WHAT TO SAY IN YOUR LETTER TO THE HERITAGE COUNCIL OF WA

I have had quite a few requests for guidance about what to say in the letter to the Heritage Council of WA.

So I will post some draft words below.

But remember to make your letter personal and reflecting your particular concerns.

You must sign it and it must be a hard copy letter delivered or posted to the the following address by 18 February:

The Executive Director
Office of Heritage,
PO Box 6201,
East Perth  WA 6892

Before we get to the draft letter,  I sat on my plane coming home tonight and crystalised in my mind what I am really concerned about.  There are four main points I would make:

1. The Community Agreed on a Plan:  That after significant investment of time over several years by the City of Nedlands, the WA Government, the Heritage Council of WA, and the residents of Mount Claremont, an  agreed Development Plan was ratified by Heritage Council of WA and incorporated into the City of Nedlands Town Planning Scheme No. 2.  The property was then sold by the WA Government to the owner subject to the conditions agreed through this well run consultative process.

2.  It's not the Council's fault the project is delayed: That since then, the City of Nedlands has been forced to resist several attempts by the owner to overturn key elements of the community agreed development plan, most recently to the SAT.  The Heritage Council of WA assisted the owner in his appeal to the SAT.  Now the City of Nedlands is being demonised in the press as the reason for the delay in the commencement of development.

3.  A wonderful little discovery of Clause 38:  The Heritage Council of WA has now discovered a way through the little used Section 38 of the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990 to remove the Old Swanbourne Hospital from being subject to the City of Nedlands Town Planning Scheme No. 2.  If the Heritage Council of WA is successful,  all planning decisions will be made by the public servants who work for the WA Planning Commission - and these decisions will not be bound by any of the planning guidelines of our local government authority (such as height of buildings, plot density, road access, removal of heritage buildings and so on).

4. Just before Christmas:  By initiating this move just before Christmas when people are away and during Australia's peak holiday season, and with a very short time for people to respond with submissions, the process is demonstrably cynical, patronising, and secretive - abandoning any pretences of good, fair, transparent and inclusive urban planning.

So - here's my suggested wording below.

Thanks for your action.

David Thomas



The Executive Director,
Office of Heritage,
PO Box 6201,
East Perth WA


Dear Sir,


Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990
Notice of Measures Proposed Requiring Legislative Amendment
Swanbourne Hospital Conservation Area

I wish to advise  you that I am opposed to the Notice of Measures Proposed Requiring Legislative Amendment pursuant to the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990 (the “Act”) announced in the Government Gazette on 17 December 2010 (reference HR402) and published by the Department of Heritage.  I understand that under the Section 38 of the Act, the Minister for Heritage proposes to issue an Order to be cited as the Swanbourne Hospital Conservation Area Order 2011 (the “Order”) in relation to the land shown in Certificate of Title Volume 2121 Folio 149 and described as Lot 1204 on Diagram 75983 –known as the Swanbourne Hospital Conservation Area (the “Land”).  

The Order will result in the suspension of the following written laws currently applying to the Land:

1.      The City of Nedlands Town Planning Scheme No. 2 (“TPS 2”) and any subsequent local planning scheme made pursuant to the Planning and Development Act 2005;

2.      Any codes, standards, or policies made pursuant to the written laws referred to in (1) above.

The effect of the Order will be to remove the Land from the development control requirements of TPS 2 and give the Western Australian Planning Commission sole responsibility for development approval on the Land, pursuant to the Metropolitan Region Scheme.

My understanding is that TPS 2 incorporates the recommended development guidelines for the Land that were developed through a process of extensive consultation organised by the City of Nedlands, the Department of Housing and Works and the Heritage Council of WA over the period from 2003 to 2005 with the residents of Mount Claremont and other interested parties prior to the sale of the Land by the WA Government to the current owner.  I wish to commend the   City of Nedlands for consistently seeking to hold the owner of the Land to the terms of TPS 2, most recently through a successful defence of the terms of TPS 2 before the State Administrative Tribunal (reference 2008 – WASAT 274).

I  respectfully request that the Heritage Council of WA recommend to the Minister for Heritage that the proposed Legislative Amendment is not proceeded with, and instead that the recommended development guidelines for the Land, as outlined in TPS 2, are preserved. 

I am keen for the development of the Swanbourne Hospital Conservation Area to proceed as soon as possible, under the planning guidelines agreed with the community, ratified by the Heritage Council of WA  and incorporated into the City of Nedlands Town Planning Scheme No. 2.

Yours Sincerely,