetty - despite the Glenelg Heritage Study Part 1 identifying significance which needed more research to confirm it.

Of the Narrawong area, the Glenelg Heritage Study Stage 1, Oct. 2002, states (p. 20- 21) –

The Hentys’ whaling establishment was on a stretch of beach known as the Convincing Ground (the scene of a notorious massacre of Aboriginal people) at Allestree, near Portland. This is on the north side of Portland Bay, behind the Minerva Reef. ‘It was an excellent site for a whaling station in the 1830s, near the mouth of a freshwater creek, with some protection and calm water afforded by the offshore reef, and a natural lookout located on Mount Clay to the north east. ‘…… The Convincing Ground site is one of the most significant historic locations in South-Western Victoria and a major heritage site in Glenelg Shire. It is significant as the site of the whaling station, where the Hentys operated an important early Shire industry; as the site of an early and tragic clash between Aboriginal people and the first Europeans in Victoria; and ‘in the retention of a name long after its meaning has been forgotten’.

Members understand that HV has also identified some high value archaeological sites needing investigation beyond the registered area. The Narrawong / Mt Clay area was excluded from assessment in the Heritage Study Stage 2 a except for the State-significant cemetery, so Narrawong will not have the benefit of being able to celebrate any additions to the list of significant heritage places in the Shire.

7 Apparent changes to GSFP intent over time (and effects on C 55)

The following refers to the return of a pro-development council attitude which has apparently influenced its approach to the conservation amendments and to resourcing them.

The GSFP 2009 Implementation Study recommended among other things - implementing the conservation amendments (for HOs and SLOs), and also - establishing settlement boundaries in response to “numerous submissions” for development “on the periphery of towns” (Recs. 4, 5 and 12, Attachment 4).

Settlement Boundaries

The high-level strategic documents, the Victorian Coastal Strategy (VCS) 2008 and CSLAS 2006 also recommended establishing settlement boundaries with the aim of constraining coastal development to areas where demand has been demonstrated, and on land with the capacity to accommodate development, and where natural environmental attributes will not be impaired.

However the GSC is now seeking to extend “settlement boundaries” through inserting its recent Glenelg Sustainable Settlement Strategy (GSSS) 2012 into the Planning Scheme as Amendment C73. This would give opportunities for re-zoning and development, and could impact on the coast. All of Council’s Planning Budget 2012-13 ($47,500) will be spent on implementing C 73 … By the time the Heritage Study 2a Amendment C55 was discussed … Part 2 was abandoned on the ground of costs of implementation of the precincts, as well as “community angst” about them – which does not accord with HBRC observations of Glenelg community attitudes to heritage (see p. 2). Many of the submissions re C 55 are supportive in whole or in part.

But in August 2012 the council decided to abandon C 52 SLOs Part 2, on similar cost grounds as C 55 Part 2.

Over a relatively short time it appears that the internal council definition of “improvements” in land management – and all-important allocation of resources - has again tended to support pro-development amendments. With respect to timing of council actions, the GSSS was on exhibition April/May 2012, and Amendment C 73 is due for a panel hearing in April, within a year of exhibition.

HBRC Inc. members respected the shire’s need to “get it right” through the slow work on the GSFP 2006-9, and hoped that the upshot would be a comprehensive, fair and balanced re-vamp of the planning scheme to include effective conservation amendments. Members note that the Council Plan 2009-13 supports implementing the conservation improvements to the Planning Scheme according to the GSFP, as do legislation and government agencies DSE and HV.

But at the council meetings in June and August 2012, the GSFP 2009 recommendations and Council Plan 2009-13 were bypassed although the officer reports spelled out governance deficiencies in partly abandoning these significant “key” actions …

8 It is hard to understand how the council’s most recent Review of Council Plan – 2012/13 Key Strategic Activities - Half Yearly Report … can state that “To date all the key strategic activities for 2012/13 are on target.”

It is the view of HBRC Inc. members that Glenelg Shire’s largely government- funded, promised and long-awaited conservation Amendments have fallen well short of their targets, along with the intent of the P & E Act, the Glenelg Shire (original) MSS and the GSFP 2009.

Part 2: Regional context for Amendment C 55

A. The Great South Coast Regional Growth Plan (2010?) - Extracts. Municipalities - Colac-Otway, Corangamite, Glenelg, Moyne, S. , Warrnambool.

