City of Perth response to
Conservation of Australia’s Historic Heritage Places

The Scope of the Inquiry by the Productivity Commission is to examine: 

1.	the main pressures on the conservation of historic heritage places
2.	the economic, social and environmental benefits and costs of the conservation of historic heritage places in Australia
3.	the current relative roles and contributions to the conservation of historic heritage places of the Commonwealth and the state and territory governments, heritage owners (private, corporate and government), community groups and any other relevant stakeholders
4.	the positive and/or negative impacts of regulatory, taxation and institutional arrangements on the conservation of historic heritage places, and other impediments and incentives that affect outcomes
5.	emerging technological, economic, demographic, environmental and social trends that offer potential new approaches to the conservation of historic heritage places, and
6.	possible policy and program approaches for managing the conservation of Australia’s historic heritage places and competing objectives and interests.

Initial observation/comment on Background and Terms of Reference
There has been significant investment into the natural environment by the Federal and State Government with little emphasis placed on the cultural heritage in terms of education, research and funding incentives.

Point 3 in the Scope of Enquiry typifies the lack of understanding of the role and contribution local government has and is playing in heritage conservation.  Local Government is not listed as an entity.

This layer of government has to deal with all levels of heritage conservation.  Identification, balancing protection and development through the planning process, and allocation of limited financial resources to ensure places that need incentives receive the assistance.  

Local government is at the interface between the owners of heritage places, the community and State and Federal legislation.  It is also the level of Government least able financially to deal with the complex issues surround heritage conservation.  

These issues are further compounded when dealing with heritage in a capital city context where development potential is significantly higher than in suburban councils.

Central Issues of the inquiry identified by the Commission are:

1.	What is the rationale for government involvement in historic heritage conservation and what principles should guide that involvement?

To understand the rationale for government involvement in heritage one has to understand the evolution of the heritage movement, the expectations raised by society and the response by Government (at various levels) to facilitate and protect places of cultural heritage significance.

In Western Australia, Government involvement has come from raised community expectations.  Pressure has evolved through time leading initially to the establishment of the National Trust in the early 1960’s over a battle to save the Barracks Arch, then in some cases local government protection through planning schemes (1980’s) followed by state legislation (1990).

For the City of Perth and local government generally there is considerable pressure to address matters relating to places of cultural heritage significance because this is the level of government that deals with the development, (planning applications and building licenses from demolition to renovation).  

As a result the community sees the relationship and vent anger from both sides of the heritage spectrum – impacting on development rights, devaluation of property etc from developers owners opposed to heritage versus the community rallying, signing petitions for the protection of heritage places.

Principles that should guide Government involvement
•	Partnerships across Government
The partnership should establish a policy structure to address issues such as finance, research and education issues.

At the moment there are three levels of government dealing with heritage each to a greater or lesser extent in isolation of the others.

Currently the Federal Government is the most financially able to manage these programs but is doing the least, and at the other end of the spectrum the Councils who can least financially afford to manage heritage programs are doing the most.

Comparative snap shot 2005/2006 financial year budgets across Government
City of Perth incentives open for heritage listed private property owners $900,000 or 0.87% of total budget
State Government incentives open for heritage listed private property owners $1, million or 0.0070% of total budget
Federal Government incentives open for all heritage listed private property owners $2,6 million or 0.00121% of total budget

•	Partnerships across community – greater working relationship with the community is required however by its very nature this relationship requires greater resources and longer timeframes to meet targets.
•	Research 
The implications of heritage listing on 
o	individual property, 
o	precincts, 
o	effects of capital expenditure in heritage precincts and 
o	issues of sustainability of heritage versus non heritage places need to be explored in detail.  

This research should have been undertaken some time ago yet resources have not been allocated to address perceptions regarding the impacts of heritage listing on private property owners.  

The City of Perth is in the process of undertaking its own research to better understand the implications of heritage listing.  

Preliminary findings are:

Properties in the King Street Precinct between Hay and Murray Street have shown a significant increase in value based on improved value per square metre. 

The Precinct was established as a heritage precinct in 1989 with streetscape upgrades occurring between 1993 and 1997 to the value of $1.5 million.

In 1989 initial values reflected a rate per metre for land improvements of around $2,000.

Whilst major refurbishment’s have occurred, properties in this precinct have increased in value (2003) based on preliminary evidence of between $12,000 - $14,000 m2 improved.

