HERITAGE COUNCIL SUBMISSION ON VEAC DRAFT PROPOSALS PAPER –
INVESTIGATION INTO HISTORIC PLACES ON PUBLIC LAND
1.
Introduction
The Heritage Council of Victoria is pleased to have this opportunity to comment on the
Victorian Environmental Assessment Council (VEAC) Draft Proposals Paper for the
Investigation into Historic Places on Public Land.
The Heritage Council congratulates VEAC on a well-researched and thought provoking
document. The section on the evolution of heritage appreciation and protection in Victoria is
particularly useful. The assessment of the challenges facing the custodians or managers of
public land heritage places is also informative, but the Heritage Council believes that the
concentration on places on the Victorian Heritage Register (VHR) means that the scale of the
problem is underestimated. The Heritage Council does not support some of the solutions
proposed to deal with identified problems and has reservations about others. Overall, it
considers that VEAC has overlooked opportunities to strengthen the existing regime for
heritage identification, registration and management while achieving desired improvements.
This submission will deal in turn with the following topics:
2.

coverage of the investigation

statement of issues

comments on recommendations

other points from the Draft Proposals Paper which relate to the Heritage Council’s and
Heritage Victoria’s responsibilities or current projects

more detailed commentary about heritage places identified in local heritage studies and
the operation of the Heritage Overlay (HO) in planning schemes

other issues arising from the Draft Proposals Paper.
Coverage of the investigation
The Heritage Council notes that the Terms of Reference for the investigation, by implication,
refer to all historic places on public land, not just those that have been assessed as being of
State significance and added to the VHR. The third point of the terms of reference requires
recommendations:
… for opportunities to improve management arrangements to conserve, protect and enhance
the historic, community and educational values of these places, including the potential for
sustainable use and adaptive re-use of historic assets.
While the Heritage Council understands that the investigation is strategic in scope and the
focus is on the setting and systems within which management of historic places on public land
occurs, it considers that the whole of the historic estate of public land needs to be considered.
In this connection, we note that the Draft Proposals Paper acknowledges that there are
numerous heritage sites on public land included under local government heritage overlays, but
it does not include any analysis of them or make any recommendations concerning them.
The Heritage Council also notes the statement (p. 4) concerning the definition of historic
places for the purposes of the investigation, which refers to sites or areas, buildings or groups
of buildings, historic objects and post-contact Aboriginal heritage places. It suggests that this
should also include infrastructure. This term would encompass linear infrastructure such as
road, rail, water and sewerage systems, as well as other constructions such as bridges, fire
towers, mining relics (e.g. water races), saltpans, wharves or drystone walls.
1
Heritage Council submission to VEAC Investigation into Historic Places on Public Land – Draft Proposals Paper
December 21, 2015
3.
Statement of issues
The Heritage Council generally endorses the identification of major issues in the Executive
Summary:

an absence of oversight, no single point of accountability for public land heritage

long-term under-resourcing and increasingly unreliable funding

no consolidation of the relevant information necessary for coordinated strategic planning and
insufficient information to inform decision-making, poor data rigour

administrative requirements that impede adaptive reuse and diminish income generating potential
for some places.
The Heritage Council has assumed from the summary of submissions made in the first stage
of public input that the scope of the investigation was to some extent guided by the concerns
of those who responded and by subsequent consultations with public land managers. There
are several important points made in this section, including:

the uncertainty and inconsistency of resourcing for management of historic places on
public land

the need for a stronger commitment from government to champion heritage
conservation and protection of historic places

the difficulty of obtaining grants, particularly for places not listed on the VHR

