For the past 40 years, we have based all our heritage listings and conservation areas in NSW on one aspect only – ‘significance’. We currently use historical, associational, aesthetic, technical and social significance. For each of these five criteria, there are two further filters – representativeness and rarity.

But what about other considerations such as exceptionalism, uniqueness or landmark qualities? What about economic viability, such as the likelihood that a property will be well cared for and appreciated by the owners or quite the opposite? Should we be using an outcome basis for our listings to ensure that every property identified for listing stands a decent chance of being looked after and appreciated? If not, perhaps the listing should be cancelled.

In previous blogs, I have spoken about these issues with how Australia, and NSW in particular, place too much emphasis on heritage significance. I have argued that we should consider new parameters for assessing whether a heritage listing should be kept and maintained or struck from the records. Our heritage system is due for an overhaul. But to start such a large reform, we need to look at some other jurisdictions to see how they deal with issues of significance and self-funding.

For this reason, I will first look at the American heritage management system.

In the United States, potential National Historic Landmarks are identified by theme studies, or in some instances, special studies. Nominations and recommendations are made and considered in the scheduling and conducting of these studies by the appropriate State officials, Federal Preservation Officers and other interested parties. National Park Service (NPS) defines and systematically conducts organised theme studies which encompass the major aspects of American history. The theme studies provide a contextual framework to evaluate the relative significance of historic properties and determine which properties meet National Historic Landmark criteria. Therefore, theme studies are announced in advance of a property being listed.

Our system in NSW does not adopt such a system. The listings are especially at the local level and executed on a council-by-council basis. One council is not aware of what another council may be doing.

The key differences between our systems are:

• The USA system is national as opposed to Australia’s fragmented system, which has local, state, national, Commonwealth and World Heritage (UNESCO) listings.

• The USA system establishes the listing themes prior to nominations, which must then meet the preset criteria. In NSW, we do not have such a system even though we tried several years ago, when the ‘convict’ listings were made circa 2011. This means that our heritage lists are filled with random entries from over the years and there are no preset qualifications worked into the system.

• The USA system is directly linked to the ‘Rehabilitation Tax Credit’ (RTC) scheme – a federal tax incentive for preserving historic structures in the U.S. It offers a tax credit for 20% of the expenses for substantially rehabilitating buildings for business or income-generating use. Those who take advantage of the credit are required to preserve the historic character of the property. The rehabilitation credit is offered by the U.S. Government to encourage the preservation of historic properties across the country. The credit is intended in part as a recovery tool for the American economy as it encourages private investment, revitalising communities and creating jobs.

Since the inception of the RTC in 1976, more than $8 billion has been raised by private investment for conservation. Australia lacks such a scheme. There are no incentives to owners of heritage properties who choose to diligently care for their listed places.

The closest example that comes to mind is Sydney City Council’s Transferable Development Rights (TDR) scheme. Through TDR in the CBD, the notional air space above the property is awarded to owners every 25 years. The award is financial and often runs into several million dollars. However, the amount is dependent on the size of the land and the way the Development Application (DA) deals with the conservation. The city council has the legal right to vary the award depending on what is planned for the site. But, to the best of my knowledge, none of the other 150 councils and shires provide heritage incentive schemes.

Apart from Sydney City Council and the occasional grants that come around, we have very little government commitment to heritage, other than councils carrying big sticks enshrined into the legislation. If we aligned ourselves more with the American heritage system, we would have both carrots and sticks. I have come to see this as our biggest weakness.

Coming back to the USA’s National Historic Landmark building system, there are six criteria for heritage listing as follows:

Australia needs to develop a more specific system for its heritage listings. Doing so would increase greater protection for our heritage buildings and encourage more innovative, sustainable and outcomes-based approaches to redevelopment. We should look to the U.S. model to obtain ideas for how we can form our own criteria and thematic groupings for categorising our heritage stock outside the ‘significance’ label. From there, we can better determine which sites or buildings are worth keeping, and which ones are not and can be removed from the current lists.

Owners may also gain more confidence and willingness to manage or re-use a heritage property because of financial or government incentives. They will see a benefit and feel they have the support to tackle such projects. Heritage incentives would emphasise all the potential of these heritage properties, which may have been overlooked previously. The Australian and NSW Governments should therefore consider creating more heritage incentives, such as our equivalent to the Rehabilitation Tax Credit.

This is only one example of how another country tackles the management of their heritage properties. This will be the first blog in a series which will compare Australia’s approach to other regions. I look forward to hearing your thoughts and continuing this ‘significant’ discussion about heritage significance.

Paul Rappoport

Conservation Architect and Heritage Planner

25 March 2025

Image references:

Reid, Jessica. Statue of Liberty, New York. Photograph. A guide to the USA’s cultural UNESCO World Heritage Sites. Wanderlust. September 8, 2023. A guide to the USA’s cultural UNESCO World Heritage Sites – Wanderlust

30 Kent Street, Millers Point, NSW 2000. Photograph. Realestate. January 30, 2016. 30 Kent Street, Millers Point, NSW 2000 – realestate.com.au