A heritage impact statement is a report that assesses what a proposal would do to the heritage significance of a place, and it is the document that decides, in practice, how much of an existing building survives your scheme. Every jurisdiction in Australia asks for some version of it, under a slightly different name, whenever a proposal touches a listed item, a conservation area, or in most cases land next door to one. It is rarely the reason a project fails. What it tends to do instead is set the retention line: which walls stay, which roof form stays, how far back the new work has to sit, and how much of the floor area you were counting on is still available once those answers land.
Before considering works to a heritage listed place or a site in a heritage conservation area, you’ll need professional advice from a heritage consultant, and on a state registered place usually a planning lawyer as well. The consultant works out what the significance actually is and where the scope for change sits. The lawyer works out which Act applies, whether the approval is a separate consent or folded into the planning permit, and what the exposure looks like if the answer comes back after you are committed. That exposure falls on the owner, not on the adviser and not on this guide: doing controlled work without approval is an offence under each state heritage Act, the orders that follow can require restoration rather than a fine, and a listing that lands between exchange and settlement can leave you holding a site whose approved yield no longer justifies the price. This guide is written to make that conversation shorter and more specific. The questions the specialists should answer are gathered near the end, and they are the part worth taking to a meeting.
Two layers of listing usually matter, and they behave differently. A state register listing, such as the New South Wales State Heritage Register or the Victorian Heritage Register, tends to trigger a separate approval under the heritage Act, decided by a heritage agency or council rather than by the local planning authority. A local listing, whether an item in a local environmental plan, a place in a heritage overlay or a place on a local heritage register, generally runs through the ordinary development approval and is assessed by the council. A site can carry both. A site can also carry neither and still be constrained, because most jurisdictions control development on land in the vicinity of a listed item, which is the version developers miss most often.
Everything below was current in September 2026, and heritage is moving in several places at once. New South Wales released a Heritage Strategy on 28 April 2026 and has said it will develop a new Heritage Act, the Heritage Council of New South Wales standard exemptions were reviewed and re-gazetted on 7 November 2025, and the current version of Victoria’s Heritage Act 2017 took effect on 1 May 2026. Each figure and rule below links to the government page or the legislation it came from, and that link is where to confirm it on the day you need it.
What is a heritage impact statement, and when is one required?
A heritage impact statement is an assessment of the effect a specific proposal would have on the heritage significance of a specific place, prepared to accompany an application. It is not a history of the building, although it contains one, and it is not a conservation management plan, which is a longer document about how a place should be looked after over time. The statement answers a narrower question: given what makes this place significant, what does this proposal do to it, and what has been done to reduce the harm.
The trigger is broader than most developers expect. Drawing on Eurobodalla Shire Council’s guidance, one is generally sought where a proposal would alter a heritage listed item, sits on the same site as one, falls within an item’s curtilage, sits inside a conservation area, or is “on land in the vicinity of a heritage-listed item or conservation area”. That last limb is the one that catches a clean infill site with no listing of its own, across the road from a listed church.
The practical test on a state registered place in New South Wales is impact scale rather than works type. Heritage New South Wales requires a works approval where the activity would “have, or would have the potential to have, a moderate or greater impact on the heritage significance of the item”, and a statement of heritage impact is a required document for that application. Below that threshold, standard exemptions may carry the work instead.
Timing matters more than the document. A statement prepared after a design is locked tends to become an argument for a scheme that has already been drawn, which is the version most likely to come back with a request for further information or a refusal. A statement or preliminary heritage advice obtained before the design is committed tends to shape the massing, and it is cheaper. On a site where heritage is live, that advice sits in the same early bucket as a survey, a geotechnical investigation and a planning certificate, which is where a heritage item, a conservation area and any interim heritage order are usually first disclosed.
What does a heritage impact statement have to contain?
