nsw heritage grants...five-year review report 2006–07 to 2010–11 1 1 background this report is...

NSW Heritage Grants

Local Government Heritage Management Program Summary Heritage Strategy Annual Report

Five-year review report 2006–07 to 2010–11

© Copyright State of NSW and the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage.

With the exception of photographs, the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage and State of NSW are pleased to allow this material to be reproduced in whole or in part for educational and non-commercial use, provided the meaning is unchanged and its source, publisher and authorship are acknowledged. Specific permission is required for the reproduction of photographs.

The Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) has compiled this publication in good faith, exercising all due care and attention. No representation is made about the accuracy, completeness or suitability of the information in this publication for any particular purpose. OEH shall not be liable for any damage which may occur to any person or organisation taking action or not on the basis of this publication. Readers should seek appropriate advice when applying the information to their specific needs.

Published by: Office of Environment and Heritage on behalf of the Heritage Council of New South Wales 59–61 Goulburn Street PO Box A290 Sydney South 1232 Report pollution and environmental incidents Environment Line: 131 555 (NSW only) or [email protected] See also www.environment.nsw.gov.au Phone: (02) 9995 5000 (switchboard) Phone: 131 555 (environment information and publications requests) Phone: 1300 361 967 (national parks, climate change and energy efficiency information and publications requests) Fax: (02) 9995 5999 TTY users: phone 133 677 then ask for 131 555 Speak and Listen users: phone 1300 555 727 then ask for 131 555 Email: [email protected] Website: www.environment.nsw.gov.au OEH 2013/0175 ISBN 978 1 74293 931 5 March 2013

Contents

1 Background...................................................................................................................1

2 Five-year performance review and emerging trends for local government heritage management: 2006–07 to 2010–11................................................................2

3 Recommendations and outcomes ................................................................................4

Recommendation 1: Establish a heritage committee to deal with heritage matters in your area........................................................................................4

Recommendation 2: Identify the heritage items in your area and list them in your local environmental plan.....................................................................7

Recommendation 3: Appoint a heritage and urban design advisor to assist the council, the community and owners of listed heritage items ......................11

Recommendation 4: Manage local heritage in a positive manner..............................14

Recommendation 5: Introduce a local heritage incentives fund to provide small grants to encourage local heritage projects ......................................................17

Recommendation 6: Run a heritage main street program..........................................21

Recommendation 7: Present educational and promotional programs........................24

Recommendation 8: Set a good example to the community by properly managing places owned or operated by the council ..................................................28

Recommendation 9: Promote sustainable development as a tool for heritage conservation .................................................................................................30

Attachment A: councils that completed the Heritage Strategy Annual Reporting template .................................................................................................................33

Five-year review report 2006–07 to 2010–11 1

1 Background This report is based on data collected through the NSW Heritage Grants Local Government Heritage Management Program (the program) in 2006–07 and 2010–11. Data was provided by councils in NSW that received funding for a heritage advisor through the program. There were 68 participating councils in 2006–07 and 82 (or 76% of rural, regional and metropolitan councils) in 2010–11. A list of participating councils is included at Attachment A.

In 2006–07, local councils began to monitor and report on their progress in implementing their heritage strategy, and 2010–11 was the fifth year of reporting.

Local council heritage strategy and annual reporting requirements

A requirement of the program is that each council must prepare, adopt and implement a three-year heritage strategy. Councils prepared one strategy in 2006–08 and another in 2008–11.

The heritage strategy must be based on the:

nine recommendations and outcomes contained in this document

Recommendations for local government on heritage management (Office of Environment and Heritage and the Heritage Council of NSW 2011).

Each council must then report annually on progress made in implementing their strategy. The annual report must be prepared by the council’s heritage advisor and heritage officer, using a standardised annual reporting template.

Data collation and comparison

The data provided by councils has been collated by the Heritage Council. The template has improved over time, as have the quality and consistency of data and data collation.

Although there are inconsistencies in some of the data, overall it illustrates key findings and obvious trends in local government heritage management.

2 Local Government Heritage Management Program Summary Heritage Strategy Annual Report

2 Five-year performance review and emerging trends for local government heritage management: 2006–07 to 2010–11

Overall, excellent results have been achieved through the program (see section 3).

The results show continued dedication, goodwill and commitment, above and beyond the financial contributions provided by the program and the continued successful partnerships between state government, local government and private sector heritage consultants.

Limited council resources (financial and staffing) are directed to essential requirements – the global financial crisis has impacted on the financial resources of many councils. Councils continue to have finite resources and reduced discretionary spending for planning and heritage staff and resources. Available heritage budgets are primarily directed to meeting essential statutory responsibilities.

Considerable council resources continue to be directed to preparing and gazetting local environmental plans (LEPs) – there has been an intensive effort in local government to meet state government planning reform requirements and to prepare comprehensive LEPs within state government-directed gazettal timeframes. Many councils prepare and review their heritage studies to inform and update heritage schedules for their updated LEPs. Councils have had shortages of resources, staff and budget for background studies. Heritage advisors have spent much of their time assisting councils with preparing background studies.

Councils need resources to prepare supporting planning documents for heritage management – with the gazettal of comprehensive LEPs, councils are now preparing supporting planning documents and development control plans (DCPs) for heritage and urban design. Councils are looking for funding to support the preparation of heritage DCPs. Some funding is available through the program.

More NSW Heritage Grants funding is needed to support the ongoing success of local heritage funds – although local heritage funds have been very successful and the overall NSW Heritage Grants contributions to local heritage funds have increased, fewer councils are choosing to operate a local heritage fund. Many do not have the discretionary budget for a local heritage fund or cannot afford to contribute dollar for dollar funding up to $8,500. Other councils do not have the staff to administer and manage such a small funding program.

