It is not heritage that is stifling development in Tenterfield. It is more likely that an article such as that appearing on page 20 of the
My experience over many years as an historian of Tenterfield, demonstrates that indeed history comes with a relatively cheap price tag. The recording of the town and district’s history and the care of our natural, built and cultural heritage are the driving forces in attracting tourists and newcomers to the area, as well as developers. When planning the Henry Parkes plaza, head of New England properties, Phillip Hanna, readily praised the value of heritage to the Tenterfield community, so much so, that the plaza design included over the footpath awnings on posts to fit in with council’s plan to encourage the re-instatement of this type of awning or verandah in the town’s central business area.
The article quoted Phillip Hanna as describing the Peberdy House as derelict, when in fact, the house had been lived in until its sale to New England Properties and certainly had not been abandoned nor forsaken by its previous owners.
The article referred to Hanna’s claim that an 18-month wrangle over the Peberdy House involved $350,000 worth of heritage spending but there is no acknowledgement of a considerable financial contribution by the NSW Heritage Office towards that project. Nor is there any acknowledgement of a concession by the NSW Heritage Office that allowed the demolition of a sound detached kitchen which was an integral part of the Peberdy House. This concession was granted to allow for more plaza parking spaces and demonstrates the flexibility that exists in dealing with heritage buildings.
The article claims that Margot Rees Antiques “had a less than satisfying experience with the Heritage Advisory Committee”. To my knowledge, as a member of that committee, there has never been an experience, satisfying or unsatisfying, between Margot Rees Antiques and the Heritage Advisory Committee. Established in late 2005, the Heritage Advisory Committee’s role is to advise Tenterfield Shire Council on heritage matters when requested. That advice is, and rightly so, sometimes taken by the council and sometimes not.
If the writer had bothered to check council records or read the heritage assessment on Grogan’s Welding Works (in the article, wrongly referred to as the “original Tenterfied farriers”) she would find answers to her question of why the building had been allowed to be demolished. And where is that “plaque on a gravel paver” in front of the colorbond storage sheds!
It makes no sense to suggest “that it is now understood that architectural advice was an area of expertise not covered by the heritage advisor’s tertiary qualifications”, when in fact, that has never been an expectation. The role of the heritage advisor is to advise on the many general and varied aspects of heritage, of which architecture is only one part. If property owners require architectural advice, they would engage a qualified architect and, if the work is likely to be heavily focused on heritage, then seek out a qualified heritage architect.
Free Times (Thursday February 3, 2011) could be a culprit. The article lacks a balance of facts, leaving much of its content open to challenge. Posing the question, who should pay for heritage, the writer immediately comes to the conclusion that “history comes with an expensive price tag”. Ken Halliday,
Tenterfield
