Signed in as:
filler@godaddy.com
Signed in as:
filler@godaddy.com
Our policy brief, titled Proposed Amendments to the Planning Development and Infrastructure Act 2016 and Heritage Places Act 1993, is 25 pages long and includes legislative amendments, a new rubric tool for a Cultural Heritage Assessment, and the rationale behind these proposals. It is 25 pages long. You can read the foreword and the legislation amendments on this page.
Download the complete document in pdf format to read in full:
STC Policy Brief July 2024 (pdf)
DownloadThe aim of this policy brief is the modernisation of the existing State Heritage definitions by incorporating Intangible Cultural Heritage, and applying these definitions to both State and Local Heritage Places into the Heritage Places Act 1993, to ensure comprehensive protection for South Australia's cultural legacy. This brief presents strategic pathways for the government to legislate the removal of all references to Local Heritage in the Planning, Development and Infrastructure (PDI) Act from to the Heritage Places Act 1993 while proposing pivotal amendments and a tool to support the clear definition of ‘culture’ in the act.
Responsible cultural and urban planning requires the balancing of development, urban regeneration and growth with heritage and cultural legacy. For around 15 years, the balance has been tipped in favour of developers, often at the expense of heritage, culture, and social needs. We offer a proposal that rebalances the state of play for all South Australians and provides business operators with greater potential for the economic growth of their businesses.
Contemporary cultural heritage practices recognise that heritage protection can no longer be restricted to built-structures. Our initiative seeks to redefine heritage conservation by recognising that a distinction between tangible (i.e. a building) and intangible heritage (i.e. experiences and practices) is problematic and can rarely be made meaningfully. This is particularly the case for contemporary places where one heritage is entirely dependent upon the other, for example where alternative lifestyles and practices are reflected in, and integral to, the built environment (see Schofield 2014; Schofield & Rellensmann 2015, p. 115). Here intangible cultural heritage refers to the inclusive, representative, and community-based traditions, history, performances, experiences, expressions, socio-cultural practices and knowledge that is transmitted from one generation to the next. By integrating intangible cultural heritage into the Heritage Places Act, we can ensure that our cherished ‘special’ spaces survive and have the opportunity to evolve with the community while maintaining their unique character.
This approach offers numerous benefits:
Our proposal is in alignment with the government's current objectives, particularly Recommendation 12 of the Planning Review Document. The proposal offers a balanced approach that addresses the needs of various stakeholders, from community members, business owners, developers and policymakers.
South Australia is in the position to create a more inclusive and comprehensive approach to heritage protection that celebrates what is unique and special about Adelaide, balancing who we were, with who we are, and who we will become. This initiative builds upon the recognition of cultural knowledge and connection.
By advancing these changes, we continue the legacy of innovation and community commitment that defined Labor’s Dunstan Era. This is not just about preserving the past; it is about shaping a vibrant, inclusive present and providing for a future that honours our shared cultural experiences.
The following pages detail our proposed amendments, including a rubric for measuring Intangible Cultural Heritage. We invite careful consideration of this policy brief, which sets the stage for a legislative transformation that will protect and celebrate South Australia's rich cultural tapestry for generations to come.
This is an opportunity for South Australia to lead the nation in cultural heritage protection, fostering a sense of place and belonging that will enrich our communities and drive sustainable growth. Together, we can create a legacy that respects our past while building a more vibrant and inclusive future for all South Australians.
● Replace all references to State Heritage Place with Heritage Place
● Define Heritage Place as State Heritage Place, Local Heritage Place, and Living Cultural Activity
● Include the assessment rubric (see below in this document) as a schedule in the act, or within a new Heritage Places Regulation by ministerial order
● Either:
○ A) amend the definition of heritage significance to specifically include intangible cultural heritage
○ B) amend s 16 to include the elements of the intangible cultural heritage definition per the assessment rubric
● Amend s 16 to incorporate the elements of the now removed PDI Act s 67(1)(a)-(f)
● Section 16 will continue to serve as the qualification criteria for any Heritage Place. It must refer to the assessment tool schedule in the act
● Create a new section 16A which delineates Heritage Places into State Heritage Places and Local Heritage Places, each to be recorded in the Register. Definitions for each will be based on the significance to the state and significance to the local area, with specifics to be determined by ministerial order via a new Heritage Places Regulation
○ The Heritage Council remains the authority for adding State Heritage Places
○ The Minister for Heritage, Minister for Planning, Local Council, Planning Commission, and Heritage Council are the relevant authorities to add a Local Heritage Place to the register
In practice, this will not operationally differ from the current regime, except that the Heritage Council maintains the completed register
○ The Heritage Council is the authority for removal or adjustment of existing heritage places (e.g. transition from State to Local, Local to State, or off the register entirely)
● Create a new s 16B regarding Living Cultural Activity (LCA). This is the so-called third tier of heritage listing. While a place may be admitted to the Register on the basis of eligibility per s16 and s16A, a place may solely or additionally be added to the Register on the basis of its Living Culture significance
○ Living Culture is an activity. The eligibility criteria mirror those in s 16, but with the additional rephrasing regarding an action or actions rather than a physical place. There is to be a focus on the intangible cultural heritage per the assessment rubric. The effect of this section is to protect the activity. This needs to be a separate section as activities can both require a distinct physical space or require any space
○ The Heritage Council is the relevant authority for admission as a place or activity of Living Cultural Heritage
● Define, outright, the priority of development of Heritage Places:
1. Continuous Use. Continuous Use can incorporate a Partial Demolition where appropriate
2. Partial Continuous Use, only in the case where the explicit continuous use is not viable, but the general continuous use is viable (e.g. a pub with a brewery where the brewery operation becomes unviable but the pub remains viable). Partial Continuous Use can incorporate a Partial Demolition where appropriate
3. Adaptive Reuse, only in the case where continuous use or partial continuous use is not viable
4. Partial Demolition, only in the case where it supports, in order of priority, continuous use or partial continuous use, or Adaptive Reuse in the case where continuous use is not viable
5. Demolition
○ In the case of a LCA in any place, or a LCA in a LHP or SHP, only development options 1 and 2 are available. The LCA would need to be removed in order to make options 3-5 available
○ The relevant authority regarding the viability of the use is the Council, upon advice and public submission. An owner of a Heritage Place cannot argue that a place is no longer viable simply because they are not using it i.e. land banking
● Amend s 36 to include the term ‘neglect’, with a definition inclusive of misuse or non-use of the Heritage Place (i.e. land banking) despite viability. In addition to the existing financial penalty, an order for the restoration of the Heritage Place and, or, the compulsory sale of the Heritage Place is made an available penalty. This would have the effect of returning the ownership of the Heritage Place to the people
● Remove s 67 (i.e. Local Heritage Places (LHP)), and the associated provisions from the act and the Planning Development Code (PDC)
○ Keep the adjacent references to Significant Trees
● Replace all references to Local Heritage Place and State Heritage Place (SHP) with Heritage Place, with the meaning as in the Heritage Places Act
● The code will need to be rewritten to defer development decisions of LHPs and LCAs to the same pathway that currently exists for SHPs
● Incorporate appropriate policies to support the priority of development options for Heritage Places
These proposals align entirely with Recommendation 12 of the PSIR that the Government has accepted. We have avoided prescribing the exact nature of these amendments as we are open to discussion about the exact implementation of these proposals, so we may align them with the Government’s existing work on the system. We believe that all involved parties are best served by participating in a collaborative manner.
STC Policy Brief July 2024 (pdf)
Download