Due to increased LEP heritage listings, more NSW Heritage Grants funding is needed to maintain or increase the current level of support for heritage advisors and local heritage funds – NSW councils now have an average of 171 heritage items listed on their LEP heritage schedules. Across NSW, this equates to some 25,000 scheduled local heritage items. With shrinking resources and increased numbers of listed heritage items, there is a growing demand for heritage advisor input and funding for local heritage items.

There is increased demand for heritage advisor input into council heritage management, liaison with owners and communities in general – heritage advisors are currently assisting councils on average one day a month using the current funding available of up to $7,500 per year. Due to limited resources, many councils have limited budgets and cannot afford to contribute more or pay for more heritage advisor input. With the gazettal of more heritage listings of local heritage items, there is an increasing demand for free heritage advice and access to appropriately qualified and experienced


heritage advice for pre-development application (DA) and DA advice, and processing of DA applications.

Limited council resources go towards discretionary heritage management activities including education, training and promotion – with limited discretionary financial resources for fulfilling statutory responsibilities, education and promotional activities such as heritage tourism have lagged. NSW Heritage Grants offered dollar for dollar matching funding to councils, but this was not taken up. NSW Heritage Grants could explore other opportunities to support these activities, but would need additional funding. The drought in the first decade of this century meant some councils renewed their tourism focus. Many councils now provide heritage information on their websites and continue to promote heritage events, although these have generally remained static over the last few years.

Limited council training is offered for staff, councils, heritage owners and heritage professionals - NSW Heritage Grants offered dollar for dollar matching funding to councils, but this was not taken up. NSW Heritage Grants could explore other opportunities to support these activities, but would need additional funding. The Heritage Council currently provides an annual heritage advisor training workshop, and an annual seminar and e-group network for local government heritage staff and heritage advisors. The Local Government and Shires Association is preparing heritage training modules for delivery in NSW regional centres.

Collectively, local councils own or manage most state and local heritage assets and need additional financial support and guidance – council asset planning and management for council-owned and council-managed heritage buildings, items and places have increased, but many councils with limited finances cannot dedicate ongoing budgets for repairs and maintenance. NSW Heritage Grants currently provides some funding for works and adaptive reuse projects and for state significant heritage assets owned and managed by local government.

Changing environmental conditions require support and guidance for risk planning and disaster management by councils for council and community owned heritage items – droughts severely affected regional and rural NSW communities but have now broken. Environmental and natural disasters and climate change impacts are increasing. There is a need for risk and disaster planning and management, and emergency response management, for heritage items. This is an emerging high risk area of local government heritage management.

There is a need for state leadership and direction in sustainability and heritage. Councils are seeking guidance, support and direction. Some councils have ignored the inclusion of heritage within the overall sustainability agenda. There is a need for research, guidelines and policies and best practice solutions to support the retention and ongoing use of heritage within the framework of sustainability and local government in the twenty-first century. The ongoing retention and integration of heritage items in the future, with increasing demands for energy efficiency and cost savings, is an important and critical area for the survival and flourishing of heritage in our society. Councils are seeking guidance, support and direction. Some councils have included sustainability in their heritage DCP, advising the use of sustainable and energy efficient products.


3 Recommendations and outcomes

The following recommendations and outcomes were developed from assessing the data for the five-year review.

Recommendation 1: Establish a heritage committee to deal with heritage matters in your area

Outcome 1: Caring for our heritage – increased community participation, awareness and appreciation of heritage in the local area

Key performance indicators (KPIs)

Note: Text in bold italics in this table indicates the best performance over the five-year period

KPI 2006–07 2010–11 Change over 5 years since 2006

Heritage committee established

46 operational heritage committees (from a total of 68 heritage advisors)

Yes 67% No 33%

44 operational heritage committees (from a total of 82 heritage advisors)

Yes 54% No 46%

In 2011, only 54% of councils had operational heritage committees, (a decrease of 13% since 2006)

Heritage committee constituted under s. 377 of the Local Government Act

Yes 60% No 40% Yes 78% No 22% 78% of heritage committees (an increase of 18% since 2006) have been constituted under s. 377 of the Local Government Act

Heritage policy written and adopted by councils

33 heritage policies written and adopted by councils

Yes 49% No 51%

Date completed: 2001–05 – 35%; 2006 – 68%

Date reviewed and updated: 2006 –30%

52 heritage policies written and adopted by councils

Yes 65% No 35%

Date completed: 2001–05 – 16%; 2006–10 – 53%; 2011 – 14%

Date reviewed and updated: 2006–10 – 29%; 2011 – 13%

In 2011, 65% of councils had an adopted heritage policy (an increase of 16% since 2006).

Since 2006, 42% of councils have reviewed and updated their existing heritage policy.

Heritage committee Yes 51% No 49% Yes 81% No 19% In 2011, 81% of heritage committees


advice/input to council decision making

Average of 10 pieces of advice/input to council decision making

Average of 18 pieces of advice/input to council decision making

had input into council decision making (an increase of 30% since 2006).

Heritage committees on average provided advice on 18 items (an Increase of 8 since 2006).

Local heritage consultants directory established

19 local heritage consultants directories

Yes 27% No 49%

32 local heritage consultants directories

Yes 41% No 59%

In 2011, 41% of councils had a heritage consultants directory (an increase of 14%) – and councils were linking to the Heritage Council’s online consultants directory

Local services and suppliers directory established

20 local services and suppliers directories

Yes 27% No 73%

33 local services and suppliers directories

Yes 42% No 58%

In 2011, 42% of councils had a local services and suppliers directory (an increase of 15%) and councils were linking to the Heritage Council’s online services and suppliers directory

Evaluation (social, environmental, economic impacts)

1. What do the KPIs show about this outcome?

Overall, a good result. There has been an overall decline in the number of operational heritage committees in the last five years. Heritage committees are seen as only one way of engaging with the community and some councils have established alternative panels and groups that address heritage and other concerns. Most councils with active heritage committees have formally constituted their committee under s. 3777 of the Local Government Act. Most councils have an adopted heritage policy which was not the case five years ago. Heritage committees have substantially increased their input into council decision making. There has been a steady increase in access to heritage consultants directories and services, and suppliers directories and heritage policies.