“About the Region

The region is rich in nature based tourist attractions, from the iconic Great Ocean Road to the Grampians and the volcanic plains landscape. It has a rich cultural heritage, from Aboriginal cultural heritage and the sophisticated engineering feats of the Gunditjmara people, to more recent history as the birthplace of Victoria, our agricultural heritage and our historic towns……. Background and issues The Great South Coast Regional Strategic Plan is built around the following values: sustainable economic growth

sustain natural assets and cultural heritage healthy and active communities well connected and diverse settlements” (p. 1)

However after this, cultural heritage is mentioned little (in the RGP), and the document then refers to “nature-based” tourism throughout.

Although not given much weight in this iteration of the RGP, HBRC Inc. considers that Glenelg’s cultural heritage is a major “export” (along with “nature-based” tourism), bringing in a high proportion of travellers with spin-off benefits for businesses in food, accommodation and petrol. Glenelg’s active recreational opportunities are also very valuable.

Glenelg has tremendous advantages for cultural heritage tourism as yet unexploited , including many books about it; its heritage is authentic. Its bluestone buildings, streetscapes and homesteads are icons in their original surroundings, unlike re- creations at Flagstaff Hill and Sovereign Hill …

Comparisons with nearby municipal approaches to heritage conservation -

Judging by the Southern Grampians Planning Scheme Amendment C 6, March 2009, and Warrnambool Planning Scheme Amendment C 68, March 2011, nearby

9 municipalities better appreciate the value of protecting their cultural heritage, and will in the view of HBRC members in future reap more benefits from cultural heritage tourism because of their recent efforts to apply Heritage Overlays.

Both employed Heritage Matters as consultants and the C 68 Panel stated “The Panel commends the Council and Heritage Matters Pty Ltd for commissioning and undertaking this comprehensive heritage study and its translation into a complex planning scheme amendment.”

It is the view of HBRC Inc. members that this comment on Heritage Matters’ work also applies to Glenelg C 55. Heritage Matters’ expertise on heritage in the region and Dr. Hubbard’s previous experience as the Glenelg Heritage Adviser has been most valuable in the development of Heritage Study 2a.

Warrnambool C 68 proposed to apply 27 new precincts and the panel supported this with some reductions of extent and mergers; Hamilton C 6 proposed HOs for 430 individual properties, “internal controls” for limited properties and tree controls for 58 sites, with relatively few deletions and alterations.

In comparison, the Glenelg Shire Council motion Amendment C 55 on 26/6/2012, to abandon Part 2 for Precincts, and stating that “Internal building controls and tree controls are not to be included in Amendment C55” appears extremely short-sighted and to members demonstrates a most unfortunate lack of appreciation of the role cultural heritage could play in the attractions of the shire.

HOs on precincts would have assisted Gleneg’s smaller communities to protect buildings and significant streetscapes covering over 600 properties. This would surely have augmented their ability to appeal to cultural tourists now and in the future.

Better support from Glenelg for its settlement cultural heritage would accord better with the actions of its neighbouring shires, and in the regional development context. Glenelg could even provide leadership on this issue, as the custodian of Victoria’s First Settlement. It is full of places still able to be identified from descriptions in reports, diaries, histories and biographies. The smaller Glenelg settlements, properly interpreted as wayside stops and service centres for pastoral expansion or sawmills, could once again benefit from being on those early routes through being better able to attract cultural tourists.

HBRC Inc. members would advocate, if possible, Panel recommendations for interim controls on the precincts, as well as for the previously recommended interiors and tree controls, giving the council and community time to re-evaluate their priorities and to re-consider the current limited treatment of Amendment C 55. It is very disappointing that, while members strongly support the overlays on 87 properties, HBRC Inc. is still unable to fully support the amendment because of an inadequate council response to the issues of identifying and protecting cultural heritage.

10 B. Regional Tourism context for Amendment C 55

Glenelg is in competition with its fellow regional municipalities. If “nature-based” tourism is to be supported by the Great South Coast Region, Glenelg has plenty to offer in its National, State and regional parks, its beaches and cliffs, established outdoor tourism operators and the Great South West Walk. However HBRC Inc. contends that “nature-based” visitors are also culturally aware and appreciate cultural heritage. The two are complementary on the shire’s “menu” of tourism offerings. See Attachment 9, GSC web site – Things to See and Do in Portland, where the first 9 of 20 activities are cultural – and mostly to do with the area’s heritage. ….. ii) South West Tourism Victoria (SWTV)…. comprised 7 municipalities including the Shire of Glenelg, City of Portland, Heywood Shire, City of Hamilton and Moyne Shire. Geographically connected and with shared history, cultural heritage – including establishing Mary McKillop signage – was a major issue. The character of this coordinated region was becoming well-recognized when the government changed and introduced current Victorian Jigsaw Tourism Regions, abolishing SWTV. The Glenelg Shire is now in the Great Ocean Road tourism region (GOR). But some of Glenelg’s northern rural areas are more “connected” to Southern Grampians tourist pathways; and the GOR “icon”, the Twelve Apostles, does not well represent Glenelg’s cultural tourism offerings. Cultural Tourism and Heritage