At minimum it identifies the place, states its significance, describes the proposal, assesses the impact on that significance, sets out how adverse impact has been avoided or reduced, and explains what other options were considered and why they were not adopted. Council guidance in New South Wales puts the same content as a short sequence: the location of the item and of the development, the nature of the proposal, the heritage significance of the item, the impact on that significance, the mitigation proposed, the alternatives considered and rejected, and a summary statement of impact.
The part developers underestimate is the alternatives limb. A statement that does not show why a more sympathetic option was not viable tends to read as advocacy, and assessment officers treat it that way. In Victoria the requirement is explicit. Heritage Victoria expects a heritage impact statement that draws on Burra Charter principles and addresses the cultural heritage significance of the place, how the proposed change affects that significance, and how the proposal sits against Heritage Victoria’s published principles for change to places in the Victorian Heritage Register, and it says pre-application engagement is strongly recommended to settle documentation before lodgement.
The methodology behind all of this is the Burra Charter, the charter for places of cultural significance published by Australia ICOMOS, the Australian national committee of the International Council on Monuments and Sites, which frames change through significance, tolerance for change and the sequence of understanding the place before acting on it. Australia ICOMOS publishes the charter and its heritage impact assessment guidance, and state guidance generally sits on top of it rather than beside it. A statement that never mentions significance, and goes straight to why the proposal is reasonable, is usually a statement that will be sent back.
Two supporting documents often come with it, and both carry cost and time. A conservation management plan may be expected on a larger or state registered place, and where one has been endorsed it becomes a matter the decision maker must consider: under the Heritage Act 1977 (NSW), the approval body is required to consider “any applicable conservation management plan” endorsed by the Heritage Council among the matters listed in section 62. An archaeological assessment may be needed where excavation could disturb relics, and on state registered places in New South Wales an application involving archaeological work also requires the excavation director’s credentials, an archaeological assessment and a research design.
Who prepares a heritage impact statement, and what does it cost?
A qualified heritage professional prepares it wherever the impact is more than minimal, and the owner or designer may prepare it where the impact is genuinely minor. Council guidance draws the line in those terms: “If there is some impact…a qualified and experienced heritage professional” should prepare the statement, while a minimal impact proposal can be documented by the owner or the designer. In practice a council or heritage agency that receives an owner-authored statement on a significant proposal tends to ask for one from a consultant, which costs a round of assessment time.
There is no government schedule of fees for heritage consultants, so anything quoted here is market practice rather than a published rate. Short statements on minor proposals are commonly quoted in the low thousands of dollars. A statement on a state registered place, with a significance assessment, a fabric survey, a policy review and drawings marked up for retention, is commonly quoted several times that, and a conservation management plan or an archaeological assessment is a separate engagement again. A current fee proposal is the only reliable place to confirm any of it, and the consultant fee line tends to sit more usefully alongside the other professional fees than inside a contingency.
The bigger cost is almost never the statement. It is what the statement concludes. A retention requirement that takes a floor off the scheme, or converts a clean demolition into a facade retention with temporary propping, moves the number by a factor the consultant’s fee never reaches.
How does a heritage listing change what you can build?
It changes three things: what you may remove, what the new work may look like where it meets the old, and how long the approval takes. The yield consequence generally comes from the first.
Demolition control is the part that moves the residual
On a state registered place in New South Wales, total demolition is close to prohibited by statute rather than discouraged by policy. Under section 63 of the Heritage Act 1977 (NSW), an application to demolish an entire building or work must be refused unless a narrow exception applies, such as the building being a danger to the public, being capable of relocation, or not itself being of heritage significance within a listed precinct. That is a different proposition from a local heritage item, where demolition is assessed on the merits and sometimes approved.
The controlled activities on a state registered place are also wider than demolition. Section 57(1) of the same Act provides that a person must not demolish the building or work, “damage or despoil the place, precinct or land”, move or destroy a relic, “excavate any land for the purpose of exposing or moving the relic”, carry out development on the land, alter the building, display a notice or advertisement, or remove or destroy trees or vegetation, except in accordance with an approval. Vegetation and signage both appear in that list, which surprises developers who assumed the constraint stopped at the building envelope.