2. What were the key results or achievements since 2006?

Overall good results were achieved. In 2011:

78% of heritage committees were constituted under s. 377 of Local Government Act (an increase of 18% since 2006)


65% of councils had an adopted heritage policy (an increase of 16% since 2006) and 42% of councils had reviewed and updated their existing heritage policy

81% of heritage committees had input into council decision making (an increase of 30% since 2006)

41% of councils had a heritage consultants directory compared with 27% in 2006 (an increase of 14%)

42% of councils had a local services and suppliers directory compared with 27% in 2006 (an increase of 15%).

3. Were there any challenges or disappointments that had a major effect on results? Briefly describe what actions could be taken to address these.

The number of operational heritage committees has decreased by 13% since 2006. Some smaller remote councils struggle to gain councillor support for their heritage committee given the high demands on council rates and a limited rate base – this has also impacted on councils’ ability and willingness to support a local heritage fund. Some find that the distance people have to travel affects the workability of a heritage committee in their area. Another challenge for regional councils is access to local qualified heritage professionals and tradespeople – this also presents an opportunity for training local people in heritage trades and skills. Many metropolitan councils have high levels of listed heritage items and high community expectations.

Actions to address these issues include:

continue to encourage heritage directories, and encourage councils to link to statewide online services, the suppliers directory and the heritage consultants directory

investigate increasing heritage advisor funding and local heritage funding for remote, rural and low rate base councils and city metropolitan councils.

4. What will councils do next year?

Heritage committees will continue to build on their successes and will implement their 2011–14 heritage strategy. Following the gazettal of their LEP, committees will focus on and engage with council staff and the community to generate positive community interest. The Heritage Council intends to prepare a heritage policy, and establish local services and suppliers and heritage consultants directories. Some councils that do not have a heritage committee will set one up.


Recommendation 2: Identify the heritage items in your area and list them in your local environmental plan

Outcome 2: Knowing and valuing our heritage – increased knowledge and proactive management of heritage in your local area




Community based heritage study completed

48 community based heritage studies completed (from a total of 68 heritage advisors)

Yes 71% No 29%

Date completed: 2001–05 – 20%; 2006 – 45%

Date reviewed and updated: 2006 –20%

Average of 63 heritage items recommended for inclusion in the local environmental plan’s (LEP’s) heritage schedule

75 community based heritage studies completed (from a total of 82 heritage advisors)

Yes 87% No 13%

Date completed: 2001–05 – 18%; 2006–10 – 40%; 2011 – 8%

Date reviewed and updated: 2001–05 – 5%; 2006–10 – 23%; 2011 – 14%

Average of 153 heritage items recommended for inclusion in LEP’s heritage schedule

In 2011, 78% of councils had a community based heritage study (an increase of 16% since 2006)

48% of the new studies have been completed since 2006 and 37% of the existing studies have been reviewed and updated (an increase of 17% since 2006)

Each local government area (LGA) had an average of 153 heritage items recommended for inclusion in the LEP (an average increase of 90 heritage items per LGA since 2006)

Aboriginal heritage study completed

9 Aboriginal heritage studies completed

Yes 13% No 87%

Date completed: 2001–05 – 22%; 2006 – 22%

Date reviewed and updated: 2006 – <1%

21 Aboriginal heritage studies completed

Yes 26% No 74%

Date completed: 2001–05 – 14%; 2006–10 – 57%; 2011 – 4%

Date reviewed and updated: 2006–10

In 2011, 21 Aboriginal heritage studies had been completed (26% of councils across NSW). Since 2006, there was an increase of 39% in the number of new studies completed.

Since 2006, there has been a 24% increase in the number of existing studies that have been reviewed and


– 9%; 2011 – 14% updated – before 2006 there was a lower than 1% increase.

Number of heritage items included in the existing LEP’s heritage schedule

Average of 107 heritage items included in LEP’s heritage schedule

Date completed: 2001–05 – 18%; 2006 – 11%

Date reviewed and updated: 2006 – 20%

Average of 171 heritage items included in LEP’s heritage schedule

Date completed: 2001–05 – 39%; 2006–10 – 20%; 2011 – 6%


In 2011, an average LGA had 171 heritage items included in their LEP’s heritage schedule (an average increase of 64 heritage items per LGA since 2006)

The council has gazetted a principal LEP with model heritage provisions in accordance with the Standard Instrument (LEPs) Order

Yes 39% No 61%

Date gazetted: 2001–05 – 18%; 2006 – 11%

Yes 39% No 61%

Date gazetted: 2001–05 – 16%; 2006–10 – 42%; 2011 – 6%

In 2011, 39% of councils had gazetted LEPs (the same as in 2006).

Since 2006, 48% of the gazetted LEPS have been updated with model heritage provisions (an increase of 33%).

Statement of significance for all heritage items in the existing LEP

22 statements of significance for all heritage items in the existing LEP

Yes 32% No 68%

Date completed: 2001–05 – 14%; 2006 – 45%


50 statements of significance for all heritage items in the existing LEP

Yes 62.5% No 37.5%

Date completed: 2001–05 – 16%; 2006–10 – 42%; 2011 – 8%


In 2011, 62.5% of councils had statements of significance for their heritage items in their LEPs (an increase of 30.5% since 2006)



Overall, a good result. Councils and heritage advisors have put in an enormous effort, and focused on identifying new heritage items and reviewing existing heritage items for listing in heritage schedules of existing and new LEPs, in accordance with the Department of Planning’s timeframes and s. 117 directions. Many new and existing heritage studies have been prepared and include the model heritage provisions, and the average number of heritage items per local government area has increased. Councils have also included more comprehensive listing information and statements of significance for heritage items in the heritage schedules of their LEPs.




