Page 1836 - Week 05 - Thursday, 11 May 2017
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
v. attended two appeals on registration decisions in the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal (ACAT) (Northbourne Housing Precinct and AAA Building, Braddon);
vi. attended one registration appeal in the Supreme Court (Northbourne Housing Precinct); and
vii. attended one appeal on a Development Approval related to a heritage place in ACAT.
d. Every year, the Heritage Council determines an annual priority list of nominated places and objects to be assessed.
e. The Oaks Estate Precinct was included in the priority list in for assessment in 2014 and has been under active assessment since this time.
f. The length of time since the nomination has been made is not a consideration for determining its priority for assessment. Issues such as whether the place or object will be affected by land release or development threats, and combining like places for comparative assessment or places that fill a thematic gap in the heritage register are afforded a higher priority.
g. In some cases, nominations may be straightforward and can be easily and quickly assessed. In others – such as with precincts – a single nomination may take many months or years to assess, due to increased complexities involved and the extensive number of stakeholders that need to be consulted.
h. While the Heritage Council recognises it has taken a long time for a decision to be made, the nominated area is a complex place with a range of relevant heritage values and this has contributed to the length of time taken to undertake the detailed independent assessment required by the Heritage Act.
i. Registration assessments involve layers of expert input and external comment, all of which Heritage Council draws on to make its final decision. This includes:
i. information from nominators (if it exists);
ii. expert staff research and advice;
iii. expert Heritage Council member research, advice and consideration, especially by Council’s Register Taskforce; and
iv. other expert and community input and comment.
j. This layered approach is common in Australian jurisdictions, and is a strength of the process.
k. Another factor in assessing nominations is that the quality of information provided in older nominations made prior to the introduction of the Heritage Act contain limited or no information about heritage significance. To assess these types of nominations requires extensive research to be undertaken. Under the current Heritage Act, a much higher level of information and an assessment against heritage significance criteria is required for a nomination application to be accepted by the Heritage Council.
l. The Heritage Council must also balance the requirement to assess nominations with its other statutory reporting and advisory functions as prescribed under the Heritage Act. This can, and frequently does involve resource intensive appeals on registration decisions to the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal (ACAT) and the Supreme Court. While appeals to the ACAT on registration decisions reflect community
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video