South Australia runs demolition control through the Planning and Design Code rather than through a separate approval. According to PlanSA, the State Heritage Places Overlay and the Local Heritage Place Overlay both provide “demolition control, having consideration to: the building’s existing heritage values” and its structural condition, and representative buildings in a Historic Area Overlay carry demolition control while those in a Character Area Overlay do not. That distinction is worth checking before a site is priced on a clean-site assumption.
Curtilage, setting and land in the vicinity
A listing attaches to a place, and the place is usually larger than the building. Curtilage is the land around a listed item that contributes to its significance, and works inside it are generally controlled even where the item itself is untouched. Setting is looser and covers views to and from the item, which is where height and massing arguments usually happen.
Development on adjoining land is controlled in most jurisdictions. South Australia’s Code includes heritage adjacency policies aimed at reducing “the impact of development on land next to heritage places”. Council heritage provisions in New South Wales routinely require a statement of heritage impact for development in the vicinity of an item. The practical effect on an unlisted site next to a listed one is a setback, an upper level setback, or a materials and finishes condition, any of which can cost a level or reshape a floor plate. A highest and best use analysis that ignores a neighbouring listing tends to overstate the developable envelope.
Interim heritage orders and listings that land mid-application
The timing trap is that a site’s heritage status is not fixed while you are working on it. In New South Wales an interim heritage order can be made over a place that is not listed, and once made it brings the section 57 controls into effect. An interim heritage order “remains in force for 12 months or such shorter period as may be specified in the order” under section 29(2) of the Heritage Act 1977 (NSW), which is long enough to run past a settlement date or a finance expiry. A nomination for listing, a council heritage study underway, or a demolition application that attracts local objection are all things that can precede one.
The other version of this trap runs the opposite way. Minimum standards of maintenance and repair apply to listed items in New South Wales under section 119 of the same Act, covering weatherproofing, fire protection, security and essential repairs, and the Heritage Council can make orders requiring remedial works under sections 120 to 120E. Buying a listed building with the intention of letting it deteriorate is not a strategy that the legislation leaves open.
Which approval applies in each state and territory?
The pattern repeats: a state register with its own approval, a local layer inside the planning system, and an exemption pathway for minor work. What changes is the name of the document, who decides it, and how long it takes.
New South Wales
Two pathways run in parallel. On a place in the State Heritage Register, a works application under the Heritage Act 1977 (NSW) is required where the proposal would have a moderate or greater impact, and the required documents include a statement of heritage impact, a conservation management plan if one is available, existing and proposed drawings with a schedule, and the development consent if one has been granted. Heritage New South Wales assesses in stages: a completeness check within 14 days of lodgement, a standard assessment of 40 days after acceptance, and 60 days where the application is advertised because the impact is major or there is public interest. The clock pauses while further information is sought, which is where most of the real time goes.
Below that threshold, the Heritage Council standard exemptions may apply. There are 27 categories, covering maintenance and cleaning, repairs to non-significant fabric, alterations to non-significant fabric, excavation, painting, change of use, energy saving technologies, accessibility measures and fire safety among others, and they were reviewed and published in the New South Wales Government Gazette on 7 November 2025. An exemption only holds where the activity fits the description, complies with the general conditions and meets the standards for that exemption, and every exemption excludes activities causing “moderate or major adverse impacts” to heritage values or “removal of any significant fabric” outside specified conditions. Heritage New South Wales advises owners to keep records of work done under an exemption, and if the proposed activity is not covered, “you must apply and be granted approval before the activity takes place”.
For a local heritage item or a heritage conservation area, the control sits in the council’s local environmental plan. The Land and Environment Court of New South Wales notes that the standard instrument local environmental plan “contains extensive provisions dealing with heritage conservation” at clause 5.10, and that councils are required to prepare a plan based on the standard instrument. That clause is what makes demolition or alteration of a local item consent-dependent, and it is what allows a council to require heritage documentation with the application.