78% of councils had a community based heritage study (an increase of 16% since 2006)

48% of the new studies had been completed since 2006 and 37% of the existing studies had been reviewed and updated since 2006 (an increase of 17%)

each LGA had an average of 153 heritage items recommended for inclusion in the LEP, (an average increase of 90 heritage items per LGA since 2006)

21 Aboriginal heritage studies were completed (26% of councils across NSW), and since 2006, there has been an increase of 39% in the number of new studies completed.

since 2006, there has been a 24% increase in the number of existing studies that have been reviewed and updated – before 2006 there was a lower than 1% increase.

an average LGA had 171 heritage items included in their LEP heritage schedule (an average increase of 64 heritage items per LGA since 2006)

48% of the gazetted LEPS had been updated with model heritage provisions since 2006 (an increase of 33%)

62.5% of councils had statements of significance for their heritage items in LEPs (an increase of 30.5% since 2006).


Meeting the Department of Planning’s LEP timeframes regarding securing adequate funding and staffing resources has been a challenge. . Council staff and heritage advisors have been dealing with consultation and community challenges to draft listings, and with few incentives available were being challenged to convince heritage owners of the benefits of heritage listing.

Increased funding has been provided for heritage planning studies through the NSW Heritage Grants program. There is still a need to investigate additional NSW Heritage Grants funding for heritage planning studies.


continue to target available NSW Heritage Grants funding for heritage planning studies to identified council need.



Councils will add identified heritage items to LEP heritage schedules and rely on ongoing heritage advisor input into LEP preparation to meet the Department of Planning’s requirements and timeframes. Councils will prepare and update statements of significance for heritage items. Some councils will engage with the Aboriginal community and explore the preparation of an Aboriginal heritage study.


Recommendation 3: Appoint a heritage and urban design advisor to assist the council, the community and owners of listed heritage items

Outcome 3: Caring for our heritage – increased community participation, and proactive heritage and urban design management in your local area




Site visits Average of 44 heritage site visits undertaken (68 heritage advisors)

Average of 24 heritage site visits undertaken (82 heritage advisors)

There has been a decrease of almost 50% in the number of site visits undertaken. This could be due to a focus on more desk work related to LEPs, less demand from the community or inaccurate data collection in 2006.

Heritage/urban design advisements given

Average of 40 heritage/urban design advisements given

Average of 32 heritage/urban design advisements given

There has been a decrease of over 20% in the advice given on heritage and urban design. This could be due to a focus on more desk work related to LEPs, less demand from the community or inaccurate data collection in 2006.

Pre development application (DA) advisements given on heritage/urban design issues

Average of 22 pre DA advisements given on heritage/urban design issues

Average of 21 pre DA advisements given on heritage/urban design issues

Pre DA advice on heritage and urban design has remained stable.

Advisements on council DAs provided on heritage/urban design projects

Average of 16 advisements on council DAs provided on heritage/urban design projects

Average of 27 advisements on council DAs provided on heritage/urban design projects

Advice to councils for DAs on heritage and urban design has increased by almost 45%.




Councils continue to utilise the appointed heritage advisor to assist the community, heritage owners, council staff and councillors to provide free advice on pre-DAs and heritage Das, and undertake site visits. There has been a drop in site visits and advice, a steady demand for pre-DA advice on heritage items and an increase in advice to councils on heritage-affected DAs.


In 2011:

there was a decrease of almost 50% in the number of site visits undertaken

there was a decrease of over 40% in the advice given on heritage and urban design

pre-DA advice on heritage and urban design remained stable

advice to councils on DAs on heritage and urban design increased by almost 50%.


Heritage advisors have spent extensive time with heritage property owners on draft heritage listings, reducing the number of submissions and increasing their pre DA advice, which has increased the effectiveness of heritage DAs.

Increasing numbers of heritage items in LEPs should translate into greater demands on the existing resources of councils and the heritage advisor, and increased site visits and requests for advice. Some councils may need to promote their free advisory service on newly listed heritage items.

Some councils have reported that their lack of uptake of this funding is due to the small amount of funding available, and the amount of administration required to operate a heritage advisory is not worth their while for the small funding amount.


investigate additional NSW Heritage Grants to increase funding for heritage advisors.



Requests for heritage advisor site visits, heritage advice, input into pre-DA advisements and DAs is likely to increase following gazettal of LEPs and new heritage items. Councils will continue to promote and encourage heritage property owners to use the heritage advisory service to:

find appropriate solutions for good heritage and urban design outcomes

encourage a better standard of development applications for heritage items.

Councils and heritage advisors will continue to generate positive community interest in heritage, and promote local heritage funding opportunities.


Recommendation 4: Manage local heritage in a positive manner

Outcome 4: Caring for our heritage – proactive heritage and urban design management in your local area



KPI 2006–07 2010–11 Change over 5 years from 2006

Heritage development control plan (DCP) prepared by the council

31 heritage DCPs prepared by council

Yes 45% No 55%

Date completed: 2001–05 – 32%; 2006 – 22%


41 heritage DCPs prepared by councils

Yes 51% No 49%

Date completed: 2001–05 – 20%; 2006–10 – 51%; 2011 – 2%


In 2011, 51% of councils had a heritage DCP

Since 2006, 53% of these were new heritage DCPs (an increase of 31%) and 27% of existing heritage DCPs had been reviewed and updated (an increase of 12%)

Urban design DCP prepared by the council

16 urban design DCPs prepared by councils

Yes 23% No 73%

Date completed: 2001–05 – 25%; 2006 – 44%

Date reviewed and updated: Nil

23 urban design DCPs prepared by councils

Yes 28% No 72%

Date completed: 2001–05 – 13%; 2006–10 – 52% ; 2011 – 17%


In 2011, 28% of councils had an urban design DCP.