Actual Sales evidence over the same period has indicated a growth of 22.9% per annum in value.

Property on St Georges Terrace, the premier office address within the city (approx 2003) indicated that values were tracking around $8,500 per square metre improved.  

Comparative assessment is still being undertaken.

The outcomes of the research are vitally important to determine where Councils limited resources should be allocated.

•	Education
Comprehensive education programs need to be developed to link into specific research outcomes mentioned above.  

These programs could include seminars, work shops etc tailored for each state and to the target markets, not just those interested in heritage.

In addition the education program needs to highlight Australia’s history.  Innovative ways of developing this need to be fully explored from getting the message into the schooling systems to secondary and tertiary curriculi, awards for research into heritage, from valuation, archaeology, architecture, planning, etc.  

2.	How does the policy framework for historic heritage conservation currently operate and what are its strengths and weaknesses?

Current Policy framework at the City of Perth
Places are listed in the City Planning Scheme in a register.

The power to do so comes from the WA Town Planning and Development Act 1928 Schedule 1 which defines heritage along with a range of other items as being able to be dealt with when preparing a town planning scheme.

The Model Scheme Text sets out a framework of how this should be addressed that local government are required to follow.

The Heritage Act of Western Australia (S45) requires Local Government to prepare a Municipal Heritage Inventory (MHI) and review the Inventory every 4 years. – This alone has significant financial implications on local government.  The HCWA established a set of guidelines to follow but these are now outdated. 

There is a degree of confusion over the role of the MHI and there is a perception that listing on the MHI has some legal ramifications for the property owners.  It does not.  However it can be the first step in identifying property for listing either on the State or local government registers.  These are separate processes that involve consultation with affected property owners.

These issues are/were being addressed between the State and local government through a heritage working party but since the recent resignation of the Chair of the Heritage Council who was driving this initiative, no progress has been reported from the Office of the Minister for Heritage.

Weaknesses include lack of strategy initiatives on research, education and incentive development.

Please refer to WALGA HCWA submission for outline of recommendations and Making Heritage Happen 2004

3.	What are the current pressures and emerging trends influencing the conservation of historic heritage places and, in light of these, how can the policy framework be improved?

Current pressures
•	Increasing pressure on Local Government from devolving of various responsibilities from the Federal and State Government on all matters. 
•	Limitations on the ability of Local Government to raise revenue to deal with above
•	Perception that heritage is a negative in financial terms and that once listed a place cannot be renovated or modified.
•	Incremental demolition – CoP has been fortunate that though there is currently a resource boom there has not been substantial pressure on development in the city centre that has threatened heritage places.  But incremental demolition of places puts pressure on the balance of heritage places.

Emerging Trends
•	Greater resources into nature based tourism 
•	Greater reliance on Local Government to deliver partnerships with stakeholders
•	Increasing discussion in heritage including
o	Cultural tourism strategies
o	This Commission
o	Making Heritage Happen 2004
o	Some LGA’s taking a leadership role 

How can policy framework be improved
•	Appropriate research, discussion and better education 
•	Better models that local government can use
•	Increased financial assistance to local government to ensure a product can be delivered
•	Better communication

Questions posed

1.	Do current lists adequately recognize degrees of cultural significance of historic heritage places? If so, are the factors which determine degrees of cultural significance appropriate?

Lists already offer degrees of significance by default as one has National State and Local lists.  Places that have a high degree of significance would be on the National State and Local list, whilst places with a low level of significance would only be on the Local list.

2.	Is there a need for a comprehensive survey of historic heritage places in Australia?  If so who should fund such a study and how would the findings be used?

There is no need for another list.  Undertaking an additional list would confuse everyone.  The community finds it difficult understanding the current lists that currently exist.  This was the experience at the City of Perth when we released the MHI we were preparing in relation to our legal obligations under the Heritage Act of Western Australia (1990).  The community was confused about the National Trusts role, the Heritage Councils role the National Estate and the City of Perth’s role.  Another list would confuse the issue further.  

However consolidating all local government lists into one national database might be of benefit for a variety of reasons including comparative assessment research etc
 
3.	Are market failures present in conservation of historic places?  If so do they differ in significance or scope from those which may exist in other forms of conservation such as conservation of our Natural Heritage?

