The site’s owners, who bought it before the town’s heritage listing in 2006, have lodged several development applications since 2008.

The site contains the remains of the original two-story jail used when transporting convicts from Goulburn, and attached police barracks.

The Office of Environment and Heritage rejected the most recent application, lodged in 2014, on April 28 this year. They ruled against the DA citing the site’s “exceptional historical significance”.

The development would violate the terms of the site’s heritage listing, Braidwood and its setting, they said. It would “significantly alter the historic character of the Paddocks Precinct,” which it described as having “exceptional archaeological significance”.

Unhappy with this decision, site owners Samowill Pty Ltd and Stephen Northcott lodged an appeal to the LEC. The court has set a preliminary conciliation conference for December 21, involving a site inspection and discussion between the owners and objectors.

Braidwood resident Tony Cairns, representing Samowill Pty Ltd, said they had appealed because the ruling was “unjust”. The council had found no grounds to reject the application, but it had been rejected “because of the heritage [office’s] opposition,” he said.

Mr Cairns said objections on the grounds of the site’s possible archaeological significance were “rubbish … it’s a paddock”. He said plans for the development, in sympathy with heritage issues, included only four dwellings where zoning would allow for seven.

He added that those opposed to the project were “a minority of the community,” saying “we’ve satisfied all the requirements” of the heritage council. He believes that “the bottom line” is that the area is zoned “village residential,” and on that basis the project should be allowed to proceed.

But fellow Braidwood resident Forbes Gordon said houses built on the site would be “detrimental to the curtilage area,” mentioned in Braidwood’s Heritage Council listing. The listing “Braidwood and its setting,” draws attention to the abrupt transition from built to pastoral landscapes as a feature revealing the historic settlement patterns of the town.

Another objector, Cheryl Raper, said the site had significance as “one of the only police regional barracks that [has] not been built over”. Mrs Raper said the site’s heritage was also vital for the town’s economic health. “From a [tourism] and economical point of view, the heritage significance of the town is paramount,” Mrs Raper said.

She added that she saw further problems with plans for development, saying that she did not believe the site was safe as, “there was concern about access to the site off the Kings Highway.”

Many of those who are not set against any development are nevertheless concerned that the archaeological value of the site is being disregarded. Kirsty Altenburg, of Braidwood, has raised concerns about the value of the site, saying “the archaeological values are really high.”

Ms Altenburg who formerly worked as a heritage consultant with the Australian Heritage Commission and the Department of Environment and Heritage said that while she was not completely against the prospect of development on the site. She believes however that it is “vulnerable,” and that any development would need to be carefully negotiated.

Objectors have asked about the results of the archaeological site survey, and believe they have been told that the results will not be available under freedom of information for several months. 

The conference will be next Wednesday from 10.30am at 199 Wallace Street.