Since 2006, 69% of the urban design DCPs had been prepared (an increase of 25%), and 16% of existing urban design DPCs had been reviewed and updated (from nil in 2006)

Waive or reduce development application (DA) fees

22 councils waive or reduce DA fees

Yes 32% No 68%

29 councils waive or reduce DA fees

Yes 36% No 64%

In 2011, 36% of councils waived or reduced DA fees for heritage items, a 4% increase since 2006

Adopt a flexible approach to planning and building requirements

57 councils have a flexible approach

Yes 85% No 15%

74 councils have a flexible approach

Yes 92.5% No 7.5%

In 2011, 92.5% of councils had a flexible approach to planning and building requirements, an increase of 7.5% since 2006




Councils with the assistance of their heritage advisors are putting considerable effort into effectively managing their heritage. Councils are preparing heritage DCPs and urban design DCPs, with an impressive uptake. Councils are utilising planning incentives to positively manage heritage and encourage heritage property owners, with 92.5% of councils adopting a flexible approach to heritage planning and building and an increasing number of councils waiving or reducing DA fees.



51% of councils had a heritage DCP, and of these, 53% were new heritage DCPs (an increase of 31%), and 27% of existing heritage DCPs had been reviewed and updated since 2006 (an increase of 12%)

28% of councils had an urban design DCP, and of these, 69% were new urban design DCPs (an increase of 25%) and 16% of existing urban design DPCs had been reviewed and updated (from nil in 2006)

36% of councils waived or reduced DA fees for heritage items, an 4% increase since 2006

92.5% of councils had a flexible approach to planning and building requirements, an increase of 7.5% since 2006.


Generally, none reported. Limited resources (staff and budget) restricted councils’ ability to produce, update or implement planning controls.


investigate additional NSW Heritage Grants to increase funding for heritage planning studies

increase NSW Heritage Grants funding available for heritage planning studies

target available NSW Heritage Grants heritage planning studies funding to heritage DCP priority projects identified by councils

investigate incentives to encourage positive and proactive heritage management by heritage owners, managers and councils.



Many more councils have identified the preparation or update of their heritage DCP, or heritage planning controls and design guidelines, as an emerging priority. Councils will continue to apply a flexible approach to heritage planning and building requirements.


Recommendation 5: Introduce a local heritage incentives fund to provide small grants to encourage local heritage projects

Outcome 5: Caring for our heritage – increased community participation and proactive conservation and management of heritage in your local area




Local heritage fund operational 53 funds operational

Yes 78% No 22%

57 funds operational

Yes 70% No 30%

In 2011, there was an 8% increase in operational local heritage funds.

However, overall there has been a decrease of 18% in the number of councils who have taken up the NSW Heritage Grants funding offer to operate a local heritage fund.

Heritage projects funded with this year’s funding

Total of 390 projects completed. Average of 6 heritage projects funded this financial year

Total of 422 projects completed.

Average of 7 heritage projects funded this financial year

In 2011, there was an increase in the total number of projects funded and completed each year through local heritage funds across NSW.

The average number of projects completed per local heritage fund had increased to seven. This is an average increase of one project per local fund.

Total project value Total of $3,727,881 project value

Average of $9,559 total project value

Total of $3,091,552 project value

Average of $7,326 total project value

In 2011, the total project value declined from almost $3.7 million to $3.1 million since 2006. There was a decrease of $636,329 in total project value on local government heritage funded projects.

In 2011, the average project value


decreased to $7,326.

Total local heritage fund contribution

Total of $574,000 contributed by local heritage funds

Average fund $10,830

Total of $807,053 contributed by local heritage funds

Average of $14,158 amount available per local fund

In 2011, the total state and local government funding contribution funded through local heritage programs increased by $233,053 .

In 2011, the average local heritage funding available per LGA was $14,158.

Total owner contribution to project

Total of $3,153,881 contributed by local heritage owners to heritage projects

Average of $8,086 per project contribution

Total of $3,095,499 contributed by local heritage owners to heritage projects

Average of $7,335 per project contribution

In 2011, the total heritage owner contribution to their heritage project decreased from $3.1 milliion to $3 million, a decrease of $58,382.

In 2011, the average heritage project contribution by the heritage owners decreased to $7,335.

Heritage projects that contribute to local tourism

Total of 118 heritage projects that contribute to local tourism

Total of 153 heritage projects that contribute to local tourism

There has been an increase in funded heritage projects that contributed to local heritage tourism.

Projects that create paid employment

Total of 167 jobs created Total of 383 jobs created There has been an increase in funded heritage projects that created paid employment.

Projects that create volunteer opportunities

Total of 3091 volunteer hours contributed

Total of 24,241 volunteer hours contributed

There has been a substantial increase of over 80% for projects that utilised volunteer hours.

Volunteer hours may have been under reported by councils in previous years.




Local heritage funding programs operated by councils continue to provide a major incentive to encourage heritage owners and managers to undertake heritage projects for local heritage items. Councils that have operated a local heritage fund have seen great success with increased funding provided and increased projects completed. However, there is an increasing trend of nearly 20% where NSW Heritage Grants funding to operate a local heritage fund has not been taken up and heritage owners and the community have been deprived of the most successful motivator and incentive for good heritage management.


