In her letter of August 31, Councillor Robinson questions the refusal by the majority of her fellow councillors of a development application for a solar heater on the roof of a house in Mann Street and indeed questions whether the community cares about it.
Clearly Council has an obligation to refuse the application because it contravenes Chapter C5 of DCP 2007, but interestingly there have been suggestions the policy should be reviewed. I agree but see a certain irony in this suggestion as the policy was adopted by Council less than a year ago, on September 27, in spite of my submission opposing this very regulation.
The instance in question highlights the gulf between what many people would consider to be a reasonable proposal and the dogma implicit in aspects of prescriptive policies governing development in heritage areas.
The policy supposedly supports the upgrading of existing buildings to modern standards but, in outlawing the installation of solar collectors on the street elevation of a building, it eliminates this possibility to many Armidale residents. It is important that impacts be considered and minimised but the Mann Street example shows that such installations can be sensitive and not destructive of the local environment. Sustainability and the global climate also demand priority, particularly in the context of an area of little significance beyond Armidale.
The fact that the policy is prescribed gives Council or residents very limited opportunity to compromise. Council is obliged to uphold its policies and the Land and Environment Court is unlikely to challenge them, either.
I think it is a mistake to see heritage conservation as an objective science or that prescriptive policies will necessarily achieve good conservation outcomes. This instance clearly highlights the need for a further review of Council’s heritage policies.
David Temple,
Armidale
