• Change text size
• Skip to content

• About us
• Contact us

Search

• Home
  • Atmosphere
  • Biodiversity
  • Coasts and marine
  • Heritage
  • Land
  • Living sustainably
  • Parks and reserves
  • Water
  • EPBC Act
  • Arts and culture 

• SoE
  • About SoE reporting
  • SoE 2011
  • SoE 2006
    • SoE 2006 report
    • SoE 2006 at a glance
    • Theme commentaries
    • Integrative commentaties
    • Current or emerging issues
    • Technical reports
    • Data Reporting System

• SoE 2001
  • Report
  • Key findings
  • Fact sheets
  • Theme reports
  • Technical papers

• • SoE 1996
    • SoE 1996 report
    • Key findings brochure
    • Technical papers
  • Publications
  • SoE Themes
    • Atmosphere
    • Biodiversity
    • Coasts & oceans
    • Human settlements
    • Inland waters
    • Land
    • Natural & cultural heritage
    • Australian Antarctic Territory

Current condition of heritage places and objects and pressures affecting them (continued)

Condition of historic heritage places

The overall condition of Australia's historic heritage places is informed on the one hand by the broad understanding of what has been lost and why, and on the other hand by assessing the actual state of health of places. The use of reported losses from heritage registers is generally inadequate for assessing destruction or damage, because the system of identifying and reporting such losses is not comprehensive or systematic. The reliability of information held by the State and Territory agencies on losses is largely dependent on the planning processes applying in each jurisdiction. In States and Territories where the planning system requires the notification to the heritage council of any proposed works (such as demolition or damaging works) there is likely to be a correlation between such notified and actual loss. In most cases total losses will be recorded in the registers, but loss of value short of destruction will not. Accidental losses are usually picked up only when the land is proposed for redevelopment, or through ad hoc information passed on to the heritage agency.

Where a notification system is not in place at all (as with the Register of the National Estate), little reliance can be placed on the comprehensiveness of the losses information. There might also be a time-lag in reporting losses - as is the case with the Register of the National Estate, in which the time-lag in getting information is compounded by not recording actual date of destruction in the database. As a result, the reliability of the Register of the National Estate and some State or Territory figures must be regarded as low.

In some cases, the loss of individual items within registered groups of places can be masked because the larger place still survives (and is therefore not identified in the register as a loss). Examples would be the gradual loss by erosion of the sealing sites on Heard Island, or gradual losses within urban conservation areas. Loss would be recorded in the heritage registers only when the incremental loss is so great that the larger group loses its heritage value.

The 1996 State of the Environment Report noted the absence of national programs to monitor the physical condition of heritage places. This lack of condition monitoring made it difficult to assess the effectiveness of responses to perceived pressures, especially by government. In 2000 this observation was found to be still true for historic heritage places. In 2000, an on-ground survey of the condition of historic places was undertaken of 12% (totalling 1250) of the places across Australia in the Register of the National Estate (see Pearson et al. 2001). Of this sample, 31 heritage places were destroyed, not found or inaccessible. The findings of this survey for the condition of historic heritage places can be summarised as follows.

Internal condition of buildings

Roughly half of the buildings were inspected internally. Of the interiors that were accessible, 51% were in good condition, 44% were in fair condition, and only 5% in poor condition. Many of the accessible places were public buildings and commercial premises that receive a degree of maintenance to sustain their ongoing use. While in good condition, many building interiors were not of high integrity, and many of the public and commercial buildings (such as shops, banks and post offices) experienced greater change internally than externally. The internal condition and integrity of other classes of place, such as urban residential housing, could not be assessed using this survey, as very few places were inspected internally.

Condition and integrity

The best measure of condition was the observation of physical condition and integrity (the intactness of elements that give heritage value) (see Table 10). Overall, 87.6% of places had medium integrity and fair condition, or better, and nearly a quarter of places (23%) having high integrity and good condition. Only 5.6% of the total sample was in poor condition, and 8.6% had low integrity, while only 2% fell into the worst category, having both low integrity and poor condition. This suggests a good overall condition of registered heritage places throughout Australia.