One would assume market failure exist in all levels of society so heritage will be no different.  Further research is required to determine why.

4.	To what extent does historic conservation generate benefits for the community?  How do these community based benefits compare to the personal benefits which owners of heritage places would receive through conservation

The benefits to the community include 
•	increased tourism and economic return to the broader community.  (Tourism WA figures and HCWA Cultural Tourism Strategy figures)
•	sense of community and identity of where we have come from.
•	sustainable development
•	diversification of the labour base through skilled trades
•	greater economic return from restoration versus new building (USA research)
•	sense of history

Community benefits are different to personal benefits and the property owner can potentially receive direct property price increases from being in the heritage precinct such as in King Street in Perth.  These benefits are only now starting to be measured.

5.	How well do existing government regulations or activities specifically address market failures that are directly relevant to conservation of historic heritage places?

Both the State and local government make provision for incentives to assist property owners of heritage places.  How well government market these provisions and research on the effectiveness of these provisions and the impact of listing is a different issue.

The City of Perth Incentive Program includes:
•	Policy initiatives including transfer and bonus plot ratio
•	Financial incentives including grants ($200,000 per year) and rate relief ($600,000 per year)
•	Establishing an independent Appeal using a partnership arrangement with the Nation Trust of Australia to establishing a tax deductible appeal and allocating ($300,000 to kick start the program)
•	Undertake a program of trying to lobby the State government to relax certain areas that it controls, ie re-valuing property through the Valuer General Office which would have inpact on lowering Western Australia Water Authority rate Council rates and reducing State Tax on heritage property 
•	Prepare design guidelines for places that are heritage listed.  The City of Perth has guidelines in place for King Street and the Hay Street Mall with additional guidelines being prepared for Queen Street.  More resources need to be allocated to complete these guidelines 

In addition it has been also acknowledged that the City of Perth does not fully understand what the impact of listing has on property values.  This includes 
•	isolated heritage places and places within precincts 
•	whether heritage is more sustainable than conventional places
•	what has been the impact of capital expenditure in heritage areas on the prices of heritage properties

The City of Perth has initiated this research to determine if the perceptions by property owners of heritage places that they are economically disadvantaged are true.

6.	Does Government involvement in heritage conservation displace private sector involvement which would other wise occur?  If so to what extent

Government led involvement does not displace private sector involvement in heritage conservation.

Government is required to initially address community aspirations through protection of places through legislation.  The responsibility on the Government is to then undertake the research to address perceptions.  It is also required to then educate the community about the outcomes of the research and be required to allocate resources where it can be determined there will be market failure.

7.	What are the costs of government involvement in the conservation of historic heritage places and who bears them?

Costs are significant for local government
•	Consultants required to prepare a data bases of heritage places ($100,000+).  This needs to be reviewed every 4 years
•	Software to store data base ($15,000)
•	Officers time to develop programs including incentives programs ($150,000)
•	Production of material ($10,000)
•	Research – ongoing ($15,000
•	Monitoring – ongoing ($5,000)
•	Incentives (2005/2006 financial year $900,000)
•	Ongoing management of program ($75,000 per annum)

These costs, in most instances, come directly from local government revenue.

8.	Have these costs changed as a result of economic trends?  For example have pressures on government finances limited the amount or resources available for public heritage conservation?

At the City of Perth the Council has been increasing funding for heritage incentives though circumstances can change as resources become constrained.

9.	How do these costs vary depending on the nature and extent of conservation?

Unable to answer

10.	Are there any regulatory barriers which prevent private organizations from capturing benefits from the conservation of historic heritage places?

Like any development be it heritage or non heritage there will always be barriers, but the important thing is understanding what those are and working with the opportunities at hand.  

11.	What are the benefits from government involvement in the conservation of heritage places and to whom do they accrue?

The benefits are currently being researched but early indications are:
•	Increased property value if places are in a heritage precinct.  Increased property value also leads to increased rates to the Council.
•	Increased sense of place and pride in an area
•	Research from Tourism WA and HCWA indicates increased cultural tourism, leading to increased $ turnover for shop owners, increased vibrancy in the City through Heritage trails, interpretation of art works etc.

12.	How do these benefits vary depending on the nature and extent of conservation?

Further research is required however anecdotally and based on overseas research it would suggest that heritage places in a precinct either hold or outstrip $ per square metre than conventional property, however heritage places in isolation are impacted upon by there heritage listing
.
See above for preliminary research outcomes (page 3)

13.	What are the benefits to tourism from heritage conservation and what impact does heritage tourism have on the conservation of heritage places?

