|Sample number 2000||Percentage of sample 2000
|Sample number 2004||Percentage of sample 2004
|Percentage change between 2000 and 2004 samples
|Survey sample size||1218||1257||+3.1|
|*The places destroyed in both periods are not represented in this table.|
Source: Pearson, M and Marshall, D 2006, Study of Condition and Integrity of Historic Heritage Places for the 2006 State of the Environment Report, Department of the Environment and Heritage, Canberra, viewed N/A, [hyperlink to report on final SoE website].
|Historic heritage condition||2000||2004|
|Commercial premises in urban centres and regional towns||Good condition; but exteriors have high integrity;
|Same trend: historical associations and functional significance much diminished|
|Prominent buildings in rural towns||Adapted by retail chains, especially clothing|
|Prominent buildings in cities and regional towns||Increasing number subject to facadism: converting to 'modern' retail standards|
|Vacant places||42% of those surveyed||Same %|
|Places subject to conservation works||Undertaken prior to 2000||Increasing deterioration due to no maintenance|
|Affluent regional centres, including coastal towns||Increasing land values threatening heritage integrity|
|Former government buildings||Many empty||Streetscape value maintained but modifications destroyed individual heritage integrity|
|Heritage listed places as a class fare better||Need for more systematic survey||Obligations placed on planning approvals to consider heritage|
|Heritage listing of places has not been systematic||Minimal protection at the local government level||Listings but many councils are overtly pro-development|
|Redundant rural buildings of heritage value||Noted as problem||True scale and extent of this problem still not known|
|Government buildings remains at risk||Echuca railway engine shed, Burra railway station and Rockhampton Post Office||Customs House Williamstown, Ararat Mental Hospital, Townsville Customs House, State Government Printing Office in Perth|
|Churches: highest integrity and best class of heritage place||Conservation problems developing, such as water penetration||Trend of ageing church fabric and inadequate maintenance funds continued; increasing redundancy|
|Subdivision of church land||Continuing trend impairing curtilage values|
|Masonry of heritage buildings||Painting: to detriment of heritage values and degrades integrity||Trend continues|
|Provision of interpretative information||Ranges from zero to good: Qld Heritage Trails|
|Interpretative material installed as part of conservation works||Deterioration observed in signage||Continuing trend: town streetscape panels and historic route panels are 'tatty and tired'|
Source: Pearson, M and Marshall, D 2006, Study of Condition and Integrity of Historic Heritage Places for the 2006 State of the Environment Report, Department of the Environment and Heritage, Canberra, viewed N/A, [hyperlink to report on final SoE website], pp. 17-19.
|Register A||ACT||NSW||NT||Qld||SA||Tas||Vic||WA||Ext. Terr./ AAD||Total|
|State and Territory heritage registers|
|2001-2005||10||16 C||13 D||22||9|
|Register of the National Estate (historic) B|
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.
B these places noted as damaged / destroyed but not necessarily removed from RNE
C by year
D up to 2004
E data for the period 1/9/03-31/12/04
Sources: State / Territory heritage agencies; Heritage Division, Department of the Environment and Heritage
The Study of Condition and Integrity of Historic Heritage Places, in the form of a physical survey of a proportion of the places entered in the Register of the National Estate and the various State heritage registers, was conducted in 2004. In all 1,287 places were inspected.
The Study repeated (with some modifications) the survey first undertaken for the 2001 State of the Environment Report and trends apparent over the intervening five-year period were identified.
The study found relatively little change in the condition or integrity of the survey sample over the period since the last survey. Some identified trends were:
- the same proportion of places in 2000 and 2004 having at least medium integrity and fair condition (87.6%)
- a slight increase in the proportion of places with both high integrity and good condition (+2.4%)
- a slight decrease in the number of vacant places (5.7% down to 4.9%)
- a significant increase in the percentage of vacant places in poor condition (39% up to 50%)
The study also showed a number of trends in condition and integrity of then sampled heritage places.
The survey covered every state and territory, and included as wide a regional coverage as the existing heritage registers allow, with a particular emphasis on an equal spread of places in rural and urban environments. The survey provides a simple overview of the continued existence, condition, integrity and use of a sample of the nation’s historic heritage, and allows trends in the health of that heritage to be identified.
Natural and Cultural Heritage — Condition and Integrity of heritage - Physical condition and integrity of heritage
One of the fundamental questions relating to heritage is the condition and integrity of heritage items. A sample is the best available surrogate for the measure of the condition and integrity of historic heritage on a national scale.
Other indicators for this issue:
- NCH-05 Physical condition and integrity of a sample of natural heritage places
- NCH-07 Physical condition and integrity of a sample of Indigenous heritage places
- NCH-08 Physical condition and integrity of a sample of heritage collections
Links to another web site
Links to data in the DRS
Opens a pop-up window