Despite the above, heritage is already a key attractor of tourists to the area and thus is a cornerstone of the economy of the Shire... Therefore, protection of the heritage places, both individual places and wider precincts, of the Shire is vital to ensure its ongoing growth and development especially in times of economic uncertainty.

Heritage controls do not prohibit development, subdivision, or demolition but require that planning approval must be obtained. In general, a Heritage Overlay does not seek to prevent additional development occurring on a property, rather it seeks to guide the form and detail of the proposed development so that it is respectful of the property’s heritage significance.

Therefore it is unfortunate that the Precincts (C 55 Part 2) have been withdrawn from the Amendment without a Panel being able to assess submissions against expert evidence, including the Wando Vale Village Precinct, Casterton Township Precinct extension, Casterton Church & Residential Precinct (West Hill), Merino Township Precinct extension, Digby Village Precinct, Dartmoor Village Precinct, Township Precinct, and Heywood Township Precinct. This approach appears to be inconsistent with the advice of Planning Panels in relation to the processing of heritage amendments (Better Processing of Heritage Amendments, 31 July, 2008). On reviewing the precinct objections, many appeared to be about minor aspects of the recommendations; it would seem that most could have been resolved.

11

Proper stewardship is required from the Glenelg Shire Council, and the large undertaking of the Heritage Study 2a has not been well-served in the diminished Amendment C 55 without precinct protection. It is the view of HBRC Inc. that many owners whose individual properties will be protected by the Amendment C 55 Heritage Overlay will benefit in the future from this recognition and endorsement.

It is pleasing to note in the HS 2a Citations that the integrity of numerous properties has been well maintained.

Part 3: Comments on Glenelg Shire Heritage Studies

The Desktop Cultural Heritage Study Sept 2006 Tardis Enterprises

At the same time as the Heritage Study 2a was in progress, the GSC commissioned Tardis as consultants to do a Desktop Cultural Heritage Study completed in Sept. 2006, with a focus on archaeological sites, apparently also as part of preparation for the GSFP. However this may also have been due to cultural heritage issues raised in the Auditor General’s Report 2005, especially on Indigenous issues; and also to new State legislation being enacted at least partly as a result of the Convincing Ground subdivision permit issues affecting Indigenous cultural heritage.

HBRC Inc. was invited to attend a council Heritage Technical Working Group meeting with Tardis representatives on 24/6/2006, and raised various points at the meeting … It was again possible to discuss heritage issues in a positive manner, and HBRC members looked forward to continued improvement in planning management. We stress that this did occur in many respects, but somehow the council culture appears to have reverted to “anti-heritage thinking” as evidenced in the delays in implementing the recommendations of Heritage Study 2a.

The recommendations of the Desktop Study are relevant to many of the Expert Witness recommendations re deleting “ruins” from the HO, and deleting buildings that have been altered, and members firmly support these recommendations.

Extracts from Desktop Cultural Heritage Study (Tardis Enterprises) 2006

Executive Summary –

“Prior to this investigation there have been a large number of Aboriginal and historic cultural heritage assessments in Glenelg Shire (Sections 4 & 6). Stage 2 (Hubbard & Neyland 2005) of a regional historic heritage study is currently underway to make detailed significance assessment of heritage places identified in Stage One (Kellaway & Rhodes 2002). As of April 2006 there were 143 historic places on the Heritage Victoria Register and Inventory, 50 on the Register of the National Estate, 144 on the National Trust of Victoria Register and 155 on the Glenelg Shire Heritage Overlay. As of January 2006 there were 1,002 registered Aboriginal cultural heritage places and 28 Aboriginal historic places on the Aboriginal Affairs Victoria Register” (Executive Summary, p.i)

Sec. 10.1 - Cultural Heritage Opportunities and Management Issues

12

This section included discussions on Aboriginal Cultural Heritage, and “Historic Cultural Heritage:

The Glenelg Shire possesses a unique historic cultural heritage that dates back before the first official settlement of Victoria. The history of the Shire reveals a rich history encompassing a sequence of periods and themes in the rural development of Victoria and . The archaeology of the area has the potential to illuminate this rich heritage. Often previous historic cultural heritage investigations (e.g. Wilson Sayer Pty Ltd 1981; Kellaway & Rhodes 2002) have not explored the archaeological potential in detail. It is not uncommon for sites of high archaeological significance to be missed during a study of a region’s extant heritage. The identification of areas of historic archaeological potential will present opportunities to conduct surveys and excavations to illuminate the history of Glenelg. Potential major historic and archaeological themes are sealing and whaling, pre- pastoral (i.e. Henty) squatting, gold, subdivision and small landholders, and development of townships in the 20th century. Some of the richest resources, such as the oldest precincts in Portland and other towns need to be identified as main priorities. Archaeology provides a window into history often unrepresented in documentary sources. This information would provide tangible material culture displays and alternative historical narratives for educational and tourism purposes. This is particularly important for periods and themes that are currently poorly represented in the history of Glenelg. (our italics).

Currently there are 50 listings for the Register of the National Estate, 146 on theVictorian Heritage Register and Inventory, 144 listed with the National Trust and 155 on the Glenelg Shire Heritage Overlay (Table 2). Portland contains the highest number of historic places. A preliminary review of the various historic cultural heritage data-bases (Heritage Victoria Register, Register of the National Estate, Schedule to the Glenelg Shire Heritage Overlay, National Trust of Victoria Register) has identified a number of duplicate, inconsistent, or missing listings which should be clarified by a cultural heritage audit of these data-bases .………..”

The Study makes recommendations for aboriginal Cultural heritage, and

Recommendations for Historic Cultural Heritage: (p. vi)

6. It is recommended that the archaeological potential of historic sites be identified in both heritage studies and cultural heritage assessments. This includes the identification of archaeological deposits which have the potential to contain information on the periods and themes of Glenelg Shire history which are poorly documented.

7. In consultation with Heritage Victoria, local historical societies and any other interested stakeholders, historic sites with cultural tourism and archaeological potential should be identified and opportunities for archaeological investigation explored to enhance the cultural tourism potential of these sites. This can only really effectively be achieved by funding an historic archaeological review of the Shire. Heritage Victoria could be approached for funding assistance for such a project.

8. In the short term, comprehensive audit of the various heritage sites should be conducted in order to update and clarify the cultural heritage assets of Glenelg Shire. This may involve additional research and ground truthing where appropriate. If this is not a component of the recent Second Stage of the Glenelg Heritage Study, then this should be conducted as soon as practical.

General Recommendations:

13 9. Identify significant archaeological sites and precincts, as well as immediate, medium and long-term threats.

10. Devise, fund and enact best practice heritage management to preserve and enhance the Aboriginal and historic cultural heritage values of the Glenelg Shire and promote best practice within public forums where appropriate.

11. Increase awareness of heritage values to Glenelg Shire inhabitants and visitors by providing high quality interpretation.

12. Encourage indigenous employment in all heritage pursuits (site identification, maintenance and tourism).

13. Promote a planning department that encourages and supports best current heritage practise and the redevelopment of properties that contain heritage/archaeological sites in a sympathetic manner and in accordance with relevant Acts.”

Members concur with the Tardis report’s statements that archaeological evidence supports cultural heritage knowledge and interpretation, and that buildings in a state of ruin, or altered states, still tell significant stories about the people and places, and should be recognized and protected. HBRC Inc. strongly supports Recommendations 7 and 8 above.

HBRC Inc. members do not support recommendations to delete ruins, or buildings that have been altered, from the Heritage Overlay. Their remnants and surroundings still have important information to contribute to future interpretation.

Comments on Glenelg Shire Heritage Study 2a

The Heritage Study 2a consultation was well-advertised..., well supported by council and efficiently conducted, but constrained by costs to only about 100 of the 700 places identified by the Heritage Study Part 1 and subsequent Heritage Matters work, although the precinct “focus” could have been expected to make up for some of the reduction in numbers. The brief unfortunately excluded one of the shire’s most significant areas at Narrawong.

….