Victoria
Victoria separates the Victorian Heritage Register from the heritage overlay in the planning scheme, and they run on different tracks. A place in the Victorian Heritage Register needs a heritage permit from Heritage Victoria under the Heritage Act 2017 (Vic), whose current version took effect on 1 May 2026. Heritage Victoria describes permit-triggering works as including “extensions, interior works, demolition or relocation of buildings and structures”, changes to colour schemes and signage, construction of new buildings and garden structures such as fences, decks, pathways and driveways, works to registered trees and gardens beyond regular maintenance, and “excavation including damage or alteration to an archaeological artefact”.
The assessment criteria in section 101 of the Heritage Act 2017 (Vic) include a limb developers should read closely. Alongside the extent to which approval would affect the cultural heritage significance of the place, Heritage Victoria must consider whether refusal would affect the reasonable or economic use of the place, along with public submissions and conservation matters. That is the statutory hook for arguing that a conservation-only outcome is not viable, and it is why an economic case, not just a design case, sometimes belongs in the material. Heritage Victoria publishes a statutory processing period of 45 business days, with the clock stopped during the 14 day advertising period and while information requests are outstanding, and it may seek a further 45 business days.
A place in a heritage overlay and not on the register is a planning permit matter for the council, assessed against the overlay and the local heritage policy. Where a place is on the register, the overlay path generally gives way to the heritage permit, and the trap is assuming one approval covers both when the site carries two layers.
Queensland
Development on a Queensland heritage place is assessed as development under the Planning Act 2016 (Qld), with the Queensland Heritage Act 1992 (Qld) setting the heritage framework. The Queensland Government points applicants to the guideline on the development criteria for developing heritage places rather than prescribing a document list, and two exemption pathways sit under the approval path. A general exemption certificate requires no application and no fee and pre-approves minor work and maintenance within limits. An exemption certificate is “required for projects or work that have no more than a minor detrimental impact on the heritage values of a place”, also with no fee. The Queensland Heritage Act 1992 (Qld) is the place to confirm the statutory detail, and local heritage registers maintained by councils add a separate layer through the local planning scheme.
South Australia
South Australia runs heritage entirely through the planning system. The Heritage Places Act 1993 (SA) and the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016 (SA) together support overlays in the Planning and Design Code, and PlanSA reports more than 2,300 State Heritage Places and 17 State Heritage Areas identified through the State Heritage Places Overlay and the State Heritage Area Overlay, plus more than 7,000 Local Heritage Places under the Local Heritage Place Overlay. One change worth noting for a state registered place is that the Minister responsible for heritage now holds “greater powers to direct decisions on development applications”, where the role was previously advisory. Historic Area Overlays and Character Area Overlays sit alongside, with area statements describing the characteristics that “should be protected or complemented”, and the demolition control difference between representative buildings in the two overlay types is a live pricing question.
Western Australia
Western Australia works through referral rather than a separate permit. Under section 72 of the Heritage Act 2018 (WA), proposals affecting a registered place must be referred to the Heritage Council for advice, and section 73(1) puts it as a duty: “A decision-maker considering a proposal to which this Subdivision applies must refer the proposal to the Council for its advice”, as soon as practicable after becoming aware of the proposal.
The consequence in section 75 is stronger than an advisory note. A decision maker must not approve a proposal that would adversely affect a registered place “unless…the decision made is consistent with advice received from the Council”, subject to the exceptions in that section, and where the Council so advises, “the decision-maker must specify that its decision to approve the proposal is conditional upon the owner of the land entering into a heritage agreement”. A heritage agreement is a registered instrument that binds future owners, so on a Western Australian registered place the approval can change what the land is, not just what is built on it. Local heritage lists maintained by local governments add the second layer through the local planning scheme.
Tasmania
Tasmania integrates the two systems in one application. Works to a place on the Tasmanian Heritage Register run under the Historic Cultural Heritage Act 1995 (Tas), which Heritage Tasmania describes as integrated with the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 (Tas). An applicant may seek a certificate of exemption where heritage impact is negligible, or lodge a development application with the local planning authority.
