To some, it’s a site of huge significance to Braidwood’s history. To others, it’s a valuable piece of land ripe for development.

Six months ago, matters came to a head.

Samowill Pty Ltd, the family company that owns the land, had their development application overturned by the Heritage Council on grounds that the site is of exceptional archaeological significance.  

They took the matter to the Land and Environment Court, which set out to facilitate a negotiation process between the parties: in favour of the development, Samowill; and opposed to the development, the Heritage Council. 

After six months of negotiation, the court has terminated the conciliation process between parties as it was not satisfied they were close to reaching an agreement.

The case will be heard by a Commissioner of the Land and Environment Court in a formal hearing later this year.

The decision has been welcomed by some who see it as an opportunity to settle the matter with a final, decisive ruling.

Up to this point the Commissioner was looking for a compromise between the parties, but that would have been unsatisfactory to those opposing the development. 

“I’m glad it’s going to court,” says John Stahel, a member of Braidwood’s Historical Society. 

“A compromise would have been a loss to the community and to heritage,” he said. “At least we’re now going to get an answer, one way or another.” 

Mr Stahel opposed the development, along with the Braidwood Historical Society. 

In submissions made opposing the development application, the group argued that development was a threat to the historical significance of the site.

Tony Cairns, representing Samowill Pty Ltd, sees the matter differently.

“The area was purchased in good faith, zoned village residential and therefore eligible for development,” Mr Cairns said. “It's always been zoned village residential,” he continued, recalling that the family bought the land in 2005, prior to the town’s heritage listing.

“We paid a substantial amount of money for it, obviously, very obviously, on the basis of its zoning. In other words, it's eligible for development,” Mr Cairns said.

Samowill Pty Ltd had fulfilled all the requirements of the Heritage Office in their planning, and should thus be allowed to develop, Mr Cairns said.

“All requirements of the heritage office have been met; in particular, the archaeological testing,” he said.

“The proposed plan of subdivision doesn't impact on any of the archaeological findings.”

The company had also gone above and beyond what was required of them to satisfy heritage requirements, Mr Cairns said.

“Going on minimum lot sizes, we could have applied for six development sites, and we’ve only applied for four, in sympathy to the issues involved,” he said.

The debate goes deeper than the planning permission for a single site, questioning the values enshrined by the town’s 2006 heritage listing.

Submissions made against the development argued that the site preserved “the abrupt transition at the town boundary between built and pastoral landscapes,” which “highlights significant historical settlement patterns”.

To list the town, then 10 years on develop on the areas listed, seems pointless to some.  “It would kind of make a mockery of the whole 2006 listing,” John Stahel said.

Instead, he believed the site could be used to enhance the tourist potential of the town.

“There are other ways of developing that site that would bring great value to him… and the town,” Mr Stahel said.

But the heritage listing was not as important as many believed, Tony Cairns said.

“[The opposition] is based upon an inflated opinion of Braidwood's heritage importance, which emanates from the listing,” he said.

“My impression is that 12 year after the event, the listing's done nothing for Braidwood.”