SUBMISSIONS SUMMARY HERITAGE DCP A18
July 2016 SUB NO
NAME COMMENT RESPONSE RECOMMENDATION
State Agencies 1 NSW Dept of
Education – Asset
Management Directorate (Mr John Neish)
Operate 32 schools within TSC.
Understand the NSW Dept Education has 6 schools listed as heritage items and 3 schools within heritage
conservation areas.
Values the rich history of the Tweed and will take into full considerations the guidelines of the draft DCP.
Noted that Chillingham Public School is not listed in Schedule 5 and has been listed in previous LEPs.
Support is noted.
Chillingham Public School was not listed in the LEP 2000 nor LEP 1987, however, was included in the draft LEP 2005 and did not proceed to LEP 2014.
No further action required.
5 Transport NSW (Tim Dewey A/Principle Manager Land Use Planning and
Development Transport Strategy)
Have reviewed that draft plan and have no comments to make.
Noted. No further action.
Community
2 Notes that controls are much stronger
and more clearly defined for built heritage (HCAs) than for Aboriginal significance. Feels that Aboriginal cultural heritage significance is arguably more significance and much has already been lost or destroyed. Not clear how removal of, for example, a bora ring would be avoided using these guidelines.
Requests stronger wording and specific protection for Aboriginal heritage.
Support for Aboriginal cultural heritage is noted.
The Heritage DCP applies to heritage items and conservation areas listed within Schedule 5 of the LEP, essentially built European heritage, as noted.
The DCP, whilst acknowledging Aboriginal cultural heritage (ACH), does not apply to sites of ACH.
Council is currently preparing an Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Management Plan (ACHMP). The
management of ACH is significantly different to that of European heritage, as an example, the ACHMP will apply to both tangible and intangible cultural heritage.
Notwithstanding, ACH is managed through the National Parks and Wildlife Act , which provides processes for the identification, assessment and potential harm of ACH. The ACHMP will not replace these requirements, rather it will highlight them.
No further action.
3 Association has always and continues to
object to the listing of the Tyalgum Community Hall as a heritage items.
Considers the significance has not been researched properly and the original structure has been added to such that little now remains.
Objects to the cost of preparing a SOHI.
Notes that the hall has been suitably maintained by the association; and they do not feel Council needs to supervise their hall maintenance.
Considers the advice received so far from Council as ridiculous.
Objection to the Hall listing is noted, however outside the scope of the Heritage DCP project as this is a matter for the LEP. The DCP provides development guidelines, but does not manage the listing of items.
Notwithstanding, whilst the hall has been extended and modified over its history, as have most heritage buildings, it still meets 3 of the 7 significance
criteria and Tyalgum Community Hall demonstrates both historical and current associations with the local community and local community groups. Its setting in the main street of Tyalgum also
contributes to its historic and social significance as a public building for the local community. (updated April 2015 from the Statement of Heritage Impact by Cosmos Archaelogy P/L January 2015).
The ongoing maintenance of the hall by the association is commended and the heritage provisions of the DCP support this ongoing
maintenance, whilst encouraging an understanding and respect for the heritage significance.
The cost of the incremental Statement of Heritage Impact Assessments could be offset by the preparation of a Conservation Management Plan (CMP). Which, whilst more costly up front, would outline all works proposed to maintain the hall’s significance, and thus alleviate the need for a SOHI at each stage of works. This has been discussed with the Association. The Association has also been advised that a CMP may be considered for funding within the local heritage assistance funding program.
No further action.
4 Submission is focussed largely on
Aboriginal heritage matters, the naming of Mount Wollumbin / Mt Warning and
Concerns, action and referrals are noted.
The matters of process regarding the CBHS are
No further action.
SUB NO
NAME COMMENT RESPONSE RECOMMENDATION
the naming of the Tweed’s “Bundjalung”
people, all of which the submitter has ongoing concerns over with regards to process.
Considers the CBHS; the draft DCP A18;
the Aboriginal cultural mapping; naming of Mount Wollumbin/Mt Warning; the membership of the Aboriginal Advisory Committee (AAC); Bundjalung language Hub at SCU; as false documents, actions or groups.
Outlined numerous actions and referrals to Councillors, Senior Management, Members of Parliament, ICAC, the UN, Australian Human Rights Commission, Geographical Names Board, State and Federal Ombusdsman,
Notes that his family’s cable car rights have been stolen because the property was removed from the CBHS and objects to the removal of Prospero Street from the CBHS.
States the Draft Heritage DCP has not been prepare in adherence to the Burra Charter, does not preserve indigenous cultural heritage/places and does not preserve the character, heritage and amenity of existing towns and villages.
outside the scope of the Heritage DCP Heritage DCP project as this is a matter for the LEP. The DCP provides development guidelines, but does not manage the listing of items.
With regard to cable car rights this is also outside the scope of the Heritage DCP and is a matter for a DA and subject to permissibility and merit
assessment.
The Heritage DCP IS prepared consistent with the objectives of the Burra Charter, the OEH
Guidelines and best industry practice.
The DCP applies to heritage items and
conservation areas listed within Schedule 5 of the LEP, essentially built European heritage, as noted.
It does not apply broadly to the character of the Tweed’s towns and villages as this is not the role of the heritage DCP, rather this is the role of the Shire’s locality plans.
The DCP, whilst acknowledging Aboriginal cultural heritage (ACH), does not apply to sites of ACH.
Council is currently preparing an Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Management Plan (ACHMP). The
management of ACH is significantly different to that of European heritage, as an example, the ACHMP will apply to both tangible and intangible cultural heritage.
Notwithstanding, ACH is managed through the National Parks and Wildlife Act , which provides processes for the identification, assessment and potential harm of ACH. The ACHMP will not replace these requirements, rather it will highlight them.