National Heritage Act 2005

NATIONAL HERITAGE ACT 2005
29 August 2006
CITITEL MID VALLEY, KUALA LUMPUR
PAPERl
TIME: 9.00 o.m
TOPIC: National Heritage Act 2005
SPEAKER: EN. ROSLI B. HJ NOR
(KEKKWA)
, Y.
, ,
,
, ) I ' ,
, , ',[...l ' ,
., a..:
" , i
;
" " ,
" ./ {' /';' ",*mx< Z >
\
; 1
, " :;:
'i , > ,;/' V '
APA ITU WARISAN ?
DEFINISI WARISAN
Warisan adalah berkaitan dengan sesuatu yang diterima
secara turun - temurun oleh seseorang dan sesuatu
kelompok masyarakat daripada generasi yang terdahulu.
lanya menggambarkan memori kepada keseluruhan
kehidupan sesuatu bangsa yang melambangkan
ketamadunannya.
Dibawah peruntukan Akta Warisan Kebangsaan,2005
'Warisan' merujuk kepada pengertian generik (generic
term) Warisan Kebangsaan, tapak, objek dan warisan
kebudayaan di bawah air sama ada DISENARAIKAN
atau TI DAK dalam DAFTAR.
11-
KATEGORI WARISAN
i- Warisan Kebudayaan
- Ketara (Tangible) &
- Takketara (Intangible)
Warisan Semulajadi
(Natural Heritage)
Kedudukan Warisan dari pemahaman dan pemerhatian
Semulajadi Buatan
WARISAN
- ,
Warisan Semulajadi V\{ar.isan Kebudayaan

.

' ",

Flora. & Fauna, Waris,!n Warisan
& Hutan " Ketara' Takk,etara
I,; .

" .... ;
;Ii '0 ."
('i'_,_ .
,
:t\J; ... "
00 '. "/'YIf'. j"
Underwater'

I'
Uhderwater
Jlmu &,
A:'; /i"
Cl,Iltural ",
/'
Natura;l Heritage Kepakaran
Heritage
.;.. -
PECAHAN JENIS-JENIS WARISAN
1.1 Warisan Ketara (Tangible Heritag!ll
Sesuatu yang kekal dilihat dan dipegang sama ada statik atau boleh alih.
tanya bolehlah dikategorikan seperti berikut :
Warisan Ketara Tak Alih ( Inmovable Heritage)
Tapak tanah bersejarah (contoh : Lembah Bujang, Pusat Bandar Lama
Melaka, Kawasan Perlombongan Bijih Besi Sg.Lembing)
Monumen I Bangunan (contoh : Istana, Kubu, Makam, Menara)
Alam Semulajadi (contoh : hutan, gunung, gua, sungai, flora & fauna,
geologi)
Warisan Ketara Alih ( Movable Heritage)
Merupakan artifak-artifak bahan budaya yang boleh dipindahkan seperti
Artifak (contoh: batu nisan, tekstil, ukiran kayu, manik, manuskrip)
1.2 Warisan Tak Ketara (Intangible Heritag!!J.
Warisan tidak nyata adalah ilmu dan kepakaran yang ditafsir melalui tradisi
lisan, nilai-nilai adat dan budaya, bahasa & persuratan.
Acara perayaan, ritual & kepercayaan, seni persembahan, seni tampak,
seni perubatan tradisional, sukan dan permainan tradisional
AKTA WARISAN KEBANGSAAN
z
2005
Adalah suatu Akta untuk mengadakan peruntukan
bagi pemuliharaan dan pemeliharaan Warisan
Kebangsaan, Warisan Semulajadi, Warisan
Kebudayaan Ketara dan Tidak Ketara, warisan
kebudayaan di bawah air, harta karun dan bagi
perkara-perkara yang berkaitan.
KEDUDUKAN PERUNDANGAN SEBELUM KEWUJUDAN
AKTA WARISAN KEBANGSAAN, 2005.
Di bawah Perlembagaan Persekutuan,
Perkataan WARISAN tidak terdapat dalam
mana mana senarai dan Jadual Kesembilan
sama ada Senarai Persekutuan, Senarai Negeri
atau Senarai Bersama (Concurrent List).
Bagaimanapun adalah dihujahkan bahawa
"warisan" menjadi "substance" kepada makna
"culture" itu sendiri jika dilihat dari segi ciri-ciri
yang menjadi makna kepada "culture" itu.
Dengan itu "Heritage" is part of "Culture" - "that
transmitted to the succeeding generations."
Berdasarkan kepada itu adalah dihujahkan
bahawa, "Heritage" adalah "part of culture"
maka dari segi "substance" nya ia berada di
"Concurrent List" of the "Nineth Schedule" of
Federal Constitution.
ANALISA RINGKAS
Perundangan sebelum wujudnya Akta Warisan
Kesemua perundangan yang ada sebelum ini samada Akta
Parlimen dan Enakmen Negeri adalah berfokus kepada
warisan yang bersifat "Natural dan cultural" dan dalam
bentuk "tangible" sahaja.
Legislation ini juga bertindan merangkumi "subject matter"
yang sama iaitu "ancient and historical monuments and
records and archeological sites and remain" walaupun
"subject matter" ini terdapat dalam "Federal list, item
138, dan State list item 12A yang bermakna federal dan
states'are capable of legislate on those matters.
Tetapi bagi "Intangible Culture Heritage",
i. Tidak terdapat sebarang bentuk perundangan di
peringkat domestik kecuali dalam bentuk 'Dasar
Kebudayaan Kebangsaan'.
ii. Begitu juga di negara-negara lain yang ditinjau
secara terpilih, tidak mempunyai satu perundangan
yang merangkumi semua subjek.
iii. Di peringkat antarabangsa cuma terdapat dokumen
dokumenmengenai "intangible cultural heritage"
berbentuk 'UNESCO Convention' seperti
"Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible
Cultural Heritage" dan "Convention on the Protection
and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural
Expressions".
DENGAN ITU AKTA WARISAN
KEBANGSAAN ADALAH SATU SKOP
PERUNDANGAN YANG KOMPREHENSIF
MERANGKUMI TIGA ASPEK YANG LUAS
IAITU:
Warisan Semulajadi Warisan Budaya I
I Natural Heritage Cultural Heritage
Warisan Ketara & Takketara
I Tangible &Intangible
Heritage
Akta Warisan Kebangsaan, 2005 memansuhkan
Akta Benda Purba, 1976 (Antiquities Act, 1976)
[Akta 168]
dan juga Treasure Trove Act, 1957.
Undang Undang sedia ada di negeri-negeri tetap
digunapakai bagi mewujudkan 'keharmonian
antara Kerajaan Persekutuan dan Kerajaan
Negeri' .
Antara Enakmen Negeri ialah Enakmen Pemugaran dan
Pemuliharaan warisan Budaya Negeri Melaka, 1988 dan
Enakmen Yayasan Warisan Negeri (Johor), 1988.
AKTA WARISAN KEBANGSAAN 2005
Mengandungi 17 Sahagian:
1 Permulaan
2 Pemuliharaan dan Pemeliharaan Warisan
3 Pentadbiran Akta
4 Majlis Warisan Kebangsaan
5 Kumpulan Wang Warisan
6 Daftar Warisan kebangsaan
7 Tapak Warisan
8 Objek Warisan
9 Warisan Kebudayaan Bawah Air
10 Warisan Kebangsaan
11 Harta Karun
12 Pelesenan
13 Rayuan
14 Kuasa yang berhubung dengan penguatkuasaan, penyitaan
dan penangkapan.
15 'Kesalahan
16 Pelbagai
17 Peruntukan Pemansuhan dan Pengecualian
Kesimpulan
Akta Warisan Kebangsaan, 2005 ini amat diperlukan
supaya semua aspek warisan secara luas dapat
dilindungi, dipelihara dan diperkasakan secara
bersepadu. Oleh itu Akta ini amat penting dan perlu
kerana dunia telah menjadikan sumber warisan sebagai
aset yang sangat bernilai untuk dilindungi dan diurus
secara mampan di mana tidak ada satu pun
perundangan sedia ada sebelum ini yang mempunyai
peruntukan bagi tujuan ini.
Melalui Peruntukan Akta ini maka Jabatan Pesuruhjaya
Warisan dibentuk bagi tujuan pelaksanaan Akta Warisan
Kebangsaan dengan diketuai oleh seorang Pesuruhjaya
Warisan.
----1"., __- - - - - - . - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - ~ ~ ~
PROSES MEWARTAKAN TAPAK WARISAN DAN ZON PENAMPAN
Kenai Pasti Tapak Untuk Diwartakan serta Zon Penampan ( Buffer Zone)
sekiranya perlu (Sek. 24 I 25 )
...'
Notis 7 hari kepada Pemunya
Sebelum pemeriksaan
Pemeriksaan Tapak Dan Kajian untuk kenai pasti nilai warisan (Sek. 26 )
I
...
i) Notis 60 hari kepada pemunya untuk tapak didaftar sebagai tapak warisan. Perintah Perlindungan
ii ) Notis niat kepada Pejabat Tanah dan Pihak Berkuasa Negeri. ( Sek. 27 ) Interim dengan
persetujuan PBN
...' (Sek.33) untuk
Siaran dalam Warta dan akhbar tempatan setelah
menjalankan
pemuliharaan dan
mendapat persetujuan di atas
pemeliharaan
~
I
Bantahan dalam tempoh 30 hari ( Sek 28) I
I I
-I
Tiada
T
I
I
Ad:
I I
Pesuruhjaya tetapkan tarikh,
tempat dan masa untuk dengar bantahan
(Sek.29 )
Keputusan Bantahan
( Sek. 31 )
i)Notis kepada pemunya, Pihak berkuasa Negeri,
Perancang Bandar Dan Desa
ii) Disiarkan dalam Warta dan akhbar tempatan
PEMULIHARAAN DAN PEMELIHARAAN TAPAK WARISAN
Pesuruhjaya berunding dengan PBN (Sek. 38)
untuk:
a)Pemeriksaan , penyenggaraan, pemuliharaan
dan pemeliharaan
b)Membeli atau memajak
c)Pengambilan balik tanah bagi maksud
kepentingan awam
d)Pemindahan
+
Pemunya setuju dengan Pampasan atas kerosakan pemindahan
subseksyen 38 (1) (a) monumen dan tapak kepada pemunya
1
Kerja-kerja pembaikan dan Pertikaian tentang amaun pampasan dirujuk
pemuliharaan dijalankan kepada YB Menteri dan keputusan muktamad
atas arahan Pesuruhjaya
MENYELAMATKAN MONUMEN UNTUK PENILAIAN PENGISYTIHARAN (INTERIM)
Pesuruhjaya dan PBN bersetuju untuk
mempertimbangkan monumen sebagai tapak
warisan (walaupun yang usang, bahaya, roboh),
Sek.41
~
Pesuruhjaya keluarkan Perintah Pemeliharaan
Monumen (Interim) kepada pemunya atau pemaju
dengan syarat-syarat yang berkuatkuasa dalam
tempoh 90 hari atau lebih. (dibekukan)
JWN membuat kajian yang berdasarkan atas 9
kriteria (Sek.67), keputusan sama ada warisan
atau tidak (kalau bukan warisan, projek diteruskan
Sek.41-5(b)
Perintah Pemeliharaan Monumen terhenti
berkuat kuasa -
adidaftar sebagai tapak warisan
btidak diisytiharkan sebagai tapak warisan
Pelanggaran Perintah Pemeliharaan Monumen
adalah satu kesalahan
KEWAJIPAN PEMUNYA MENJAGA TAPAK WARISAN
Pemunya: Individu, pemegang
amanah, persatuan, PST, Kerajaan
Negeri, Kerajaan Persekutuan
1
Pesuruhjaya boleh meminta pemunya
menjalankan kerja pembaikan setelah notis 2
minggu diberi kepada pemunya. Jika tidak
disetujui, JWN akan buat dan kos akan
ditanggung oleh pemunya sendiri
PEMBIAYAAN KERJA PEMULIHARAAN
Pemunya tapak boleh mohon peruntukan untuk
jalankan kerja pemeliharaan dan pemuliharaan
1
Pesuruhjaya perlu berunding dengan PSN, Majlis
dan pemunya untuk membuat perkiraan kos
pemeliharaan dan pemuliharaan
1
Pembayaran kos pemeliharaan boleh dikeluarkan
dari Kumpulan Wang Warisan dengan kelulusan
Majlis dalam bentuk pemberian atau pinjaman
1
Pemberian atau pinjaman adalah bersyarat
BAYARAN MASUK TAPAK WARISAN (Sek. 44)
Bayaran masuk boleh dikenakan oleh
pemunya dengan kelulusan Pesuruhjaya
1
Pesuruhjaya boleh kenakan levi ke atas bayaran
masuk jika Pesuruhjaya telah menyumbang kepada
perbelanjaan pemuliharaan dan pemeliharaan tapak
warisan (levi dimasukkan ke dalam Kumpulan Wang)
PEMULIHARAAN dan PENGURUSAN TAPAK WARISAN (SEK. 45)
Tapak warisan yang telah diisytiharkan
hendaklah dipelihara mengikut pelan
pengurusan pemuliharaan
1
Menteri berunding dengan Majlis menentukan
kawasannya
1
Penyediaan pelan pengurusan pemuliharaan
I
Rujuk Sek. 46 (1)(2)
~ dan (3)
Pesuruhjaya kemukakan Pelan Pengurusan
Pemuliharaan (PPP) kepada PBN/ Pihak
Berkuasa Perancangan Tempatan untuk
penyelarasan perlaksanaannya
1
Pesuruhjaya kaji semula PPP dari masa ke
semasa
PENEMUAN OBJEK
NEMUAN OBJEK
Jumpaan Objek Warisan
DAH ALiH
iling, cincin emas,
uru, manik, seramik
lain-lain)
Lapor kepada pegawai daerah atau
pegawai yang berkuasa yang akan
-
Senarai pegawai
keluarkan notis penerimaan barang
yang diberi kuasa
kepada penjumpa dan Pesuruhjaya
I Rekod objek jumpaan
I
I
,
Pesuruhjaya menilai ketulenan objek Jawatankuasa
-
Penilaian Warisan
Didaftarkan jika
Penentuan amaun dan bayaran
Warisan dan
pampasan objek
dimaklumkan kepada
( jika perlu )
pemunya (Sek. 52)
I I
Pampasan Tidak Disetuju Pampasan Disetuju
I
~ ~
Rujuk YB Menteri dan keputusan Surat perjanjian bertulis kepada
YB Menteri muktamad pemunya
PE
MU
( sy
pel
dan
-
PERMOHONAN BAGI PENDAFTARAN OBJEK WARISAN
Menghantar permohonan kepada
Pesuruhjaya
~
Pesuruhjaya meminta maklumat
tambahan daripada pemohon
( sekiranya perlu )
1
I
Tidak Lengkap
I I
Lengkap
I
~
I
~
~
Berpuas hati dan memenuhi
Permohonan Syarat-syarat
kriteria objek warisan
-
ditolak oleh
Pesuruhjaya
~
Daftar dengan bersyarat
Notis bertulis kepada pemohon
Warta [Sek. 51(4)]
I
I
WARISAN KEBUOAYAAN 01 BAWAH AIR
Tapak Warisan
Bawah Air
Monumen I Alam Semulajadi
Bangunan
-Kota
-Tugu
-Makam
-dan lain-lain
Belulang
-Gua
-Batu Karang
-Ikan
-Kerang
-dan lain-lain
Tekstil
Logam
Objek
Warisan
Bawah Air
Kayu
Tulang
JUMPAAN OBJEK WARISAN BAWAH AIR
Notis Perjumpaan Kpd Pesuruhjaya / Pegawai Sediakan Format
Pelabuhan
--.
Notis ( Sek.61.(1))
~
Pegawai Pelabuhan Serah Sediakan Format
Kepada
~
Borang Jumpaan
Pesuruhjaya Dan Lokasi
+
Semakan Utk
Pendaftaran Oleh Pesuruhjaya
1
Interim Order (Sek. 64)
Makluman Kpd
( Notis Dalam Warta - Surat Khabar )
r----.
Jabatan Laut
1
Penyelidikan dan Penilaian Warisan
+
~
I
Warisan
I
Bukan Warisan
I
+
1 1
Pendaftaran Penilaian Pampasan Warta Zon yang dilindungi
Senarai Warisan
(Sek.64)
~
~ ~
Setuju Tidak Setuju
(Sek.55)
Lapor
Serah kpd. Pesuruhjaya /
Pegawai Daerah. Surat akuan
penerimaan
Penjumpa
PENEMUAN HARTA KARUN (SEK. 73)
Pegawai Daerah/ Pesuruhjaya
hantar notis kepada penjumpa yang
disyaki untuk hadir
memberi penjelasan dan
menyerahkan kepada Pegawai
Daerah apa yang ditemui
Siasatan pemunya dan kajian
( Sek 75(1)
Mengaku Tidak Mengaku
Perbicaraan Mahkamah.
Notis Hadir di pejabat daerah
1
kpd semua yang menuntut
( Sek. 75 )
~
1) Majistret arah serah harta
~
karun kepada SUK / Menteri
Hadir Perbincangan
I I
Gagal Hadir
I
2) Sabit kesalahan RM 50,000 /
dan penjara lima tahun.
... ...
-Sahkan harta karun
I
Lucut Hak
I -Sahkan pemunya
-Sahkan pejumpa
Jika ada pihak yang tidak puas
hati, rayuan dalam tempoh dua
Serahkan kepada pemunya atau bulan kepada Mahkamah Tinggi.
SUK / Menteri jika tiada
pemunya
PROSES PENGISYTIHARAN
PENDAFTARAN WARISAN
KEBANGSAAN
Kenalpasti PencalonanDaripada
Daftar Warisan
~
Berunding dengan
Pemberitahuan
Pihak Berkuasa Negeri / Pemunya /
Penjaga Amanah / Orang Hidup
perundingan
( Surat Niat )
~
Keluarkan Notis
Notis dikeluarkan 30
hari sebelum
pengisytiharan
Ada
Bantahan
Bantahan bertulis
Tiada Bantahan dalam tempoh
Bantahan Umum
3 bulan
I I
Keputusan Menteri
Tolak
Terima
+
1
Pengisytiharan Keizinan Hakcipta
Tolak / Orang Hidup
Pengisytiharan
I
Pendaftaran Ke Dalam Buku