the importance and value of historic places to the community

the need to improve mechanisms for protecting heritage landscapes

the potential of heritage tourism

the desirability of integrating heritage into asset management

deficiencies in the information available to guide management of historic places.
Further commentary on some of these issues is included in the section on the responsibilities
of the Heritage Council and Heritage Victoria.
While Melbourne Water’s approach to managing its heritage assets (as described in this
section) is heartening, it must be recognised that many other agencies, such as regional water
authorities, do not have the same resources.
Several key issues are identified in the section on evolution of heritage appreciation and
protection, including the difficulty of maintaining ‘non-operational’ heritage assets, particularly
those held by corporatised government entities. While it is true that the catalyst for heritage
listing can be public and professional concern about infrastructure that is proposed for
decommissioning, agencies should be encouraged to take a proactive approach to their
historic assets, whether or not they have formal heritage designations.
This section seems to have rather too strong an emphasis on heritage as a ‘burden’, without
recognising the benefits and opportunities it can present, such as maintaining or creating a
sense of place and cultural identity, or forming a key attraction for cultural tourism.
While the Draft Proposals Paper identifies the role of local government as Committee of
Management for historic places on public land, the Heritage Council believes that there is
insufficient acknowledgement of the pressures this places on individual councils. Some of the
public land heritage places involved (particularly those on the VHR) are complex sites
containing a number of buildings, substantial items of public infrastructure and/or extensive
land areas, such as the Omeo Justice Precinct or the ‘New Works’ Historic Area at Lakes
Entrance. Local government as Committee of Management experiences many of the same
problems as those identified for community-based management committees. Although
2
Heritage Council submission to VEAC Investigation into Historic Places on Public Land – Draft Proposals Paper
December 21, 2015
Councils may have greater resources and access to advice through their Heritage Advisers,
they often need to deal with a significant backlog of maintenance that existed at the time the
places were transferred to their control. It is not equitable that this should be done at the
expense of ratepayers, without a government contribution.
In addition, as noted in the Draft Proposals Paper, some Councils have agreed to take
responsibility for maintenance of major heritage items such as avenues of honour that are
technically the responsibility of government agencies like VicRoads. This can be a very
substantial commitment: for example, Moorabool Shire Council’s total expenditure (including
maintenance and conservation planning) on the Bacchus Marsh Avenue of Honour has
totalled $2,123,786 in the 10 years since 2005-06.1
4.
Comments on recommendations
Recommendation 1 – Commissioner for Public Land Heritage
The Heritage Council considers that it is essential that the functions identified for the proposed
Commissioner for Public Land Heritage be carried out by an agency within the Victorian
Government, but it does not support the establishment of a separate entity. The office of the
commissioner would need to be staffed and funded, removing already scarce resources from
existing heritage management bodies and creating the potential for duplication and confusion
over responsibilities. There is also a risk that the existence of a commissioner might reduce
the commitment of public land management agencies to taking responsibility for their own
heritage places.
The Heritage Council believes that accountability for protecting historic places on public land
should be embedded within the managing agencies, with Heritage Victoria and the Heritage
Council (as appropriate) resourced to take on the coordination functions. This would be
consistent with the roles of the Heritage Council set out in section 8 of the Heritage Act
including: advising (a) the Minister and (g) government departments and agencies and
municipal councils; (i) liaising with other bodies; (b) promoting public awareness; and (j)
undertaking research.
Funding could be provided directly to the Heritage Council to undertake most of the functions
identified for the Commissioner for Public Land Heritage. Some of these could then
appropriately be delegated to Heritage Victoria. It is recognised that carrying out the full range
of functions would require skills in addition to those available within existing heritage bodies,
including an understanding of Aboriginal cultural heritage values, so extra staff would need to
be recruited. However, staff would also be required for the office of the commissioner, not only
for professional but also for administrative roles that currently exist within Heritage Council /
Heritage Victoria.
Membership of the Heritage Council could be amended to include a public land manager with
experience in management of heritage assets. The Council could then provide support to a
group of relevant public land managers to work together to improve management of heritage
assets.
If a commissioner for public land heritage is to be appointed, the position should be located in
the portfolio responsible for heritage, so that the Minister would be able to take steps, if
required, to ensure that the commissioner acts consistently with the purposes of the Heritage
Act.
1 Source: Moorabool Shire Council
3
Heritage Council submission to VEAC Investigation into Historic Places on Public Land – Draft Proposals Paper
December 21, 2015
Recommendation 2 – Minimum standards for management of historic places on public land
The Heritage Council agrees generally with this recommendation and notes that the recent
discussion paper on the Heritage Act review included a proposal to empower the Heritage
Council to issue directions for minimum standards of repair and maintenance for all places on
the VHR (not just those on public land). This was based on a similar provision in the New
South Wales heritage legislation.
The minimum standards could take the form of a policy adopted by Heritage Council and
Heritage Victoria, or be implemented through the Heritage (General) Regulations. Minimum
standards of maintenance for historic places on public land could also be incorporated into the
