When Local Governments Plan to Give Their Past a Future: A State-Wide Analysis of Heritage Strategy Documents in New South Wales (Australia)

Abstract

The authorized heritage discourse sensu Smith asserts that cultural heritage, and in particular heritage places, can be managed for the benefit of present and future generations through appropriate measures of identification, protection and conservation. Comprehensive planning at the individual place as well as community/local government level is the backbone to good management if ad hoc decisions are to be avoided. While all local government authorities (councils) in New South Wales (Australia) are mandated to produce Local Strategic Planning Statements with a ten-year horizon that may include statements related to heritage management, some councils also promulgated dedicated heritage strategies. So far, the nature and comprehensiveness of such planning instruments have never been formally investigated. This paper provides a state-wide analysis of Local Strategic Planning Statements and council heritage strategies in NSW. The review shows that the priorities expressed in heritage strategies are often mundane, with none of the strategies expressing aspirational priorities or actions. The value of heritage to a community is assumed axiomatically, with very few heritage strategies expressing a vision for why heritage management is of community relevance. Only a few heritage strategies demonstrate how they, and their strategic priorities, are interlinked with other local, let alone state-level, strategies and policies. Very few of the documents provide evidence for the basis on which the strategies are founded, such as canvassing public opinion, situational analysis or projections of demographic, social, societal and economic trajectories based on strategic foresight. This review highlights much room for improvement. In a post-modernist age of alternative truths, where trust in governments is declining, it is imperative that local government heritage strategies be grounded in the community, offer transparency in how priorities are decided and, above all, provide a clear and aspirational vision for the role that cultural heritage shall play in the community.

1. Introduction

In a broad context, cultural heritage derives from the interactions of people, both among themselves and with the environment that they have created and the natural environment in which this is embedded. The outcome of these interactions can manifest in a number of forms. Intangible cultural heritage is the result of people’s interactions with each other as well as with the environment in which they live, and this finds its expression, for example, in skills, language, folklore, practices and customs. People’s physical interaction with the environment manifests in tangible forms, such as the built and constructed environment, cultural modifications to landscapes, refuse and resource extraction sites as well as in a wide range of moveable objects and artefacts of varied sizes and materials. What differentiates these interactions as heritage worth preserving is the cultural value that a community attaches to these [1,2], with the desire to maintain these tangible and intangible manifestations for the benefit of the present community [3,4,5] and, purportedly, for the benefit and enjoyment of future generations [6].

Standard cultural heritage management, which has been termed the ‘authorized heritage discourse’ [7], promotes the active management of cultural heritage items and places through legal and administrative instruments to prevent their unauthorized modification or demolition and through active intervention to limit the effects of environmental decay. The first is achieved through legislative and regulatory mechanisms, such as legislation [8,9,10], zoning [11] and development standards and control plans [12,13]. The latter involves various administrative and technical protocols [14] that dictate, within defined parameters, the protection of assets against environmental deterioration via conservation management plans [15,16,17,18], as well as the mitigation of natural and human-induced risks through disaster management plans [19,20].

While any given heritage asset may be of international, national or state-wide significance, the majority of identified assets are significant at the local level only, as they have relevance to that community alone. Their management occurs primarily at the local government area (LGA) level (town, county, shire). Given the tension between preservation of the status quo and the demands for urban housing and infrastructural development, the preservation of cultural heritage places is frequently regarded as a factor slowing, if not impeding, ‘progress’ [21,22,23]. Yet, cultural heritage items and places represent part of the social and cultural memory of a community [24,25,26], and their tangible presence in the physical environment contributes to community identity and mental health [3,27]. While decisions on whether to preserve and manage heritage places are based on their cultural heritage value (aesthetic, historical, scientific, social and spiritual) [1,28,29] and the cultural significance of that [28,30], many heritage places also have a public appeal well beyond the community in which they exist. This appeal manifests in heritage tourism [31,32], which in turn generates economic returns for the host community. Given their role in community mental health and tourism opportunities, cultural heritage items should primarily be regarded as community assets and form an integral part of a community’s social and economic policies.

The cultural heritage of a community does not exist in a vacuum, however, but is enmeshed in its cultural, social, economic and land use fabric (Figure 1). Consequently, any community strategic plan needs to consider heritage, while also reflecting this interconnectedness and being cognizant of supra-communal realities imposed by state and national legislation, policies and funding realities.

Given that community heritage assets significantly contribute to the cultural, social and economic well-being of a community, it can be expected that communities not only include cultural heritage in their overall community strategic plans, but that they also develop specific heritage strategies.

There are only very few studies that examine the nature and comprehensiveness of planning at the local government level [33,34] and even fewer studies that evaluate the quality of municipal planning strategies [35,36,37]. At the time of writing, there are a few works that consider heritage strategies and planning, but they are either focused on the national level or deal with site management and conservation plans [38,39,40,41]. Given the distributed nature of planning, responsibilities have often been devolved to the local authorities. Some state-level government agencies have developed guides for local governments to develop heritage strategies (see below, Section “The Wider Australian Context”), but the comprehensiveness and efficacy of the resulting strategy documents has never been tested. While a limited amount of research exists into disaster preparedness planning for heritage assets at a local government level in Australia [19,42], there is no research that examines the reach, composition or content of heritage strategies at this level.

This paper will examine the nature and extent of heritage strategic planning in New South Wales, Australia. Using the structure of an ideal, comprehensive heritage strategy document (see Appendix C), this study will provide a discussion platform for improving strategic planning for heritage at the local level. It will show that the nature and coverage of the local-government-level heritage strategies are very diverse and that their quality ranges from the very perfunctory, if not poor, to comparatively useful. None are close to the ideal. As will be shown, the majority of the assessed heritage strategies do not provide the reader with a clear vision of why heritage is important and what the heritage strategy shall achieve.

2. Background

2.1. Heritage Strategies

While strategic planning in communities varies widely depending on national structural and legislative contexts [43,44], it commonly involves public consultation/community involvement, situational analysis (SWOT), projections of demographic, social, societal and economic trajectories based on strategic foresight, the identification of a community vision, identification of strategic priorities and key actions that can be derived [45,46,47,48]. Strategic planning for cultural heritage is not any different.