Induk Warisan Kebangsaan
Tatacara Dan Garis Panduan
Pemuliharaan Dan
Pemeliharaan
PENDAFTARAN WARISAN
SENARAI DAFTAR WARISAN
Penerimaan permohonan
1
Penyelidikan oleh
Sahagian Pendaftaran
JWN
Keizinan dari Orang
Hidup
( Tokoh ), keizinan
IPR
Penilaian Pesuruhjaya
berdasarkan kepada 9
kriteria
+-----1 Jawatankuasa I
I
Tidak
Terima
I
'"
Terima Daftar Warisan
Keluarkan Surat / Sijil
Perakuan.
Sek 52 (1)
1
Warta
Warisan ( Akhbar
Tempatan dan Warta )
Sek. 31 (2(a))
Pelan Pengurusan
Perundingan dengan
pemunya atau pihak yang
bertanggungjawab
Perlu diserahkan kembali
dalam masa 3 bulan jika
dihentikan.
Sek.52(2)
SENARAI DAFTAR WARISAN KEBANGSAAN
I
Pencalonan dari Daftar Warisan
I
~
1 "
~ I
Notis 30 hari untuk tanah
Menteri perlu berunding
Keizinan Orang Hidup Tak Ketara" perlu keizinan
beri hak milik.
dengan Kerajaan Negeri
( Tokoh ) diperlukan. pemunya ( IPR ).
( Sek. 67 (3) ).
1 1 ~
Diwartakan lan diisytiharkan
( Media ).Salinan Perintah dihantar kepada
calon di atas.
~
I
Tempoh bantahan 3 bulan.
"
~ ~
Ada Tiada
Bantahan Bantahan
~ ~
Keputusan Menteri Daftar Warisan
( Sek
j
67 (9) ) Kebangsaan.
..
Keluarkan Surat / Sijil
~ ~
Perakuan.
Sek 52 (1)
Batal Muktamad
Pelan Pengurusan
29 August 2006
CITITEL MID V A L L E ~ KUALA LUMPUR
PAPER 2
TIME: 11.00 A.M
TOPIC: Case Study of Bok House: A Grand Testament Towards
Architect &Social History
SPEAKER: Ar CHEN VOON FEE
(Badon Warisan Malaysia)
an architect speaks
by Ar CHEN VOON FEE
founder member,
Badan Warisan Malaysia
Tuesday 29 August 2006
Cititel, Mid Valley, Kuala Lumpur
CPO seminar organised by the
Institute of Surveyors Malaysia in collaboration with INSPEN and RICS
Personal Background - Who' am Not
I am an "accidental" architect. I became an architect by default. as I did not agree to my
parents' standard choices of doctor. lawyer or accountant - typical professions open to the
students in the 1950s in Malaya.
Biding time. I joined the University of Malaya in Singapore. halfway through an Arts course.
father relented and agreed to send me to stUdy architecture in the UK. Late application
landed me first in Manchester University School of Architecture. Heading the school then was
Professor Cordingley. who edited Sir Bannister Fletcher's I A History of Architecture on the
Comparative Method. Professor Cordingley was my link to the Ecole des Beaux-Arts. Paris.
One of my lsI Year's work was a draughtsman-ship composition of Classical building. I chose
the Parthenon which was in the Doric Order. the simplest to draw. After 2 years in Manchester.
my first choice of school. the A.A. School of Architecture. London had a place and I switched
mid-course. doing the last 3 years in the A.A. These were very formative years. a
contemporary was the Sri Lankan architect. the late Geoffrey Bawa.
A.A. was a total contrast to Manchester University. it was and still is known for its
unconventional teaching. A hothouse of Modernism. allowing students freedom of
exploration not usually available in other schools of architecture.
Just as important as the formal training I received from the 2 schools. was the informal learning
and knowledge gained from travels. Unsurprisingly. my first two trips were to Rome and
Greece. where I had my first contact with the buildings of the Renaissance and Classical eras.
Two more journeys that helped shape my view of architecture was an ICI travel scholarship to
Muslim Spain and North Africa. lasting 4 months. The last and longest journey I made was
overland - returning to Malaya. which traversed 8 countries in Europe and Asia. r mention
them as they have influenced and defined my lifelong interest and world view of
architecture. both old and new.
@ Ar Chen Voon Fee. No part of this paper may be reproduced. stored in a retrieval system nor transmitted in any
form or by any means without written permission trom the author.
Why am I here? I agreed to be part of a group when Badan Warisan Malaysia first asked me
to talk about Bok House. Last week a bombshell fell! I was told I have to speak alone for an
hour! A mad scramble ensued. If you find what I am speaking about is not what you expect
from the programme, you will know where to address your grievances!
History
Before Bok House. a brief look back to the early 1980s. Following the launch of the NEP, the
economic expansionism of the Mahathir era brought about the building boom of the '80s.
Many old. familiar buildings began to disappear - rows of shop and town houses, colonial
mansions. old bungalows were demolished overnight.
Great concern grew among the Malaysians and expatriates. The first public outcry came
when the PAM building, the former Loke Hall, was threatened with demolition. Loke Hall was
Lake Chow Kit's mansion, a prime example of pre-WW2 colonial style, with a long history
connected with early Kuala Lumpur.
Behind the public protest was a group of people, who had met on 11 May 1982 at 259 Jalan
Ampang, the home then of Peter (now Dato) and Waveney Jenkins. I was one of them. To
focus the minds and deliberations, the following text was tabled:
"the heritage of the nation is not the property of the present generation to be
destroyed at will - rather it is a heritage to hold In trust for the benefit and enjoyment of
those to come. The trusteeship of our heritage is a continuing task for al/ individuals
and communities"
Tan Sri Mubin Sheppard
A more formal body than a group on concerned individuals was decided to be set up to
achieve the declared aims. On 17 May 1982, a second meeting was held at the Conference
Room of PAM (Pertubuhan Akitek Malaysia) under the chairmanship of the late Datuk (later
Tan Sri) Justice Harun HAshim. He was then President of the Industrial Court. housed
coincidentally in the former Chow Kit Emporium. on Jalan Mahkamah (formerly Belanda). The
single, urgent task was to save PAM building. (we will come back to PAM later). 12 meetings
and 14 1/2 months later. BADAN WARISAN MALAYSIA was officially incorporated with the
Registrar of Companies, as a 'Company limited by guarantee and without a share capital'.
This form of organization was considered best to achieve the aims of the principal objective
as
stated in the Memorandum and Articles of Association 3 a.(i) viz.
" to promote the permanent preservation for the benefit and education of the people
of Malaysia of al/ buildings which because of their historical association or
architectural features or for other reasons are considered ... to form part of the
heritage of Malaysia."
During the period of gestation to form an organization, behind-the-scene campaigns were
carried out proxies to save the most endangered heritage
buildings, viz.
Hotel Majestic
Kl Central Market
Wisma Loke & loke Tombs
Eastern Hotel
Chua Cheng Bok building
Hotel Majestic, not the building, was bought by the government to re-house the National Art
Gallery, then occupying Dewan Tuanku Abdul Rahman, now Malaysian Tourism Centre (MTC).
It was the hotel business to remain in that building. led by a group of energetic, young
people, (Badan Warisan was not a registered body yet) children of council members,
@Ar Chen Voon Fee. No part of this paper may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system nor transmitted in any
form or by any means without written permission from the author.
thousands of signatures were collected. The outcome was doomed to fail as the government
could not be seen to back down. A lesson learnt never to repeat.
K.L Central Market, demolition was delayed by the temporary business downturn in the over-
built commercial property market in the mid 1980s. The campaign by proxy had created the
right awareness and climate for a subsequent private developer's adaptive re-use of Kuala
lumpur's old wet market to what is to-date. the most successful adaptive reuse of a
government-owned. historical building by private developers. KlCM celebrates it's 20
th
re-
opening anniversary in 2006.
Wisma Loke, the other loke Mansion. was Towkay loke Yew's hybrid. 12-year remodeling from
an original Chinese house. Exuberant mix of Eastern & Western architectural features with a
long history linked to early Kuala lumpur. The recalcitrant loke trustees were not responsive to
public and private overtures. In 2002. 21 years after the demise of the last Mrs loke. the
property went on the market.
Loke Tombs, on a hillside in Wangsa Maju. in 10 acre grounds. three tiers of graves cascade
down what used to be Hawthornden Estate. Conservation works on the vandalized graves
were proposed and to turn the gravesite into a memorial park. The loke Trustees were not in
favour.
Eastern Hotel. a hotel with a lot of local colour. the last built heritage. connected with Kapitan
Cina Yap Ah loy. It was the dowry house built for Yap long Shin. his second son. whose
gambling debts forced the property's sale. In the midst of discussion of saving the building. it
was demolished over a long holiday weekend in 1990. The shock demolition caused public
outrage - the press gave full coverage. Badan Warisan organized a candle-light vigil. The
adverse publicity was too much for the developer. who donated a substantial sum towards a
conservation fund for Badan Warisan's silence. A first - cash in lieu of protest but a hollow
triumph.
Chua Cheng Bok building (now UDA Ocean) in China town. 2 back-to-back terraces of
shophouses. one with 3-storeys. twin columns along the 5-footway. Badan Warisan submitted
a proposal to turn the 2 terraces into a boutique hotel. UDA who bought the property
proceeded to demolish the structurally sound buildings, keeping one original fm;ade. behind
which was built the 5-storey shopping complex.
The early Councils invited representatives of DBKL Muzium Negara. Tourist Development
Corporation and PAM. The close interaction with the other bodies had beneficial results. One
notable example was that the PAM building was eventually saved by proposals discussed at
these joint meetings. A transfer of development rights was made to the owner. Syed Kechik.
who was given land in the Selayang Wholesale Market area by DBKL in exchange for PAM
building. which happily remains with PAM as the building's custodian and continues to run its
affairs from there.
A possible model for BOK House?
Badan Warisan realized early on that not just individual. historical buildings be targeted for
conservation without knowing what the rest of the city and the country had.
A K.L.Heritage Hunt 1987 was organized. in conjunction with 30
th
Merdeka celebration. DBKl's
Rabiah Mas. supplied 52 street plans. Participants with KaMAL-donated films. photographed
the city's blocks of pre-WW II shophouses. The results were judged by famous photographer
Eric Peris. and cash prizes awarded by the then Dato Bandar. Tan Sri Elyas Omar.
This later led to a nation-wide urban inventory. initiated by Badan Warisan in the late 1980s-
early 90s. A pilot windscreen survey of buildings was commissioned and undertaken by Susan
lau with others who collected over 200 town maps of the country. marking out the urban
centres with pre-WW2 buildings. They were largely terraces of shop &townhouses. This served
@Ar Chen Voon Fee. No part of this paper may be reproduced. stored In a retrieval system nor transmitted in any
as the basis for the later full-scale National Inventory commissioned by Muzium Negara to
UTM. Over 247 towns in East & West Malaysia were surveyed, physical structures
photographed. recording over 30,000 old buildings. A report of the survey led to Badon's
1995 publication of Pemeliharan Warisan Rupa Bandar, funded by VISA, heading a group of
corporate sponsors. The report should be of urgent concern for the Ministry of Culture, Arts
and Heritage, attention Han. Heritage Commissioner, to form the basis of the official National
Inventory for gazetting.
Western Neoclassical architecture was first introduced into the country some half a millennium
ago, when the Portuguese, the first Europeans to set foot in the Peninsula, erected their fort A
Famosa, the Church on st Paul's Hill, monasteries and townhouses. The ancient architectural
language of Greece and Rome (the Parthenon 447-432 BCE), revived by Palladia (1508-1580)
reached Malacca in 1511. Columns with capitals and bases, arches, mouldings and
decorations carved in stone appeared for the first time in the Peninsula.
Bok House - Statements have been reported in the press. Hopefully. what I have to say will
counter the adverse with some positive good for Kuala Lumpur's Grand Old Lady.
When Bok House was built in this architectural style in the 1920s, employing the neoclassical
language to such a degree of excellence, proportion and symmetry, it is not just a grand
mansion built by a successful entrepreneur. It is the high-water mark in a 500-year continuum
of our architectural development. A marker like this represents the distance travelled, an arc
of civilized achievement. Remove it and a priceless built evidence is wiped out forever.
Bok House is not just a direct replica of neoclassicism, from Rennaissance Italy. It shows how
well it succeeded in adapting the imported Western language to the local Rumah Melayu
Malay House traditional form and the country's hot, wet, tropical climate.
Rumah Ibu - Rumah Dapur: Front public &formal where visitors are received and entertained
linked by a colonnaded selang to the back rumah dapur, the private, family house, a slightly
smaller replica of the front. Now this was tragically demolished in 1999.
Anjong / Porte Cochere : the clustered columns reflect the Malay House tiang stilts. giving the
entrance carriage porch stature and strength.
Serambi / Verandas: surrounding all three sides providing plenty of shade and ventilation; the
open first floor repeating the same treatment. The frontal subtle curve reflects the curved
balcony below, the curve is repeated on the roof balustrading above.
Bumbong Lima 5-ridge roof: Bok House has a composite pyramidal, half-gabled, hipped roof
with a crowning roof light.
The Ionic Order is handled with a high degree of aplomb. the deep entablature. not strictly
classical, complete with dentils is strongly articulated by console-like brackets.
Interiors: Entrance grilles, hall with statues and stairs with stained glass windows.
There is no other building like this in Malaysia. Bok House is unique. It deserves permanent
protection.
National Heritage Act 2005
Confession: As I have not read the new Act I shall not comment on it. Except to ask: Now that
we have the NHA 2005, how can the Act protect the country's fast disappearing old buildings
which are the nation's built heritage, "to be held in trust for the generations to come"?
END
@Ar Chen Voon Fee. No part of this paper may be reproduced. stored in a retrieval system nor transmitted in any
An architect spea'ks
Ar. Chen Voon Pee

