9.1Queensland heritage place state code

Table 9.1.1: All development

Performance outcomes / Acceptable outcomes / Response / Comment
State heritage place (except an archaeological State heritage place)
PO1 Development does not destroy or substantially reduce the cultural heritage significance of a State heritage place unless there is no prudent and feasible alternative to carrying out the development. / AO1.1The features, fabric, contents, setting and archaeological potential of the place, which contribute to cultural heritage significance, are conserved and new fabric or uses are only introduced if they maintain or enhance cultural heritage significance.
Editor’s note:
(1)Advice about how to meet this acceptable outcome is available in Guideline: Developing heritage places – Using the development criteria, Department of Environment and Heritage Protection 2013.
(2)It is recommended that a heritage impact statement be prepared in accordance with Guideline: Preparing a heritage impact statement, Department of Environment and Heritage Protection, 2013 to demonstrate compliance with this acceptable outcome.
(3)A conservation management plan may be required for some applications. Refer to Guideline: Conservation management plans, Department of Environment and Heritage Protection, 2013.
Or
AO1.2 Development destroys or substantially reduces cultural heritage significance only if there is no prudent and feasible alternative. An alternative will not be prudent or feasible if it involves:
(1)an extraordinary or unacceptable economic cost to the state, the community, a section of the community or an individual, or
(2)an extraordinary or unacceptable environmental or social disadvantage, or
(3)technical impractibility, or
(4)risk to public health or safety, or
(5)other unusual or unique circumstances.
Editor’s note: It is recommended that the application present sufficient alternative options to demonstrate there is no prudent and feasible alternative.
The alternatives should include:
(1)the option of not proceeding with the development
(2)the optimum development that would result in the minimum impact on cultural heritage
(3)the whole of the proposed development, not just the part occurring on the place
(4)options outside the confines of the proposed development
(5)sale, lease or other form of disposal of all or part of the property if this may favour or aid conservation.
Further guidance is available in Guideline: No prudent and feasible alternative, Department of Environment and Heritage Protection, 2013.
Editor’s note: A pre-lodgement meeting is recommended to discuss the likely impact of the development proposal early in the process.
Editor’s note: Public engagement should be undertaken, including:
(1)a process and timetable for dialogue about the proposed development with people and organisations having an interest in the heritage values of the place
(2)identifying the relevant people and organisations, informing them about the development proposal, and offering to engage them in the discussion
(3)sharing information and engaging in dialogue aimed at reaching a shared position
(4)documenting the engagement process and recording community comment (to be included with the application).
Archaeological State heritage place
PO2 Development does not have a detrimental impact on any archaeological artefact on an archaeological State heritageplace. / AO2.1 There is no potential for the development to have a detrimental impact on any archaeological artefact on the archaeological state heritage place.
Or
AO2.2 Developmenton the archaeological State heritage place provides for appropriate management of the archaeological artefacts in accordance with the results of an archaeological investigation.
Editor’s note: Further guidance is available in the Guideline: Archaeological investigations, Department of Environment and Heritage Protection, 2013.

State development assessment provisions Module 9—Queensland heritage9.1 Queensland heritage place state code

22 July 2016 V1.9Page 1 of 2