The referral timetable is tight at the front. The planning authority must refer the application to the Heritage Council “within 5 days”, and within 7 days of receiving the referral the Heritage Council conducts a preliminary assessment and confirms whether it has an interest, with an opportunity to request further information. Once both authorities are satisfied the application is advertised, and the Heritage Council’s decision to consent, consent with conditions or refuse “must be incorporated into the final permit” by the planning authority. For a developer that means the heritage position is effectively determinative even though the permit issues from the council.
Australian Capital Territory
The Australian Capital Territory runs heritage under the Heritage Act 2004 (ACT) with planning approval under the Planning Act 2023 (ACT). The ACT Government lists demolition, building alterations, earthworks, plant removal, landscaping changes, changes of land use, greenfield development and archaeological excavation as works generally requiring approval, and the ACT Heritage Council’s role is to ensure “changes to heritage places do not reduce their heritage value”.
Two pathways exist. A development application to the Territory Planning Authority is the standard route. Exempt development is possible where the proposal meets the planning rules, does not conflict with the Heritage Act 2004 (ACT) and the ACT Heritage Council agrees. For exempt residential development the Territory groups applications into three assessment tiers with a set assessment time of 5 to 40 working days, running from acceptance rather than from lodgement. The Territory also says plainly that “it is best to contact the ACT Heritage Council early. Early advice can help you avoid delays and extra costs later”, and it runs a Heritage Advisory Service for preliminary advice.
Northern Territory
The Northern Territory splits the decision by scale of work. Under the Heritage Act 2011 (NT), with exempt categories set out in the Heritage Regulations 2012 (NT), an application to carry out work on a heritage place or object goes to Heritage NT, which determines whether the work is exempt, minor or major. The Northern Territory Government states that the Heritage Council decides minor works and the Minister decides major works, and that some routine maintenance and temporary work is exempt. Contacting Heritage NT before applying is the published expectation, which on a small register matters more than it sounds, because there is less precedent to reason from.
When does federal heritage listing apply?
Rarely, and only where the values themselves are national. The National Heritage List under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) protects places with “outstanding heritage value to our nation”, and the trigger for a developer is impact scale: an action must be referred to the federal environment minister if it “is likely to have a significant impact on the national heritage values of a national heritage place and/or any other nationally protected matter”. The department states the constraint plainly: “no one can take an action that is likely to have a significant impact on any of these matters without approval”, and violations carry penalties.
For most residential and commercial development this layer never engages. Where it does, usually on or adjacent to a nationally listed place, it adds a separate federal assessment that runs on its own timetable alongside the state approval, and it is not a step that can be compressed by agreement with the council.
How does heritage work on a New Zealand site?
New Zealand adds a regime with no Australian equivalent, and it catches sites that carry no heritage listing at all. Under the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014, an archaeological site is defined as a place associated with pre-1900 human activity where there may be evidence relating to the history of New Zealand, and an archaeological authority from Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga is required to modify or destroy one. Post-1900 places can also be declared archaeological sites by notice in the Gazette.
Two features of that regime matter on a development programme. First, it is separate from resource consent: a council assesses land use under the Resource Management Act 1991 while Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga administers the archaeological authority, and Quality Planning guidance recommends councils develop protocols so the two processes run in parallel and treat Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga as an affected party. Second, the authority requirement applies to modification or destruction of a site rather than to building work generally, and the guidance notes it does not apply to building work on an archaeological site unless the whole building is to be demolished. Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga publishes the regime and the application process on its archaeology pages.
Alongside that sit historic heritage schedules in district plans, which operate much as a local heritage list does in Australia and are administered by the council rather than by Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga. On a New Zealand site with any pre-1900 built or occupation history, the archaeological authority is the item most likely to be discovered late and to sit on the critical path.
Where does heritage land in the feasibility?
In four places, and the consultant fee is the smallest of them. The retention requirement reduces gross realisation, the conservation works add a cost line the quantity surveyor’s rate per square metre does not cover, the approval path lengthens the programme and therefore the finance cost, latent conditions in retained fabric argue for a higher contingency, and the whole package lands in the total development cost before any of it shows up as risk.