a founder member
''- at
BadanWafisan Malaysja
Tuesday 29 A!J9!Jst 2006
Semlrlill orgaflised by the Instilulioll 01 SuMlYOfJ
j .',
In eollalXlraliof1 with RICS and INSPEN
P.M.non, G,..u
_.OrtBun4j 1IlI1I III
,
"the heritage of the nation is not the
property of the present generation to
.be destroyed at ratfler, it is a
heritage to hold In trost for the'benefit
and enjoyment of those to come. The
'trusteeship of our heritage is a
continuing task for all individuals and
communities"
Tan Sol Mublll Shop,urd, 11 1181
Outline
'Who am I Not Why.am I here?
Brief introduction to Badan
Warisan Malaysia'
Bok House
',4 ."i
National Heritage Act 2005
-'ow
PAM Buildin Lake Hall
Badan Warisan Malaysia
Memorandum & Articles of Association 3 3. (i)
"... to promote permanent -
preservation for the benefit and
education of the p'eopJe of Malaysia of
all bUildings Which because of their
historical association or architectural
features or for otner reasons are
considered ... to form part of the
heritage of Malaysia."
1
Endangered Heritage
Hotel Majestic
KL Central Market
Wisma Loke & Lake Tombs
Eastern Hotel
Chua Cheng Bok Building
HOTEL MAJESTiC
u .... _ ... _
..... -.-
___of
- - - . ~ --, .,.-...j
---- _...' ..
- ~ ......
_... __..
.,,' , ... -
.......'... _..
- .. _-
_._.. ~ .
.- ................
'--"""-" '
_.__..-
........ _-
... _---
_..... _... -
Wil.ma LoU. 1'_
o.m_20'
2
Chua Cheng Bok Building
Lunas, Keclatl200B
Kg Kepayang, PeralI: 2004
Porta da
Santiago.
Malacca
c. 1869
Example of Palladian Architecture - V ~ l a Rotonda. Italy
(....._ ...-.........=__........<ItOocn.._lR...............eoo......_ ~ , ,
WO'i>lJ
3
SOK HOUSE,19911
SOK HOUSE eOKHOUSE
4
BOKHOUSE
>
80KHOUSE
BOKHOUSE
5
IlOI( tOJSE. KJNII. Llm"IptIr-A. s.wu:n-. 1Q96

......lercokIu try Chin Ken y ~
National Heritage Act, 2005
Act 645
6
7
NATIONAL HERITAGE ACT

2005
..A BRIEF
National Heritage Department
Ministry of Cultul1l, Arts and Heritage Malaysla
(Act 645)
An Act to provide for the c0n5efVation and
preservlltlon of National Heritage, natural heritage,
and Intangible cultural heritage, underwater
cultural heritage, treasure trove and for related
matters.
The concept of heritage develops through
time and is defined as a term
N
The scope is wider than what was

mentioned in Schedule 9 of the Federal
Constitution.
BASIC CONCEPT
Heritage is a new concept with various
interpretations. The common definition
indicates heritage similar to antiquities or
ancient treasure (harts kuno), treasure
trove, monument, remains, etc.
"Having at one time referred exclusively to the
monumental remains of cultures, heritage as a
concept has gradually come to include new
categories such as the intangible,
ethnographic or industrial heritage. A
noteworthy effort was subsequently made to
extend the conceptualization and description of
the intangible heritage. This is due to the fact
that closer attention is nowbeingpaid to
humankind, the dramatic arts, languages and
spiritual and philosophical systems upon which
CffIations are based."
(Source: UNESCO)
1
UNDERSTANDING OF HERITAGE
iHJ!1[,]
HERn'AGE
rI;AAT1JfW.
CU,.1uw.L :J:
,p-
H"""'"
,'HO"U' .

tlER1f.-\GE!';;.; HERITAGe:

"KNbvv'LEo .
;,>ANu
:, ANd$KII.I/.'
Related documents:
ill Convention concerning the Protection of the World
Cultural and Natural HeritaQe. adopted by UNESCO in
19n.(Malaysia deposited fabrICation on 12.7.1988]
b1 Recommendation for tho ofmomfe
c:uttutiil fWpefty. (UNESCO 28 November 1978)
c) Coovention on the protection 01 the undetWilter
cultural heriUg.- (f.1NESCO Paris 2 November 2001)
d) Convention for the safeguarrJing of the intangibfe
cultural heritage. (UNESCO 17 Oktober 2003)
Acts and policies related to lntllnglble heritage
Acts 32 - National Language Act, 1953167
Acts 213 - Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka Act,1959
National Cultural Policy.
other felated legislation for comparison
Preservatioo and Restoration of Melaka CultUl"a1
Enactment, 1988 (Revised 1993)
(Jci'Iofe), State Heritage Foundation
Enactment,1988
Antiquities lind Treasure Trove Emtctment
{5abahj, 1977
Antiquities Ordinance (Sarawak), 1954
THE NATIONAL HERITAGE ACT
2005 (ACT 645)
This Act is enacted by the Parliament
of Malaysia as result to:
Other related acts.
TANGIBLE HERITAGE
oyab!e and !!!!TIl!Yiblt Cu!Il.oI Hr!'fM

