Some weeks ago, I held a Q&A session with the Heritage 21 team. This discussion was prompted by a need to reflect on the current state of heritage management in NSW, and to speak about relevant matters that impact our work as heritage consultants.

One of the recent topics that I have touched on in previous blogs is Australia’s approach to assessing heritage significance, particularly in NSW. I wanted to ask the staff their views on the matter.

We all agreed that the decision to list a place or building is very subjective and haphazard. The listing that an item receives is heavily based on the context in which it is assessed.

A question I posed to the group was: Are representativeness and rarity to be considered as criteria, or are they filters for the other five? For me, they are filters. With Historical, Aesthetic, Associational, Technical and Social Significance, you question these criteria each time from a representational and rarity point of view. Others felt that they can both be a criterion in and of itself while also representing something else. The term ‘representative significance’ is also over-used when classifying items based on building type or period.

The staff agreed that we have too many listings, especially at the local level. We need to find ways to streamline the process.

I have suggested previously that a comprehensive review by NSW Heritage is required. We need to identify the very best examples of each building type from our past. By looking at where these best examples are, we can then concentrate on real conservation, i.e., if the pool of buildings is small enough, we can (as a community) find the money (grants, awards, etc.) to fix and maintain these items. In NSW, if you include all the representative items in conservation areas, you will find at least 40,00 items. That is far too many. If we reduced the number to say, a maximum of 25 items per Local Government Area (LGA), we could cull the listings down to 3,750. Some LGAs (Inner West, Woollahra, Sydney) would have 25 listings maximum, but the other non-Metropolitan areas would have less. Imagine only 3,750 items instead of 40,000. At least 3,750 would be manageable.

If each LGA had only 25 exemplars, we could easily link the items to a heritage tourist trail, with open days and visitation as well, so that local and foreign tourists can see, understand, touch and contemplate what these exemplars represent. We could also have adequate interpretations. This is what we should be working towards. Each community per each LGA would be able to contribute financially to the upkeep and maintenance of these selected items. Encouraging a tourist approach as part of assessing heritage significance for our items was something that I raised with the staff.

I also provided the example of English Heritage restricting the number of items that London is required to look after. I suggested that we need to prioritise a national list like the U.K and the U.S, with the necessary gradings, instead of having 90 different lists.

How heritage significance should be assessed is often a source of debate. Our Q&A discussion was no exception.

Paul Rappoport

Conservation Architect and Heritage Planner

17 April 2025

Image References:

Kchungtw. “Retro United Kingdom travel concept illustration on treasure map”, Dreamstime, May 21, 2016. United Kingdom Travel Concept Stock Vector – Illustration of london, attractive: 66984413

Sau, Katherine. “Employee Appreciation Quotes: Motivate your Employees!”, Litspace, February 5, 2024. Employee Appreciation Quotes: Motivate your Employees!