The clearest way to see it is to run the same site twice. Take a 1,200 square metre site carrying a two-storey brick warehouse that is a local heritage item inside a heritage conservation area. The figures below are illustrative, exclude any goods and services tax treatment, and use a 20 per cent margin on total development cost as the hurdle.
Scheme A, priced as though the warehouse could go. Gross realisation of $24,000,000. Construction of $13,200,000. Professional fees at 10 per cent of construction, $1,320,000. Statutory and contribution costs of $600,000. Selling and marketing at 4.5 per cent of gross realisation, $1,080,000. Finance of $1,400,000. Contingency at 5 per cent of construction, $660,000. Costs other than land total $18,260,000. At a 20 per cent margin on total development cost, total development cost is $24,000,000 divided by 1.2, or $20,000,000, which leaves $1,740,000 for land and acquisition costs. With acquisition costs at 6 per cent of the land price, the residual land value is about $1,640,000.
Scheme B, with the retention the heritage impact statement supports. Changed inputs: the warehouse shell and street elevation are retained and adapted, new build sits behind and above, and the yield drops. Gross realisation of $22,800,000, reflecting fewer units offset by a modest premium on the adapted product. Construction of $12,300,000, made up of $10,300,000 of new build and $2,000,000 of conservation, structural retention and propping works. Professional fees of $1,350,000, which carries the heritage consultant, a heritage architect, a structural engineer for the retention and an archaeologist. Statutory and contribution costs of $540,000. Selling and marketing still at 4.5 per cent of gross realisation, $1,026,000. Finance of $1,500,000 on a programme six months longer. Contingency at 10 per cent of construction, $1,230,000, because latent conditions in retained fabric are a different risk from latent conditions in the ground. Costs other than land total $17,946,000. Total development cost at the same hurdle is $22,800,000 divided by 1.2, or $19,000,000, leaving $1,054,000 for land and acquisition, and a residual land value of about $990,000.
Same site, same hurdle, and the land price the scheme can justify falls by roughly $650,000, close to 40 per cent. Nothing in that comparison says Scheme B is the wrong project. What it says is that the heritage answer and the land price are the same question, and a site bought on Scheme A arithmetic while the heritage impact statement points at Scheme B has already lost the difference. The comparison is only worth much before exchange, which is why the heritage advice and the land price tend to get worked at the same time.
Two further effects tend to be underpriced. Retention usually means the site cannot be cleared in one operation, so demolition, hoarding and crane logistics get more expensive, and the early cashflow is flatter for longer. And a facade retention almost always needs temporary works designed and certified, which is a cost, a programme item and an insurance conversation rather than a line item the cashflow model picks up on its own.
Can a heritage listing ever add value?
Sometimes, through three mechanisms, and none of them is automatic.
The first is a transferable incentive. The City of Sydney operates a heritage floor space scheme which, in the council’s words, “provides heritage building owners with an incentive to conserve and maintain their property”: on completion of conservation works an owner may apply for an award of heritage floor space, measured in square metres. How an award may then be used or acquired is set by the Sydney Local Environmental Plan rather than by the award itself, and the council’s pages are where to confirm the current mechanics. Similar conservation incentive provisions appear in local environmental plans elsewhere, typically allowing a use or a floor space outcome that the zone would not otherwise permit, conditional on conservation of the item.
The second is the economic use limb in the assessment criteria. Victoria’s section 101 requires Heritage Victoria to consider whether refusal would affect the reasonable or economic use of a registered place. In New South Wales, section 62 of the Heritage Act 1977 (NSW) requires the approval body to consider “the extent to which that application, if approved, would affect the significance of any item as an item of the environmental heritage” along with conservation matters, and section 63 allows approval with or without conditions. Those are the provisions an adaptive reuse case is built on, and they reward evidence over assertion: a costed comparison of a conservation-only outcome against the proposal tends to carry further than a statement that the building is uneconomic.