periodic ‘statements of expectation’ or ‘statements of obligation’ to agencies from the relevant
Minister, to explicitly require appropriate maintenance of historic places under their control,
including redundant assets.
Given the range of heritage places on public land and their different levels of intactness or
condition, an essential prior step would be development of a Conservation Management Plan
(or at least a summary Heritage Action Plan or statement) for each place, to determine the
work required to return it to a point where its condition could be maintained by regular
scheduled maintenance. These plans or statements should be endorsed by Heritage Victoria
and would form the basis for monitoring of performance.
If minimum standards were to be introduced, it would be beneficial to strengthen the
enforcement role of the Executive Director of Heritage Victoria. Consideration could also be
given to removing the provision in the Act that requires the Executive Director, or the Heritage
Council on appeal, to take into account whether refusal of a permit would ‘unreasonably
detrimentally affect the ability of the public authority to carry out a statutory duty specified in
the application’ (s.73[e]).
The Heritage Council notes, also, that embodying in the Heritage Act a requirement for
minimum standards of maintenance of historic places on public land will encompass only
places on the VHR, not those listed under HOs in planning schemes.
Recommendation 3 – Reliable well-managed data to inform strategic management
HERMES, the electronic database maintained by Heritage Victoria / Department of
Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP), is an information resource rather than a
formal list of places that are protected. This is found in the VHR and HO schedules in planning
schemes. Sources of information in HERMES include local government heritage studies, as
well as the others listed (p. 26).
The Heritage Council acknowledges the shortcomings of some data in HERMES, but
considers it would be better to apply resources to improving the existing system, rather than
establishing another, especially as this would be divorced from the parallel system containing
information about heritage places on freehold land.
With adequate resources, HERMES could be modified to allow heritage places on public land
to be identified readily and / or to add fields specific to the management of public assets.
There may also be a case for revising the entries for heritage places on public land, to improve
their effectiveness as a basis for strategic planning and identifying management priorities.
However, the Heritage Council doubts whether this should be a priority, given the scarcity of
resources for heritage management.
Recommendation 4 – Addressing under-representation of some types of places on VHR
The Heritage Council believes that some misapprehensions are evident in this section (and in
the preceding discussion on pp. 27-30), particularly in relation to the perceived under- or over4
Heritage Council submission to VEAC Investigation into Historic Places on Public Land – Draft Proposals Paper
December 21, 2015
representation of types of places. It appears to be based on an expectation that something
equivalent to the ‘comprehensive, adequate and representative’ (CAR) reserve system for
protected natural areas should be established in the heritage sphere. This does not reflect the
way in which heritage protection in Victoria has operated to date.
All places on the VHR have been assessed as meeting the threshold of State significance
against established heritage criteria. There is no ‘pecking order’ within the VHR that says that
some places within a group of similar places are more important than others.
Removal of places from the VHR is the responsibility of the Heritage Council, on the
recommendation of the Executive Director of Heritage Victoria, and must follow a detailed
process set out in the Heritage Act. Heritage Council has removed places in the past because
they have been destroyed, for example by fire. However, it does not consider that a perception
of ‘over-representation’ is grounds for places to be removed.
The emphasis in the VEAC investigation on places on the VHR also overlooks the very broad
range of heritage sites and areas listed under Heritage Overlays in planning schemes
(discussed in more detail in section 6 below).
In addition, there are large numbers of sites that have been identified in municipal heritage
studies or thematic studies undertaken in association with government agencies (e.g. for
Alpine Huts) that have been identified as reaching the threshold for State significance, but
have not been considered for addition to the VHR. They may form part of the ‘backlog’ of
nominations that Heritage Victoria has not yet been able to assess, or they may not have been
nominated at all, because the relevant local government or state agency has not taken
responsibility for doing so, or has lacked appropriate resources.
Heritage Council considers it to be a priority that additional resources should be made
available to allow Heritage Victoria to deal with the backlog of nominations, which has of
necessity been prioritised to give attention to places at risk. Other agencies should also be
supported to ensure that heritage places on public land that have been assessed as being of
State significance are nominated to the VHR.
The Heritage Council believes that, as an action flowing from a new Victorian Heritage
Strategy, the Heritage Council and Heritage Victoria should be resourced to undertake a broad
review of the representativeness of all places on the VHR (not just those on public land)
against Victoria’s historic themes. This should include comparisons with other jurisdictions, in
terms of the coverage of places on their statutory register. This could lead to commissioning
of thematic studies to fill identified gaps.
However, such studies are likely to be expensive and may not be a priority for the use of funds,
compared with better management of historic places. They are also likely to be long-term
projects. In this regard, the Heritage Council considers that the timetable proposed in Draft
Recommendation 4 for implementation of the study of under-represented places is unrealistic.
Recommendation 5 – Continuing to work to recognise and protect shared values
The Joint Working Group (JWG) of the Heritage Council of Victoria and the Victorian
Aboriginal Heritage Council, as well as the Heritage Council as a whole, endorses the spirit