Ad 629 - Ard1fft Ad. 2003
N:J. In _ -.l CcMltry PIa'ring Ad. 1916
N:J. 222 _ MaIlIyIia'l H8lodJCl.a. 0.. 7. ,.Coipoo ..... ' Ad.
"'.
""" pi He!bqe
N:J.16 - WiIdliIe Protection Ad. 111n
N:J. 226 - NaIianIII PIII1l Act, 1980
Act 313 F,,",sIry Act. 191j.t (Revised 1993)
Act 525 _ Mln$l'WoI Development Act. 1ll94
State QUany Regullllioni
"Cultural Heritage"
Cufture" means:
"the integrated pattern of human behavior
that includes thought, speech, action and
artifacts and depends upon the human capacity
for learning and transmhtlng knowledge to
succeeding generations.
The customary belief, serial fOfTTls and material
traits of racial, religions or social group.
Therefore 'Cunure" is a "generic terms
2
t1lntangible Cultural Heritage"
means practices, representations and
expressions knowledge, skills - as well as the
instruments, objects, artifacts, and cultural
spaces associated therewith - that community,
groups and, in some cases individuals
recognized as part of their cultural heritage..."
Its elements:
"...transmitted from generation to generation
and constantly recreated by communities...
Article 2
For the purposes of this Convention, the following shall be
considered as "natural heritage":
natural features consisting ofphysical and biological
formations or groups of such formations, which are of
outstanding universal value from the aesthetic or scientific
point of view;
geological andphysiographical formations and precisely
delineated areas which constitute the habitat of threatened
species of animals and plants of outstanding universal
value from the point of view of science or conservation;
natural sites or precisely delineated natural areas of
outstanding universal value from the point of view of
science, conservation or natural beauty.
Under the Federal Constitution a few elements
related to Heritage were mentioned:-
[Federal list]
13. Education, including-
(b) Library; museum; monument and ancient
record and history; site and ancient remain"
23. Subject to item 5 (f) of the state list: theaters,
cinema, cinematograph film; places of public
amusemen.
Therefore,
"Intangible Cultural Heritage" manifested in the
following domains:
oral, traditional and expressions, including language
as a vehicle of the intangible cultural heritage
performing arts;
social practices, rituals and festive events
knowledge andpractices concerning nature and the
universe
traditional craftsmanship
"Something non-immaterial, such as custom that is
passed from one generation to another"
PREVIOUS LEGISLATION
Federal Constitution
The term heritage was not mentioned in the
Schedule 9 or in any list (Federal, State or
Concurrent).
[State Lists]
5. Except with respect to the Federal territories of
Kuala Lumpur, Labuan and Putrajaya, other
services of a local character that is to say:
f) Licensing of theaters, cinemas and public
amusement.
12A. Libraries, museums, ancient and historical
monuments and records and archaelogical sites
and remains, other than those declared to be
federal by or under federal law.
[Concurrent List]
98. Culture and Sport.
3
The current legislature view on the Federal
Constitution is to be ammended to include
the term "heritage" as the term "tourism" is
included in the Schedule 9 Federal Lists
or otherwise, the provision of Article 77
will be applied.
However it emphasizes that "heritage" be the
"substance" by means of "culture" as its
elements indicate toward the meaning of
"culture" itself". So, "Heritage" is part of
"Culture" - "that transmitted to the
succeeding generations. "
On that basis, "Heritage" is "part of culture"
and "substantia/ly" it wisely appear in the
"Concuffent List" of the "Ninth Schedule" of
Federal Constitution.
Article 77 Federal Constitution stated:

liThe legislature of a state shall have
power to make laws with respect to any
matter not enumerated in any of the list
setout in the ninth schedule, not being a
matter in respect of which the parliament
has power to make laws"
LEGISLATION POINT OF VIEW:
Verbal view by the Attorney General
(AG):
Term "Heritage", was not mentioned in any
legislative list under the Federal
Constitution. Therefore, based on the
article 77, "Heritage" is under the
operation of the state authority.
Implementation
Therefore the control on heritage items by
the Ministry of Culture, Arts and Heritage
as what was instructed by the Cabinet
could not be implemented immediately.
Instead, the enforcement could only be
applied after the ammendment of the
Constitution to include "heritage" in the
concurrent list.
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
The establishment of the Department of Heritage,
headed by a Commissioner.
The formation of a National Heritage ConseNation
Corporation as a statutory body With govemment
funding.
The introduction of comprehensive set of fiscal
incentives to support conseNation and preseNation
as a promoted Industry,
The concept of "transfer development rights which
means owner of the heritage properties of such area
where high rise development isprohi,?ited, cal} apply
for rights to develop on altematlves sites outside the
conseNation zones
4
BRIEF ANALYSIS
Previous legislation situation
All existing legislations such as Parliament Act
and State Enactment previously only focused on
natural and cultural heritage in a form of what is
tangible.
The legislation seldom overlapped in its "subject
matter" such as "ancient and historical
monuments and records, andarcheo/0ff,ical
sites and remains", the "subject matter' stated
in the "Federal list, item 13B as well as in the
State list item 12A which means that federal and
states are capable of legislating on those matters.
DECISION BY THE MINISTER
Early Executive Decision by the Minister during
discussion on this matter:
"agreed. if there is a strong basis";
i. "Cultural Properties Bill" to be proceeded. In
lieu to The Antiquities Act, 1976 [Act 168] and
Treasure Trove Act, 1957.
iv) The Minister agreed that the
implementation of "Heritage Act 2005"
with "enabling provision" under Article
74(1) and 80(2) Federal Constitution, and
with the advice of AG. This due to
"substance of heritage categorised as
"Culture" in line with No 98 in Concurrent
Jist, Schedule 9 Federal Constitution.
Meanwhile, "Intangible Cultural Heritage",
There is no such legislation at both
federal and state.
Not many countries have legislation of
intangible cultural heritage.
At international level, very few legal
documents identifying "intangible
cultural heritage" which only appears in
"convention" etc.
ii) Existing Enactment shall apply to maintain
"harmony" between the Federal
Goverment and State Government
however; Draft of Town and Urban
Planning Bill is repealed (Decision by the
Minister of KeKKWa).
iii) Additional proVISion in relation to
"Developmenf and "Transmission" of
heritage will be included in the "Cultural
Properties Bill" or "Heritage Bill"; by the
decision of the Committee.
Consist of 17 Parts and 126 Sections:
1 Preliminary
2 Conservation and Preservation of Heritage
3 Administrative of the Act
4 National Heritage Council
5 Heritage Fund
6 National Herllage Register
7 Heritage Site
8 Heritage Object
9 Underwater Cuttural Heritage
10 National Herllage
11 Treasure Trove
12 Licensing
13 Appeal
14 Powers Relating To Enforcement. Seizure, Arrest. Etc.
15 Offences
16 Miscellaneous
17 Repeal and Saving Provisions
5
NATIONAL HERITAGE
ACT2005
PART I - PRELIMINARY
1. Short title and commencement
2. Interpretation
PART 111- ADMINISTRATION OF THE ACT
4. Appointment of Commissioner of Heritage
5. Appointment of officers
6. Functions of the Commissioner
7. Powers of the Commissioner
Appointment of officer
5. (1) The Minister may, from time to time, appoint such number of
Deputy Commissioners, Assistant Commissioners, authorized
officers and such other officers as are necessary to assist the
Commissioner in the performance of his functions and the exercise
of his powers under this Act.
(2) All officers appointed under subsection (1) shall be subject to the
supervision, direction and control of the Commissioner.
(e) to authorise, monnor and supervise excavations for heritage
purposes;
(I) to maintain documents relating to any excavation, exploration,
findings or search for heritage;
(9) to establish or maintain liaison and co-operation wnh the State
Authority in respect of conservation and preservation of heritage
mailers;
(h) to advise and co-ordinate with the local planning authority, the
Council and other bodies and entities at all levels for the purpose of
safeguarding, promoting and dealing with any heritage;
Appointment of Commissioner of Hentage
4.(1) There shall be appointed by the Minister, an officer to be known
as the "Commissioner of Heritage" for the purpose of carrying out
the powers and functions assigned to the Commissioner under the
Act.
(2) The appointment of the Commissioner shall be published in the
Gazette.
(3) The Commissioner appointed under SUbsection (1) shall be a
body corporate having perpetual succession and a common seal.
(4) The Commissioner may sue and be sued in its name.
(5) The officers appointed to be the Commissioner shall hold office for
a period of not more than three years and shall be eligible for
reappoinmenl.
Functions of the Commissioner
6. The functions of the Commissioner are as follows:
(a) to determine the designation of sites, registration of objects and
underwater cultural hernage;
(b) to establish and maintain the Register and to determine and
specify the categories of herUsge to be listed in the Register;
(c) to supervise and oversee the conservation, preservation,
restoration, maintenance, promotion, exhibition and accessibility of
heritage;
(d) to promote and facilitate any research relating to hernage;
(i) to promote and regulate that best standards and practices are
applied in the conservation and preservation of heritage;
(j) to advise the Minister with regard to any matter in respect of
conservation and preservation of hernage;
(k) to perform such other functions under this Act as the Minister
may assign from time to time; and
(I) to do all such things as may be incidental to or consequential
upon the discharge of his powers and functions.
6
PART IV - NATIONAL HERITAGE COUNCIL
8. Establishment of National Heritage Council
PART V - HERITAGE FUND
20. Establishment of the Fund
PART VI- NATIONAL HERITAGE REGISTER
National Heritage Register
23.(1) The Commissioner shall establish and maintain a register
known as the National Heritage Register as may be prescribed
containing the lists of heritage items registered under this Act.
(2) The Commissioner shall make the Register available for public
inspection SUbject to such conditions as he thinks fit.
Chapter 2 - Interim Protection Order
Commissioner may make Interim Protection Order
33.(1) Upon a notice being served on the owner of a site under
subsection 27(1) the Commissioner may, with the concurrence of
the State Authority, make an Interim Protection Order in relation to a
site if in the opinion of the Commissioner it is necessary to do so for
the purpose of conservation and preservation of the site.
(2) An Interim Protection Order shall contain such conditions as
may be specified by the Commissioner.
(3) The Commissioner shall cause the Interim Protection Order to
be served on the owner of the site.
Chapter 3 - Dealings involving heritage site
Notice of intention to sell heritage site
36. An owner of a heritage site who enters into an agreement of sale of
the whole or any part of the heritage site, shall notify the Commissioner in
writing in the prescribed form of the information about the existence of that
agreement within twenIy-elght days of the date of the agreement.
37. Change of owner of a heritage site
(3) Any person may on payment of a fee to be prescribed by the
Minister-
(a) inspect the Register: and
(b) make a copy of, or take extracts from, the Register
PART V11- HERITAGE SITE
Chapter 1- Designation of Heritage Site
24. The Commissioner may designate any site which has natural
heritage or cultural heritage significance to be a heritage site
(4) An Interim Protection Order takes effect upon the service of the
Interim Protection Order.
(5) The Commissioner may at any time revoke an Interim Protection
Order.
(6) Any person who contravenes an Interim Protection Order
commits an offence.
(7) The Commissioner may enter may enter into any arrangements
with the owner or occupier of a site for any loss or damage suffered
or alleged to have been suffered by the owner or occupier by reason
of the Interim Protection Order.
(8) For the purpose of this section , the State Authority shall mean
the Menteri Besar or Chief Minister of a State, as the case may be.
Chapter 4 - Conservation and preservation of heritage site
38. Care of heritage site
39. Inspection of heritage site
40. Application for planning permission for heritage site
41. Monument Preservation Order
42. Duty to keep heritage site in good repair
43. Financing conservation work
44. Power to impose entry fee
7
PART X- NATIONAL HERITAGE
67. Declaration of National Heritage
69. Any National Heritage which is owned or possessed by a person
other than the Federal Government or the State Government may
remain in the possession of its owner, custodian or trustee.
PART XI- TREASURE TROVE
73. This part is made pursuant to Clause 1 (b) of Article 76 of the
Federal Constnution for the purpose for promoting uniformny of the
laws of the States of Malaysia relating to treasure trove.
Chapter 3 - Registration of dealer of heritage item
91. Registered dealer of heritage nem
(1) No person shall deal in any heritage nem unless he is a registered
dealer and holds a certificate of registration approved by the
Commissioner.
(2) Any person who contravenes the provision of subsedion (1)
commns an offence and shall on conviction be liable to
imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or to a fine not
exceeding fifty thousand ringgn or to both.
(3) Any person may apply to be registered as a registered dealer of
cullural heritage to the Commissioner in the prescribed form and
manner.
(4) The Commissioner may approve or refuse such application.
PROSES PENETAPAN TAPAK WARISAN DAN ZON PENAMPAN
I

I

I PemenkMaftT..o.nJ(ljiwlurlll..... patlnl1lli-nun19llk261 I
-.......... _-
III .-dilIiIIIIIrMlllBCJli .... --.,.
I
PemlII/lPettndllfllPlll
Ii) NoIl&niaI ...Pejeb(fT.n..... Phll8ellNHllNegltli. ISlllL 271
,--
--
15ek33)llIlluk
I
SiafBndalamwwaodanlllHloar-...n ......
I

_....... "'"
--
I
lhnt.JMndAn\enlpGtl3llhlllllSetl2811

r-t
-
I
I __mOO .1

(SIIlI.2!l1
I
-- I
I$ellJll
11lIIIIls.t\ljll
--1
I
PerencanoBiandlrDerlDeSll
il)Oi&iaJlIandalamWaFllldllnllkhtlilrlelllJBlan
PART XII- LICENSING
Chapter 1- Export and import of heritage item
83.Licence to export
Chapter 2 - Ucence to excavate
86. (1) No person shall excavate any land for the purpose of
discovering an object unless he holds a licence approved by the
Commissioner.
(2) Any person who contravenes subsection (1) commits an otfence
and shall on conviction be liable to imprisonment for a term not
exceeding five years or to a fine not exceeding fifty thousand ringgit or to
both.
PART XIV - POWERS RELATING TO ENFORCEMENT,
SIZURE, ARREST, ETC
97. The Minister may appoint such number of enforcement officers as
many be necessary for the purposes of this Act and regulations
made under this Act.
PART XV - OFFENCES
112. Offences in resped of heritage site.
(1) &(2)
PART XVI- MISCELLANEOUS
115. Prosecution
118. General Penally
124. Regulation
(1) The Minister may make any regulations as may be
expedients or necessary for the better carrying into effed of the
provision of this Act.
PART XVII - REPEAL AND SAVING PROVISIONS
PEMUUHARAAN DAN PEMELIHARAAN TAPAI( WARlSAN