Community-focused heritage planning at the local government level is embedded in the state and national policy framework, which, broadly speaking, fluctuates between ‘large’ and ‘small government’, i.e., the extent to which government or private owners are responsible for the management (conservation, maintenance) of identified heritage assets. In the Australian setting, following considerable losses of historically significant urban fabric in the late 1960s and early 1970s [49,50,51], a commission of enquiry recommended Federal and State government intervention (‘Hope Report’, 1974) [52], which triggered sweeping Federal and State legislation and investment in heritage affairs. Some of this was wound back in the 1980s and early 1990s, with provisions in heritage protection regimes being ‘watered down’ or abolished altogether [11,53]. During the late 1990s and early 2000s, a dissonance emerged, which on the one hand saw heritage tourism to iconic heritage places increase, in part fuelled by world heritage and national heritage listings, while heritage promotion and protection declined at the local levels, especially for visually or conceptually less appealing sites. This trend accelerated with the development of smartphones and the concomitant rise in social-media-generated content that acted as a multiplier in exposure for iconic sites while overlooking other aspects of heritage. At the same time, the onus of identifying, protecting (via listings) and managing heritage shifted from the Federal to the local government level, albeit without a concomitant transfer of funding. Fuelled by post-modernist theory, the heritage profession diverged. While heritage theorists increasingly looked at the meaning of heritage for, and its role in, society as well as the construct of heritage itself [7,54,55,56,57], heritage managers continued to focus on asset management, pursuing what was dubbed the ‘authorized heritage discourse’ [7]. During that period, the role of the heritage professional/expert in valuation and decision-making declined (except in the realm of archaeological impact assessments and salvage) [58], while the role of community groups in heritage studies increased [59,60]—albeit beset by epistemological concerns [61].

The decline in Commonwealth government commitment, as well as a decrease in direct funding to heritage in the early 2000s, was echoed by structural changes [62]. Successive governments abolished statutory heritage bodies (e.g., Australian Heritage Commission 1975–2003) and either replaced them with differently empowered bodies (e.g., Australian Heritage Council, 2003–present) or, at the state level, progressively demoted government entities dealing with heritage in the decision-making hierarchy (from departments to offices to sections) and, depending on the political coleur of the government of the day, shuffled these between government ministries, variably reporting to Ministers for Planning (read ‘development’) or the Environment (read ‘protection’) [11].

The Wider Australian Context

In the wider Australian context, the Commonwealth government [63], as well as two of the seven States and Territories (Victoria [64] and Western Australia [65]), have provided model heritage strategies. While all strategies have an organizational focus, the latter two provide models for a spatially circumscribed heritage asset base (within an LGA) with a diversity of asset ownership, while the former does so purely for assets owned or controlled by an organization.

Agencies of the Commonwealth government that owned or controlled heritage assets as part of their property portfolio were required to develop their own heritage strategies in 2010. To this end, the then Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts issued a guide on how to prepare a heritage strategy [63]. This was updated in 2019 [66]. The strategy template is comprised of four components: general matters (agency’s objective for management of its heritage assets; role of strategy in the corporate planning framework, responsible staff positions, internal and external consultation processes, conflict resolution and plan monitoring process); heritage identification and assessment matters (identification and evaluation); management of Commonwealth heritage values (asset register, asset management plans, existing asset use and future disposal, financial plans, plan reviews); and Commonwealth heritage staff training and promotion of community awareness [66]. In the Commonwealth planning cycle, each strategy should be reviewed every three years to ensure its underlying assumptions and aims are still current [66].

In 2012, the Victorian State government issued a guide for local councils on what a municipal heritage strategy should entail. It structured the strategy under four conceptual headings: ‘knowing’ (identification, assessment and documentation of heritage places), ‘protecting’ (statutory protection, policy development, appropriate management), ‘supporting’ (assistance, advice and incentives to help conserve heritage places) and ‘communicating and promoting’ (measures to raise awareness and appreciation of the heritage of the area) [64]. These were accompanied by a series of prompts to trigger the framing and formulation processes. The strategy template contained the council’s heritage vision statement, the strategy context (state and local) and sections summarizing heritage challenges and opportunities as well as heritage-related achievements. The core was a strategy action plan, broken down by the four conceptual headings, with each identified action addressing resourcing and completion target dates [64].

The Western Australian Local Government Association, an NGO, produced a model heritage strategy for voluntary adoption by local governments of Western Australia [65]. This 2013 document leans heavily on the Victorian example, utilizing the same four conceptual pillars of ‘knowing’, ‘protecting’, ‘supporting’ and ‘communicating and promoting’. The strategy template adds two framing sections at the front: ‘purpose’ and ‘background’ (e.g., a brief description of the cultural and built heritage of the LGA; existing heritage strategies, initiatives, provisions or management programs). Significantly, it expands the formal nature of the strategy by adding the final section of ‘adoption, implementation, monitoring and review’ [65].

In 2001, the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage issued a set of recommendations that NSW local government areas (Figure 2) were to report on when applying for a renewal of their triennial grant allocation (revised in 2013) [67,68]. The recommendations provide a skeleton strategic framework by providing prompts related to the following nine topics: existence of a heritage committee; identification and listing of heritage items on the Local Environmental Plan (LEP); existence of a heritage advisor; proactive heritage and urban design management; local heritage incentives; heritage main street program; educational and promotional programs; managing council owned or operated places; and promoting sustainable development as a tool for heritage conservation [67]. It was left to local councils to interpret these and the level to which they wanted to respond to and include these in the heritage strategy documents. At the time of writing, there is no state-wide heritage strategy for NSW, but consultation on such a document has begun [69,70].

In the international sphere, guides for the development of heritage strategies were, for example, produced for local government authorities in Ireland [71]. In Ireland, however, the strategic planning framework, which includes natural heritage, was designed so that local authorities would “translat[e] the Heritage Council’s strategic vision into tangible action at the local level…[by] aligning their efforts with the strategic pillars of the Heritage Council’s plan” [71]. There are six strategic pillars: ‘Leadership and Stewardship’, ‘Climate Change and Biodiversity Loss’, ‘Research’, ‘Partnership’, ‘Communities’, and ‘Education and Engagement’ [72]. The guidelines give little specific structural detail as to how they should be given effect [71].

2.2. New South Wales Legal and Administrative Context

Although legal and administrative structures vary across regions, they share fundamental similarities. Heritage laws and the administrative systems they create typically consist of administrative, regulatory and educational elements. Aside from detailing the responsibilities, establishment, composition and authority of heritage management agencies, all laws define the categories of heritage assets, procedures for identifying and listing them for management as well as the levels of protection and penalties for infractions. Additionally, many statutes include educational provisions aimed at supporting public awareness and interpretation of heritage assets. As this case study pertains to New South Wales, Australia, the following discussion specifically concerns this jurisdiction.

Indigenous Australian (‘Aboriginal’) heritage sites in New South Wales receive protection under the National Parks and Wildlife Act (NSW) [73], as well as at the local government level, through the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act (NSW) [74]. Non-Indigenous heritage sites are safeguarded under the Heritage Act (NSW) [75,76], as well as the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. The protective component of the heritage management framework in NSW, as regulated by the Heritage Act (NSW) [75,76], encompasses assets of the state’s cultural and natural heritage (such as places, sites, structures, etc.) recognized as being culturally significant at the local (LGA), state (NSW), national (Australia-wide) or international level. Non-Indigenous heritage assets deemed significant are identified and listed in the Local Environmental Plan (LEP). They can comprise individual places (such as a site, residence or bridge) or groups of items (like a cluster of houses), or they may constitute groups of items collectively recognized as a heritage conservation area [11]. Any modifications require consent in accordance with the provisions outlined in a Development Control Plan.