Taken from Tourism WA
•	Studies have shown that a high proportion of foreign tourists cite historic significance as an important factor in choosing a destination.
•	According to the World Tourism Organisation, cultural tourism accounts for 37 per cent of world travel and this is growing at the rate of 15 per cent a year.
•	In Western Australia, the cultural industry sector contributes $983 million a year to the State's economy.
•	Research has shown an increase in demand for quality interpretation of the natural, social and heritage features of places visited.
•	Retaining inner city cultural heritage and interpreting it will continue to strengthen Perth’s growing tourism and cultural life.

14.	Do government funding bodies use benefit cost analysis in allocating funds between heritage conservation projects?  Are any types of benefits or costs commonly omitted from these analysis?  Are alternative approaches used, such as cost effectiveness?

The City of Perth program is in its infancy and has not used this approach in allocating resources.

15.	Can the benefits and costs of the conservation of heritage places be satisfactorily quantified to aid decision making?

This has not been assessed by the City of Perth

16.	How should tangible costs (such as repair costs be compared with intangible and diffuse (such as educational benefits and sense of community belonging)?

Difficult to measure but should not be dismissed.  Further investigation and research required.

17.	What proportion of historic heritage places are owned by the private sector?

Of those places listed on the City Planning Scheme or the State Register 45% are in private ownership.  Of the total places listed on the heritage data base 65% are in private ownership

18.	What are the strengths and weaknesses of private ownership of historic heritage places?

Strengths: Private capital,  
Weaknesses: Some owners not interested in maintenance and only want to redevelop the property.  Have a perception that heritage is a negative without doing the research to determine what would give them the best financial return.  In cases were the economic returns are marginal for retention of heritage places in the short term but strengthen in the long term developers only want the short term solution.

19.	How is the private sector contributing to the conservation of historic heritage places?

Some private sector developers can see the positive economic benefits of being involved in restoration because they have renovated such places.

20.	Are there impediments to commercial conservation activities (for example, perception by owners that conservation costs are prohibitive compared to benefits to them)?

The biggest impediment is that there is a perception that heritage listing is an economic negative.  In some cases this is true but in some cases this is not.  There has not been adequate research undertaken to assist Government and owners of the implications of listing.

21.	Have shortages of skilled trades people acted as an impediment to historic heritage conservation? If so, to what extent do these shortages reflect economic cycles in the building industry?

Unable to answer

22.	Are there constraints on the availability of finance or insurance for historic heritage buildings?

Insurance has been addressed in WA.  City of Perth has not received any negative feedback for some time since this matter was addressed by the HCWA

23.	Have technological trends improved the ability of the private sector to undertake heritage conservation (for example, by increasing opportunities for adaptive reuse)?

One would believe so.  The City of Perth are undertaking research addressing issues of sustainability of heritage places.

24.	What have been the impacts of social and demographic trends (such as population growth in inner city areas)? Are there specific issues for certain groups who own or manage historic properties (such as churches or universities)?

Have not assessed

25.	How do non-government organisations contribute to the conservation of historic heritage places?

Maintenance (Churches cathedrals etc) and adaptive reuse of places (inner city apartments etc)

26.	What are the strengths and weaknesses of the involvement of non-government organisations in historic heritage conservation?

Strengths: Demonstrates there is an economic advantage
Weaknesses: Sometimes the heritage integrity of a place is lost

27.	How do these organisations establish priorities for conservation, and measure and report on their activities and performance?

One can only assume economic advantage

28.	What are the impediments to the conservation activities of volunteer organisations? For example, are there implications for conservation activities of an ageing volunteer community, and concerns about the health and safety and insurance of volunteer workers?

Unable to answer

29.	Can the activities of these organisations be improved or expanded?

Unable to answer

30.	To what extent has the new heritage system reduced unnecessary duplication in heritage laws and processes between governments?

Unable to answer

31.	Has the new national system reduced the level of community confusion over heritage laws and processes?  Has it provided the overarching national policy framework which was sought by the Australian Government?

Doubt the community are even aware of it

32.	Are the roles and responsibilities of each level of government clear, appropriate and mutually supportive?

Local Government possibly would not even have had the time to fully understand National role in heritage and would have limited understanding of State Governments role.  