-

... - bjNembelilll.u-'"
__'-gil'Milwd
--
I-
1'-"--11

I
monumenctenlerfBkllepadBpefllUll)1l
1 1
1t<l\IrIjllpembiliMndall I 1 PeIlikailmterRno_panlpuen4lrujl.lk I

...
8
KEWAJlPAN PEMUNYA MEHJAGA TAPAK WARlSAN
PEMBlAVAAN KERJA pEMUUHARAAN
1
1
1
1-----1 .........-
MENYB.AMATKAN MONUMEN UNTUK PENR.AIAN PENGlSYTlHARAN CINTERIM)
BAVARANMASUt< TAPAK WARtSAH ISH. 44)
__-,*lIc*hdlllenillllnQleh

PEMUUHARAAN .... PeNGURUSAH TAPAK WARtSAN CSEK. 45)
..........C&JEK
MUOI\HAUH

peIuN. .............
... Wn-IIliIt)
---
PEAMOHONAN BAGI PEM>AFTARAN 08JEKWARISAN
rROSES PENGlSYTIHARAN PENDAFTARAN
WARISAN KEBANGSAAN
PROCESS FOR NATIOftAL HERJTAGE LISTING
--
--
9
.Y.I.
SENARAI DAFTAR WARISAN KEBANGSAAN I NATIONAL HERITAGE ReGISTER
10
KRITERIA PENENTUAN STATUS BANGUNAN WARISAN*
BANGUNAN WARISAN**
a. Semua bangunan yang dibina sebelum 1786, dan secara amnya berada dalam keadaan sepertl asal adalah dlsenaralkan
b. Kebanyakkan bangunan yang dibina pada tahun 1786 -1957 akan disenaraikan, dan penyenaraian inl adalah berdasarkan
kepada kepentingan seniblna dan hubungkaitnya dengan sejarah negara.
c. Bangunan yang dibina se/epas 1957 akan dlsenaralkan secara sangat terplllh, dan penyenara/aan ini ada/ah berdasarkan
kepada kepentingan senibina dan hubungkaltnya dengan pembangunan negara
d. Bangunan baru yang kurang daripada 10 tahun tidak senaraikan kecuali da/am keadaan yang ter/stimewa
Gred I Gred 11* Gred lI(b)
Kelayakan Bangunan dalam kategori ini layak Bangunan dalam kategori ini layak Bangunan dalam kategori ini besar
Menerima dipertimbangkan untuk menerima dipertimbangkan untuk menerima kemungkinan tidak layak
Geran Warisan geran warisan geran warisan dipertimbangkan untuk menerima
geran warisan
Kriteria Keistimewaan yang tiada tolok banding Tersangat istimewa Sangat istimewa
(Exceptional interest) (Very special interest) (Special interest)
Gava senibina vanQ unik
Gaya senibina atau teknologi binaan yang
jarang (rare) didapati atau yang diancam
kepupusan
Gaya dan bentuk senibina, bahan Gaya dan bentuk senibina, bahan
Gaya dan bentuk senibina, bahan binaan binaan dan teknologi binaan yang binaan dan teknologi binaan yang asli
dan teknologi binaan yang sangat asli sangat asli seperti asal ( tanpa seperti asal ( tanpa perubahan)
seperti asal ( tanpa perubahan) perubahan)
Hiah authenticity High authenticity
Rekabentuk dan gaya senibina yang Rekabentuk dan gaya senibina yang
Rekabentuk dan gaya senibina yang sangat menonjol dan menarik menonjol dan menarik
sangat menonjol dan menarik High architectural significance Relatively high architectural
High architectural siqnificance siqnificance
Oaftar Monumen &Tapak Tanah Bersejarah Yang Telah Oiwartakan Oi
Bawah Akta Benda Purba 1976 (Akta 168)
Pt' k e unJu
WK Cadangan Status Warisan Kebangsaan
W Cadangan Status Warisan
G Cadangan Digugurkan Dari Daftar pan
Disimpan Dalam Pengkalan Data
Bil Nama Bangunan WK W
Gred Gred Gred G
I
11*
II
KEDAH
1. Kota Kuala Kedah
"
PULAU PINANG
2. Gereja Sf. George, George Town
" 3. Bangunan Municipal (Dewan Bandaran Pulau
"
Pinang), George Town
4. Bangunan Lembaga Muzium Negeri Pulau
"
Pinang (Bekas Penang Free School), George
Town
5. Menara Jam Besar, George Town
"
6. Mahkamah Tinggi Pulau Pinang, George Town
" 7. Kota Cornwallis, George Town
"
8. Batu Bertulis Cherok To' Kun, Bukit Mertajam
" 9. Makam Sheikh Omar, Ayer Itam
" PERAK
10. Kota Long Jaafar, Taiping
"
11. Kota Belanda, Pulau Pangkor
"
12. Batu Bertulis Belanda, Pulau Pangkor
"
13. Batu Peringatan J. W. W .Birch, Kompleks
"
Sejarah Pasir Salak
14. Gua Batu Tambun, Ipoh (Lukisan Gua)
"
15. Makam Lama Kerajaan Beruas, Beruas
" 16. Makam Sultan Muzaffar Shah III, Bota Kanan
" 17. Makam AI-Marhum Raja Alang Iskandar
"
(Marhum Teja), Gopeng
18. Makam Sultan Muzaffar Shah I, Telok Bakong,
"
Bota Kanan
19. Makam Sultan Ali Mukamallnhayat Shah, Kuala
"
Kangsar
20. Makam Sultan Yusof Sharifuddin Muzafar Shah,
" Kuala Kangsar
Gred Gred Gred G
I
11*
II
21. Makam Tok Temong (Tun Perabu), Kuala ~
Kangsar
22. Makam Sultan Iskandar Zulkarnaim Marhum
"
Kaharullah, Perak Tengah
23. Makam Sultan Alauddin Mansor Shah Iskandar
"
Muda Marhum Sulong, Pulau Besar, Perak
Tengah
24. Makam Sultan Shahabudin Riayat Shah, Perak
"
Tengah
25. Makam Tun Saban, Kenering, Hulu Perak ~
26. Makam Sultan Abdullah Mohamad Shah I, Hilir
"
Perak
27. Kubur Koperal Pav, Pasir Salak
"
28. Kubur Kapten William Innes, Pasir Salak
"
29. Kubur Guneer N. Hardy, Pasir Salak '\
30. Kubur Prebet W. Smith, Pasir Salak
"
31. Kubur Askar Upahan, Pasir Salak
"
32. Makam Tok Tun Lela Setia, Lenggong
"
33. Makam Tok Kelana, Tapah ...J
34. Makam Tok Tun Lela Sakti, Tapah ...J
35. Makam Sultan Ahmad Tajuddin Shah Marhum
"
Muda, Perak Tengah
36. Makam Tok Subang, Kuala Kangsar ...J
37. Makam Keramat Imam Jusoh, Gerik ...J
38. Makam Keramat Bidan Bisu, Gerik
'\
39. Makam Dato Seri Lela, Krunei, Hulu Perak
'\
40. Makam Orang Kaya Seri Adika Raja Meor
'\
Yahaya bin Meor Ngah Mohamad, Lenggong
41. Makam Tok Makan Lambat (Tok Kuala Kenas), ...J
Kuala kangsar
42. Makam Daeng Osman bin Daeng Selili, Kuala ...J
Kangsar
43. Makam YM Raja Perempuan Che Neng, Kroh,
"
Hulu Perak
44. Kubur James Wheeler Woodford Birch, Pasir
" Salak
45. Makam Sultan Jaafar Muazam Shah, Perak ~
Tengah
46. Makam Sultan Abdullah Muazam Shah, Perak
"
Tengah
47. Makam Sultan Tajul Ariffin, Kuala Kangsar ...J
Nama Bangunan WK W
Gred Gred Gred G
I
11*
II
48. Makam Sultan Abdul Malik Mansur Shah ...J
Marhum Jamalullah, Perak tenQah
49. Makam Temenggong Wan Hussain, Kuala ...J
Kangsar
50. Makam PanQlima Alang Ishak, Kuala KanQsar ~
51. Makam Tok Sendalu (Seri Andika Raja 4), ...J
LenQQong
-<
52. Makam Daeng Salili Bin Pajung Luwuk, Kuala ...J
Kangsar
53. Makam Kaum Keluarga Daeng Salili, Kuala
-..j
KanQsar
54. Makam Sultan Muzaffar Shah II, Bota Kanan ...J
55. Makam Daeng Uda Tahir (Tok Janggut Uda
-..j
Tahir), Kuala KanQsar
56. Makam Temenggong Wan Hassan, Kuala
-..j
Kangsar
57. Makam Dato' Busu Sega (Dato' Seri Adika Raja
-..j
9), Gerik
58. Makam Tok Lalang (Dato' Seri Adika Raja 3), ...J
Lenggong
59. Keramat Tok YanQ Beliang, Hulu Perak ...J
SELANGOR
60. Istana Alauddin, Bandar ...J
61. GedunQ Raja Abdullah, KelanQ ...J
62. Masiid Alauddin, Bandar ...J
63. Penjara Lama Jugra ...J
64. Pejabat Daerah Lama Kuala Langat ...J
65. Kota Malawati , Kuala Selangor ...J
66. Kota TaniunQ Keramat, Kuala Selangor ...J
67. Kota Raja Mahadi, Kelang ...J
68. Makam Sayid Mashor bin Mohd. Ash Shahab, ...J
Kuala Kubu Baru
69. Makam Diraia JUQra, Kuala LanQat
-..j
70. Setor Peluru, Kuala Langat ...J
71. Ibu Empangan SunQai Tengi, TanjonQ Karang ...J
KUALA LUMPUR
72. Bangunan Ibu Peiabat Keretapi Kuala Lumpur
-..j
73. Bangunan Institut Penyelidikan Perubatan, Jalan ...J
Pahang
74. Bangunan Sultan Abdul Samad (Mahkamah
-..j
Agong)
Nama Bangunan WK W
Gred Gred Gred G
I
11*
II
75. Bangunan Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur v
Lama
76. Bangunan Istana Negara v
77. Muzium Negara v
78. Stadium Merdeka v
79. Bangunan Stesen Keretapi Kuala Lumpur v
80. Bangunan Istana Tetamu
-'.}
81. Bangunan Sekolah St. John, Bukit Nenas v
82. Bangunan Residensi v
83. Bangunan Pustaka Peringatan P. Ramlee, v
Setapak
84. Bangunan Bekas Jabatan Kerja Raya Selangor
-'.}
85. Stadium Negara v
86. Bangunan Pejabat Pos Besar (Mahkamah v
Agong)
87. Dewan Tunku Abdul Rahman, Jalan Ampang v
88. Bangunan Jabatan Penerangan v
89. Bangunan Badan Pencegah Rasuah v
90. Bangunan Mahkamah Tinggi
-'.}
91. Bangunan Pejabat Pengawal Pos Wilayah v
Persekutuan (Pustaka Peringatan Kuala
Lumpur)
92. Bangunan Muzium Sejarah Nasional (Standard v
Charted Bank)
93. Bangunan Mahkamah Perusahaan v
94. Bangunan Sulaiman (Mahkamah Syariah v
Wilavah Persekutan
95. Bangunan Masjid Jamek ...J
96. Bangunan Hotel Majestic lama v
97. NEGERI SEMBI LAN
98. Istana Lama Seri Menanti, Kuala Pilah v
99. Istana Ampang Tinggi (Muzium Negeri), v
Seremban
100. Bangunan Pejabat Daerah dan Jabatan Ukur, v
Seremban
101. Model Rumah Melayu, Seremban v
102. Bangunan Pejabat Setiausaha Kerajaan, v
Seremban
103.. Kota Lukut, Port Dickson v
104. Batu-batu Hidup ( Nisan Tinggi ), Tampin v
105. Makam Moyang Saleh, Jelebu v
Nama Bangunan WK W
Gred Gred Gred G
I
11*
II
MELAKA
106. Bangunan Stadhuys (Muzium Sejarah), MeJaka
" 107. Runtuhan Gereja St. Paul, Bukit St. Paul,
"
Melaka
108. Gereja Christ, Melaka
'"
109. Masjid Tengkera, Melaka
,
110. Masjid Kampung Hulu, Melaka
,
111. Masjid Serkam Pantai, Jasin
"
112. Masjid Duyung, Melaka Tengah
"
113. Bangunan Masjid Tanah, Alor Gajah
"
114. Bangunan Pejabat Tali Air (Muzium Seni Bina) ..J
Melaka
115. Rumah Penghulu Abdul Ghani, Jasin
"
116. Runtuhan Gereja St. John, Bukit Senjuang,
"
Melaka
117. Bangunan Muzium Negeri Lama ..J
118. Bangunan Pejabat Ugama (Muzium Islam)
" Melaka
119. Kota Santiago, Bandarava Melaka
"
120. Kota Linggi, Alor Gajah
" 121. Makara (objek figura Zaman Hindu), Muzium
" Sejarah Melaka
122. Perigi Batu Alai, Bandaraya Melaka
"
123. Perigi Portugis, Jasin
" 124. Perigi Hang Tuah, Kg. Duyung
" 125. Perigi Raja (Perigi Hang Li Poh), Bukit Cina ..J
126. Makam Hang Jebat, Bandaraya Melaka
" 127. Makam Hang Kasturi, Bandaraya Melaka ..J
128. Makam Dol Said, Taboh Naning, Alor Gajah
" 129. Makam Sultan Hussein, Melaka Tengah
" 130. Kubur Inggeris, Alor Gajah
"
131. Makam Dato' Manila, Melaka Tengah
"
132. Makarn Sultan Ali, Merlimau
" 133. Kubur Belanda, Bukit St. Paul, Bandaraya"
" Melaka
JOHOR
134. Istana Besar Johor Baharu
"
135. Masjid Sultan Abu Bakar, Johor Bahru
"
136. Kota Batu, Kota Tin9gi
"
PAHANG
137. MakamChondong, Pekan
"
Gred Gred Gred G
I
11*
II
TERENGGANU
138. Makam Tok Pauh, Kuala Berang
...;
139. Makam Tok Gajah, Kuala Berang
...;
140. Makam Tok Belian Mahmud, Tersat, Hulu
...;
Terengganu
141. Makam Tok Raia Ri, Kuala Berang
...;
142. Makam Sultan Zainal Abidin I, Kuala
-..j
Terengganu
143. Makam Tok Pulau Manis, Kuala Terengganu
-"
144. Makam Tok Panjang, Kuala Terengganu
...;
KELANTAN
145. Istana Jahar, Kota Bharu
-..j
146. Bangunan Muzium Negeri, Kota Bharu
-..j
147. Bangunan Bank Kerapu (Memorial Peperangan
...;
Dunia II), Kota Bharu
148. Bekas Stesen Keretapi Tanah Melayu, Kota
Bharu
149. Tapak Kawasan Tinggalan Perahu Bunga Mas,
"
Kota Bharu
150. Jambatan Gantung Sultan Ismail, Kuala Krai
"
29 August 2006
PAPER 4
TIME: 2.00 P.M.
TOPIC: Maximising Commercial Value In Heritage Buildings
And Valuation Perspectives
SPEAKER: Sr Christopher M. Boyd
(Regroup Sdn Bhd)
Y.Bhg. Dato' Prof. Sr Man; Usilappan
(University Malaya)
CONSERVATION AND VALUE
There are two parts to what I would like to address today:-
Firstly, my view on the impact of the NHA 2005 on property held in private
ownership, the issue of compensation and compulsory acquisition.
Secondly, a discussion of views on valuation methods as they relate to
heritage properties.
Firstly, the National Heritage Act. This of course is a new act and it was a
long time in the making. It was hoped that it would be in place to coincide
with the repeal of the Rent Control Act which took place at the end of 1999.
Sadly this did not happen and there has been a resultant loss of many
properties which might otherwise have been saved for posterity.
As you will have heard this morning, now that the Act is finally in place, the
Commissioner of Heritage with the approval of the State Authority, can
gazette buildings, places or even natural features which have heritage value.
In the context of buildings in private ownership, undoubtedly many of the
buildings likely to be affected by such gazettal will be in downtown
locations. For example much of historic Malacca or Georgetown might be
considered to have heritage importance.
These two cities - to use the term loosely - represent thriving, dynamic
economies where the pressures and immediate rewards related to
redevelopment are immense.
Conservation and Value Page 1 or 3:2
It is unquestionable that the value to the community of such conservation
outweighs the benefit of redevelopment accruing to the owners. This has been
termed the external' and ' internal' impacts and I will get back to this
shortly. In the meantime, to illustrate my point, ask yourself whether you
would prefer to have the Stadium Merdeka preserved for future generations
as a monument to the country's strive for independence, or whether you
would prefer the owners to build another shopping centre on the site.
That essentially summarizes the views of both Dato' Mani and myself and it
is an increasingly recognized credo. Naturally Dato' Mani put it more
eloquently when he said, " It would appear to me that if a site or construction
or structure has generated some social or historical or political importance
and our culture and heritage is enriched because of that significance, then
that site will bring about a feeling that something has happened here
hundreds, thousands or even millions of years ago. I had this feeling and was
awed by what I saw at the Persopolis in Shiraz, Persia. Two thousand five
hundred years of history and I was standing on the very same soil where
Alexander, the Macedonian king fought King Darius of Persia. That the
Persians were more civilized and had more cultural architecture even at that
point in history was beyond debate. Weare enriched by such experiences,
and humbled by them."
The NHA must therefore be viewed as a move to bring long term benefits to
the community, perhaps sometimes at the expense of the interests of
individual owners.
Conservation and Value Page:2 or 3'2
