The National Trust has lost its way!

Continued from Marketnews article

At first, it’s a little tricky to understand as Community Heritage is a great concept and we support it BUT the “heritage industry” in its quest, has come up with an additional and coincidentally great fee-paying concept, called Individual Heritage Orders (IHOs) which is not about community spaces, it’s about private homes.

IHO’s are the destruction of an Individual’s Land Rights as they restrict your land and building use, but leave your neighbour untouched and its all based on opinion, on the personal taste of the “heritage consultant” – who to remind you, lobbied for and is paid by, the council for the latest “heritage” study in the first place. With IHO’s once the study is approved the “Heritage Consultant” has to find heritage to justify the study and their next job – its Yes Minister.

There needs to be a change in thinking or the community will lose faith in the whole Heritage Concept.

So back to well done to Council and Cr Martin standing up for individuals within we salute and support them

READ THE FULL ARTICLE The Age National Trust slams Bayside May 13 – Jewel Topsfield


Can we ask you to consider this – imagine if the government came and put a freeway in your backyard and did not recompense you – how would you react?

An individual heritage order is no different in terms of financial and mental health impact. The good thing about a freeway is the community is widely consulted and the benefit is known– with an IHO it is not determined by the community, but by an outside individual and the community benefit is wishy-washy at best!

Involuntary Individual Heritage Orders do really hurt mum and dad owners – 20% drop in , unfathomable mental anguish as mum and dad fight in a battle where it’s hard to find the good and bad guys and the rules of war – for many it is a war.

Heritage ideologues are not robbers, but their actions take monies from individual mum and dad homeowners and they are not thugs but they assault the mental health of many older owners of older homes.

Many of these people are involved in, connected with or supported by The National Trust.

In many cases we support the National Trust – they are well-meaning people no doubt – but …

Unfortunately, all their good work is being overshadowed. What the National Trust is doing with IHOs is dead wrong.

We don’t want to be too strong – but the National Trust has supported the creation of an “industry of Heritage Consultants” which now needs more income streams – and one such income stream for this industry is to lobby a council for work to “investigate and ” individual mum and dad homes as to their “heritage significance”.

Of course, they will find homes of “heritage significance” as a lot of billable man hours occur around the debate on each individual home.

This is a lot of bullshit and harmful to our community – I’m sorry to be so blunt.

Heritage in our opinion should be a public matter for public places and we totally support the rights of the community to decide and the role of the National Trust in this part of the debate.

We totally accept that as a real estate agent we give opinions and you can be just as critical of us and boycott us if you so choose. However, our actions are not publicly funded, they are subject to the marketplace (we are not a powerful monopoly) and our opinion can be ignored with little damage.

To Bayside, , and many other Councillors – we will support you on stopping unwanted Individual Heritage Orders.

Councillors, the advice you receive about heritage legislation not being concerned with an individual’s right IS CORRECT BUT WAS NOT the original intention of the legislation. The legislation was to be applied in Community Heritage determinations, not Individual Heritage determinations.

YOU ARE ALLOWED to ask for an Individual Impact study on the individual family you are about to impose somebody else’s Heritage order on.

Currently, you are using your ratepayer’s money, to be lobbied by self-interested organisations, to be paid by your ratepayers, to inflict a study on your individual ratepayers, that will in hundreds of cases, cause mental health and financial damage to those very ratepayers who are paying the rates.

Please restrict the lobbying by heritage lobbyists to important community projects and precincts – not individual homes.


In your heritage architect courses could you please consider a semester on educating, just how much damage mentally and financially can be done to the recipient of one of your student’s Individual Heritage Orders.

National Trust, please (some respect and common decency)

  • By all means, expand your public pressure campaigns to public spaces and large precincts of homes.
  • Educate us all more on anglo saxon personal taste Australian multicultural community accepted Heritage guidelines
  • Realign your thoughts on private individual homes to:
    • Rigorous defence of single homes bought with knowledge of existing heritage orders.
    • Voluntary heritage orders on new finds with limited and one-off Major Heritage Studies – not ongoing campaigns for more and more heritage studies.
    • If you must place the occasional Individual Heritage Order on a private building, then please have a recompense plan, if the owner is not in agreement and loss can be independently assessed with a simple low-cost tribunal setting.
  • Up your Education campaigns on why you should voluntarily get an Individual Heritage Order. Make it sexy to have a voluntary Individual Heritage Order.

Declaration: We buy many Heritage homes. We love Heritage homes. We respect existing and community Heritage Orders. We do not work for developers and none of our clients has any specific heritage issues – this is about an individual’s human rights.

National Trust you are losing more and more support in the community for your misguided Individual Heritage Order policies.

Back to James Market News

Subscribe to our Market News Newsletter


0400 304 111


0457 835 255


0408 107 988