and intent of this recommendation. It notes that Heritage Victoria will require additional
resources to implement recognition of shared values in new and existing VHR registrations.
The JWG and the Heritage Council also suggest that the Government should commission a
state-wide thematic history to elaborate the thematic framework developed as part of the
shared values project. This would inform and contextualise new nominations to the VHR and
5
Heritage Council submission to VEAC Investigation into Historic Places on Public Land – Draft Proposals Paper
December 21, 2015
amendment of existing VHR-listed places. Ideally, the thematic history would be prepared with
significant Traditional Owner input, perhaps through a series of workshops or a multi-author
writing team. Alternatively, smaller thematic studies could be prepared sequentially for each of
the themes in the thematic framework.
A longer-term strategy should also be established to ensure that Aboriginal and shared values
are better recognised in VHR place listings. This may include establishing protocols on the use
of appropriate and respectful language and ensuring Traditional Owner perspective on history
and heritage are included.
It is also desirable that Heritage Overlay schedules in Victorian planning schemes be updated
to recognise Aboriginal and shared heritage values for locally significant places. Professional
updates and information should be offered to support and encourage local government
authorities to take up this initiative. Local government should also be encouraged to consider
the concept of Aboriginal and shared heritage values through revisions to existing local
heritage studies, including statements of significance. This requirement should be added to the
standard brief for new heritage studies, providing valuable guidance for local government
authorities, consultants or internal project teams. Municipal heritage strategies should also
recognise and promote the concept of shared values.
Some detailed suggestions are included in Appendix A to this submission to clarify the wording
of some statements in the Draft Proposals Paper and to update others to reflect progress with
the shared values project.
Recommendation 6 – Improving government leasehold arrangements
The Heritage Council generally supports this recommendation, and the proposition that reuse
of historic buildings can be a desirable way to retain values and maintain social relevance into
the future.
While VEAC has recognised not all historic buildings are candidates for adaptive reuse
because of ‘location, ability to reuse the space or prohibitive costs’, the Heritage Council
cautions that there could be other reasons why adaptation to a new use may be inappropriate.
These include cases where adaptive reuse requires major interventions in significant fabric, or
where proposed new uses are incompatible with a continued appreciation of the original
purpose and values of the place. Some commercially viable new uses may be unacceptable to
the local community because they would alienate the building from public access.
The Heritage Council agrees that a policy on adaptive reuse of public heritage places is highly
desirable. It also supports most of the recommended actions, except it believes that they
should be carried out by Heritage Victoria / Heritage Council (appropriately resourced and with
a wider skills base available) rather than the proposed commissioner. The Heritage Council
could convene a cross-agency group to develop best-practice models for adaptive reuse of
heritage places.
Recommendation 7 – Improving arrangements and support for community-based Committees
of Management
The Heritage Council supports the actions set out in this recommendation. It should be noted
that the Heritage Council already has a small awards program and that individuals and
Committees of Management working on public heritage assets have been recognised in the
past.
6
Heritage Council submission to VEAC Investigation into Historic Places on Public Land – Draft Proposals Paper
December 21, 2015
The Heritage Council also believes that additional support, though of a rather different nature,
is required for local government where it is identified as a Committee of Management for
heritage places on public land.
While community-based Committees of Management should already have access to
professional advice from the relevant local government Heritage Adviser, there could be
advantages in establishing a heritage advice panel specifically for places on public land. This
could supplement the heritage expertise and skills within management agencies (which have
been reduced in recent years, as noted by the Draft Proposals Paper) as well as Committees
of Management.
A specific-purpose grant scheme for preparation of Conservation Management Plans for
historic places on public land could also be established. Any business plans developed for
relevant properties should take account of the recommendations of the Conservation
Management Plan for the place.
Rather than paying tenants to undertake maintenance, as suggested, a maintenance schedule
could form part of the lease and a concessional rent could be struck to acknowledge the
required work or expenditure.
Recommendation 8 – A trust for public land heritage
The Heritage Council generally supports the intent of this recommendation, with the caution
(as previously expressed) that not all heritage places on public land are suitable for lease or
sale. Those that are transitioned into private ownership or long-term leasehold should be
safeguarded through Conservation Management Plans, covenants or agreed schedules of
works.
Another reservation about the establishment of a trust for public land heritage it that it could
lead to an imbalance in the resources available to support conservation of privately-owned and
public heritage places.
The Heritage Council suggests that prior to recommending a new trust, VEAC might examine
whether any of the existing bodies, such as Working Heritage or the Victorian Heritage
Restoration Fund administered through the National Trust of Australia (Victoria), has the
capacity to carry out the tasks identified or whether they could do so if their charters were
extended.
Other models for trusts from interstate and elsewhere should be examined in detail. The
Heritage Council notes that the Victorian Conservation Trust Act 1972 (VCT Act) is one
potential model, but it believes that this legislation has a number of shortcomings, in terms of
the outcomes sought from the proposed trust. These include:

The preamble and objects of the VCT Act are vague; using these types of objects
should be avoided as it could lead to difficulties in interpreting the purpose of such a
trust, and what work it should actually do.

There is no power in the VCT Act for the Minister responsible for administering the Act
to direct the Trust for Nature to take any steps. If a new trust is established, the
Minister responsible for administering the Heritage Act should have the ultimate power
to direct the new trust to do anything the Minister requires, such as buy or sell land (or
not sell land) or other assets. This is important to ensure that a new trust can be
required to take steps that achieve the objects of heritage protection, not objects of
revenue raising, purchasing and selling land and fundraising. This would address the
inherent risk that a trust whose objective is to raise revenue by selling off and leasing
out public assets will have a direct conflict with the objects and purpose of the Heritage
Act to conserve and protect certain buildings of state heritage significance.
7
Heritage Council submission to VEAC Investigation into Historic Places on Public Land – Draft Proposals Paper
December 21, 2015

The ability of a trust to attract donations from the public to the trust and how this would
be managed need to be addressed in any future legislation to establish a new heritage
trust. It needs to be very clear about how any funds raised by the new trust could be
spent. The VCT Act does not clearly set out how funds raised by donations or other
sources should be spent. The issue of generating such donations and the time, cost
and effort required to obtain such donations should also be carefully considered.

The VCT Act does not provide clear guidance about how and when revenue raised
should be spent, and if and when assets should be purchased or sold.
Recommendation 9 – A revolving fund for public land heritage
The Heritage Council generally supports this recommendation. While the concept of a
‘revolving fund’ is familiar to many in government, care would need to be taken that the
general public is aware that money that goes into this fund will be used to prepare government
heritage assets for sale or lease.
The charter of the fund should set parameters – or include a mechanism for them to be set on
a periodic basis – to establish what assets are suitable for sale or long term lease and to
require Ministerial oversight of any proposed sales. This is required to resolve the inherent
conflict, identified above, between achieving the key objective to the fund – that is to generate
revenue – and acting in the best interests of the community in the management of the public
heritage estate.
In this regard, the Heritage Council notes with some concern the earlier comment (p. 36) that
suggests that one issue is ‘the sustainability of maintaining the current public land heritage
portfolio’. Reduction of government expenditure should not be a major driving force in
determining the appropriate future management or sale / lease of historic places on public land.
In the short term, the Heritage Council suggests that a project should be carried out to identify
available means under the current legislative framework by which money raised from heritage
places can be hypothecated for their conservation, rather than being returned to consolidated
revenue.
The Heritage Council is aware that many other government grant programs, such as grants to
regional bodies or local communities for economic development and employment-generating
initiatives, can be and often are applied to restoration of heritage places. A whole-ofgovernment approach could be adopted to ensure that projects that achieve heritage
outcomes for publicly-owned historic places are given priority in the allocation of such funds.
5.
Other points relevant to HC/HV responsibilities
Several comments or statements within the Draft Proposals Paper relating to the
responsibilities of the Heritage Council and Heritage Victoria are considered to be slightly
inaccurate or potentially misleading. These include:

A statement on the second page of the Executive Summary and a similar point in the
main report (p. 1, para.4) that reads
At the same time, the demands of their statutory heritage functions – which
largely centre on permit applications for activities on private land – have not
eased and have further shifted focus away from historic places on public land.
[Emphasis added]
The statutory functions of the Heritage Council and Heritage Victoria also include
the assessment of nominations to the VHR and, in the case of the Heritage
Council, hearing appeals against the recommendations of the Executive Director
as to whether places should be added to the VHR. In addition, while it is true that
permit applications applying to places in private ownership account for a
8
Heritage Council submission to VEAC Investigation into Historic Places on Public Land – Draft Proposals Paper
December 21, 2015
substantial amount of permit activity, it should be noted that many of the most
complex of these places are former government sites, for example, institutions
such as hospitals, training centres or gaols.