Overall, good results were achieved though strong trends showed that councils were under financial stress. In 2011:

there was an 8% increase in operational local heritage funds since 2006. However, overall there was a decline of 18% in the number of councils that took up their NSW Heritage Grants funding offer to operate a local heritage fund since 2006.

the total project value has declined from almost $3.7 milliion to $3.1 million since 2006. There has been a decrease of $636,329 in total project value for local government heritage funded projects. The average project value has decreased to $7,326, down from $9,559 in 2006.

the total state and local government funding contribution has increased to $807,053, an increase of $233,053 in funding through the local heritage program. The average local heritage funding available per LGA has increased to $14,158, up from $10,830 in 2006.

the total heritage owner contribution to their heritage project has decreased from $3.1 million in 2006 to $3 million, a decrease of $58,382. The average heritage project contribution by the owners has decreased to $7,335, down from $8,086 in 2006.

there was an increase in funded heritage projects that contributed to local heritage tourism.

there was an increase in funded heritage projects that created paid employment.

there was a substantial increase of over 80% (as reported) on projects that utilised volunteer hours to complete their project.

Even though the grants were small, the leverage provided and the good outcomes achieved for heritage places, as well as the goodwill achieved by councils, heritage owners and the wider community, were extremely positive and beneficial and created a lot of owner and community goodwill. Local tradespeople were proud of their involvement in heritage projects and the results achieved.



The major challenge was that some councils were unable to operate a local heritage fund in 2011 due to lack of council support and budget. There was a limited amount of funding available per project and some councils staged projects to spread the funding further.

Some councils have reported their lack of uptake of this funding offer is also due to the small amount of funding available and the amount of administration required to manage the local heritage fund is not worth their while for the small funding amount. Most councils did not use their approved funding amount for the local heritage program.


investigate additional NSW Heritage Grants to increase funding for local heritage funds. Interestingly, Heritage Council allocations continued to be underspent as councils could not match their funding contributions (dollar for dollar, $1 for $2 funding to councils). Councils could not afford to contribute the maximum amount and there were complaints about the high workload to administer this small grants program.


As long as councils have support and a budget they will continue to operate a local heritage fund as a successful outreach incentive program that promotes heritage and supports good outcomes in a practical way through small grants.


Recommendation 6: Run a heritage main street program

Outcome 6: Caring for our heritage – councils, owners and the community actively participate in attractive and well-managed heritage main streets




Heritage main street committee operational

12 heritage main street committees operational

Yes 17% No 83%

9 heritage main street committees operational

Yes 11% No 89%

In 2011, there was a 6% decrease in operational heritage main street committees.

Heritage main street study completed

41 heritage main street studies completed

Yes 60% No 40%

Date completed: 1991–95 – 32%; 1996–2000 – 36%; 2001–05 – 7%; 2006 – 15%

Date reviewed and updated: 2001–-05 – 4%; 2006 – 3%

44 heritage main street study completed

Yes 54% No 46%

Date completed: 1991-95 – 27%; 1996–2000 – 36%; 2001–05 – 11%; 2006–10 – 9%; 2011 – nil

Date reviewed and updated: 2001-05 – 4%; 2006–10 – 14%; 2011 – 4%

In 2011, 44 heritage main street studies were reported as being completed.

Since 2006, very few new studies have been completed (the data is inconsistent for the completion dates for this project).

Since 2006, 18% of existing heritage main street studies have been reviewed and updated.

Heritage main street study recommendations implemented, for completed studies

Yes 66% No 34 %

Date completed: 2001–05 – 7%; 2006 – 11%

Yes 78% No 22 %

Date completed: 2001–05 – 7%; 2006–10 – 4.5%; 2011 – 7%

In 2011, 78% of councils reported that the heritage main street recommendations were successfully implemented, an increase of 12% since 2006.

Heritage main street program expanded to other main streets in the local government area, for completed studies

Yes 43% No 57% Yes 43% No 57% In 2011, the spread of heritage main street programs to other main streets remained static.




Involvement in the main street program has remained fairly static over the last five years. Many councils undertook studies and implemented main street programs in the late 1980s and 1990s. In more recent years, main street programs continued to be popular in regional centres and villages.


Overall, good results were achieved. In 2011, this program continued to be successful in some council areas, although many councils have integrated the main street into heritage development control plans (DCPs), urban design DCPs and other planning models. In 2011:

there was a 6% decrease in operational heritage main street committees since 2006

44 heritage main street studies have been completed – since 2006, 18% of existing heritage main street studies have been reviewed and updated

78% of councils reported that the heritage main street recommendations have been successfully implemented, an increase of 12% since 2006

the spread of heritage main street programs to other main streets has remained static.

Heritage main street programs were introduced in the late 1980s and were very popular well into the 1990s. Some councils, particularly in regional and remote NSW, continue to benefit from their introduction. This is especially true where heritage advisors are new to councils and heritage main street owners and buildings are likely to benefit from the introduction of a focused, targeted heritage main street program.

Councils with active main street programs have been very successful in working with local heritage owners to create more attractive main streets for the whole community, as well as improvements to individual heritage buildings. Some councils that no longer have an active main street program have integrated recommendations from their main street heritage studies into their heritage DCPs and urban design DCPs. Related main street projects initiated by councils include signage, street planting, beautification and urban design input.

3. Were there any challenges or disappointments that had a major effect on your results? Briefly describe what actions could be taken to address these.

The limited financial capacity of owners and managers, depressed market conditions and increased developer pressure threaten main street program implementation.



Councils will encourage property owners to implement works that will benefit owners and the local community. Some councils have indicated that it is time to review and re-establish their main street program. Some councils have indicated that more recent urban design initiatives have replaced or will incorporate a main street program, while other councils will work with property owners to achieve similar outcomes through other means.


Recommendation 7: Present educational and promotional programs

Outcome 7: Valuing our heritage – increased awareness and appreciation of heritage by the council, owners and the community in your local area




Heritage information available for LGA, e.g. brochures, website, guidelines

52 councils with information available

Yes 75% No 25%

Date completed: 2001–05 – 15%; 2006 – 48%

Date reviewed and updated: ongoing

70 councils with information available

Yes 86% No 14%

Date completed: 2001–05 – 15%; 2006–10 – 33%; 2011 – 1%

Date reviewed and updated: 2006–10 –37%

In 2011, there was an 11% increase in council areas with website and heritage information available

Heritage promotional events held, e.g. National Trust Heritage festival, local heritage festivals, heritage awards scheme, main street festivals

Average of 3 heritage events held in last financial year

Average of 3 heritage events held in last financial year

In 2011, the average number of heritage events remained at three.

