CONSERVATION PLANNING CONTEXT

2. Identified Problems associated with existing policies and conservation programs

The conservation controls and mechanisms implemented in Victoria have elicited comment and some concern from both local implementing bodies and the owners of affected properties. In some instances, this criticism has been a basic philosophical anti-planning stance against any control over individual properties, whereas in others it relates to a particular part or element of the process. The celebrated Wade case in Parkville (Doug Wade Consultants Pty Ltd v. City of Melbourne, 2 PABR 221) focused on this dichotomy of the freedom of the individual to do as he/she wishes with his/her own property against the perceived public interest in the preservation and enhancement of buildings and areas.

In some instances (notably the Cities of Brighton and Sandringham) local attempts to introduce conservation controls have been thwarted by public campaigns. Much of this seems to emanate from either a lack of commitment, by the local Council, a hostile or negative local press, inadequate involvement or education of the public, insufficient expert technical analysis of the area or an inflexible approach with regard to implementation.

Part of the local criticism also seems to stem from a lack of understanding about the basis and need for controls, a perception that they are elitist and a confusion as to how they relate to existing planning controls, (particularly in the case of Overlay controls).

The level and extent of controls has been questioned by both local planning officers and individual property owners and relates particularly to the need for permits for virtually any development in the metropolitan-wide Urban Conservation Area One control. A focus on controlling a large number of individual buildings also causes strong negative reaction by property owners. For example, the City of Brighton listed 700 properties as of heritage significance (A-E grading) and then attempted to introduce strict building controls on the 70 "A" designated buildings.

Planning staff in various local councils also note the onerous and time-consuming nature of controls over often insignificant matters. Blanket requirements for detailed permits and advertising have lead to considerable time necessary to process simple, non­-controversial applications with often unnecessary and frustrating Appeals. Also, local Councils often do not have the detailed technical expertise necessary to interpret and consistently and fairly implement the often complex controls and guidelines developed by heritage consultants.

These sorts of criticisms are being made of a broad range of statutory controls and are currently being investigated at Federal level by the review of local approvals committee, chaired by. Mr. Justice Else Mitchell. At a broader level, there is also considerable concern that the continual expansion of the same urban conservation controls over all of metropolitan Melbourne, effecting an increasing number of property owners, may "erode the force of controls on truly significant areas such as Parkville."1