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
13. FINDING:   The six submissions received from individuals, business and lobbying groups involved with property and development do not support the proposition that there is widespread demand from this sector for reform of local heritage. Two of the submissions took issue with the discussion paper from a pro-heritage position and the one submission received from a private company gave general support.
Rather than supporting changes canvassed in the discussion paper, the industry submissions advance more radical proposals to: remove protection from all Contributory Items and delete any mention of them in the forthcoming Planning and Design Code; audit and cull existing LHPs ahead of translating any to the Planning and Design Code; weaken interim protection for nominated local heritage places; and eliminate expert heritage committees and accredited professionals from the local heritage system.
Pa rt 2 : Su bmi ss ions
Comment from associations representing the property and development industry comprise 11 pages of all the submissions received (1.7%) and consist of assertions unsupported by evidence or references to back up claims that the present system of protection for local heritage inhibits investment and job creation. This points to a lackadaisical engagement with the issues at stake which were treated far more comprehensively in submissions from local government and community organisations.
87