In the NSW setting, since 1985, local governments have primarily been responsible for managing local heritage [67], and they are mandated to maintain a list of heritage assets, to provide standard provisions for heritage protection in their LEPs [77] and to give effect to these in their development control plans. LGAs are encouraged, but cannot be compelled, to conduct formal community heritage studies [78], or to offer technical support to constituents in the form of heritage advisors (commonly architects with special training or degrees in heritage management), for which state funding can be made available [77].

3. Methodology

This study followed the standard procedures for rapid reviews carried out by a single assessor [79,80]. Definitions were sought for heritage conservation areas in general and specific definitions, whether individual constituent components were contributing to or detracting from heritage conservation areas.

3.1. Sampling Frames and Dataset

A search was carried out in May 2024. The sampling frame was composed of a systematic Google search of NSW local government websites and publications hosted on NSW local government services (restricted to these by using the “site:xyz” coding). The following four search logics were applied:

• ‘Heritage Strategy’ + site: LGA.nsw.gov.au;
• ‘Heritage Policy’ + site: LGA.nsw.gov.au;
• ‘Heritage’ + ‘Action Plan’ + site: LGA.nsw.gov.au;
• ‘Heritage’ + ‘Implementation Plan’ + site: LGA.nsw.gov.au.

The search term for the LGA used the internet name adopted by the council, e.g., ‘alburycity’ or ‘bmcc’ (Blue Mountains City Council), to force the search within the individual council’s web offerings. Where a council’s web offerings indicated the existence of heritage strategies with a defined timeframe, e.g., ‘XYZ Shire Heritage Strategy 2000–2003’, but no direct link was available, a historic version of that council’s website was queried using the Internet Wayback machine [81]. These searches were not always successful, even if the document was listed on one of these historic versions, as many onwards links had not been archived, actual PDF files had not been archived or they were only archived in a corrupted form.

Only formal standalone documents were downloaded for later analysis. Where council websites refer to heritage strategies without providing access to the documents, and the documents could not be sourced via other public (e.g., via the Wayback machine) or direct means this is noted in the data table as ‘n.l.’ (not located).

In addition to the above online searches, the NSW digital planning library was searched (no results) [82], which contains in excess of 10,000 unpublished conservation reports and heritage studies. The National Library of Australia’s Trove publications database, which incorporates the PANDORA web archive of Australian websites [83], allowed us to locate some older versions of heritage strategies.

All councils for which the existence of heritage strategies could not be identified, or for which heritage strategies could not be sourced with frames A and B, were approached directly via email or via their formal community portals.

The Local Strategic Planning Statement for each LGA was downloaded from the Australasian Legal Information Institute’s web portal [84], with missing statements sourced directly from the respective councils’ websites.

The resulting dataset is provided in Appendix B. PDF files of all heritage strategies listed in Appendix B are in the possession of the author.

3.2. Analysis

Using the NSW Office of Local Government classification, which is based on broad demographic variables [85], the NSW local government areas were classified by type into metropolitan, metropolitan fringe, regional city, rural and large rural areas (Appendix A).

For the purposes of comparison and analysis of the identified heritage strategies, a framework for a comprehensive structure for a local government heritage strategy was devised, which incorporates the various conceptual bases discussed above. This framework covers local background, strategic settings as well as the conceptual areas of ‘knowing’, ‘protecting’, ‘supporting’ and ‘communicating and promoting’. The comprehensive structure has been reproduced as Appendix C. The ‘inclusion prompts’ have been added for those who might want to consider the comprehensive structure as an analytical tool to assess whether actions under the various bullet points might be required and should be added to their next strategic document. These prompts were not used for analysis of the strategic documents assessed for this study.

The most recent versions of all located LGA heritage strategies were scored against the comprehensive structure for a local government heritage strategy. Scoring was carried out as a presence/absence matrix and did not consider finer nuances in the text. If a criterion/bullet point was addressed, it was scored as ‘1’, and if it was only mentioned or touched upon, it was scored as ‘0.5’.

4. Results

While Local Strategic Planning Statements could be sourced and analysed for all 128 NSW LGAs, only 6 heritage policy documents and 99 heritage strategies from 54 LGAs could be identified, of which heritage strategies from 31 LGAs could be located online and downloaded for examination. An additional 10 strategy documents could be sourced by engaging in direct communication with the remaining LGAs.

4.1. Council Engagement with Heritage Strategies

4.1.1. Local Strategic Planning Statements

The NSW government amended the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act in 2018, which now requires councils to prepare and make Local Strategic Planning Statements (LSPSs) “to set out the 20-year vision for land use in the local area, the special characteristics which contribute to local identity, the shared community values to be maintained and enhanced and how growth and change will be managed into the future” [86]. The guideline for the formulation of these plans does specifically identify heritage as one of the criteria to be considered for strategic priorities or actions. The only reference to heritage is its inclusion in a series of possible LEP amendments among possible planning tools and levers [86]. Each council’s LSPS was scanned for the mention of cultural heritage in one of its strategic actions (scored as ‘yes’). Where heritage was included as a priority area, it was scored as such (Appendix B). Indigenous Australian heritage and settler colonialist and post-Federation heritage (‘European heritage’) were scored separately.

Differences emerge between local government types when considering the inclusion of these heritage types. While none of the LSPSs are silent on European heritage, that cannot be said for Indigenous Australian heritage. About 20% of metropolitan and metropolitan fringe councils failed to cover aspects of Indigenous Australian heritage in their LSPSs. This contrasts with to 14% of the rural and large rural councils (

Table 1. Coverage of Indigenous Australian and European heritage in NSW Local Strategic Planning Statements.

	Indigenous Australian Heritage			European Heritage
LGA Class	Priority	Mentioned	Silent	Priority	Mentioned	Silent	n
Metropolitan	12.00	68.00	20.00	32.00	68.00	—	25
Metropolitan Fringe	22.22	55.56	22.22	55.56	44.44	—	9
Regional Town/City	27.03	72.97	—	54.05	45.95	—	37
Large Rural	21.43	69.05	9.52	38.10	61.90	—	42
Rural	26.67	46.67	26.67	40.00	60.00	—	15

). The fact that all councils of regional towns/cities commented on Indigenous Australian heritage demonstrates that this is not a metropolitan to urban divide. Likewise, almost twice as many councils of all local government types saw European heritage as one of their priority strategies compared to Indigenous Australian heritage.

In the conceptual space of ‘knowing’, the conduct of an Indigenous Australian heritage study was significantly more frequently identified as a strategic action than the conduct of a European heritage study by both large rural councils (p = 0.0022) and regional towns/cities (p = 0.0187) [87]. The reverse was true, albeit not significantly so, among the other types of councils (

Table 2. Proposed actions in NSW Local Strategic Planning Statements: Knowing and protecting.