Members of HBRC Inc. note that the Panel for Southern Grampians Amendment C6 commented: “In particular the Panel found the formulation of strategic support for the listing of the sites to be highly competent and the historical research and analysis relevant to those sites to generally be very good. We would comment that it is perhaps a testament to the comprehensive nature of the heritage investigations and the management of the project by the consultants that only 25 submissions were received in response to the public exhibition of the Amendment – of which only seven raised serious objections.” Further, the Panel for Warrnambool Amendment C68 concluded: “The Panel commends the Council and Heritage Matters Pty Ltd for commissioning and undertaking this comprehensive heritage study and its translation into a complex planning scheme amendment. The Panel has endorsed most aspects of the study and the amendment, with a few exceptions related to the definition and extent of precinct boundaries.”

14

The C 55Amendment is an important step in the protection of heritage places in the Glenelg Shire. We welcome the translation of the recommendations of the Glenelg Shire Heritage Study Stage 2 into the Planning Scheme via the application of the Heritage Overlay to 87 new individual heritage places.

Post contact Heritage is one of the defining elements of the Glenelg Shire. As its settlement pre-dates the gold rush, its ongoing heritage represents changing social and economic circumstances accumulating layers of richness.

As metropolitan areas expand with McMansions without any genuine heritage elements being visible, Glenelg Shire’s remaining visible heritage makes it “another country”. For future visitors with no experience of the lives lived in earlier times, or the maritime, agricultural, pastoral, architectural, transport, industrial and social heritage still extant in the Glenelg Shire, this will soon become far more important than it is now.

While the Shire has not yet been able (or had the will) to resource retaining and enhancing this character, in time retention of significant aspects of its heritage will enable cultural tourism to flourish.

The Heritage Study 2a has formally identified significant elements of the shire’s heritage, and local government now has the responsibility of protecting it. Not doing so will, in the opinion of HBRC Inc. members, cause future councils grief as the heritage identified but not yet protected suffers unnecessary attrition.

Heritage Study 2a Responses

Glenelg is a large area with its settlement influenced by complex geography. The Heritage Study was a major undertaking in extent and diversity. The study was well- advertised …, and supported by a high-level staff and a councillor.

 Some objectors profess ignorance of the Study and of the Amendment. Factors influencing this could include - a dispersed population - limited media distribution - a tendency for western and northern areas of Glenelg to look to Mt. Gambier and Hamilton media outlets.

 The Context Report “Response to Submissions” on Amendment C 55 notes that only 3% of the places notified of the amendment objected, and suggests that this may be because permit exemptions made the HOs more acceptable. However HBRC Inc. members believe that, taken with the number of positive submissions received, the low objection rate is evidence of strong support for heritage in the district. See remarks on HBRC Inc. observation of community attitudes, p. 2.

 The level of “community angst” caused by the Amendment (referred to in the Council Report of 26 June, 2012) is relatively low; only eighteen (18) opposing submissions were received in relation to a total of 700 properties.

15 Whilst “community angst” may be difficult for Council to manage, members consider that it is part of the responsibilities of Council as a planning authority to consider net community benefit, not just the interests and property rights of individuals.

 Similar amendments in some other municipalities, for example, Ballarat PSA C107, have attracted a far larger number of submissions, but the precinct amendment still went to panel for independent assessment, as members of HBRC Inc. consider should have occurred here. However, the Panel for CoGG Belmont Amendment C 89 (precincts) remarked (p.50) on the small number of submissions in comparison with the number of buildings recommended for inclusion, as was the case with C55.

 In the view of HBRC Inc. by and large the Glenelg community accepts the need to manage development within a range of planning controls including the application of the Heritage Overlay.

Time delays - It is not unusual for the strategic process underpinning heritage amendments to be protracted. Preparation of a heritage study can take 2-4 years from inception, then another few years to develop and exhibit an amendment based on study recommendations… However the delays, and causes of delays, in the Case of C 55 are regrettable as work of this nature was already long overdue when the Studies were commissioned in 2005. ….

Part 4: General comments on Objections to properties being included on the HO ……

16 Relevant extracts from the Panel Report Glenelg Planning Scheme Amendment C55 Part 1 Heritage Places 15 May 2013

(From the point of view of members of HBRC Inc., the following extracts from this Planning Panel Report are very relevant to Glenelg Shire land use planning management in the future, and if observed, would have the effect of improving “the protection and enhancement of Glenelg’s natural systems and landscapes, productive agricultural land, industry capacity, urban development, tourism and infrastructure”.

