Dr. Robyn Clinch (see reference below) writes that there is a considerable disconnect between the theoretical education of potential heritage practitioners and those whose task it is to process heritage applications for proposed developments involving heritage buildings. This is especially the case in Australian planning jurisdictions. Although there are excellent theoretical principles that underpin practice by heritage professionals, the implementation of these practices, in reality, relies upon mechanistic and autonomous controls on the part of planning apparatchiks whose knowledge is not necessarily aligned with ever-shifting heritage orthodoxies. Nor should they necessarily be. I will come back to this point in just a moment.

The Burra Charter is a pre-eminent Australian heritage document that lays out clear conservation techniques for cultural built heritage places in Australia. It is an amalgam of philosophies and ideas that attempt to systematise approaches to technical heritage problems and issues. Its primary ontology seeks to convert the theoretical into the practical. However, its precepts are arcane and rarely understood by non-heritage professionals. Additionally, a one size fits all approach to specific heritage problems invites a plethora of different responses according to the subjectivity and proclivities of the beholder. Heritage is in essence, is a social construct and is therefore prone to multiple perceptions and interpretations. This brings me back to the point above about why it is not necessary for planners (non-heritage professionals) to know the ins and outs of heritage. After all, heritage is a hybrid specialisations of planning, architecture, law, aesthetics, culture, history and building technology; not to mention geography, anthropology, social science, archaeology and interpretation – a rare combination of skills and knowledge. It is therefore best to have trained heritage professionals processing development applications that involve heritage buildings and places and not planners. Like medicine, planning has become siloed into specialties amongst which ‘heritage’ is one such specialty. Having said that, I have noticed recently that there has been a shift in NSW planning jurisdictions (councils) away from in-house staff (planners) being involved in heritage decision-making. Many applications involving heritage today are either processed by internal, trained heritage staff (usually hired on an as-needs basis), design review panels comprising architects (but not necessarily trained heritage professionals) or are delegated to private heritage consultants who consult directly to council for specific applications by way of peer review. This is a good move and augers well for the sector. In these blogs, I have repeatedly invoked the moral that cultural built heritage is high art and a rare science. It is not to be treated lightly. Once destroyed, removed or vandalised, it can never be regained. In this respect, it is priceless. But priceless not in monetary terms – priceless in social terms. No matter the rate of change to urban infrastructure (Sydney has recently witnessed massive change to its CBD, suburbs and peripheral towns as result of a boom in development), it is always necessary to manage and protect the identified heritage stock. Being flexible and pre-emptive with heritage management systems is key. However, having the correctly trained and suitable staff processing heritage applications is essential and local and state governments need to allocate sufficient resources for this. By the same token, politicians require the political will for this to happen.

Paul Rappoport –Heritage 21
14 December 2018

Reference:

Clinch, R – Fabric and
philosophy – heritage fabric and statutory controls in Proceedings of the
Fabric – The Threads of Conservation (Australia Icomos Conference, Adelaide),
2015.