	Knowing			Protecting
	Heritage Study/Survey			Review/Update			CMP
	Ind. Austral.	European	Main Street	LEP	DCP	HCA Review	Council Owned	n
Metropolitan	28.00	32.00	4.00	64.00	40.00	24.00	8.00	25
Metropolitan Fringe	22.22	33.33	—	66.67	44.44	11.11	11.11	9
Regional Town/City	54.05	27.03	5.41	75.68	48.65	40.54	10.81	37
Large Rural	59.52	26.19	7.14	52.38	26.19	9.52	2.38	42
Rural	26.67	46.67	6.67	60.00	20.00	—	—	15
All	45.31	30.47	5.47	63.28	35.94	20.31	6.25	128

). Main street programs, which had been popular in the last decade of the twentieth century, were deemed to be of least strategic priority.

In the conceptual space of ‘protecting’, the most common action specified in the Local Strategic Planning Statements was the (ongoing) review and update of heritage listings in the LEPs. This action was most important to regional towns/cities and the least for large rural councils (difference p = 0.033) (Table 2). The review and update of development control plans broadly followed a similar pattern but was significantly less frequently identified as necessary or desirable by regional towns/cities (p = 0.0173), large rural councils (p = 0.0146) and rural councils (p = 0.0279) (Table 2). Councils in regional towns/cities also led the way in specifying a review of their heritage conservation areas (HCAs), proportionally more than double that any other class of councils (Table 2). Rural communities were the least likely to specify a review of their heritage conservation areas, with none of the rural councils and 9.52% of the large rural councils specifying such a review. This reflects the relative sizes of the communities and their urban spaces as well as their smaller rate bases (and thus level of resources).

Councils own a number of heritage assets, ranging from cemeteries (most common type) and botanic gardens to waterworks or sewerage pumping stations. Several councils identified the need to develop conservation management plans (CMPs) for these as a strategic action (Table 2). As with HCAs, rural communities were the least likely to do so, which again reflects their relative size and communal heritage asset base.

In the conceptual spaces of ‘supporting’ and ‘communicating’, the most common proposed actions relate to heritage tourism and heritage interpretations as well as to the adaptive reuse of heritage assets. Both are part of a suite of economic development measures (albeit itemized under heritage), which apply in particular to rural communities (

Table 3. Proposed actions in NSW Local Strategic Planning Statements: Supporting and communicating.

	Strategy Plan	Tourism/ Interpr.	Promotion	Support	Adaptive Reuse	Disabled Access	n
Metropolitan	16.00	24.00	4.00	32.00	16.00	—	25
Metropolitan Fringe	33.33	22.22	11.11	22.22	22.22	—	9
Regional Town/City	18.92	21.62	—	18.92	24.32	2.70	37
Large Rural	—	30.95	4.76	23.81	28.57	—	42
Rural	13.33	33.33	6.67	20.00	26.67	—	15
All	12.50	26.56	3.91	23.44	24.22	0.78	128

). While most strategy priorities and actions are ‘high level’, some are what could be regarded as ‘standard’ features of heritage obligations of local governments, such as support for heritage advisors and the promotion of heritage, which also figure as actions in Local Strategic Planning Statements (Table 3).

The development of a dedicated heritage strategy has been identified by between 13.3% (rural) and 33.3% (metropolitan fringe) of all councils. The major exceptions were the 42 large rural councils, none on which considered a heritage strategy as an action worth including in their LSPS (Table 3).

4.1.2. Dedicated Heritage Strategies

Taking council amalgamations into account, there are a total of 128 LGAs in NSW. Using open-source datasets and council websites, recent heritage strategies could be sourced for 27.3% of councils. The remaining councils (n = 93) were directly approached, with 36.6% responding, either supplying the strategy documents or advising that the council had not adopted such a strategy.

The survey showed that less than half of these (46.1%) had developed heritage strategies at some point in time (

Table 4. Percentages of local councils (by community type) that have publicly mentioned heritage policy documents.

	Recent Strategy		All Time (2002–2024)			Councils
Council Class	≥2020	≥2024	Strategy	Policy	Action Plan	(n)
Metropolitan	16.0	—	32.0		4.0	25
Metropolitan Fringe	33.3	33.3	33.3			9
Regional Town/City	40.5	29.7	62.2	8.1	5.4	37
Large Rural	31.0	7.1	39.5	7.1		42
Rural	26.7	13.3	41.2			15
All Councils	30.5	14.8	45.3	4.7	2.3	128

), with the earliest heritage strategies dating to 2004. The median planning duration for heritage strategies is 4 years (range 1–10) (Figure 3). While some councils formulate a succession of heritage strategies, other councils seem to have only ever issued a single strategy (Figure 4). At the time of writing, well less than a fifth of LGAs (14.8%) have strategies that are still current, while less than a third of LGAs have heritage strategies that ‘ran out’ in that last five years. The greatest proportion with recent strategies is among councils on the metropolitan fringe and regional towns/cities. Metropolitan councils are the least likely to have current or recent heritage strategies (Table 4). Compared to heritage strategies, even fewer councils had developed formal heritage policies or action plans at some point in time (Table 4).

Given the low response rate of councils, the approach was considered of substituting older versions or heritage strategies in cases where recent strategies could not be obtained, as long as the strategy documents were less than a decade old. That appears justified as some councils continue to provide links to outdated plans from current webpages.

In total, 43 heritage strategy documents were available for detailed analysis. The available strategies vary considerably in overall length (word count). While there is a decreasing trend in median length from metropolitan councils to rural councils, the observed ranges and standard variations from the average within each community type are considerable (

Table 5. Overall length (word count) of the heritage strategies by community type.

Community Type	Median	Avg.	Std.	Min.	Max.	n
Metropolitan	4604	6200.8	4308.5	1946	12,441	5
Metropolitan Fringe	3964	5208.5	4419.7	1383	11,524	4
Regional City	2823	3986.8	4043.9	1005	14,817	18
Large Rural	1383	1390.7	493.4	577	2013	13
Rural	1139	4003.6	6488.4	969	15,609	5

, Figure 5). Given the large standard variations, only one of the differences proved significant. Heritage strategies endorsed by large rural councils were significantly shorter than those endorsed by regional city councils (t-test, p = 0.0149).

4.2. Components of the Heritage Strategies

All heritage strategies have three main parts, the introduction and conceptual framing with background information, the strategic priorities and actions derived from those and the end matter, usually in the form of appendices and references. The front matter sets the scene and grounds the strategic priorities in the legislative, policy and administrative context of the LGA as well as the status quo of heritage management in terms of opportunities and challenges (ideally derived from a SWOT analysis).

Table 6. Proportion of contextual text (front matter) of the heritage strategies by community type.

