Adrian Burton

2014 candidate for City of Victor Harbor.
Heritage survey responses.

What do you think Council's role is in protecting and conserving heritage?
As they are based upon relevant legislation, one might imagine that the Heritage Lists at federal, state and local government level and the functioning of such groups as the local Heritage Advisory Committee should provide adequate protection for heritage, yet evidence suggests the existing structures and process are not working satisfactorily. I believe the most important current role Council should play is to actively sponsor and engage in a long-term, broad-based, multi-level education programme for staff, Elected Members and the community in general (preferably in conjunction with support from federal and state governments, schools and educational organisations such as TAFE and universities, the local business community, sporting organisations, service clubs etc). “Heritage is not solely about formal recognition, or about formal acknowledgement, about being on Heritage Lists. It is about the climate of the heart, not just the head. A simple adherence to legislation, rules and regulations does not allow for creativity, imagination, spontaneity, passion and enthusiasm, in addition it must be an acceptance of the need for change in attitude.” * (* Mr Fred Van Gestel, Deputy Chair of the local branch of the National Trust in his paper presented to the Victor Harbor Heritage Advisory Committee in July of 2013.) I do not make the personal observation in a judgemental sense and I realise the situation could have developed as a result of a range of different influences/obligations/responsibilities but I sense that Council has too frequently tended to play the role of official gatekeeper/policeman and too infrequently played the softer but equally important role of motivator/educator/encourager/supporter/facilitator.
What measures and incentives do you support to protect and conserve local heritage?
Without meaning to sound either “irritable or flippant”, I support a range of measures and incentives that differ from whatever has been operating in the last few decades because I believe it has become apparent that the current approach to protecting and conserving local heritage is not working. “Demolishing buildings of importance, such as Roseneath, Dalblair, the Clifton, Seymour, Columbarie and dozens of other historic places, destroys souls”. ** (** Mr Fred Van Gestel, Deputy Chair of the local branch of the National Trust in his paper presented to the Victor Harbor Heritage Advisory Committee in July of 2013.) Whilst wary of making vague motherhood statements, I believe the development over time of a more genuinely open and trusting two-way relationship between Council and the community it serves would be more likely to establish a climate in which the chances of success for measures and incentives to foster a mutual recognition of and respect for the importance of heritage might be maximised. I’m obviously not in a position to specify a definitive range of practical incentives but I suggest a couple of well-organised community workshops (preferably not controlled by Council) would be likely to come up with a range of possible options such as rate reductions in certain specific circumstances, the formation of an independent community organisation to provide appropriate advice, feedback, support, motivation etc.
What is the most important heritage protection issue in your local government area?
I strongly believe the most important heritage issue is for the Council Development Plan to be methodically amended and more rigorously enforced to provide less “wriggle room” for developments to “negatively impinge” on heritage issues. For example, the Development Plan states (in effect) that the view from the Whale Lookout should be “maintained and enhanced” yet approval has been obtained to build a private dwelling (in Hardy Street) that neither maintains nor enhances the iconic view. Although it might be argued that “on balance” there should be “a degree of flexibility” with respect to such matters, local heritage issues appear to have consistently played second fiddle to “commercial opportunity” to such a degree that much of the original charm that attracted residents and tourists to Victor has regretfully been lost and replaced the unfortunate and unappealing by-products spawned by what I see as hard–nosed commercial expediency and short-term opportunism. Whilst not wanting to lessen the significance of other important local heritage issues, I believe Crossman’s Bridge, Mt Alma Road, Inman Valley and opened 101 years ago, almost to the day, is a rare example of a red gum timber bridge and our second most important protection issue. “The bridge demonstrates important aspects of the evolution or pattern of the State’s history, particularly the development of road transport; The bridge has rare, uncommon or endangered qualities that are of cultural significance; The bridge demonstrates a high degree of creative, aesthetic or technical accomplishment or is an outstanding representative of particular construction techniques or design characteristics in the manner of its construction.”*** (*** Victor Harbor Heritage Survey {1997})
What policies and programs will you advocate to protect and conserve heritage in your local area?
As previously explained above, I believe it is important that a multi-level, long-term education policy be implemented and undertaken to protect and conserve heritage in our local area. I believe it is important that the Development Plan be amended (over time) to provide more support and protection for heritage issues. In effect I believe the answers provided to other questions adequately outline my views with respect to the protection and conservation of heritage.
Do you support local Councils retaining development approval powers for projects over $3m in value?
Yes, however I preface my remarks with an acknowledgement that I am a candidate who has not served a term on Council and have had no exposure to the new development approval process for projects over $3 million in value. In general terms and wherever possible, I believe decisions should be kept local. Because they have to “live with” developments on a daily basis, the local community is usually better able to assess the relative merit and projected impact of proposals than a remote bureaucrat. I cite what I believe was a negative example of a major housing development at Mt Barker being approved by state planning administrators as a most concerning outcome from a lop-sided process in which I understand the clearly expressed wishes of the local community were in effect ultimately ignored. I find community consultation (whether it concern heritage issues or development approval for projects over $3 million in value) that is not genuine but cynically undertaken merely to enable a formal requirement to be satisfied on some tick the box checklist to be frustrating and dysfunctional in the extreme. It is with considerable regret that I note that an article on page 3 of The Advertiser dated 20th October 2014 reveals that:- “Ninety developments worth more than $1 billion have been removed from the authority of local councils and taken over by the State Government since a streamlined approval process took effect.” I wonder to what extent adequate provision and protection (ie an improvement on the previous situation) for heritage constitutes an important requirement of any new streamlined approval process.
Do you have any other thoughts about the protection of heritage in your Council area?
Whilst I commend the National Trust for their role and initiative in highlighting the importance of heritage issues immediately prior to Council elections, I point out that I received this survey on 15th October and my reply has been requested by 20th October, leaving 5 days at a hectic and stressful time during an important election campaign to provide a considered response to a series of searching questions on a topic that is most important. I fully understand the relevance of the deadlines in terms of publishing the replies of candidates prior to the voting papers being posted out but regret that due to pressures and time constraints my written comments (that could be published online, could remain on the record and could come under scrutiny by fellow candidates, council administration, residents and ratepayers), could be quite different to the nature and quality of response offered in more favourable circumstances. In addition to this survey, all candidates in our council election have already been requested to return a questionnaire conducted by our local branch of the National Trust and I wonder whether one pre-election survey on heritage matters might suffice. Perhaps there may have been benefit from having one survey before the election and a more searching survey with productive on-going follow-up involving those who are elected. I accept the importance of building functional two-way bridges of mutual trust, respect and communication between Councillors and the National Trust and politely wonder whether the conduct and effectiveness of this survey process might benefit from some form of internal evaluation (and if such a process is undertaken, I suggest the candidates surveyed might appreciate receiving a copy should there be any written outcome).