Local/regional heritage tourism strategy completed

18 local/regional heritage tourism strategies completed

Yes 26% No 74%

Date completed: 2001–05 – 27%; 2006 – 17%


21 local/regional heritage tourism strategies completed

Yes 26.5% No 73.5%

Date completed: 2001–05 – 28%; 2006–10 – 38%; 2011 – 4 %


In 2011, 21 local/regional heritage tourism strategies were completed. This figure has remained relatively static since 2006.

Data has been inconsistent for the preparation of heritage tourism strategies since 2006. The most recent data suggests that 42% of strategies have been prepared and updated in the last 5 years.

Heritage trail completed Yes 67% No 23% Yes 60% No 40% In 2011, 60% of councils reported having a completed heritage trail.


Date completed: 2001–05 – 20%; 2006 – 20%


Date completed: 2001–05 – 24%; 2006–10 – 20%; 2011 – 6%


Since 2006, the number of new trails completed has decreased.

In 2011, 22% of councils reviewed and updated their existing heritage trail.

Heritage training for staff Yes 46% No 54%

Average of 4 staff attended training

Yes 31% No 69%

Average of 4 staff attended training

In 2011, there was a 15% decrease in the number of councils conducting training, but the average number of staff trained per council area remained the same

Heritage training for councillors Yes 26% No 74%

Average of 3 councillors attended training

Yes 11% No 89%

Average of 3 councillors attended training

In 2011, there has been a 15% decrease in the number of councils conducting training, but the average number of councillors trained per council area remained the same

Heritage training/workshops for heritage owners

Yes 19% No 81%

Average of 8 owners attended training

Yes 12% No 88%

Average of 8 owners attended training

In 2011, there has been a 7% decrease in the number of councils conducting training, but the average number of heritage owners attending workshops per council area remained the same (note: some councils operate training every second year)

Heritage training /workshops for local professionals

Yes 16% / No 84%

Average of 8.5 local professionals attended training

Yes 8% / No 92%

Average of 8.5 local professionals attended training

In 2011, there has been an 8% decrease in the number of councils conducting training, but the average number of local professionals attending workshops per council area remained the same (note: some councils operate training every second year)




In 2011:

86% of councils provided heritage information through their website and other publications, an 11% increase since 2006

26% of councils had a regional/local tourism strategy that included heritage – of these, almost half have been prepared or updated since 2006

60% of councils reported having a completed heritage trail, although since 2006 the number of new trails completed has decreased. In 2011, 22% of councils reviewed and updated their existing heritage trail.

The number of councils conducting heritage training for staff, councillors, heritage owners and local heritage professionals has consistently fallen by 15% since 2006. However the number of individuals being trained has remained the same.


Since 2006, councils have continued to support, promote and educate their local communities about heritage and information is widely available and accessible.

Local government supports annual heritage events with a wide range of local community festivals as well as wider events including the National Trust heritage festival, heritage awards and volunteer awards.

3. Were there any challenges or disappointments that had a major effect on your results? Briefly describe what actions have been taken to address these.

Unlike under some of the other outcomes, there was not a steady increase in educational and promotional programs and generally a notable steady decline in the number of councils providing training in heritage. This is a concern, particularly for smaller councils.

The reasons for this decline included the time constraints of heritage advisors, limited resources, and the concentration of limited resources on more immediate priorities such as completion of heritage studies, public consultation and preparation of local environmental plans.

There is a need for access to ‘off the shelf’ heritage training courses and modules that local government can implement or attend. The Local Government and Shires Associations deliver training in local government heritage and developed a new training module that was presented in regional NSW centres during 2011 and 2012.


In 2011, funding under a new NSW Heritage Grants local government heritage management program was offered to support training for councils that were self-funding their heritage advisor and local heritage funding programs, although councils were not keen to take up this offer.


consider continuing or expanding the NSW Heritage Grants funding opportunities to encourage heritage training in local government

consider expanding NSW Heritage Grants funding to encourage heritage tourism opportunities.

4 What will councils do next year?

Councils will continue to encourage heritage training opportunities and promote and encourage heritage festivals and events, and heritage website and brochure information.


Recommendation 8: Set a good example to the community by properly managing places owned or operated by the council

Outcome 8: Caring for our heritage – a council proactively conserves and manages its heritage assets




Council has an asset management plan with action plans for heritage assets

30 council asset management plans

Yes 43% No 57%

39 council asset management plans

Yes 48% No 52%

In 2011, there was a 5% increase in the number of councils preparing heritage asset management plans for heritage assets

Control management plans (CMPs)/control management strategies (CMSs) prepared for state significant heritage assets

21 CMPs/CMS prepared for state significant items this financial year

19 CMPs/CMS prepared for state significant items this financial year

Since 2006, the overall number of CMPs prepared each year has remained steady.

Annual works budget secured for heritage asset maintenance and repairs

Yes 65% No 35% Yes 58% No 38% In 2011, the number of councils with annual works budgets decreased by 7%.



Overall, good results were achieved. In 2011:

5% more councils had heritage asset management plans, although the allocation of annual works budgets for heritage items had decreased from 65% in 2006 to 58% in 2011

the number of CMPs prepared by councils remained static. This means that councils are steadily preparing management strategies for best practice management of their heritage assets.



More councils proactively managed their heritage assets and prepared CMPs, and asset management plans and maintenance plans were in place to guide the management of council-owned or council-managed heritage properties.


Securing a budget for heritage repairs and maintenance to heritage assets continued to be a challenge for councils. The number of councils securing budgets has declined since 2006.


