- The new concurrence trigger for development on sites adjoining State heritage places which has been announced under the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 without consideration of the implications for the Queensland Heritage Act, or any amendment of that Act. The trigger and associated amendments to State Development Assessment Provisions potentially has significant implications for development yield on sites adjoining State heritage places.
- The distinct and divergent treatment of local heritage listing under the Queensland Heritage Act 1992 which has the potential to lead to unsatisfactory local heritage listings without any legal recourse by effected property owners.
- The trend in cases and in proposed amendments to City Plan 2014, to move away from the protection of the character of streets and neighbourhoods to spot selection of individual houses or small groups of houses for character protection.
- The decisions of the Courts in two cases in which HopgoodGanim Lawyers successfully acted, University of Queensland v Brisbane City Council and Cbus (2016) QPELR 654 (representing Cbus) concerning 443 Queen Street adjoining the Customs House and Corporation of the Sisters of Mercy of the Diocese of Townsville v Queensland Heritage Council (2017) QPEC 14 (representing the Queensland Heritage Council).
The paper Heritage Conservation, Character Protection and ’The Vibe’ can be read by following the link below.