33.	Are the roles, responsibilities and powers of the Heritage Council appropriate for the Australian Government’s primary advisory body on heritage matters?

Unable to answer

34.	Does legislation in each State/Territory, and its implementation (for example, monitoring and enforcement), provide for efficient heritage conservation outcomes and, if not, why not? Are objectives clear, measurable and consistent with other legislation?

The review of legislation in Western Australia is long overdue according to the Act.  There was a review date imbedded in the Act but this review has not occurred because of political interference.

The Heritage Council is under resourced and has limited grants to allocate across this state.

From a local government perspective, the Act through S45 requires all LGA’s to prepare Municipal Inventories.  This single section in the legislation has had a significant financial impact on Local Government and continues to do so with limited assistance.  

Acts can always be refined and streamlined to address problematic areas.  

35.	How might the current, or recent, State/Territory reviews improve outcomes?

WA Act not reviewed

36.	Will recent changes to Australian Government legislation affect the way State and Territory legislation is implemented and outcomes for heritage conservation?

Unable to answer

37.	Do all States and Territories manage heritage places within an explicit strategic framework? How can existing strategic frameworks be improved? 

Unable to answer

38.	How important are well developed frameworks for facilitating historic heritage conservation?

Unable to answer

39.	Are there major differences in legislation, and its implementation, between States/Territories and, if so, do these differences affect historic heritage conservation?

Unable to answer

40.	How does interaction between various Acts, and between State/Territory legislation and local planning regulation, impact on heritage conservation outcomes? Is there scope for improvement?

There are issues regarding heritage conservation at a local planning level and the State Heritage Council level.  At a local level, heritage is one aspect that is taken into account as part of the planning process.  At a State level heritage is the only aspect taken into account.

41.	Are State and Territory heritage councils (or authorities) producing efficient outcomes for heritage conservation? Are their functions appropriate? How well do they balance private and public development needs with historic heritage conservation?

HCWA are under resourced and therefore cannot deliver efficient outcomes nor can there functions be appropriate.

42.	How does the relationship between heritage councils and State/Territory government departments/agencies function, and are their respective roles clear and mutually supportive?

There does not appear to be mutual support.  At times it appears the HCWA is on the outer or excluded from important discussions.  

43.	To what extent (if at all) are current heritage approaches that separate conservation of historic, Indigenous and natural heritage places impeding conservation of historic heritage places?

If they were integrated at the local government level the officers would look at holistic solutions.  This has implications of further delegation of responsibilities to local government.

44.	Are there conflicts between public policy in historic heritage conservation and in other forms of conservation (such as natural or Indigenous heritage)? If so, how are these conflicts resolved?

At the City of Perth we have limited conflict between the different policies.

45.	Are government incentives for private participation in historic heritage conservation comparable to those offered for participation in other forms of heritage conservation? If not, what does this imply for the level of private sector participation in historic heritage conservation?

No, the levels are much lower for private participation.  
Would not like to comment on what this implies but offer that the amount allocated to private property owners from the Federal and State Governments as a portion of revenue raised are insignificant.  There does not appear any justification 

46.	Have the recent legislative changes by the Australian Government improved the administration of national lists and the overall conservation of historic heritage places?

Unable to answer

47.	Are the criteria and thresholds for listing on the registers administered by the Australian Government appropriate? How are the terms ‘significant’ and ‘outstanding’ interpreted in practice?

Unable to answer

48.	Should the potential costs of conservation be included in listing criteria to better target scarce government resources?

No.  Listing has nothing to do with the costs.  Either a place is significant or it is not.  

49.	Given that the lists are expanding and government conservation resources are scarce, is there need for further prioritisation such that some on the lists are able to receive more conservation activity than others?

If there is an increased understanding of the impacts of listing then there could be a better re-allocation of resources aimed at those places that require a greater degree of conservation activity.

In addition in Western Australia prioritization of listing appears to be a little ad-hoc.  

Given there is a perception that heritage is a negative the HCWA does not try and strategically approach listing.  There needs to be a framework or structure to the program such as a thematic framework to ensure that places or themes don’t slip through the net of listing.  Listing should be seen as a journey, listing places that are obvious would appear a good place to start to educate the people on the way, this process starts to build a picture about heritage, then start to identify the more controversial ones.

