Council planning controls too often perpetuate sentimental notions of things we like to look at, at the expense of logic, and a sustainable future. For example, a Sydney council in a leafy well to do area requires that gardens in its older suburbs ‘reflect traditional “north shore” planting’, meaning they must be predominantly exotic and formal, or in other words, European. Even if half the plants in them come from South Africa or South America. Very few are allowed to be native, in spite of there being more plant species endemic to the Sydney Basin than are found in the whole of the British Isles.
How did this pathetic situation come about? Well, the history of European settlement in Australia is one of “the eye sees but the brain does not comprehend”. A sentimental longing for ‘home’, combined with palpable ignorance of the complexities and subtleties of the ecosystem they were trampling on, meant that right through our history, gardens have largely been exotic. (A nice anagram of that is etoxic.) Then some councils have seen fit to institutionalise and perpetuate this ignorance in their planning controls, because it is seen as ‘maintaining the character of the locality’. This is justified as being consistent with maintaining cultural heritage.
If commitment to heritage in this way was the least bit justifiable, we would still be clearing the bush to plant crops and graze cloven hoofed animals (hang on – this only slowed down last year, and still hasn’t actually stopped); damming rivers to ‘harness the water’ (hang on – the NSW and Qld Gov’ts are hell bent on doing this right now); and keeping Aboriginal people living on reservations in sub-standard housing (hang on – - !). My point is it’s time to say “that was how we used to do it, but we know better now.”
But apparently we don’t.