GAWLER Council will spend $200,000 on reviewing the town’s 609 contributory heritage items in a bid to protect them from proposed State Government planning changes.
Elected members at their August meeting a fortnight ago voted seven to two in favour of engaging a contractor to look over Gawler’s contributory heritage items to identify the 100 most suitable items to be changed to local heritage items Councillors Ian Tooley and Jim Vallelonga were the two elected members to vote against the motion.
The review will inform a further transition development plan amendment (DPA) to be lodged by council, which would see the 100 identified contributory items officially changed to local heritage items.
Under proposed planning guidelines included in the State Government’s Planning and Design Code, special protections for local heritage items will be guaranteed, but the status of contributory heritage items is unclear.
The review and a statement of intent for the transitional DPA must be completed and submitted to Planning Minister Stephan Knoll by November.
During debate, councillor David Hughes said maintaining the town’s heritage was vital for the strength of the town.
“This helps us move forward on this matter, it’s important we do protect our heritage and work through the process which is being changed by the government.
“It (heritage) makes Gawler unique, as one of the state’s first country towns that heritage is important.
“It’s one of the reasons people live in Gawler and move in to Gawler.”
In July, The Bunyip reported Gawler Council was worried less-stringent checks for contributory items under the new planning code would lead to Gawler heritage items slipping through the cracks and being lost.
In a report presented at the August meeting, the limit of 100 contributory items to be converted to local heritage items imposed by the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure was raised as a point of “great concern” for council, with far more than 100 envisaged to be suitable for conversion.
Cr Tooley, in arguing against the motion, was concerned having blanket protections over contributory items wouldn’t guarantee these items would be maintained to an acceptable and safe standard.
“Many contributory items are just rotting and decaying in this town because it’s a wish that we would love people to be investing in restoring them, but the reality is they won’t,” he said.