An observation, particularly of commercial or retail premises in urban centres and regional towns, is that they had retained good condition externally, but their interiors were substantially modified and, while in good condition, often had low internal integrity. Ground-floor shop fronts also had poor integrity in most cases. The historical associations and significant original functions of many commercial buildings had been severely diminished as a result. There appear to be, for example, very few country town emporiums retaining their internal fittings and internal spatial characteristics, reflecting both fashion and changing technology in transactions.

Condition of unoccupied buildings

A similar survey in England was the 'Places at Risk' study carried out by English Heritage (1992). In that study the biggest risk factor was found to be abandonment of buildings. The Australian pattern is different, with far fewer places being abandoned (that is, habitable places with no apparent active use - 6% in Australia, compared with over 25% in England). While lack of occupation remains a strong risk factor for individual buildings, abandonment of buildings is not the systemic problem it is in England.

Table 9 shows the relevant survey findings. Of the unoccupied places, 39% were in poor external condition (or 2% of the whole sample), and 13% had low integrity (0.7% of whole sample). This is comparable with the English Heritage survey, which found over 40% of vacant buildings were in poor to very bad condition.

Two-thirds or 66% of unoccupied places were in private ownership.

Table 9: Condition and integrity of unoccupied buildings in the survey.^A

Number not occupiedB	External condition			Integrity
	Good	Fair	Poor	High	Medium	Low
72C	14	28	27	28	32	9

^A See Pearson et al. (2001) for detail by State and Territory.
^B Where ownership known, 43 (66.2%) private, 22 (33.8%) public.
^C Three buildings in NT were known to be unoccupied, but were not inspected.

Condition, integrity and ownership of all buildings

Table 10 shows the relative condition and integrity of heritage places in public and private ownership that were inspected in the survey.

Table 10: Ownership and condition and integrity of survey buildings. [NCH Indicator H.1]

	External condition good			External condition fair			External condition poor
	Privately owned	Publicly owned	Unknown	Privately owned	Publicly owned	Unknown	Privately owned	Publicly owned	Unknown
Total (n=1214)	357	166	11	385	199	26	46	19	5
% of total	29.4	13.7	0.9	31.7	16.4	2.1	3.8	1.6	0.4
	High integrity			Medium integrity			Low integrity
	Privately owned	Publicly owned	Unknown	Privately owned	Publicly owned	Unknown	Privately owned	Publicly owned	Unknown
Total (n=1206)	303	194	12	397	168	27	80	22	3
% of total	25.1	16.1	1	32.9	13.9	2.2	6.6	1.8	0.2
Overall - Private 65% - Public 31.6% - Unknown 3.4%

Source: Pearson et al. (2001).

The survey found that there was no significant difference in condition between places in private or public ownership; 45% of private and 43% of public buildings were in good condition and 49% and 52% respectively in fair condition. Only 6% of private and 5% of public buildings were in poor condition. However, the level of integrity of public buildings was generally better than that of private properties. Among privately owned places, 39% had high integrity and 10% had low integrity, while 50.5% of publicly owned properties had high integrity and 6% had low integrity.

The lower level of integrity of privately owned buildings is probably largely due to the adaptation or modernising of commercial buildings and the removal or damaging of original building components. This reduces integrity, while maintenance of the old and new fabric retains good physical condition.

Observations on the condition of heritage places drawn from the survey

Residential buildings generally retain values

Residential heritage buildings, both private houses and flats, are generally in fair to good condition and relatively intact where their residential function is maintained. Of the 287 residential places included in the survey, 49% were in good condition, 44% in fair condition, and 7% in poor condition. 48% had high integrity, while only 2% had low integrity (half of which were not occupied). The main threats to integrity were observed to be the insertion of new or enlarged windows, the rearrangement of interior walls, the construction of intrusive additions and the insensitive remodelling of original spaces and exteriors. We have very little knowledge about the interiors of residential buildings. They are virtually ignored when looking at places of local significance, and highly intact interiors of significance to the State or nation are potentially being lost as a result.