The description of the preparation of the Victorian Framework of Historic Themes (p. 5)
should acknowledge that the document was developed in close consultation with the
Aboriginal Heritage Council of Victoria.

The statement (p. 20) that ‘it is illegal to alter a VHR site or object without permission
from HV’ does not take into account permit exemptions. The permit policy determined
at the time of registration may exempt changes to particular components (e.g. interiors)
as well as maintenance activities that are carried out to the same detail and use the
same materials.
In addition, the Heritage Council believes that the final VEAC report should contain a
discussion of the thresholds used to determine if places warrant listing on the VHR and make
it clear that evaluation of nominated places includes a comparative assessment against places
of a similar type already listed or rejected for the VHR.
The Draft Proposals Paper refers in several places (including the Executive Summary, p. ii,
para 4) to a lack of information on the scale of the problem of deferred and unfunded
maintenance liabilities. Heritage Victoria carries out regular State of the Heritage Environment
assessments, which involve qualitative assessments of condition and threats. There is also a
current project, Living Heritage, which is assessing the condition and maintenance
requirements of a selection of different types of heritage places across the state, including
some places on public land.
The summary of issues raised in submissions on the first stage of consultation included the
need to protect heritage landscapes. The Heritage Council recognises that this is a deficiency
in the scope of heritage places included in the VHR. To a large extent, this results from
administrative impediments under the Heritage Act. In some cases, heritage landscapes such
as National Parks may be susceptible to adverse consequences from development on
adjoining private land. However, even where the parks or public land are themselves listed on
the VHR, there is seldom a buffer area provided. The Heritage Council has recently revised its
Landscape Assessment Guidelines and has also approved funding for a study, building on
previous work, to explore ways in which to overcome impediments to recognition of larger or
more complex State-significant areas, such as landscapes and heritage townships.
6.
Local government heritage roles and the operation of the Heritage Overlay
The Heritage Council believes that the role of local government in identification and
management of heritage places on public land deserves further discussion in the final VEAC
report and specific recommendations to address issues identified.
In addition, the Heritage Council considers that several points in the Draft Proposals Paper are
incorrect or misleading, including:

The discussion on p. 22 of HOs in planning schemes distinguishes between ‘cultural
significance’ and ‘natural significance such as trees, gardens or habitat’. Places listed
under the HO have all been assessed has having cultural heritage significance,
although some of them may be natural areas.

The comment that:
Local councils, in consultation with Heritage Victoria for VHR listed sites, are
responsible for issuing permits for the use and development of heritage places.
Although HO schedules list VHR places, the only roles local government has in relation
to these places (apart from the right to comment on permit applications) are: decisions
9
Heritage Council submission to VEAC Investigation into Historic Places on Public Land – Draft Proposals Paper
December 21, 2015
on proposed changes of use, where the ‘prohibited uses may be permitted’ provision
applies in the schedule; and in evaluation of subdivision applications. The former
should apply to all VHR places, but this is sometimes not carried through in individual
HO schedules. The local government role in approving subdivisions arises from zone
provisions in planning schemes and parallels rather than replaces that of Heritage
Victoria or Heritage Council in approving subdivisions under the Heritage Act.

The basis of the statement that the majority of sites under HOs are on private land and
that controls generally relate to external alterations or changes to the built environment
is unclear. Many public land historic places are included under HOs and internal
controls apply to some of them.

The attribution of Planning Practice Note No.1 – Applying the Heritage Overlay
(PPN01) to Heritage Victoria and the Heritage Council is incorrect. PPN01 was issued
and is updated by the Department responsible for planning (currently DELWP), with
advice from Heritage Victoria staff.

The ‘guides to assist local councils with heritage permit assessments and planning
decisions’ presumably refers to Draft Guidelines for Assessing Planning Permit
Applications prepared by the Heritage Council and Heritage Victoria in 2007 and issued
by the then Department of Sustainability and Environment. These guidelines were
never finalised. The Heritage Council considers that this is a valuable document and
resources should be made available for its completion.