In particular, recommendations that the panel’s “planning context” comments should be incorporated into the review process for Glenelg’s Review of its MSS, Amendment C 75, are very pleasing. Weak local policies for heritage and environment, despite their assessed high status, have since 1998 encouraged GSC inappropriate permits for demolitions and development, and have lead to many costly VCAT cases. The cost has been to community members, council, developers and community spirit; and ultimately, to future opportunities for Glenelg’s heritage and environment attributes to contribute to its economy through increased tourism

But it’s not too late, if the Panel recommendations below are effective).

Extracts –

3.4 Panel discussion and conclusion on planning context

In reviewing the strategic context for this amendment, the Panel has noted that the Glenelg Planning Scheme provides limited strategic direction for heritage conservation.

While there are multiple references to heritage in the MSS (quoted above in 3.1(ii) of this report) they are very general, very short and, apart from brief references to Portland as the ‘birthplace of Victoria’, do not relate specifically to the Shire of Glenelg. There is no relationship between these isolated references, and therefore no cohesive strategy or theme. Even Clause 21.09, which specifically addresses heritage, has much less content than the SPPF and is so general that it could apply to any municipality in Victoria. In short, the MSS contains general objectives but little local planning strategy or context to support its heritage controls (our emphasis).

Furthermore, the MSS does not contain any description of the Shire’s history or geography, the two key elements that have formed the Shire as it is today. The inclusion of a brief thematic history would provide a context not only for strategies for heritage protection, but also to the protection and enhancement of Glenelg’s natural systems and landscapes, productive agricultural land, industry capacity, urban development, tourism and infrastructure (our emphasis)

The Panel concludes that while the SPPF provides a general strategic basis for the Amendment C55 Part 1, it would be preferable for the MSS to include a section providing a thematic context for all its planning strategies, and to expand Clause 21.09 Objectives and strategies Heritage to provide a locally based strategy that addresses the nature and distribution of heritage assets in the Shire and their

17 connection to other strategies such as tourism. The Panel understands that Council is undertaking a review of the MSS that will be exhibited as Amendment C75. The above comments should be incorporated into the review process. (p. 8)

4.1 (i) General issues Abandonment of Part 2 of Amendment C55 The issue Amendment C55 as exhibited included new heritage precincts in the following six towns and/ settlements: Casterton Church and Residential Precinct (West Hill); Condah Village Precinct; Dartmoor Village Precinct; Digby Village Precinct; Heywood Township Precinct; and Wando Vale Village Precinct. Also included were extensions to the existing heritage precincts in Casterton and Merino.

As explained earlier in this report, after considering submissions, Council resolved to split the amendment into Part 1 (Individual heritage places) and Part 2 (Heritage Precincts) and to abandon Part 2 of the amendment. Part 1 was referred to the Panel.

In reaching the decision to abandon the precincts, Council was advised that the new heritage consultant proposed ‘sweeping changes’ to the precincts, requiring ‘extensive work’ to ‘review the extent of each precinct’.

(ii) Panel discussion The Panel regrets the abandonment of the precincts. Small townships such as Dartmoor and Heywood can benefit significantly from a precinct based approach that can improve the cohesiveness, interest and appearance of small towns and boost their attractiveness as places to live and visit. Rather than being a negative, the Heritage Overlay should be seen as an opportunity for residents to contribute to enhancing the heritage value of their town through their individual properties, in much the same way they already work together to maintain Avenues of Honour, cemeteries and other community assets.

The Panel also notes that, without a heritage overlay in place, Council cannot effectively prevent the alteration or demolition of houses with contributory heritage value, or the construction of new buildings that are unsympathetic to the surrounding area and therefore detract from its values (our emphasis)

(iii) Conclusions The Panel concludes that Council should give priority to the proposed review of the exhibited heritage precincts and proceed to include them in a new amendment as soon as possible…..(our emphasis - p.9)

6 Conclusions and recommendations 6.1 Conclusions

18 ….The Panel is disappointed that the Part 2 of the amendment relating to precincts is not proceeding at this stage and considers that this is a critical element in protecting heritage values in the Shire. The Panel has recommended accordingly that this work be completed as soon as possible….(our emphasis)

6.2 Recommendations

Based on the reasons set out in this Report, the Panel recommends:

Adopt Amendment C55 Part 1 to the Glenelg Planning Scheme subject to the recommendations below:

1. That the Glenelg Heritage Study Part 2a and any earlier heritage studies on which the Council relies be listed as reference documents as part of Amendment C75.

19