Churches - high integrity but mounting maintenance load

Churches, as a class, are generally in good (46%) to fair (53%) condition and probably have the highest integrity of any class of heritage place, 58% having high and 39% moderate integrity. There are, however, signs of developing conservation problems within this class of place, most commonly from water penetration due to rising damp or failing roofs and roof plumbing. The growing ongoing and deferred maintenance bill for many churches will pose major problems over the next decade.

Masonry treatment

While actual numbers were not recorded, it was observed during the survey that many heritage buildings are constructed of stone or brick masonry. Originally this masonry was unpainted in most cases. However, as part of the process of renovation, there are a large number of such heritage buildings which now have painted masonry. The effect is pleasing to the eye: the heritage buildings look like new. In some cases the painting may address some substantial conservation problem such as water penetration. However, in most cases the treatment appears simply a cosmetic measure which diminishes the integrity of the heritage building. The survey found many such cases across the country.

Large former government buildings at risk

A class of large heritage buildings observed to be in deteriorating condition and particularly at risk were a small group of former government buildings vacated as functions became redundant (such as customs houses, drill halls, meeting places and railway stations) or as functions were moved to more commercially sustainable premises (as with post offices).

A major factor in the decline in condition of buildings noted in the analysis above is total or partial abandonment. The largest group of such buildings noted during the survey were post offices or former post offices: of the 37 included in the survey, seven were vacant with no apparent use (19% of sample). Of the 25 railway stations, the majority were no longer operated as stations, but had been given other uses. However, 5 stations were vacant (20%). Of the other categories of large government buildings, the survey included 21 town halls or municipal chambers, 26 courthouses, and 11 customs houses - one example in each of these categories was vacant (4%).

These are often among the larger and more centrally located buildings in a town or suburb, and in many cases new uses have not been found, or only partially occupy the available spaces. Some of these buildings are at risk of becoming derelict as a result. The average level of condition and high rate of integrity of government properties observed in the analysis above might decline over time if this pattern of abandonment of large government heritage properties is continued, and should be specifically monitored through the State of the Environment process.

Losses and places at risk

The report of the Committee of Review into Commonwealth Owned Heritage Property (Schofield, 1996) recommended that:

'... the Commonwealth adopt a standard procedure for disposal as outlined in the Heritage Asset Management Manual [developed by the Committee] and develop a standard approach to leasehold for properties where it is a feasible and prudent alternative to disposal.'

This recommendation has not yet been formally responded to by the Commonwealth Government.

Table 11 records the places noted as destroyed or removed from historic place registers because of loss of values in the period 1995-2000. The data are from State and Territory heritage registers and the Register of the National Estate, which are all that are available.

Table 11: Places noted as destroyed or removed from historic place registers because of loss of values in the period 1995-2000, based on State and Territory heritage registers and the Register of the National Estate.
[NCH Indicator G.3 (Historic component)]

Register A	ACT	NSW	NT	Qld	SA	Tas.	Vic.	WA	Ext. Terr./ AAT	Total
State and Territory heritage registers	1	nd	nd	10	6	0	nd	1	2	20
Register of the National Estate (historic)	0	6	11	12	4	3	9	9	0	54

^A The Register of the National Estate and State and Territory registers could overlap, so the two sets of figures cannot be added for a total figure.
^nd No data available.

Source: Pearson et al. (2001).

It is difficult to identify trends in the information, as losses were not reported on in the 1996 report, and the 1996 supporting research provided figures for only one year (Marshall and Pearson 1997). On the face of it, the reporting by the States and Territories of 10 places lost in 1993-94, compared with 20 places lost for the period 1995-2000, suggests that there has been a dramatic decrease in losses, although the loss of 54 places reported for the Register of the National Estate indicates a similar rate of loss to the 1993-94 figure.

