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 Victoria 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