" Heritage Listing " Value Loss !

The owners of historic homes built in the early nineteenth century are always at risk of their council slapping a heritage order on the property.  That usually prevents them making any structural alterations that changes the original appearance, down to the type of letterbox and colour of paint used. A heritage order also usually makes the home very hard to sell because that order limits the new owners use of the property.

Ku-ring-gai council has a heritage order on a Pymble home that was designed by architect Sydney Archer in 1949, well after the end of the second world war and when austerity was necessary because of the shortage of building materials.  The order came into force in 2015 without the knowledge of its owner, thirty years after the property was purchased.

When the property was listed for sale in 2017 it was estimated to bring two million dollars, but when this heritage order became known offers failed to exceed $ 1.3 million.  Homes in that area are sought for demolition and the rebuilding of comfortable family homes and the heritage order prevents that option.

Basically, the council order has devalued the owners asset by $700,000 and the reason given for that heritage order was "  preserve the historic and aesthetic  significance as an example of a modest post war dwelling with modern details. "

The owner points out that the house is far from original.   Fifteen years ago, before that order was in place, she replaced the slate roof with corrugated steel.   How can you have a Colourbond roof with a heritage listing ? " she asks.

The owners request to have the heritage order lifted has been rejected and the council suggested she apply for relief from its " heritage home relief fund ", but this was also rejected.  It seems grossly unfair that a home can be randomly selected and slapped with a heritage order so that any interested third parties can view examples of earlier architecture at their pleasure.  To add insult to injury, the council has the power to order the home owner to maintain the property to that required heritage standard.   In this case, it requires expensive maintenance that the owner can not afford.

It is also a warning that capricious decisions by councils can have a devastating effect on home values.   At one stage a council slapped a heritage order on a whole street of housing Commission homes erected soon after the end of the second world war.   They wanted to preserve an example of that type of housing for posterity and these homes had been originally rented, but sold to tenants when the policy changed.  These owners were locked into a time warp that virtually made their homes unsaleable.

The purpose of that " heritage home relief fund  " was to compensate owners who suffered loss because of a heritage order," but the decision also rested with exactly the same people responsible for the order.  It would be reasonable to expect that if a public benefit is expected from the issue of a heritage order, the cost outcome should at least be equally shared by the authority with the power to enforce that order.

As it stands, it is a one sided deal with all the cost on the shoulders of the  owner of the property on which the heritage order is imposed  !