By starting with the difficult ones does not educate people but polarizes opinion.  This is not strategic.  Case in point the ‘Workers Embassy’ in West Perth. (refer to the HCWA assessment 15850)

50.	How do existing lists link with other heritage conservation policies and programs, including funding?

Generally programs appear to be linked.  However the level of funding is minimal.

51.	How do listing criteria for the World Heritage list compare with criteria for national lists? Given the existence of national lists, what additional benefits does World Heritage Listing provide?

Unable to answer

52.	What are the listing criteria for State and Territory heritage registers?

Check the HCWA

53.	How does inclusion on a State or Territory register protect historic heritage places?

Check the HCWA

54.	Given that registers keep expanding, and the scarcity of government conservation resources, is there prioritisation such that some historic heritage places are able to receive more conservation activity than others? What options are there for prioritising heritage places (for example, use of threat/value assessments)?

Certainly threat / value assessments should be tools that could be used to assist in allocation of limited resources.  At the City of Perth one of the criteria used has been to ask the applicant to demonstrate how the place has been negatively impacted upon as a result of listing.  

55.	Is there adequate opportunity for public input in the listing process? Are the review and reporting requirements adequate?

At the local government level there appears adequate input into the listing process with additional input through the development application process where there is a right of appeal.

56.	Are there differences between States and Territories regarding breadth of coverage, list size and content, and processes for listing (such as criteria and extent of community consultation)? If so, do they affect conservation outcomes?

Unable to answer

57.	How does local government recognise and protect historic heritage places?

Places are identified in a register attached to the City Planning Scheme.  Once on the Register places attract incentives.  The City of Perth has a program that allocates up to $900,000 to heritage registered places.

58.	What criteria do local governments use to list historic heritage places and how do these relate to those used by other levels of government?

The City of Perth uses the same criteria as used by the HCWA to try and ensure consistency of approach.

59.	How well do local governments resolve conflicts between protecting private property rights and achieving legitimate heritage conservation objectives? 

This is a very difficult area.  There is not enough appreciation nor recognition of the difficult role that local government has to play in this area.  As stated previous Local government are placed in the difficult position of having to assess development application where heritage is one of a number of considerations.  Heritage organisations such as the HCWA only need to assess applications based on one consideration, heritage.

The City of Perth has been addressing this issue through the development of a comprehensive range of incentives.  

It was acknowledged early in the process of complying with the Heritage Act of Western Australia that the City of Perth needed to develop a range of meaningful incentives to assist property owners that were impacted upon as a result of listing.  

Incentives developed include:
•	Policy initiatives including transfer and bonus plot ratio
•	Financial incentives including grants and rate relief
•	Establishing an independent Appeal using a partnership arrangement with the Nation Trust of Australia to establishing a tax deductible appeal
•	Undertake a program of trying to lobby the State government to relax certain areas that it controls, ie re-valuing property through the Valuer General Office which would have inpact on lowering WAWA rate Council rates and reducing State Tax on heritage property 
•	Prepare design guidelines for places that are heritage listed.  The City of Perth has guidelines in place for King Street and the Hay Street mall with additional guidelines being prepared for Queen Street.  More resources need to be allocated to complete these guidelines 

In addition it was also acknowledged that the City of Perth did not fully understand what the impact of listing had on property values.  This included 
•	isolated heritage places and places within precincts 
•	was heritage more sustainable than conventional places
•	what was the impact of capital expenditure in heritage areas on the prices of heritage properties

It was believed this information, when obtained, would assist the Council in allocating scarce resources and provide valuable input into determining if some of the perceptions regarding heritage listing were true 

60.	Should governments (at any level) be required to compensate for their actions which infringe on the property rights of private owners?

This assumes that property owners can currently fully develop property (even without heritage listing).  Development without restrictions has never been a right.  No they should not be compensated

61.	To what extent do local governments provide clear guidance about the rights and responsibilities of owners of heritage-listed properties?

Some guidance is provided however more should be done to create greater certainty for owners of heritage property.  The production of guidelines and information about incentives and research outcomes should be a priority.

62.	How do local government regulations designed to protect historic heritage places relate to more general planning regulations?

Heritage like a number of other considerations is listed under Schedule 1 of the Town Planning Development Act.  

