Two historic sites set to lose their heritage status
THE Queensland Heritage Register is a listing of locations with historic or cultural significance, but this list is set to grow shorter following a decision by a local council.
At their first ordinary meeting since the election, the new Somerset Regional Council considered two requests to partially or completely remove two properties from the register.
The first site under consideration is the Saint Andrews Presbyterian Church on Ipswich Street in Esk, which was constructed in 1875, and was in operation until the 1970s.
The Department of Environment and Science advised council that the landowner had filed a request to have the property removed from the Heritage Register, as they felt the site no longer had historical significance.
Council’s Director of Planning and Development Luke Hannan concurred with this view in his report.
“The property’s historic features appear to have reduced over time and, as such, there are no foreseen issues in Council providing no objection to the request,” he said.
He also noted the property was in the Centre Zone, which meant the landowner could redevelop the site for commercial use after the heritage listing was removed.
“The removal of the property from the register is not likely to impact on the zoning, and may improve the ability for commercial activities to occur,” he said.
An application was also received for the partial removal of the “Inverness” property on Fulham Street, Toogoolawah.
Constructed in 1917 for the Nestlé and Anglo-Swiss Condensed Milk Company Limited, the property operated as the manager’s residence for the nearby condensed milk factory.
The heritage listing covers to adjoining lots, 37 and 38, but the actual “Inverness” dwelling only occupies one of these lots.
“The “Inverness” homestead and gardens are wholly located on Lot 37,” Mr Hannan said.
“Lot 38 does not contain any features which are rare, uncommon, or endangered in terms of the Toogoolawah locality.”
With the planning officer’s advice in mind, councillors did not raise any objections to the two applications.
The identities of the landowners or their plans for the properties were not divulged during the meeting.