It will therefore probably come as no surpnse that there is NO specific
provision for compensating an affected owner if his property is gazetted as a
heritage property.
Since it is early days yet, and the question of such claims will inevitably be
debated at length and probably subjected to judicial review, let me set out our
understanding of the relevant provisions in the Act.
Firstly, under S. 24, the Commissioner of Heritage can designate any site
which has natural or cultural heritage significance, to be a heritage site.
I should add that by definition, the word' site' here includes buildings and so
on.
Under S.28, the Owner may object.
Under S.30, the Commissioner must also obtain the consent of the relevant
state, where the site is situated in a state.
Section 29 provides for a hearing, in front ofthe Commissioner.
If he decides to proceed, he gazettes, notifies the Land Office, and notifies the
State Planning Authority.
Note that there is NO provision for further appeal, and NO provision for
compensation or any other type of redress.
Conservation and Value Page:; or 32
Indeed, if there was such provision, then the Act would be virtually stillborn.
This is because there are so many sites across the country which deserves
gazettal, and the resources ofthe Govt. are limited.
When I said there was no provIsIOn for compensation, there is one little
anomaly. This lies in S.33 which enables the Commissioner to make an
Interim Protection Order in the case of a site in immediate danger. Here,
subsection33 (7) gives the Commissioner the power - but not the obligation -
to compensate an owner for loss or damage suffered as a result it then goes
on to say, " or alleged to have been suffered"!) of an interim order.
I puzzled over why the Act would want to compensate for an Interim Order
but not the whole hog. I found a clue in Sections 5 and 6 of the Land
Acquisition Act which provides for compensation for damage (not loss)
where a State Director has exercised his power of entry and survey.
Clearly the intention here is to compensate for minor damage as a result of
swift action - for example a broken door or fence.
Secondly, once a property has been gazetted, then development or more
commonly redevelopment opportunities are curtailed. Moving on to S. 40,
The Commissioner advises the Local Planning Authority on all applications
to develop gazetted heritage sites. He can require compliance with
Conservation Guidelines, impose other conditions, and generally ensure the
integrity of the site. There are severe penalties for ignoring these conditions,
but again, NO provision for compensation if they appear to be onerous,
deprive the owner of reasonable beneficial use, or whatever.
Conservation and V-alue Page -i or 3 ~
Thirdly and finally, reference must be made to 8.38 which is headed, "Care
of heritage site."
This is shown in illustration 1.
Naliollal Hcri[(lge
Chapter \
ComermT.Jn and preservatIOn of herilage site
Care of heritage sit;.
31
38. (I) Where a heritage site is situatedonan alienated land, the
Commissioner may after consultation with the State Authority-
((I) make arrangements with the owner Or occupier for the
inspection, maintenance. conservation and preservation
of the heritage site:
( b) purchase or \ease the heritage site:
(e) acquire the heritage site in accordance with the provisions
of any wrillcn law rd3\ing to the acquisition of land for
a public pur;'ose; or
(d) remove the whole or any part of a building or monument
on the herit;lge sileo
(2) Where the or occupier agrees to such arrangements
under paragraph I(a), Commissioner may make' a contribution
towards the costs of carrying out any works of repair orcouservation
which is deemed neCessary.
(3) Where (l contrihution toWards the costs of carrying out the
works is made,such shall be carried out in accordance with
the direction of the CommiSSIOner.
(4) The Commissioner shall make good any dam.age tione toloe
site or to monUI;lcnt by the remo
l
al ofany moollmenrunderparagraph
1(d) and may ;,greeto the pa',ment of anYG\jwpensation' to the
owner of the site.
(5) Any dispute as to the ,lmount of compensation shall; be
referred to the Minister whos,c decision stante finaL
Conservation and Value Page 5 or 32
You will see that 38 (1 )(b) gives the right - but of course no obligation - to
purchase.
This suggests that he could acquire by private treaty.
Alternatively, the Commissioner may invoke 38(1)(c) and ' acqUIre the
heritage site in accordance with the provisions of any written law relating to
the acquisition of land for a public purpose.'
This of course entails invoking the Land Acquisition Act and for reasons of
transparency and convenience is the more likely route.
However, note the final clause 38(5) which states that the Minister's decision
is final in the case of any dispute on the amount of compensation.
This is a puzzler, because in the event of acquisition under the Land
Acquisition Act, an affected owner as you know will be entitled to judicial
review of the compensation. I believe that this subclause (5) was only
intended to relate only to the preceding (4) which deals with compensation
for damage caused by the physical removal of a monument. Only time will
tell.
So, you will see a picture where buildings can be gazetted and their
redevelopment potential severely curtailed, and this provokes the question
whether this is fair, provides natural justice, is constitutional or so on.
Our view is that there is no inherent right to develop a property and therefore
no compensation can arise from gazettal. Similarly, provided gazettal does
not deprive an owner of his continued right to use the property for the
purposes which are allowed, then the matter ends there. There is no question
of any further action other than a constant supervision to ensure that the
owner will continue to maintain and manage the property in the spirit and
requirements of the Act, failing which he will face severe penalties. In
extreme cases the Commissioner might choose to acquire under the Land
Acquisition Act.
In the event of compulsory acquisition of a Heritage gazetted property, we
are of the view that it is correct to take into account the impact on value
arising from such gazettal.
There are two reasons for this.
Firstly, Para.l (2) of the First Schedule of the Land Acquisition Act 1960
(Act 486) inter alia states that:
In assessing market value-
(a) The effect of any express or implied condition of title restricting the use to
which the scheduled may be put; and
(b) The effect of any prohibition, restriction or requirement imposed by or
under the Antiquities Act 1976 ( Act 168) in relation to any ancient
monument or historical site within the meaning of that Act on the scheduled
land shall be taken into account.
We see the Antiquities Act to be the forerunner of the NHA and therefore the
same principles of valuation should apply - gazettal should be taken into
account.
Secondly, our VIew IS that all development rights are created by the
Government. They are not created by the individual and he therefore does not
own them. He may enjoy the benefits, or they may be removed or affected by
laws made for the common good. That is what planning is all about. Nowhere
in the planning legislation is it said that individuals have a right to develop.
Planning permission is a privilege and not a birthright. Therefore, assumed
planning rights are truly not a beneficial right that is attached to land per se.
No absolute right to develop exists until planning and building approvals as
well as demolition approvals, have been given. An array of legislation from
height restrictions - which still exist in KL - to the humble Tree Preservation
Order may have impact on the right to develop. In a dynamic economy it is
important for a planning authority to be able to respond quickly to changing
market conditions. Already this year we have seen a freeze on new serviced
apartment approvals in the City, new high-rise condos in Damansara Heights,
and so on. These would be impossible to implement if each ruling gave rise
to claims for compensation.
When rights to develop are not established, the law on compensation says
that the owner shall not be entitled to such rights. But it is also trite law that
states that when a condition has been imposed the possibilities of that right to
be rescinded amended or altered ought also to be taken into consideration
(Corrie v McDermott.)
Weare persuaded to think that in cases where the land has been gazetted for
development (such cases are very rare but include 1039, 1040 and 1041 in
KL) an affected owner may have a slightly stronger case, provided his title is
a building title. However, in the absence of a development order we still
believe he has no absolute right to develop. Moreover, as stated above,
we believe that compensation for acquisition must take into account the
gazettal, thus making this argument redundant.
Finally in this section, does an affected owner have the right to reverse
acquisition? There is no provision for this in the Act, and we believe the
answer is 'no' on the grounds that he is not deprived of his continued right to
use the land.
In this second part of our paper, I would like to tum to methods of valuation
of heritage properties, and the impact on value of conservation (of which
there may be more in the next paper.)
The Valuation of Historic Property is dealt with in an exposure draft of an
International Guidance Note (jllustration 2)
ConSCi\;Hl0n and Value
Exposure Draft of Proposed International Valuation Guidance Note 15
The Valuation of His'toric Property
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Historic properties are assets that embody a cultural, historic, and architectural
heritage.
1.2 Historic properties ma,' have legal or statutory protection because of their cultural
and economic importm,ce. tvlany governments have enacted measures to
safeguard historic and to protect designated conservation areas and
historic districts.
1.3 Private organisations I'a" role in promoting historic preservation and
education about histon. In some cases, historic properties also bring
economic benefits thro.lgh increased tourism in the communities where they are
located.
1.4 The valuation of histor: requires consideration of a variety of factors
that are associated witl. the oft!lese properties, including the legal and
statutory protections they enjoy; the v?Tiotls restraints upon their use,
alteration and disposal; possible :iinneial grants or rate/tax exemptions to the
owners of such propert;';'" in ,,)I.,.,C jilrisdictions; and the recognition that some or
all of their value llIay ref1::ctcli ill an c,lhancement of the value of adjacent or
nearby properties and .nt be on site.
1.5 The costs to restore and mai'l;.b .. properties may be considerable and
these costs, in turn, the v:,lt:c of the properties.
1.6 The assessment of th_ highest and best use of historic properties will depend on
the specific restrictiolls that np;Jly:o them. In some situations, the use of historic
properties is limited to restoration for owner-occupancy whilst in others,
adaptation to some other use, including commercial use, is permissible.
2.0 SCOPE
2.1 Guidance Note 15 covers real property that has cultural and historic significance,
specifically focusing upon historic buildings and sites. It does not address either
natural heritage assets or heritage assets that are personal property,e.g" works of
art. (Guidance Note 5 offers direction on the valuation of property.)
Exposure Draft GN-
Vatualion of Hisloric Property
March 2006
Conservation and Value
(l Copynglit IVSC
2
Page 10 or 32
2.2 This Guidance Note applies to the valuation of historic properties in both public
and private seetqrs. Historic propcrties owned either by public-sector Or private-
seetor entities are distinguished by similar cuhUral characteristics, and share
common problems in regard to restoration and/or adaptation. But the specific
legal and statutory protections that apply to private and public historic properties
and other restraints upon their use, alteration and disposal may differ.
2.3 Historic property is a broad teml, comprising properties that have been
extensively restored to an original condition, properties that have been partially
restored (e.g., the building faryade) and partially adapted toCUJTent standards (e.g.,
the interior space), and properties that have been modernized. This Guidam:e Note
addresses properties having historic character to some degree or other.
3.0 DEFINITIONS
International Valuation Standards Definitions
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
Conservation Area /Historic District. An area or district of special architectural or
historic interest, the character of which is desirable to preserve and which has
been so designated by the local planning/zoning board. The authority to create
such "reas and districts usuaily derives from statute or legislation that
munil;ipalities or counties to establish conservation areas and historic distri(;ts
under' their general zoning: powers.
Cwn:f't Reproduction Cost. The current cost to construct an exact replica, using
similar,materials, methods, and workmanship.
Exem;'Jtions from Protected Status. Official permission granted by a local
planlllug authority to demolish, alter, or expand a Iistedbuilding. Variously
known as Listed Building Consent, Historic Zoning Variance or Building Code