Encourage councils to continue preparing CMPs and asset maintenance plans for heritage items, and allocate budgets to implement identified works to ensure the long term conservation and use of heritage assets.


Councils will continue to encourage and facilitate plans for maintenance and repairs and allocate budgets to implement their work programs.

They will also identify opportunities for preparing CMPs and strategies to guide management and maintenance


Recommendation 9: Promote sustainable development as a tool for heritage conservation

Outcome 9: Caring for our heritage – proactive heritage and sustainable development in your local area


Note: Text in bold italics in this table indicates the best performance over the three-year period.


Heritage development application (DA) approvals for adaptive reuse works

Average of 2 adaptive reuse DA approvals

Average of 3 adaptive reuse DA approvals

In 2011, there was a slight increase in heritage DA approvals for adaptive reuse

DA approvals for regeneration and urban design works

Average of 1.5 urban design /regeneration DA approvals

Average of 1.5 urban design /regeneration DA approvals

In 2011, the number of DAs for regeneration and urban design works remained the same as in 2008

Heritage DA approvals for infill and additions works

Average of 8 infill/additions DA approvals

Average of 11 infill/additions DA approvals

In 2011, there was an increase in heritage DAs for infill and additions to heritage items

Pre-DA advice and advice given on sustainable and energy efficient modifications (power, water, waste, carbon neutral)

Average of 7.5 pre-DA advisements and advisements given on sustainable and energy efficient modifications

Average of 4.5 pre-DA advisements and advisements given on sustainable and energy efficient modifications

In 2011, there was a decrease in pre DA advisements on sustainable and energy efficient modifications

Sustainability and heritage awareness courses for councillors, council staff, heritage owners and community

Yes 13.5% No 86.5%

Average of 59 people attended training

Yes 19% No 81%

Average of 63 people attended training

In 2011, there was a 5.5% increase in the number of councils conducting community workshops on sustainability and an increase in the number of people attending




Overall, good results were achieved. In 2011:

there was an increase in heritage DAs for adaptive reuse and infill and additions for heritage items

there was an increase in council community workshops on sustainability and heritage and the number of people attending these workshops.

2. What were the key results or achievements for this year?

There was positive heritage advice and input into adaptive reuse DAs, heritage DAs, and pre-DA advice. Councils supported sustainability and achieved good outcomes for communities.

Management of sustainability is relatively new to councils and they are still learning about the issues relating to ‘green’ alternatives, their application and their place in decision making by councils.


Management of sustainability is relatively new to councils and they are still learning about the issues relating to ‘green’ alternatives, their application and their place in decision making by councils.

Some councils have proactively included sustainability in their heritage DCPs.

There are several publications available on adaptive reuse, infill and additions; and on designing in context. These support sustainable and appropriate design for heritage items.

The use of solar panels on heritage buildings has achieved more acceptable solutions. There is a need for guidance and leadership on heritage and sustainability from state government.



Councils will:

continue to encourage the upgrade and adaptive reuse of existing properties through flexible planning assessment and incentives

provide free advice to heritage owners through their heritage advisory service

provide information and practical advice to heritage property owners on management of sustainability and heritage, and incorporation of water and energy efficient technology

promote energy efficiency for heritage buildings with consideration of heritage streetscape values.


Attachment A: councils that completed the Heritage Strategy Annual Reporting template

2006–07 contributing councils

Armidale, Ballina, Bathurst, Bega Valley, Bellingen, Berrigan, Blacktown, Bland, Blayney, Bourke, Brewarrina, Broken Hill, Byron Bay, Cabonne, Cobar, Cooma Monaro, Coolamon, Conargao, Coonamble, Deniliquin, Dubbo, Dungog, Eurobodalla, Forbes, Great Lakes, Goulburn Mulwaree, Greater Taree, Glenn Innes Severn, Griffith, Gwydir, Inverell, Jerildererie, Junee, Lachlan, Leeton, Lismore, Maitland, Mid Western, Moree Plains, Murray, Musswellbrook, Narrandera, Narromine ,Oberon, Orange, Parkes, Port Macquarie Hastings, Port Stephens, Queanbeyan, Shellharbour, Shoalhaven, Singleton, Snowy River, Tamworth, Temora, Tenterfield, Tumut, Upper Hunter, Uralla, Wagga Wagga, Walgett, Warrumbungle, Weddin, Wellington, Wentworth, Wingecarribee, Yass.

2010–11 contributing councils

Armidale Dumaresq, Bathurst Regional, Bega Valley, Bellingen, Blacktown, Bland, Blayney, Blue Mountains, Bogan, Bourke, Brewarrina, Broken Hill, Byron, Cabonne, Canada Bay, Central Darling, Cessnock, Coffs Harbour, Coolamon, Cooma-Monaro, Coonamble, Cowra, Deniliquin, Dubbo, Dungog, Eurobodalla, Fairfield, Forbes, Gilgandra, Glen Innes Severn, Goulburn, Greater Hume, Greater Taree, Hawkesbury, Inverell, Junee, Kempsey, Lachlan, Leeton, Lismore, Lithgow, Liverpool Plains, Lockhart, Manly, Midwestern Regional, Moree Plains, Murray, Muswellbrook, Narrabri, Narrandera, Narromine, Oberon, Orange, Palerang, Parkes, Parramatta, Penrith, Pittwater, Port Macquarie, Port Stephens, Queanbeyan Richmond Valley, Shellharbour, Shoalhaven, Singleton, Snowy River, Tamworth Regional, Temora, Tumut, Unincorporated Area, Upper Hunter, Upper Lachlan, Uralla, Wagga Wagga, Walgett, Warrumbungle, Weddin, Wentworth, Wingecarribee, Yass Valley, Young.

nsw heritage grants...five-year review report 2006–07 to 2010–11 1 1 background this report is...

Documents