Community Type	Median	Avg.	Std.	Min.	Max.	n
Metropolitan	32.7	34.92	22.88	10.77	61.80	5
Metropolitan Fringe	30.5	29.58	7.10	20.05	37.24	4
Regional City	28.8	31.01	19.94	2.53	78.70	18
Large Rural	16.7	15.48	7.08	4.92	26.51	13
Rural	18.9	21.66	6.63	15.69	29.63	5

summarizes the proportion (measured in word count) the front matter contributes to each heritage strategy document. Similar to the observations of overall document length, there is considerable variation within and between community types (Figure 6). There is, broadly speaking, a decreasing trend in median length from metropolitan councils to rural councils, with the front matter among strategies endorsed by large rural councils significantly shorter than that of metropolitan fringe councils (t-test, p = 0.0178) and regional cities (p = 0.0058).

Numerous NSW councils used the 2013 ‘recommendations for local council heritage management’ [67] as the guide for at least for some of their heritage strategy documents (including older strategy documents not assessed for this study): Bland [88], Brewarrina [89], Broken Hill [90], Byron [91], Clarence Valley [92], Coffs Harbour [93], Coolamon [94], Eurobodalla [95], Fairfield [96], Gilgandra [97], Goulburn Mulwaree [98], Hawkesbury [99], Hilltops [100], Junee [101], Lake Macquarie [102], Leeton [103], Muswellbrook [104], Nambucca [105], Orange [106], Parkes [107], Richmond Valley [108], Shoalhaven [109], Tenterfield [110], Warrumbungle [111], Wingecarribee [112] and Wollongong [113].

It appears that the majority of these documents were authored not because the LGA desired to have a functional and operational heritage strategy, but to satisfy the requirements imposed by the NSW Heritage Office in order to qualify for three-year heritage funding. As a consequence, while the documents contain a section addressing strategic priorities, the vast majority of these forgo any contextualization.

Three of the assessed strategy documents either directly follow the Victorian model [64], such as that by the Blue Mountains City Council [114], or draw heavily on it, such as those by the Liverpool [115] and Newcastle City Councils [116]. Only Bathurst took its own path, structuring its strategy under the following five headings: a community that respects, that manages the future, that adds value, that shares stories and activates heritage and that values the past [117].

4.3. High Level Analysis

Given that each LGA’s situation is different in terms of size, rate base and staff capacity, it is unrealistic to assume that all elements of the comprehensive structure for a heritage strategy (Appendix C) would be addressed. That notwithstanding, the comprehensive structure provides a suitable analytical framework for examining and comparing the comprehensiveness of different communities’ strategic planning in heritage matters.

When considering the high-level categories (sections) of the comprehensive structure for a local government heritage strategy [64], significant differences emerge between the various community types (

Table 7. Proportion of strategic heritage plans addressing high-level components (by community type).

	Metropolitan	Metropolitan Fringe	Regional Town/City	Large Rural	Rural
1. Purpose	100	100	100	92.3	100
2. Background	100	75.0	37.5	—	60.0
3. Council’s Heritage Vision Statement	—	25.0	25.0	—	—
4. Strategy Context	60.0	75.0	50.0	—	20.0
5. Heritage Challenges and Opportunities	20.0	—	18.8	—	20.0
6. Heritage-related Achievements (*)	60.0	50.0	18.8	7.7	—
7.1. Conceptual Area: Knowing	80.0	100	87.5	92.3	100
7.2. Conceptual Area: Protecting	80.0	100	100	100	100
7.3. Conceptual Area: Supporting	80.0	100	93.8	100	100
7.4. Concept. Area: Communicating and Promoting	100	100	100	100	100
8. Implementation	40.0	75.0	18.8	7.7	20.0
average total score	65.5	72.7	59.1	45.5	56.4
n	5	4	16	13	5

(*) In the preceding strategic period.

). When considering the coverage of the high-level categories individually, it is not surprising that almost all heritage strategies include an introductory section that makes, at least in some small way, reference to the purpose of the document, although the level of detail varies widely. In terms of the four key conceptual areas that form the future-oriented part of the strategies, all councils address the area of communicating and promoting (Table 7). In the other three conceptual areas, metropolitan councils are the least engaged, followed by regional cities and councils comprising large rural areas. The frontend sections are much less well addressed, in particular by councils outside the metropolitan and metropolitan fringe regions. The overall background, as well as the strategic context, were more likely to be addressed than areas of heritage-related achievements (in the strategic period) or heritage challenges and opportunities. Only a quarter of metropolitan fringe and regional city councils provide heritage vision statements that signpost the council’s thinking and approach related to heritage. They are absent in strategies issued by metropolitan, large rural and rural councils. Less than a quarter of the strategies provide at least a modicum of text related to the implementation of the strategy, such as timeframes, as well as processes related to conflict resolution, progress monitoring or formal review (Table 7).

When considering the coverage of the high-level categories by community types, only the class of regional cities has examples of strategies that cover all categories (Table 7). Overall, strategies issued by metropolitan fringe councils have the highest average score, followed by metropolitan councils. As noted above, frontend sections of strategy documents issued by large rural councils tended to be very short, which is reflected in the lowest score (Table 7).

4.4. Fine-Grained Analysis

As noted earlier, the front end is largely undeveloped in the majority of the heritage strategies assessed. While almost all heritage strategies include, at least in some small way, a reference to the purpose of the document, two-thirds of the strategy documents lack a background description of the cultural and built heritage of the LGA. Less than 10% of the documents are transparent about the process and personnel used to develop the strategy (Appendix D). Less than 12% of all strategies contain heritage vision statements that signpost the council’s thinking and approach related to heritage. Such statements are absent among metropolitan, large rural and rural councils, whereas a quarter of metropolitan fringe (Blue Mountains [114]) and regional city councils (Bathurst [117], Eurobodalla [118], Newcastle [116] and Singleton [119]) provide these.

Given that no heritage strategy exists in a strategy and policy vacuum, it can be expected that the documents contain at least a brief exposition of the context in which the heritage strategy is embedded at the state and the local council levels. Just over one-third of the documents contain such information at least in some small way. Most common are references to state heritage and state planning legislation (Heritage Act [75] and Environmental Planning and Assessment Act [74]). References to local legal and regulatory frameworks (e.g., development control plans), as well as relevant council strategies, are included in 30.2% of the assessed documents. None of the documents discuss the local administrative framework, such as key positions within the agency responsible for heritage matters. Notably, none of the strategies drawn up by large rural councils include a discussion of state and local contexts (Appendix D). While 20.9% of the documents refer to heritage-related achievements such as thematic histories, heritage studies or heritage register updates (except rural councils), only 11.6% discuss challenges that heritage might face, such as environmental or socio-demographic change affecting the community (Appendix D).