Exemption.
Histo"ic House Owner Associations. Not-for-profitmembership associations that
prom)te the preservation of historic properties and provide their owner-members
wjth advice on matters such as the management, repair, maintenance, taxation and
insurance of historic properties;
Historic Property, Rea.I property PUbliclyreCOgn!?>ed...0.r. Offi.lCl.a.ll.
y
designated by a
government-chartered body as having cultural imponance be.cause of.
its association with a local/regional historic eventotperiod, with anarchitectutal
style, or with the nation's heritage. Four characteriStics are commonly associated
with historic properties: I) their historic, architecturaland/or'cultural
2) the statutory or legal protection they may enjoy; 3) restraints and limitations
placed upon their use, alteration and disposal; and 4) the frequent obligation in
some jurisdictions that they be accessible to thepuhli. SeeaJso fIeritage Assets,
Publicly DesigndtedHistoric Properties.
Exposure Draft GN -
vatuation of Historic Property
March 2006
Conservation and Vaiue
o Copyright IVSC
3
Page 11 m' 32
3.15 Cultural Property. Property inscribcd in the World Heritage List aftcr having met
at least one of the cultural heritage criteria and the test afauthenticity. (World
Heritage Convention, Article n, UNESCO, 1972)
4.0 RELATIONSHIP TO ACCOUNTING STANDARDS
4. I IntemationaJ Public Sector Accounting Standard 17 (Property, Plant and
Equipmcnt) does not require an entity to recognise heritage assets that wonld
otherwise meet the definition of, and recognition criteria for, property, plant and
equipment. If an entity does recognise heritage assets, it must apply the disclosure
requirements of IPSAS 17 and may, but is not required to, apply the measurement
requirements ofIPSAS 17. (IPSAS 17, para. 7) The IPSAS Discussion Paper on
Heritage Assets (January 2006) requires the valuation of heritage assets where
this is practicable. However, where valuation is impracticable, an entity would be
required to make relevant disclosures, including reasons why valuation is not
practicable.
4.2 This Guidance Note considers historic structurcs as a category' of heritage and
conservation assets.
5.0 GUIDANCE
5.1 The valuation of historic properties involves special conskerations dcaling
with the nature of older construction methods and materids, the current
efficienCY. a.nd performanr of such properties in terms of modern equivalent.
assets, the appropriaten&s of methods used to repairlrestIJre or
refurbish/rehabilitate tile properties, and the character al1liextent oflegal
and statutory protections the properties enjoy.
5.2 The sales comparison, cost and income capitalization approaches may be
employed in the valuation of historic properties. The selection of the
approach or approaches to be used depends on the availatility of data
required to apply that or those approaches.
5.2.1 In applying the sales comparison approach, the his{oric nature of the
property may change the order of priority normally given to attributes of
comparable properties. It is especi:llly important that the Valuer find
comparable properties with historic features similar to those of the subject.
Criteria for the selection of compal'able properties include similarity in
location (i.e., in zoning, permissible use, legal protection, and concentrat.ion
of historic properties), architectural style, property size, and the specific
cultural or historic associations of the subject property. A variety of
adjustments may h a v e t ~ be made to the comparable sales. These involve
differenccs in loeatiOJl;costs of restoration orrehabilitll.tion, or specific
encumbrances. Adjustments are made in the folloWing situations:
Exposure Drali ON ._.
Valuation of IlislOric Property
March 2006
Conservntion and Value
'" Copyright lYSe
6
Page 12 or 32
5.2.1.1 where the subject property is not located in a conservation area or
historic district and if applicable, the search for comparables must be
extended outside the area Of district;
5.2. j.2 when costs must be incurred to restore or rehabilitate the subject
property, but not the comparable sales; and
5.2,1.3 where the specific encumbrances upon the subject, e.g.,Testrictive
covenants or preservation easements, differ from those upon the
comparable propcrties.
5.2.2 Historic properties that are located in commercially zoned areas are
often valued by means of the income capitalisation approach. The
distinctive architecture and ambiance of historic properties account
for their special drawing power under income-producing uses. When
the highest and best use of an historic propertyis considered to be an
adaptive use, the valuationwil! address the following:
5.2.2.1 All work proposed to adapt or rehabilitate the historic property
must meet existing zoning requirements and covenant obligations.
5.2.2.2 Where listed building consents or atoning variance and/or
building code exemptions are requin.R-:i, the projected timeframe to obtain
such authorisation must be taken inw consideration.
5.2.2.3 The income capitalisation will conside{the COSt
effectiveness of an income-producing historic property in terms of the
rentalandlor commercial income the.property is able to generate. In
particular, it will address the additional cqsts inv61vedjn maintaihingthe
property, especially those costs incurred due to fUnctional obsolescence.
5.2.3 The application of the cost has both limitations and
advantages. It may be difficult, if not, impractical to estimate historic
building costs. Thus, in applying the cost approach to propertiesfotwhich
restoration is the highest and best use,the Valllerestimates current
reproduction cost, i.e., the current cost to construct lin exact replica, using
similar materials, methods, and workmanship. Where theljigltestandbest
use of an historic property is an adaptive use, e.g., the bUilding facade and
number of storeys cannot be altered buttheinterior spacecauberemOdeled,
the costs of rehabilitation will represent a mix of cuttentreproduction and
replacement costs. (See Guidance NoteS, The Cost Approach for Financial
Reporting-[DRC].) The application of the costllpproacb to historic
properties may also provide especiallY useful information not obtainable
from application of the other approaches.
Exposure Draft GN-
Valuati.on of Historic Property
March 2006
o Copyright lYSe
7
Page .13 ()1' 32
5.2.3.1 The construction methods and materials used in old buildings may
no longer be available, and reproduction of the craftsmanship that went
into such buildings may not be possible. As a result, historic properties
may not be reproducible. The relationship between the cost andrnarket
value of hi.storic properties may be problematic. Where a market in
historic properties exists, market value may well exceed any estimate of
their building cost. Alternatively, even if the construction ofthe building
can be duplicated at extrelTIe cost, the value of the property in the absence
of market support may be far less than the cos1.
5.2.3.2 Depreciation estimates are complicated by the atypicality of an
historic property, designation of which in many markets represents an
enhanccmer;t of its value rather than a penalty. Fur1hermore, the useful life
of an building generally exceeds its physical Ii fe (e.g., the useful
life of an historic building in a state of ruin) and often may be impossible
to estimate.
5.2.3.3 The land or site, upon which an historic property stan :s, is subject
to upon its use. In tum, such constraints affect land and overall
property valu;;.
5.2.3.4 Because the cost approach examines construction and
materials, the ;lpplication of the cost approach provides spe ;;al insight into
the value quality of more tradition;>1 building material:. and
craftsmanship ::1<; well as the premi:Jm the market places UpOl, these
features. In aprlying the cost approach, the Valuer may have to estimate
the current cost to restore or rehabilitate depreciated buildinl; components.
5.2.3.5 The ap;Jlication of the cost approach to any property.whethef
historic or non-historic, requires separate value estimates for building and
land or site components. The cost approach focuses on land :r site value,
building costs, .1!1d depreciation. These individual Jre often
obscured in the :lpplicalion of the sales cOr.1parison or incoTl,e
capitalisation 2.pproaches.
5.2.3.6 Dependingon specific market and/qr property characteristics, the
cost approach may, in some cases, yield aresult, which not qualify as
market value. Care should be taken in defining the nature of the valuation
so as not to mislead thereaderofthe report.
5.3 Legal measures to safeguard historic properties may limit or the use,
intensity of use, or alteration of an liistoricproperty; Examples include
restrictive covenants that run with thelan<l regardless ofJhe owner;
preservation easements that usually based
on the condition ofthe property at acquired or
immediately after proposed restoration oCtile property; and conservation
Exposure Dran GN-
Valuation oC Historic P'ropert)'
March 2006
Ivse
8
Page .l4l"Yf
easements that limit the future use of a property so as to protect open space,
natural features, or wildlife habitat.
5.3.1 Restrictive covenants and preservation casements, whether existing 01-
proposed, may have a major influence on the highest and best use of an
historic property, and thereby have a significant effect on property value.
Preservation easements can be donated, purchased, or obtained by
compulsory acquisition/eminent domain.
5.4 The valuation conclusion shall be reported in accordance with IVS 3,
Valuation Reporting.
6.0 EFFECnVE DATE
6.1 This International Valuation Guidance Note became effective on xxx.
Exposure Draft GN
Valuation of Historic Property
March 2006
Q Copyright lvse
9
Page 15 or32
The usual methods apply. Ideally direct comparison will be used, but gazettal
has to be applied to many more properties before that can be achieved.
Capitalization of income will probably prevail as the most relevant approach
in Malaysia for the time being. This is certainly the method to be applied to
Bok House where of course the possibility of developing the vacant land at
the rear and leasing out the car park cannot be overlooked.
You will see reference to the replacement cost method which should be
applied with great caution. It is barely relevant in Malaysia. Incidentally
many of the case studies emanating from the UK warn that the best way to
estimate renovation costs is to take your original estimate and double it!
As I mentioned earlier, there are much wider valuation issues in conservation
and many attempts have been made to quantify public benefit - the external
impact.
Illustration 3 is a paper emanating from New South Wales which defines five
sets of values, and explains the theory of internal and external impacts.
2 Public Benefits of Heritage Buildings
and Possible \laluation Methods
What arc the public benefits of a heritage building? In one senSe, all benefits are
private because all benefits accrue ultim;jtely to individuals. However, there is a
cammon dislincli
r
m in eeonomicsOthat between internal and external irnpactsOol'
which we draw here. In the case ofherit"ge buildings, the intcrnalimpacts are tho;;e
experienced by o'wners and users Df ,: building. These internal effects we will .
refer to as private '.:;-;nefits or costs. In most private benefits (and costs) of:l
heritage building .t:,crue to the owner wh; can charge occupiers or visitors for use .:>:'
the propeny. The;e private effects are ar important part of the whole picture of
heritage impacts, rut they are not the mao,) concern of this report.'
The public benefiu ofa heritage building are the external benefits that cannot be
appropriated by Clvmer. These may indude benefits to:
owners of other commercial properties in the precinct,
owners of re-;idential properties in the precinct,
tourist visitor'- to the area (i.e. those \,'ho visit the precinct for the prime
purpose of ((,urism),
other visitor_to the area (i.e, those /ho are in the working, shopping
Or other purposes), "
the general public (people who value a heritage listed building who neither'
own a local f.:.operly nor visit the H(;a).
The external bendits arc especially significant for listing a heritage building.
private benefits of heritage are large enough, the owner will generally retain the
heritage building or at least the essential heritage features.
2
Thus, these external
(public) benefits provide the main justification for a heritage listing. .
Note also that these five sets of benefits have a common feature: they depend on the
values that individualS attach to lhe heritaoe ro itself ther words they are-
based on consum han v 'hey do not include parties who may benefit fromthe
renovation and maintenance of heritage buildings. Many producer groups (incl\l(jit!g
specialised construction firms, as well as some professionals, skilled
unskilled workers) may benefit from the creal ion of extra work in the heritage sectOr.
Moreover, in so far as these groups gain extra income from this work, there maybe
multiplier income and employment benefits. Heritage listing may also affect
government income (positively or negatively).
In a full cost-benefit analysis, the net benefitof any public policy decision is the sum
ht t p:l("'Voi\\'.appl icdccono111 its. com pI Ihs!rc'p(\rts/heri tage. h(111

