|
Issues ConditionResponses- Planning Scheme Provisions
|
|
At a glance The issue Development, without due regard for cultural heritage values, is one of the most significant pressures on cultural heritage values. In principle, both Aboriginal and European heritages are protected under the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993. One of the objectives of the planning process established by the Act is to conserve buildings, areas or other places which are of scientific, aesthetic or historical interest, or otherwise of special cultural value. The Act also governs the development and administration of local government planning schemes. Therefore, making planning schemes key instruments through which the strategic protection of heritage values and development control can be achieved. The first SoE Report (1997) prepared a review of the cultural heritage provisions in 58 of the planning schemes in operation at the time. This assessment has been updated in 2003 for the second SoE Report and includes all 41 of the now currently active planning schemes in the 29 local councils. The provisions of the Tasman Council planning schemes were not assessed in the first review, however, they have been included in this review. Direct comparisons are made with the first review where possibl. However, the difference in the total number of assessed planning schemes for each review should be noted when comparing percentages. The review is aimed at capturing the current status of the scope and comprehensiveness of the cultural heritage provisions included in the planning schemes in order to compare and contrast with the review of the first SoE Report. Heritage Provisions in Planning Schemes for 2003 are provided in the accompanying table. This 'At a glance' section provides a summary of the review of Tasmania's planning scheme provisions for cultural heritage. More detailed information and references are contained in the Planning Scheme Provisions Issue Report. A number of related recommendations are presented. Favourable news - There has been improvement in the heritage provisions supplied by planning schemes through the inclusion of heritage sections in most planning schemes. The heritage sections deliver development requirements relating to heritage buildings or places. Currently, 97% of planning schemes contain a heritage section compared to 71% in 1997.
- A number of planning schemes have adopted comprehensive development standards for specific heritage areas, zones or precincts (e.g. Tasman Planning Scheme 1979, Circular Head Interim Order No.1 1995, Richmond Interim Order No.3 1993 and Brighton Interim Order No.1 1992). The Pontville Historic Town Precinct (Brighton Interim Order No.1 1992) has extensive development requirements for a number of aspects including lot size, boundary set-backs, roof form, facade and colour to maintain the historic character of the township.
- More planning schemes now include a list of heritage items. Eighty percent of planning schemes currently include a heritage list, compared to 71% in 1997. The lists identify specific heritage items requiring protection and the associated clauses provide development requirements relating to these items. The heritage lists usually include a site address and description for easy location.
- Greater reference is made to heritage protection through controls on use and development in surrounding areas. Sixty-eight percent of planning schemes include controls or objectives for areas surrounding a heritage item, compared to 48% in 1997. Most schemes state that new development will 'consider', 'be sympathetic to' or 'protect' the heritage values or historic character of the area.
- The review has revealed that more planning schemes have provisions for establishing a heritage advisory committee. Committees are appointed to assist the Council in determining applications for planning approval relating to buildings or sites of historic value.
- Major improvements have occurred in the Devonport and Environs, Meander Valley, Circular Head and Waratah/Wynyard planning schemes, since the last SoE Report in 1997, through the inclusion of heritage sections. Meander Valley, Circular Head and Waratah/Wynyard are new planning schemes since the last review, while the Devonport and Environs Planning Scheme 1984 has included heritage provisions through two amendments. Both Devonport and Circular Head include a heritage list, while Devonport also provides maps of significant heritage areas with character statements.
Unfavourable news - There seems to be a bias towards the inclusion of nineteenth century European buildings in heritage lists. There are limited listings of Aboriginal cultural heritage, with only one planning scheme (Break O'Day Planning Scheme 1996) using the Aboriginal Sites Index as a source for its heritage list.
- Fewer planning schemes are using maps for delineating heritage precincts/areas or locating listed heritage items. The number of planning schemes that include maps has decreased from 38% in 1997 to 12% in 2003. The majority of heritage lists provide some information on site location and description, however the use of maps is limited.
- There are still many planning schemes that lack controls for use and development adjacent to and surrounding heritage sites (32% out of 41 currently active schemes). Inappropriate development adjacent to, or surrounding, a protected heritage site has the ability to detract from the character of the item and its setting.
- There are many inconsistencies among the heritage sections included in planning schemes. The major differences are evident when comparing the older schemes (pre-1996) with the more recent schemes. The majority of older planning schemes include a schedule, supplying a heritage list, with separate clauses detailing the provisions for protecting the listed items. Newer planning schemes include heritage codes, overlay controls and special area provisions. Inconsistencies between heritage sections can create difficulties when interpreting and understanding the provisions. There is merit in clauses and provisions being tailored to local needs, however the lack of standardisation among section titles and schedule numbering is confusing.
Uncertain news - The review for the first SoE Report did not assess the scope of the heritage provisions or the capacity for the planning scheme to establish a heritage advisory committee to provide advice on the use and development of heritage listed items. Therefore, it is uncertain whether there have been any changes, as no direct comparisons could be made.
- There is uncertainty as to whether local government regularly reviews heritage provisions and heritage lists within their planning schemes. However, regular reviews and listings are required under legislation as part of the Tasmanian Heritage Register.
|
|
