Expert evidence – and the clarity of its reasoning – can play a critical role in determining heritage outcomes.

The judgment in Tang v Newcastle City Council [2024] NSWLEC 1723 focused on whether a heritage order was warranted. Ultimately, the Court decided to revoke the Interim Heritage Order (the IHO) based on the strength of expert reasoning.

History of the matter

Newcastle City Council had placed an IHO on 14 Sunderland Street, Mayfield, after concerns about its historical and architectural significance were raised. Council sought to protect the property due to its potential cultural and historical value.

The property’s owners argued against the order, contending that the property lacked the necessary heritage value and that the reasoning behind its proposed significance was insufficiently supported by evidence.

The role of expert evidence and reasoning

The Court relied heavily on expert heritage and structural reports to assess whether the property held local heritage significance. Experts provided joint reports on the property’s architectural style, condition, and historical associations, evaluating it against specific heritage criteria. However, the Court emphasised the importance of not just expert opinions but the clear reasoning underpinning these opinions. In particular, that expert conclusions must be logically reasoned and supported by clear evidence. In this case, the Court determined that some opinions did not have adequate explanation, particularly concerning the architectural and historical value attributed to the property.

In instances where opinions lacked detailed explanations, this ultimately affected the weight given to that evidence.

Ultimately, the Court found that while the property did exhibit some unique architectural features, such as its masonry construction, this was insufficient to establish heritage significance on its own. The judgment concluded that the IHO was not supported by sufficiently reasoned expert evidence to justify retaining the order, and the Court revoked the IHO.

Key takeaways

This case emphasizes the importance of clear and substantiated expert reasoning in heritage and planning matters. For anyone involved with IHOs, it’s a reminder that expert evidence must go beyond assertions to demonstrate a logical connection between the property and each criterion of heritage significance.

In heritage disputes, clear, well-structured expert reasoning is not just preferred—it’s essential for meeting the legal thresholds that uphold or revoke heritage protections.

Further reading

You can read the full judgment below.