The comment that local government ‘heritage officers’ provide some expertise to public
land managers and community-based Committees of Management overlooks the role
of Heritage Advisers, most of whom were (until recently) funded jointly by State
Government and the relevant municipality. The Heritage Adviser is available to support
Committees of Management and government agencies, as well as local government
and private owners. In addition, a specific Heritage Adviser was appointed to advise
the Department of Education on proposed changes to schools identified as heritage
places.
As noted above, HOs in planning schemes apply to large numbers of historic places on public
land, but these are likely to be only a sub-set of those publicly-owned places recognised as
meeting the threshold of local significance in municipal heritage studies. There has been
consistent opposition from some departments and agencies, sometimes supported by the
Department responsible for planning, to the concept of planning schemes applying to public
land. As a result, some municipalities may have determined not to include such places under
the HO, particularly where they were located in large-scale protected areas managed under
legislation that is (at least in theory) sympathetic to conservation of heritage values.
In addition, several key government departments (Education, Health and Conservation Forests
& Lands) are exempted from the need to apply for permits under the Planning and
Environment Act 1987. The Governor-in-Council order that granted this exemption in February
1988 was supplemented by an explicit directive from the Minister for Planning (restating an
earlier one from the Premier) requiring exempt departments to carry out effective consultation
processes with local government in relation to any projects they were contemplating. This
piece of advice seems to have been lost in history.
7.
Other issues arising from the Draft Proposals Paper
The Heritage Council notes the requirements of s.18 of the VEAC Act, in particular:
…the need to conserve and protect any areas which have ecological, natural,
landscape or cultural interest or significance, recreational value or geological or
geomorphological significance.
10
Heritage Council submission to VEAC Investigation into Historic Places on Public Land – Draft Proposals Paper
December 21, 2015
The Heritage Council is aware that previous recommendations from investigations by VEAC
and its predecessors, the Land Conservation Council and the Environment Conservation
Council, have created new categories of public land places, including Historic Areas and the
Castlemaine Diggings National Heritage Park. The Draft Proposals Paper does not make it
clear whether any assessment has been made of the effectiveness of these designations as a
way of elevating the importance of heritage management with the relevant land managers.
In a similar vein, comment is made on p. 16 about management plans for State Forests
(though not for National Parks). It would be helpful to know how consistently the historic places
identified through LCC/ECC/VEAC investigations have been incorporated into Crown land
management, through management plans and other asset management provisions.
Conclusions and recommendations
On the basis of the reasons set out in this submission, the Heritage Council makes the
following conclusions and recommendations:

It is essential that the functions identified for the proposed Commissioner for
Public Land Heritage (Draft Recommendation 1) be carried out by an agency
within the Victorian Government: the establishment of a separate entity is not
supported. This would reduce resources available to existing heritage
management bodies, create the potential for duplication and confusion over
responsibilities and potentially reduce the commitment of public land
management agencies to taking responsibility for their own heritage places.
Instead, additional resources should be provided to enable the Heritage Council
and Heritage Victoria to carry out the functions proposed for the commissioner.

Inclusion within the Heritage Act of a requirement for owners of historic places
on public land listed on the VHR to maintain them to a minimum standard is
strongly supported (Draft Recommendation 2). The enforcement powers of the
Executive Director of Heritage Victoria should be strengthened to correspond
with this change. Attention should be given to ensuring that all historic places on
public land have approved Conservation Management Plans or Heritage Action
Statements, to provide a basis for monitoring. A similar provision regarding
minimum standards could be included in the Planning and Environment Act, for
places covered by Heritage Overlays.

Accountability for protecting historic places on public land should be embedded
within the managing agencies, with the Heritage Council being resourced to
take on the coordination functions, in line with its identified responsibilities under
the Heritage Act. Some of these functions may then be appropriately delegated
to Heritage Victoria.

The whole of the public land historic estate should have been examined in the
VEAC investigation, not just those places listed on the VHR. The final
recommendations should be broadened to include recognition of the needs of
local government as a Committee of Management for heritage places on public
land and as a body responsible for identification, listing and subsequent
management of heritage places of local significance.

The definition of historic places for the purposes of the investigation should also
include infrastructure as well as buildings and objects. This term would
encompass linear infrastructure such as road, rail, water and sewerage systems,
as well as other constructions such as bridges, fire towers, mining relics (e.g.
water races), saltpans, wharves or dry stone walls.
11
Heritage Council submission to VEAC Investigation into Historic Places on Public Land – Draft Proposals Paper
December 21, 2015

The final VEAC report should give more emphasis to the benefits of conserving
historic places on public land and the contribution they can make to maintaining
a sense of place and cultural identity, and as a drawcard for cultural tourism.

The heritage information contained in HERMES for places on public land should
be upgraded as resources allow, in preference to establishment of a separate
system (Draft Recommendation 3).