63.	What criteria do non-government organisations use to list historic heritage places?

Not aware of such lists

64.	How do the lists maintained by non-government organisations relate to those maintained by governments?

Not aware of any non Government lists

65.	Is there greater scope for adaptive reuse for publicly owned heritage places than for those in private ownership?

All places should be treated equally.  

66.	Do management plans efficiently meet the objectives set out in the gazetted heritage principles? How useful and appropriate are the management principles in guiding management plans? Can they be improved?

Unable to answer

67.	Are there issues related to the management of historic heritage places of importance to Australia, but located in other countries?

Unable to answer

68.	Does State ownership result in better conservation outcomes than private ownership? Is State/Territory ownership of these places necessary or could alternative arrangements be envisaged?

At times they are on par.  A number of State owned places are left vacant and deteriorate because of the lack of maintenance as successive Governments try and ensure the places in question pay their way or don’t make an economic loss.  This inaction inevitably leads to greater costs in restoration (case in point East Perth Power Station, State Treasury Building, Residences in Aberdeen Street Northbridge).

Some private property owners who don’t want to comply with the Heritage Councils restrictions allow their places to run down as legislation does not enforce maintenance.

69.	Do State and Territory government agencies follow best practice, such as the use of performance indicators, and if not, how can management practices be improved?

Don’t know

70.	Are the agencies currently responsible for historic heritage conservation on State and Territory land the most appropriate?

Believe they have a role but in Western Australia they don’t have the resources to fulfill that role effectively because of a lack of political will or state strategy from successive State Governments

71.	Are these the only ways in which governments can encourage greater private involvement in historic heritage conservations? How effective are these policies at increasing private conservation activities? What are the costs and benefits of each of these policies?

The City of Perth has develop a raft of incentives believing that no one incentive fits all solutions.  

The City of Perth has
•	Grants
•	Rate Relief 
•	Established a tax deductible Appeal 
•	Policy or planning arrangements
•	Awards
•	Is undertaking research to determine impacts of incentives
•	Developing an education program to, promote incentives, outcomes of research and encourage further research

The City of Perth has established a Tax Deductible Appeal using the National Trust Act of Australia as a vehicle.  The boundary of the Appeal area is the whole of the council area

This approach was seen as a means of raising money over and above what could be raised by the rate payers to put back into heritage within the City of Perth.  

72.	Does international experience offer any guidance to policies which might be effective in Australia?

International experience does provide some guidance as to the types of heritage incentives, trends (eg cultural tourism), and benefits (eg economic pump primer and knock on effects) that are happening overseas.  

73.	How effective and efficient have grant programs, tax deductions and concession programs been (past and current) in conserving heritage places?

The City of Perth Heritage Program dealing with incentives is in its third financial year and has already started showing some results.  Two property owners have requested heritage listing so they can then use the incentives available.  In addition the research that is being undertaken as part of the program will monitor the effectiveness of the program to ensure that Councils limited resources are efficiently allocated.

74.	Have the criteria and priorities for funding been transparent and consistent, and what improvements could be made?

No meaningful debate has occurred on the criteria and priorities for funding from the Federal State or Local Government.  Only minimal money has been allocated for private property listing on heritage registers.

To understand if the criteria or priorities are relevant one needs to understand the implications of listing and also measure the impacts of allocating money to these places.  This has not occurred to any great extent and urgently needs to be addressed in Western Australia.  There seems to be a perception that each state is different so local research might address this perception

75.	Can aspects of the funding/assistance processes be improved (for example, prioritisation, transparency, and scope for more innovative approaches)?

Yes.  Local Government have limited resources to undertake meaningful research, educational programs and incentive development.  Additional resources or assistance in terms of research or models that local government can follow would be of benefit.

76.	Are heritage agreements an effective way of protecting the State’s heritage, and can the process of developing agreements be improved (for example, is there adequate consultation with owners)?

Have not implemented a heritage agreement.

77.	What is the nature and extent of coordination and/or partnerships between the private and public sectors for conserving historic heritage places?  Are these partnerships effective means of encouraging private involvement in heritage conservation?

The City of Perth has worked very closely with the private sector in developing the range of incentives it now has in place.  Close working relationship were established with the Property Council of Australia, Chamber of Commerce, leading Architects, and Developers to determine what type of incentives would be effective.

In addition the City of Perth Heritage Appeal established under the National Trust is run by both private and public sector representatives.