When were our heritage lists in NSW last reviewed? The answer – never.

I started off in the heritage industry in the mid-1980s, so I am aware of the haphazard manner in which heritage items were listed back in the day.

Each council would employ external heritage consultants to draw up the lists. Quite often, they were drive-by assessments because the consultants were not allowed entry into the establishment’s interior.

Most homeowners had no idea of the future implications of having their buildings identified as a place of interest. The letters informing the owners were simply ignored. There were the occasional few that would be prepared to put up a fight. However, in the mid-1980s, these were few and far between. Of course, there were the savvy owners who commissioned their lawyers to put up a fight. Yet very few did. Unlike today, virtually every listee not only commissions lawyers, but barristers too.

There seems to be a fear by owners of having their buildings heritage-listed. The perception is that a listing will de-value the financial worth of the property. It is a fear that goes back to the early 1970s when lists were beginning to be prepared. It is still prevalent in today’s society. As a heritage consultant, for the past 35 years in NSW, I have attempted to allay those fears by extolling the virtues of our heritage legislation – specifically clause 5.10 (3) and 5.10 (10). These unfortunately are our only heritage incentive clauses. In the case of the latter, for large buildings, it can be an absolute boon, especially being able to contain a use that would otherwise be prohibited. With the use of these clauses, I find it easier to convince heritage owners that there are benefits in having one’s property heritage-listed. If not for these two clauses, I would agree with the general sentiment that it is a disadvantage to have one’s property heritage-listed.

By the 2000s, councils began to find out that the proposed listings were very unpopular and so the traditional listing campaigns were dropped. This was followed by the NSW Productivity Report (2006), which was generated by the Federal Treasury Department in Canberra. The initial report suggested that heritage listing should be voluntary. The committee that was answerable for the recommendations to the government found that most owners of heritage listed properties had no idea at the time of what the listings implied. It reported that councils had done the listings by stealth and should not have been allowed. However, there was intense backlash from the heritage consultancy community which wrote to the minister complaining that heritage listing should not be voluntary. It should be implemented by law in accordance with the Office of Local Government NSW.

The upshot of all of this is that heritage listing in 90% of cases is seen by their owners as a threat to the monetary value of the property. Owners today object to the serious limitations placed on such properties due to the heritage listing. Limitations include restrictions on what can be built, prohibition against demolition and restrictions that are more onerous than on properties that are not heritage-listed. This creates an imbalance which causes owners of heritage buildings to feel that they are singled out, as if under the sword of Damocles.

Back in the 80s and 90s when most of the listing campaigns took place, the process was stop-start, haphazard and political. If an owner objected to the listing and shouted loud enough about it, the item would simply be cancelled from the list. But if an owner, for instance, took ten or more years to object, councils had the right to ignore such objections. More than anything, due to the seemingly random manner in which these listing campaigns were waged, there was a lot of doubling up. Often, the recommendations by the appointed heritage consultants were ignored or if there had been behind the scenes resistance from an owner, the recommended item would be struck off the list.

Similarly, many obvious candidates were simply left out due to delimiting factors, such as prescribed areas having been excluded for political reasons. Another factor, in the mix is that the councils appointing the heritage consultants to undertake the surveys of potential items did not pay much. I remember working it out back then to be as little as $10 an item, which included drawing up an inventory sheet for each nominated building as part of the fee, and also the fact that the consultant was not allowed inside. This resulted in the listing nominations being assessed on the basis of external appearance only.

Another factor is that each of the councils had their own method for procuring the lists. There are approximately 150 separate councils and shires in NSW. The metropolitan councils were flush with funds back in those days (not anymore), whereas the country councils had less funding to wage listing campaigns. Hence, there is enormous inconsistency across the board. This further contributes to the random nature of the campaigns, not to mention the questionable credentials and experience of some of the appointed consultants. Finally, back in the 80s and 90s, tourism (local and overseas) was never a factor. Today, it most certainly is.

As a result, our lists in NSW are faulty. We need to go back and review them all. Since it has never been done, the government should set aside a decent sum of money so that the review is comprehensive, outcome-driven and categorical. In other words, explaining why an item has been nominated and then the council’s explanation as to why or why not an item is to be endorsed.

Paul Rappoport

Conservation Architect and Heritage Planner

25 February 2025

Image References:

Focus photography of stacked hardbound books HD wallpaper. Wallpaper Flare, 2022.

Agent with keys family in front of house agent. Freepik, 2023. Group of people sitting around a table with tiny, wooden houses lined up.

Tony Ibrahim. The lots at 140A Hawthorne Parade, Haberfield. Prime Land in Sydney suburb of Haberfield expected to go under the hammer after 18-year delay. ABC News, 2021. Prime land in Sydney suburb of Haberfield expected to go under hammer after 18-year delay – ABC News