Resources should be provided for Heritage Victoria to deal with the ‘backlog’ of
nominations to the VHR, with particular attention to places on public land.
Attention should also be given to preparing nominations for public land historic
places assessed as being of potential State significance in municipal heritage
studies or thematic studies.

A broad review of the representativeness of places on the VHR (not just those
on for public land) against historic themes could be funded and undertaken as
an action flowing from a new Victorian Heritage Strategy, but this would require
a longer timeframe than that identified in Draft Recommendation 4.

A state-wide thematic history should be commissioned to elaborate the thematic
framework developed as part of the ‘shared values’ project (re Draft Recommendation
5). A longer-term strategy should also be established to ensure that Aboriginal and
shared values are better recognised in VHR place listings. Heritage Overlay schedules
in Victorian planning schemes and statements of significance in municipal heritage
studies should be updated progressively to recognise Aboriginal and shared heritage
values for locally significant places.
 The detailed suggestions included in Appendix A to this submission should be adopted
in the final VEAC report.

A policy on adaptive reuse of public heritage places should be developed as a matter
of some urgency. The other actions identified in Draft Recommendation 6 should also
be carried by Heritage Victoria / Heritage Council (appropriately resourced and with a
wider skills base available) rather than the proposed commissioner.

Encouraging use or adaptive reuse of historic buildings on public land is generally
supported, but it should be recognised that not all places are suitable for reuse.

Increased support to community-based Committees of Management is strongly
supported (Draft Recommendation 7), but this recommendation should be expanded to
consider the needs of local government in its role as Committee of Management for
historic places on public land.

A specific-purpose grant scheme for preparation of Conservation Management Plans
for historic places on public land should be established. Any business plans developed
for relevant properties should take account of the recommendations of the
Conservation Management Plan for the place.

The establishment of a trust for public land heritage (Draft Recommendation 8)
needs further consideration, including the objectives and structure of such a
body and the potential for an existing organisation to undertake this role.

A revolving fund for public land heritage has potential (Draft Recommendation
9), but its charter needs to set parameters to establish what assets are suitable
for sale or long term lease and to require Ministerial oversight of any proposed
sales in order to deal with the inherent conflict between generating revenue and
acting in the best interests of the community in the management of the public
heritage estate.
 Consideration should be given to recommending that the exemption for
Government Departments from the need for planning permits under the
Planning and Environment Act should be revoked, particularly in relation to
places listed under the Heritage Overlay.
12
Heritage Council submission to VEAC Investigation into Historic Places on Public Land – Draft Proposals Paper
December 21, 2015
APPENDIX A
RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO STATEMENTS ON PAGE 45 OF THE DRAFT PROPOSALS PAPER
Part/ Paragraph
number
Change (insertion/change in bold)
Purpose
3.3 para.1
" ...gained at sites where Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal
cultural heritage values ('shared values') sit side by side."
Defining the term
shared values –
partial
replacement.
3.3 para.2
“…have been working together (the ‘Joint Working Group’)
since 2013 on a project that seeks to enhance the
recognition under the Heritage Act 1995 of Aboriginal and
‘shared’ cultural heritage values (i.e those values of
contact, exchange, conflict and interaction between
Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people) and to see values of
significance to Aboriginal people accurately described. The
Joint Working Group has developed a methodology that
can be applied to sites in Victoria with shared heritage
values.”
A near complete
replacement of the
paragraph, to
reflect the current
status of the
project.
3.3 para.3
“VEAC has been liaising with the Joint Working Group about
the shared values project. After engaging a contractor and
conducting extensive consultations, the Joint Working
Group has to this date developed project documents that
include a methodology to be used in the assessment of
places where shared values may be present. The project
marks the first step towards a possible longer-term and
more inclusive approach to the recognition of shared
cultural heritage, which has not previously received the
attention that its importance warrants.”
A near complete
replacement of the
paragraph, to
reflect the current
status of the
project.
3.3 para.4
“VEAC sees this work as an essential paradigm shift in the
understanding and management of Victoria’s shared
cultural heritage and believes as a general principle that
public land management should incorporate the
recognition of shared cultural heritage values.”
A near complete
replacement of the
paragraph, to
reflect the current
status of the
project.
Draft
“That Government support the continuation and expansion
Recommendation of the work of the Joint Working Group of the Victorian
5
Aboriginal Heritage Council and the Heritage Council of
Victoria, and support the recognition of Aboriginal and nonAboriginal cultural heritage values (‘shared values’) as an
essential element in the management of public land in
Victoria.”
Partial
replacement to
reflect the current
status of the
project.
13