For the conceptual area of ‘knowing’, 62.8% of the assessed documents refer to heritage studies of the built environment and specific main street studies (51.2%) or Indigenous Australian heritage studies (23.4%). Noteworthy is the inclusion of intangible heritage (11.6% of all studies) in the strategies of Broken Hill [90], Coffs Harbour [93], Hilltops [100], Liverpool [115] and Orange [106], as well the inclusion of moveable cultural heritage (7%) in the strategies of Fairfield [96], Newcastle [116] and Tenterfield [110]. Absent in that regard are metropolitan fringe and large rural councils. About one-fifth of all assessed documents, cutting across all five types of LGAs, refer to updates to and maintenance of an LGA-wide register of heritage places as part their LEPs, while 58.1% comment on the need for, or updates to, asset registers of council-owned and council-managed heritage assets (Appendix D).

In the conceptual area of ‘protecting’, two-thirds of the assessed heritage strategies (67.4%) refer to updates to the heritage provisions in the LEPs, with a third of the documents referring to a need to update the heritage provisions in the DCPs (34.9%) or to develop local heritage policies and guidelines (18.6%). ‘Heritage at risk’ assessments were mentioned only by two councils, Bathurst [117] and Tenterfield [110].

Protection of council-owned heritage assets and council-managed heritage infrastructure was commented on in 60.5% of all recent heritage strategies examined for this study. Rural councils were the least likely to do so (20% of rural strategies), followed by metropolitan councils (40%). The largest subcomponents were conservation management plans for council-owned/council-managed heritage assets (48.8 of all strategies) followed by considerations of statutory protection (11.6%) and collections management of council-owned moveable heritage (4.7%). All assessed strategy documents were silent on the need for disaster management plans as well as policies related to the disposal or transfer of redundant assets (Appendix D).

The area of ‘managing’ heritage saw less coverage in the heritage strategies. Several councils saw the need for an internal development, or updating, of evaluation and approval processes (16.3% of all strategies), which excluded metropolitan councils as well as large rural councils. The integration of the LGA-wide register of heritage assets into planning GIS was also frequently mentioned (14%). Only one council, Bathurst [117], identified the need to establish a position for a qualified heritage officer, while the Blue Mountains Council was the only LGA to comment on the need to develop an LGA-wide disaster management plan to safeguard heritage places [114] (Appendix D).

In the conceptual area of ‘supporting’, all but two councils (95.4%) included commentary relating to assistance, most commonly in the form of heritage advisors (95.3% of assessed documents) for technical assistance as well as heritage advisory committees (65.1%) for policy support. These two approaches, as well as the creation of technical heritage resources for community use (39.5%), were commented on by councils of all five LGA types. Almost a fifth of heritage strategies (18.6%) commented on the need to establish an LGA-specific directory of heritage consultants and heritage tradespeople. The need to provide financial assistance and incentives, commonly in the form of grants, was noted in 83.7% of all documents, with the lowest representation at both ends of the LGA spectrum (60% each of metropolitan and rural councils). Only one heritage strategy (Leeton [103]) included provisions to provide council support for local heritage organizations (Appendix D).

A critical area of heritage management is the capacity and competency of the staff and the competency of the elected councillors. Just over half of the heritage strategies assessed (51.2%) contained references to staff training in heritage matters, mainly referring to planning staff, with 16.3% of the documents referencing other staff as well as senior management (Hornsby [120] and Liverpool [115]). Three councils, Bathurst [117], Eurobodalla [118] and Uralla [121], included the training of elected councillors in their heritage strategies (Appendix D).

Some heritage strategies included the implementation of existing heritage studies (20.9% of all assessed documents), development controls for heritage (4.7%) and adherence to the best practice (9.3%). No pattern could be noted between in LGA types would include such commentary (Appendix D).

In the conceptual area of ‘communicating and promoting’, two-thirds of heritage strategies (67.4%) included references to the provision of heritage information, primarily though council websites, with all five LGA types represented. For all but the rural councils, this was augmented by the offering of lecture and heritage workshops open to the public (41.9%) as well as heritage-related events during heritage weeks or local festivals (32.6%). Five councils outside the metropolitan and metropolitan fringe region included a commentary on engagement with local schools through the provision of heritage information: Bland [88], Bathurst [117], Coolamon [94], Broken Hill [90] and Orange [106] (Appendix D).

Heritage promotion and tourism are addressed by councils of all LGA types, with 60.5% of all assessed documents commenting on self-guided heritage tours that were to serve both the local community and tourists. Formal integration of heritage interpretation with the council’s or the regional tourism strategy was mentioned in 44.2% of all heritage strategies. A fifth of the assessed documents (20.9%) included a desire to maintain or develop a heritage awards program to recognize excellence in heritage conservation or adaptation (Appendix D).

Stakeholder engagement, such as partnerships with local heritage organizations (e.g., historical societies), is mentioned in 37.2% of all heritage strategies, with all five LGA types represented. Outside the common parameters are partnerships with local and regional tertiary institutions, as identified by the Blue Mountains [114] and Tenterfield [110], and a formal engagement with the property sector (e.g., architects, real estate agents) included by Bathurst [117] and Yass Valley [122]. A special case is partnerships with the local Indigenous Australian community, which are identified in 23.3% of all heritage strategies (across all five LGA types). Large rural councils are the least likely to include this (7.7%), compared with 50% for metropolitan fringe councils (Appendix D).

Implementation is the least commonly addressed section of the model strategy. While timeframes are the most common implementation component mentioned in the documents, only 14% of the assessed strategies do so. Only two councils each specify that there is progress monitoring (Bathurst [117], Blue Mountains [114]) or a formal review of the heritage strategies (Bathurst [117] and Singleton [119]). None of the documents identify the position responsible for the implementation or oversight, nor do they comment on conflict resolution processes (Appendix D).

5. Discussion

Analyses of the quality of municipal strategic plans are very few, with only one detailed comparative analysis on record [35]. So far, no study has examined strategic planning in the heritage space [123]. Given the paucity of comparative material on heritage planning, it is not possible to formally place the findings of this study in a national or international context. A study examining the provisions of NSW local government area bushfire management plans found both widespread non-reflective copying of other councils’ texts (‘boiler-plating’) and generally perfunctory or poor provisions, demonstrating that heritage was of low concern to council planners [19,42,124]. This is supported by a number of studies that examined the adequacy of disaster management plans at the level of individual heritage places [125,126,127,128], which also documented a lack of concern and generally mediocre planning. Surveys of the attitudes of heritage managers, for example, in regard to disaster management of heritage-at-risk places [129,130], showed mixed levels of understanding and interest in heritage planning. This highlighted the need to understand the epistemology of knowledge held by community members and professionals involved in heritage management [61]. We will return to this point further below in the discussion.

