T H E 2 0 1 6 S O U T H A U S T R A L I A N C O M M U N I T Y C O N S U LTAT I O N O N L O C A L H E R I TA G E
Part 2 : Su bmiss ions
2.2
‘Only the local community, working with the Council, can fully understand and protect the value of heritage. Developers only see opportunity, while the community sees how heritage adds character and value.’ Nairne and District Residents Association
SUBMISSIONS FROM RESIDENTS’ AND COMMUNITY ORGANISATIONS
Thirteen submissions came from residents’ and community organisations. While such bodies lack the representative character of local government, they take an intense interest in local planning issues, including heritage. Many sprang up for the specific purpose of bringing pressure to bear on local councils considering contentious planning and development proposals. Some date back to the 1970s and preserve collective memories of issues, campaigns, defeats and victories forgotten by government instrumentalities where rapid turnover in staff and a focus on current politics contributes to institutional amnesia. Most submissions in this category come from inner suburban council areas subject to continuous development pressure. Unwanted development is always a major concern for them, and they frequently invoke heritage as much as an instrument of combat as an end in itself. The truncated consultation process instigated by the DPTI discussion paper deterred many from making submissions, because their cycle of meetings and decision-making processes made a four-week or even an eight-week deadline virtually impossible to meet. That 13 managed to overcome these problems is partly due to the network of communication established by umbrella organisations such as the Community Alliance, Save our Suburbs and the National Trust. All of them registered dissatisfaction with the DPTI consultation process and asked that more extensive consultation precede any changes to existing local heritage processes. Seven of the submitting residents’ and community groups belong to the Community Alliance, which claims affiliation from 23 member organisations. The submissions evince independent thought and are by no means cookie-cutter replicas of each other. Only one of the 13 submissions comes from outside the inner suburbs, that of the Nairne and District Residents Association (P183). As they watch more and more countryside subdivided for housing they believe it is only ‘a matter of time before developers seek the replacement of existing heritage buildings with higher density housing as the solution to the demand for property.’ In their opinion ‘only the local community, working with the Council, can fully understand and protect the value of heritage. Developers only see opportunity, while the community sees how heritage adds character and value.’
48