The third is policy direction, which is currently moving toward reuse. The New South Wales Heritage Strategy, released on 28 April 2026, is framed around “activation, conservation and adaptive reuse of heritage, while supporting the Government’s housing commitments”, and the government has said it will develop “a new fit-for-purpose Heritage Act that delivers real penalties to owners whose properties fall into disrepair”, alongside streamlined approvals and clearer compliance rules. For a developer that cuts both ways. A policy environment friendlier to reuse may support a scheme that keeps a building and changes its use, and a penalty regime aimed at disrepair narrows the room for a holding strategy that lets a listed building decline.
Product type matters too. A retained warehouse or terrace row can sell or lease at a premium that a new equivalent does not reach, and the premium is usually specific to the market rather than general. That is a valuation question for an appropriately qualified valuer on the actual product, not a general rule, and it is one of the few places where a heritage constraint and a revenue assumption can genuinely be argued in the same direction.
What separate regimes sit alongside historic heritage?
Two, and both are distinct approvals rather than parts of the heritage impact statement.
Aboriginal cultural heritage is governed by its own legislation in every jurisdiction, with its own assessment, its own consultation requirements and its own offences. A historic heritage impact statement does not address it, and a site can be clear of any historic listing while carrying Aboriginal cultural heritage obligations that control ground disturbance. Where excavation is proposed, that is a separate due diligence stream with its own timetable.
Archaeology of the post-contact kind sits inside the historic heritage regimes but on a separate document set. In New South Wales an application involving archaeological work on a state registered place requires an archaeological assessment, a research design and the excavation director’s credentials. In Victoria, excavation “including damage or alteration to an archaeological artefact” is permit-triggering work, and archaeology consents are a distinct approval type. In New Zealand the archaeological authority described above is the controlling instrument. The common feature is that archaeology tends to be assessed on the basis of what might be there, so the risk is priced as programme risk and contingency rather than as a known cost.
What to ask your heritage consultant
These are the questions that decide the retention line, and a consultant can answer them on your site while this guide cannot.
- What is the statement of significance for this place, and which elements of fabric carry that significance as opposed to being later or non-significant?
- On your reading, what is the maximum extent of demolition that could be supported, and what is the argument for it?
- Does the place sit on a state register, a local list, in a conservation area, in the vicinity of a listed item, or in more than one of those, and which approval does each trigger?
- Is there an endorsed conservation management plan, and if so what does it already commit the owner to?
- What is the curtilage, and how far does the setting argument extend on the neighbouring titles?
- What documentation will the assessing authority expect beyond the statement itself, and what does each item cost and take?
- Has this place, or anything near it, been the subject of a heritage nomination, a council heritage study, or an interim heritage order?
- What would a preliminary approach to the heritage agency or the council’s heritage adviser likely produce before the design is committed?
What to ask your planning lawyer
- Which Act governs the approval on this site, and is the heritage decision separate from the planning approval or folded into it?
- If the heritage approval is refused or heavily conditioned, what appeal or review rights exist, and on what timetable?
- Can the site’s heritage status change between exchange and settlement, and what contractual protection is available if it does?
- If a heritage agreement or a similar registered instrument is required as a condition of approval, what does it bind, and does it bind a future owner?
- What is the exposure if works commence outside an approval or outside an exemption, and who carries it across the owner, the builder and the certifier?
- Do minimum standards of maintenance or repair apply to this item, and what obligations attach to us from the day we own it?
- Where the proposal also needs a modification of an existing consent, does the heritage approval have to be amended as well?
What to ask your quantity surveyor
- What is the cost of the conservation and retention scope, separated from the new build rate rather than absorbed into it?
- What do the temporary works for facade or structural retention cost, and what do they do to the programme and to site access?
- What contingency is appropriate for latent conditions in retained fabric, and how does it differ from the contingency you would carry on a clean site?
- How does the retained structure change the trade sequence, the crane strategy and the preliminaries, and what does that do to the monthly cost curve?