5.1. Local Strategic Planning Statements

This review of strategic planning documents of the 128 local government areas of NSW has shown diverse approaches. While all LGAs are required to provide Local Strategic Planning Statements, the formulation of heritage strategies is voluntary. A modicum of a heritage strategy was required for councils that wanted to access heritage funding from the state government. In most cases, the resulting documents were perfunctory and did not progress beyond the minimum requirements [68]. Recent, i.e., post 2019, heritage strategies could not be sourced for 69.5% of councils. Several councils, when responding to direct requests for heritage strategies, commented that no specific heritage strategy existed, but pointed to provisions in their Local Strategic Planning Statements as a substitute. Reading between the lines, it became evident that there was no appetite to develop a formal heritage strategy.

Over a quarter (26.6%) of the Local Strategic Planning Statements assert that heritage contributes to the liveability of a community as the sum of a number of different factors that contribute to the quality of life. Apart from educational and health services, as well as transport and other infrastructure, liveability includes a sense of “place” in a community through the creation, renewal and preservation of the urban environment (natural and built), which in turn can support the arts, creativity, cultural expression and innovation. While councils assert that heritage contributes to liveability, the overwhelming majority tends to treat this as axiomatic and neither explains nor exemplifies this connection. Many councils merely list heritage actions under the liveability banner without elaboration (e.g., [131,132,133,134]). A common connotation is that heritage contributes to the ‘look and feel’ of places [135,136,137,138,139]. Strathfield Council, for example, posited that “[t]aking a place-based approach [to liveability’] will help to build the social fabric whilst retaining the distinctive neighbourhood character, Aboriginal, built and natural heritage elements” [140]. As a consequence, North Sydney Council deems it necessary to “harmonise well designed new development with the established heritage buildings and areas, streetscapes and local character” [140], while Lane Cove Council argues that “[r]espectfully combining history and heritage with modern design achieves an urban environment that demonstrates shared values and contributes to a sense of place and identity” [141]. Only one council, Woollahra, explains its interpretation of the relevance of heritage to liveability: “Key to maintaining high levels of liveability across our area is place-based planning and design excellence that prioritises our lifestyle, heritage, public places, open space and local character. It is about conserving the heritage and local character that tells the story of us and makes our places alive, unique and home” [142]. When examining what constitutes ‘local character’, it becomes evident that the aesthetic values and contributions to the streetscape appearance are deemed important—what matters is the historic veneer of architecture. This is well-exemplified by the outcomes of the Waverley Architectural Mapping Project, which identified items of heritage interest “largely based on potential aesthetic values, but also historic values in terms of identifying where there are clusters or precincts of particular architectural styles that demonstrate a commonality in historic development” [143].

This bias toward the visual contribution of heritage to the community is echoed in the observation that almost twice as many councils saw European heritage as a strategic priority area compared to Indigenous Australian heritage (Table 1).

5.2. Heritage Strategies

Cultural heritage in both its tangible (e.g., built and constructed environment, artefacts) and intangible forms (e.g., cultural practices) reflects the ways of life that shaped a community. Representing the products and processes of a society’s past, heritage serves as a link between the past and future, encompassing those elements that a community values in the present and that it wishes to preserve and pass on for the purported benefit of future generations. Heritage strategies, as the primary planning tool to facilitate this intergenerational transmission, need to be clearly grounded in the rationale as to why heritage is important to a community, what heritage is important and how heritage is to be transmitted. Yet, as this review of heritage strategy documents has shown, the vast majority of councils authoring these documents seem to take this as axiomatic. In a post-modernist age of alternative truths, where the role of evidence and of the expert are in near-terminal decline, where trust in governments is at an all-time low and where individualism has largely suppressed community spirit and concepts of the ‘common good’, councils need to clearly explain the rationale and intellectual foundation for managing the cultural heritage in their remit. Standard planning practice enables this through the formulation of a concise vision statement.

A major shortcoming of the overwhelming majority of the heritage strategies reviewed in this study is a lack of clear vision as to what role cultural heritage shall play in the local community. Only a handful of councils include vision statements or a vision statement/mission statement combination, whereby two councils, Lake Macquarie and Singleton, make specific reference to the community relevance of heritage.

A traditional place-based approach is reflected by Eurobodalla Council, when it ties heritage to history by wishing to “champion and value our collective history for future generations” while aiming to ensure that “our Shire’s cultural and environmental heritage is identified, recorded, promoted, valued and effectively managed and shared for current and future generations” [118]. Singleton Council is even more specific when it envisions that it “will work with the community to identify, maintain, protect and enhance the Local Government Area’s natural, cultural and built heritage according to the Australian Burra Charter principles, for the benefit of present and future residents and visitors” [119]. With its reference to the Burra Charter [28], Singleton’s emphasis is likewise clearly on ‘traditional’ heritage management approaches. Of note in that statement is the inclusion of ‘visitors’.

More ‘progressive’ thinking is expressed by Lake Macquarie when it envisions working to “[e]nable community-centred preservation, care, access and engagement with our past to enrich and inform our future” [102]. While at a high level, it sets out clearly its philosophy on heritage management, firmly anchoring it in the community. The how heritage is to be managed is left to the strategy document itself and thus allows, in theory, for the inclusion of moveable material culture as well as intangible heritage. Bathurst Council, which posits “respecting our past, valuing our stories, shaping our future” as its vision, also conceptualizes heritage as encompassing more than heritage places when it notes that its mission is to “protect, enhance and promote our Indigenous and European heritage—places, objects, natural environment, people and projects and their embedded stories” [117].

The references to a preservation of a council’s heritage for future generations echo position and vision statements in the USA, for example, where the value of heritage to future generations was likewise axiomatically assumed [6,144]. There, as in the case of the heritage strategies discussed here, councils have little understanding of how heritage has contemporary relevance to present generations, that these generations, through heritage listings, project their values onto the future generations [60] and that these values will be subject to intergenerational change [145].

The most eloquent exposition of the nexus between heritage, sustainability and the liveability of a community is expressed by the Blue Mountains Council when it posits the following: “Living sustainably and conserving the heritage of our urban environment, we are in harmony with the surrounding World Heritage Area. We take pride in the character and distinct identities of our towns and villages. Conservation and enhancement of our natural, cultural and built heritage is a priority for our community and part of the Blue Mountains identity. We share our knowledge and engage with our community to build awareness, understanding and appreciation for the heritage of the Blue Mountains” [114]. To give effect to this, the “Council will establish itself as a leader in heritage management, proactively seeking to deliver positive heritage outcomes. Our heritage will be integrated into the way we manage places to ensure that our town centres and public spaces are vibrant liveable places for people to experience and celebrate our local stories” [114].

While heritage places are community assets irrespective of ownership [3], the maintenance of these assets primarily falls on private owners who do not enjoy unfettered freedom to alter their property on a whim. Stakeholder engagement is central to long-term community support and needs to encompass the community at large, pertinent local organizations and the owners themselves. Other key stakeholder groups are local heritage organizations, such as historical societies; local and regional tertiary institutions; the property sector (i.e., architects, real estate agents); the commercial sphere as represented by the Chamber of Commerce; as well the owners of the heritage properties.