Although incremental loss is difficult to assess, it is endangering the condition of historic heritage places. For example, in Victoria's listed public gardens and in some urban conservation areas featuring elm trees (Ulmus species), two exotic beetles - the elm bark beetle and the elm leaf beetle, which were first discovered in Melbourne in the 1970s and 1980s - cause defoliation, damage and sometimes death to the elm trees. Although these elm beetles are known vectors of the Dutch Elm disease which has ravaged elm tree populations in Western Europe and North America, this disease has not been found in Australia (Clarke et al. 2000, p.152). In the Australian Antarctic Territory a conservation management plan is being implemented at Mawson's huts, and the significance of debris from other expeditions is being assessed in order to address problems of incremental loss (see: http://www.mawsons-huts.com.au).

Under the National Trusts' Endangered Places Program, started in 1998, a selective list of places at risk is maintained. This represents places targeted for lobbying, rather than being an attempt to be comprehensive, but it does point to a growing community concern that heritage places are in danger, and identifies some generic types of pressure. These include specific building types in danger, such as single-screen cinemas, which are at risk because of changing market economics, and wharves, which are at risk because of technological redundancy. Other places identified include abandoned industrial sites, residential areas subject to urban renewal, and urban fringe areas subject to closer settlement. (See 'Effects of technological change, economic restructuring and development on heritage')

The National Trusts' Endangered Places Program

The National Trusts' Endangered Places Program commenced in 1998. The program highlights some of Australia's endangered heritage places. Nominations of natural and cultural heritage places under threat are invited from people and groups throughout the country, and each year the Australian Council of National Trusts officially releases a new Endangered Places List. The endangered places have been chosen because of the immediacy of threat, including: damage and destruction, neglect and abandonment, lack of resources and maintenance, inappropriate development and management, both to and around a place, and redevelopment. The list also tracks the final loss of places, or their saving and conservation.

Source: Australian Council of National Trusts website (http://www.austnattrust.com.au/endangered_places/endanger.html)

Conclusions and implications for the condition of historic heritage places

• The overall condition of Australia's historic heritage places, judged by surveying 12% of the Register of the National Estate, is fair to good (95% of places being in fair condition or better).
• Nearly 6% of heritage buildings are not occupied (where occupation or use is otherwise appropriate), and the condition of many of these is deteriorating as a result. This includes a small but significant number of former government buildings such as post offices and railway stations.
• There is no appreciable difference in the condition of heritage buildings in private and public ownership, but publicly owned buildings have a significantly higher level of integrity than those in private ownership. The implication of this is that private owners need to be adequately educated about the requirements for retention of significance of their property, and governments should take considerable care to ensure the ongoing conservation of their own buildings, and ensure that adequate protection is guaranteed for disposed property. The continuing occurrence of vacant and deteriorating government buildings emphasises the need for governments to take more seriously their duty of care for the community's heritage they control. The Committee of Review into Commonwealth Owned Heritage Property made similar observations, but their recommendations regarding this issue have not been formally adopted.
• While churches are in generally fair to good condition, the growing ongoing and deferred maintenance bill for many churches will pose major conservation funding problems over the next decade.
• The low but steady rate of damage done to heritage buildings by inappropriate works such as the remodelling of shop fronts and interiors, insertion of windows, and additions on residential buildings, and the painting of masonry is a continuing concern. An implication may be the need for an expanded program of targeted information products, perhaps linked to local government information packages to owners as part of the growing concern about the retention of urban character.
• The suitability of Commonwealth, State and Territory heritage register databases as a source of reliable information on the damage or loss of heritage places is poor, and would need substantial improvement before they could be used confidently for State of the Environment reporting purposes. It would be more cost-effective if heritage register databases were kept as information bases about the existence of heritage values, and alternative means of identifying damage and destruction were developed in parallel, such as an aggregation of damaging development approvals at a State or Territory level.
• There is still no ongoing national program to monitor the physical condition of heritage places. The on-ground survey provided good information, and might be seen as a model for subsequent State of the Environment data-gathering in the historic heritage field. There would also seem to be benefits in developing this methodology further to provide data on the condition of natural and Indigenous heritage places.

• Next
• Contents
• Previous