The local Indigenous Australian community/ies is/are a special case not only in view of the intergenerationally traumatic effects of colonization [146,147,148], but because that community is, in most instances, the custodian of the Country [149,150]. Compared to relationships with ‘traditional’ stakeholder groups, such as historical societies, many councils are playing catchup. While the completion of Reconciliation Action Plans (RAPs) has been a requirement since 2019 [151,152,153], the formal inclusion of Indigenous Australian communities in heritage planning is still lacking in many instances. This is well-reflected in the fact that partnerships with the local Indigenous Australian community are identified in 23.3% of all assessed heritage strategy documents cutting across all five LGA types. As noted, that inclusion is even, with metropolitan fringe councils most likely to include this (50%), compared with large rural councils with only 7.7%. The perceptions created by the low level of strategic engagement may well be misleading. Large rural councils have the second-highest proportion of Indigenous Australian residents (9%) of the five LGA types (only rural are higher with 16.9%) and may well not have identified this as they already regularly engage with their Indigenous Australian community/ies.

A major shortcoming of most strategy documents is a general lack of transparency as to how the stated strategic priorities were arrived at. Commonly, neither the processes nor the underlying conditions are elucidated. As a consequence, readers have to take the documents at face value. In part, this seems to be the result of guidance by the NSW Heritage Office on how to arrive at heritage strategies. Unless local governments look to other jurisdictions, such as Victoria [64] or Western Australia [65], the only guidance available for NSW councils are the “eight suggestions on how local councils can promote heritage conservation” that were published in 2001 [68] and refreshed in 2013 [67]. These documents do not provide any advice on strategic planning processes related to heritage, nor, unlike the Victorian [64] guide, do they outline the possible conceptual planning space.

There are two major exceptions, as both Hornsby [120] and Woollahra [154] carried out a gap analysis upon which the heritage strategy could be founded. In addition, the strategies of the Blue Mountains [114], Liverpool [115] and Newcastle [116] either directly follow or are heavily based on the Victorian model [64], and thus include some contextualization.

While all heritage strategies had a duration specified in their title, e.g., “Shoalhaven Heritage Strategy 2021–2024”, only 14% of the assessed documents provided specific timeframes for the implementation of strategy components. Less than a quarter of the heritage strategies provide at least a modicum of text related to the implementation of the strategy, such as responsible positions, timeframes as well as processes related to conflict resolution, progress monitoring or formal review. While some of this may be self-evident to the council staff, such strategy documents also guide external stakeholders and the public at large. The lack of content suggests an unwillingness by councils to be held accountable for the good intentions expressed in their strategies.

Beyond these limitations, there is also a lack of specificity in the actions derived from the strategic priorities in many heritage strategy documents. With very few examples to the contrary, such as Bathurst [117], Newcastle [116] and the Blue Mountains [114], none of the strategies seem ambitious or aspirational. Again, it can be surmised that this is grounded in councils being generally reluctant to commit themselves to a course of action that goes beyond the bare minimum.

Several of the documents are so poor that they do not warrant the title ‘heritage strategy’ and merely represent a ‘tick-the-boxes’ approach. Some council responses to the NSW ‘recommendations for local council heritage management’ [67] are even blunt or non-sensical. NSW Recommendation No.1, for example, notes that councils should ‘establish a heritage committee to deal with heritage matters in the Shire’. To this, one strategy noted that “Uralla Shire does not have a Heritage Committee nor does Council plan to establish one in the foreseeable future”, [121] while another stated that “Shire Council does not have a Heritage Committee”. This was followed by a non-sequitur in a second bullet point, under the same recommendation, which stated that the “Council [is] to adopt the Heritage Strategy 2018–2021” [155].

Critical to good heritage management is the capacity and competency of the council. Surveys of the attitudes of heritage managers, for example, in regard to disaster management of heritage-at-risk places [129,130], showed mixed levels of understanding and interest in heritage planning. Technical expertise, where not available in-house, can be procured externally as in the form of heritage advisors, which 95.3% of the assessed heritage strategies considered an important action. That expertise extends to advice, given to both owners of properties seeking to effect change and to council staff assessing applications. While recommendations for actions are issued by planning staff who may be contracted or permanent employees who were hired for their professional skills (commonly with tertiary qualifications), the final decisions are made by councillors, who are elected from the populace at large and thus can come from a wide range of professional and community backgrounds. This highlights the need to understand the epistemology of knowledge by community members and professionals involved in heritage management [61]. It is essential that planning staff have a detailed, and preferably specialized, understanding of heritage and its management, while elected councillors ought to have at least a fundamental grasp of heritage concepts to be able to make informed decisions. As this is hardly the reality, however, it is imperative that heritage strategies include actions regarding the competency of staff and elected councillors. While over half of the heritage strategies referenced staff training, only three strategies (7% of the total) also considered training for elected councillors.

Limitations in funding have been identified as constraints to effective heritage management in numerous local government settings [123]. Indeed, at the start of this project, it was assumed that the councils with a larger rate base, and thus more affluent, would be more likely to have issued heritage strategies and that such strategies would also be more comprehensive. An assessment of the rating score of the assessed heritage strategies and the council’s rate income, however, showed no correlation (r² = 0.064) (Figure 7). Likewise, it could be hypothesized that councils with a greater staff base might be more likely to better plan for heritage than councils with a smaller staff. Again, an assessment of the rating score of the heritage strategies and the council’s full-time equivalent staff numbers showed no correlation (r² = 0.0291) (Figure 8).

6. Conclusions

Sound management is underpinned by thorough planning at both the site and community/local government levels to avoid arbitrary decision-making. In New South Wales, all local governments (councils) are required to develop Local Strategic Planning Statements (LSPSs), usually with a ten-year scope. Some councils have also introduced specific heritage strategies. This paper provides the first systematic assessment of the scope and depth of these planning tools. The review of the LSPSs showed that all LGAs referred to European heritage, with 43% of the councils identifying it as one of their planning priorities. Indigenous Australian heritage featured in 88.3% of all plans, with 21.9% of councils listing it among their priorities. The analysis revealed that heritage strategies often focus on basic rather than aspirational goals, with little articulation of the significance of cultural heritage to the community. Only a few heritage strategies explain why heritage management matters to the community or align their priorities with other local or state-level strategies and policies. Furthermore, few of these documents substantiate their strategies with public input, situational analysis or strategic foresight projections based on demographic, social and economic trends. This review emphasizes the considerable opportunities for enhancement. In an era of alternative narratives and truths, coupled with declining trust in governments, it is essential for local government heritage strategies to be rooted in community interests and transparent in priority-setting, and to offer a bold, inspiring vision of the role of cultural heritage within the community.