Page .17 or 32
Taluing the Public Benefits of Heritage Listing of Commercia! Buildings Page 4 of 18
of eonsumer and producer surpluses. Equivalently, this is the sum of private plus
publ ic benetits less costs. It follows that, if a heritage listing does increase the
incomes of workers in this sector, this increase would be part of the net benefit of the
policy decision. However, heritage listing is generally driven by consumer valuation
of heritage rather than by producer surpluses. Moreover, as discussed in section 3, it
is important to distinguish between the justifiable inclusion of producer surplus in a
cost-bcnefit analysis and the innated claims of economic benefits that frequently arise
in economic impact analyses. Accordingly, this report focuses mainly on the benefits
listed in the five dot points above.
Before we line up the valuation mcthods that quantify these benefits, a brief note too
on the principle of economic valuation. In economic evaluation, the value of a benefit
is the maximum amount of money that someone is willingto pay for a benefit and not
be any worse ofT than before.
3
for business, the implication is straightforward: the
increase in income is the measure of benefit. For consumers, valuation is more
complicated because the maximum amount that someone is willing to pay for
something is often a notional concept rather than a directly observable expenditure.
There is an additional complication if someone loses some property, or simply a
property right. In this case, the standard economic principle is that the value lost is
the minimum that the owner ofthe propeI1y or property right would be willing to
accept for the loss and be no worse off than before,4 This willingness to accept value
(for a loss of property) may be much higher than the willingness to pay value (for a
gain of the same property). There is an extensive literature on when to use
willingne>s to pay valucs or willingness to accept values. Notwithstanding general
acceptance of the concept of willingness to accept values, most valuations in
environmental, cultural and heritage studies are willingness to pay valuations for
three reasons. The most influential reason is that willingness to pay values, though
often difficult to estimate, are a great deal easier to estimate than willingness to
accept values. Second, for small expenditures, there tends to be littJedifference
between willingness to pay and to accept values. Third,the allocation of property
rights for public goods is not always clear. People have a right to enjoy old buildings,
but they also have a right to new ones. Accordingly, but not without some
reservations, this report focuses on willingness to pay methods of valuation.
What valuation methods, then, may be used to estimate values for the five benefits
listed in dot form above?
Benefits to owners of other commercial properties in the precinct. These benefits
can be estimated directlyintwo main ways: (a)btcstirnatesofchanges intheincorne
of local property o\vners over time discounted tothepresentof(b}by estimates of
changes in the capital or rental value or the properties.lfchangesinrentalvalues are
estimated, these too should be conyerted 10 present values. The present value of
estimated income or rent streams should provide equivalent capital values.
Alternatively, local property owners may be asked hOW m\jch they would be willing
to pay for conservation of a local heritage building. As discussedinset\on 3, this
question can be asked in several ways. In this report, this approachisdeseribed as the
statedpreference method. This distinguishes this general valuatiq!1approach ftorn
revealed preference methodsthat derive valuations fromObservatiqnsofbehaviourifl
either market or non-rnatketsituations.
hi1 1'" !.\\"\V\V. lpn1i 1:'( 11:l.. ' ( ~ ' ){)!1' !Cs.cpTll,nn'r'l,ths-:.'ri.'pOrl s/herita1!t. htlll
SI? 1I20Q6
Page 18 or 32
Finally I want to briefly deal with the impact of conservation on value.
There is much published literature on this subject, and the general experience
appears to be that listing or gazettal of groups of residential properties such as
historic suburbs of the US or Australia can often serve to increase values and
at least will not depress them.
There are many excellent case studies of the restoration of inner city
conservation areas where whole districts have been revitalized. An excellent
example is Nottingham Lace market in the UK and I have the paper if anyone
wants a soft copy.
Illustration 4 is an excellent paper from Heritage Victoria which contains real
case studies to prove this point. However, note the quoted Scott Keck report
as it relates to buildings with redevelopment potential. There is no doubt that
a listing can give rise to a drop in open market value, and of course the
justification for these cases is the public good.
Con;,:;cf\:ntion and \/a.1uc rage 19 or 32
HERITAGE LISTING & PROPERTY VALUATIONS IN VICTORIA
ABSTRACT
Heritage property values are determined by a mUltiple of factors which are general and
specific General factors include zoning, planning overlays, size of property, types of
surrounding properties, general amenities, tenancy opportunities, alternative property
use, returns, current socio-economic conditions and the quality of the buildings.
Specific factors include prestige associated with ownership, refurbishment costs, building
efficiency, maintenance and operational costs and perception of risk.
In relation to demand for heritage properties, there are those in the market who are
prepared to pay a premium for properties of heritage significance whilst there are some
who will not participate due to heritage listing.
The aVo:lable literature suggests that the impact of heritage listing on property value can
occur in two ways. These are the initial effects associated with the action of listing and
the subs"quent change in values over time.
ResearC'l studies, both domestic and international, indicate that heritage listing on a
macro IClel, is not a significant factor in determining property value either at the time of
listing or following However, there are individual cases where thi; effects are more
significa.:t, either positive or Ilegative.
The initi;:.1 effect is often dependent on the stage of the property r:larket. When the
market is i,n a strong upcycle the incentive for redevelopment increases the land value
relative t.; the incumbent huilding value. In such a climate, the of heritage listing
may have some impact. However, the impact will largely depend upon the capacity to
redevelop rhe specific property without compromising its heritage significance.
It is ofte,1 difficult to estimate the specific effects of heritage listing on the valUe of a
property since heritage controls do not prohibit development, subdivision or demolition
but require that approval be obtained. Where there is some capacity to devek>p the
particulC1r place and achieve additional development on the land without seriously
compromising the heritage significance of the place, the impact on values may not be as
great as where the capacity for further development is more limited.
Consideration for listing should be based on the merits of heritage significal]ce alone.
That is not to say that a mechanism to allow for consi<lerationof economic andffnancial
is not required. It is. The appropriate mechanism is through the permitapproval$
process. This is no different than for any other planning requirement in as much as any
change in a planning control is likely to have an effect on the status of a property,its
potential and its market appeal. This position has been expressed in a planning Panel's
report into a heritage amendment to the Stonnington Planning Scheme. A similar
process of divorcing economic matters from the assessmentof significance also
occurs at the State level under the Heritage Act 1995.
Heritage Listing &Property Valuations In Victoria - Heritage Victoria- March 2001
(:onscl'vntioll an(! Value Page 20 or 32
$4,974,500
$7,111,000
1986 and 1989 for thesel1sCreglstereddweliings WCIS
Tile pl<JIl;chon of buildings, areas dnd olher places of herilage significance has been an
irnporlanl Government objective in Victona since the 1970$. .
As al Feb' uary 2001, lhere are 1,900 properties lhat have been included on the ViClorian
Henlagr... Register and which are subjGcl10 the requirements of the Heritage Act 1995. At
the local governmenl level there are at least 80,000 properties that are covered by a
Heritage Overlay under municipal Planning Schemes.
With over 25 years of statutory protection for heritage places in Victoria, economic
malters and the impact of heritage controlS on property values are sUll raised as issues
when herilage protection is contemplated eilher under the Heritage Act 1995 or through a
Plarming Scheme.
Th:,3 paper addresses the question of the itnpactsof heritage controls on property values
by some of the available research.
The paper also identifies the appropriate time and to consider economic effects.
This is at the approvals process time under both the Planning and'Environment Act or the
Helilage Act, not at the time oflisting.
The following is a summary of some studies undertaken both in Australia and
int': rnationalIy.
J. Alan D'Arcy - Victorian Valuer-General- "The Preservation of Historic Buildings
and Sites and the Cost Implications" - paper c1991
Alan D'Arcy studied the impact of Historic BUildings Council (HBC) registration on
pro
f
,,3rty values. D'Arcy considered the impact of HBClis1ingfor all places included all
the State Register as at 1986. His findings were also broken down into the impacts for
m"tropolilan and non-metropolitan properties and resider'.ial and non-residential
properties. Some of his findings were:
The impact of HBC listing on the 97 dwellings in the metropolitan area included on the
then Historic Buildings Register in 1986, was as follows:
Total value in 1986: $41,689,100
Total value ir\1989: $75,734,960
The increase between 1986 and 1989 for these HBC registered dwellinQs WaS
81%
The increase lor all residential properties over the same period Was 61.6%
For dwellings in non-metropolitan Victoria the resuttswere as follows (48 dwellings on
the Register):
Total value in 1986:
Total value in 1989:
The increase between
42.9%
Tile increase for all residential properties in thenOINtletropolitan area over
same period was 42.3%
Heritage Listing & Property Valuations In Victoria - Yictorla _March 2001 2
The siudy al',o Ir)')"'.':rj al r)ttWI buildln9 types (COrTl!llOrcial, industrial, farms. clwtches.
publiC bUlkilngs, c:ICj vililch \'Jere Included on the then 'Histt>rlc Buildings Here
the results Idenllf'HJ sor!'c: negaltve impacls ot heritage 'listing, The lotal value ot the 202
othc;r HBC lisled buildirigs (non-residential) Increased between 1986 and 1989 by 34%
against a metropolitan average about 69% lor an properties,. For country Victoria the 198
non-rE:sidential properties increased by 379% against an average of 58.6% fat all
properties
D'Arcy concluded that
smgle dwelhngs in the metropolitan area are not generally disadvantaged by
registratiOn The figures show fhaf the increase in value is greater than dwelling
value movements,
It is evident that residential properties which are still having a primary use for
residential purposes do not generally have any diminution in value. In fact the
evidence appears that in many cases it could be argued that there is a benefit.
Countrywide Valucr:.s in association with Trevor BUdge and Associates - "Heritage
and Property ValuCl_tions in the Shire of Maldon A study of the effects of planning
and heritage contmls on property valuations" J992
Amongst other tasks, the brief for (his study involved examining changes in p-operty
valuations in Maldon from January 1970 to December 1990 and to ascertain whethe'r the
introduction of heritage controls had resulted in any impact This stUdy took into ,'ccount
every notice of prop'nty disposition or acquisition in the town of Maldonbetween 1970
(prior to the plqrming controls) and 1990 and involved interviews with all the loca! estate
agents handling proprty sales in the''3<"ea,
The authors' conclus!')I1S were that:
"the strict hen/age controls have had no adverse effect on property values in
Maldon, On the contrary, these controls have protected the town and attracted
both visitors and property buyers to the area, which has economic and social
advantages to ihe town and tho':'; Shire".
Specifically. the authors found that:
"Notable" dwellings (residential properties subjectto heritage controls in the planning
scheme) increased in value over the period 1970 to 1990. by 1,844% compared to
1,432% for other dwellings in the town (ie bUildings not subjMtlo heritage controls).
There is a substantial preference by purchaserstobuyhistorichomeSiri MatdonTh
e
"notable dwellings' were in greater demand; there were more inquiries to locakRea!'.
Estate Agents and they were On the market for a shorter period of tirne thzm otoer
dwellings in the town. .
Overlaying the dates of the introduction. of heritage controls onlhegraphs of dwelling
sales failed to show any discernible movement 10 values irnmedi-ately following. the
introduction of those controls,
Heritage Listing & Property Valuations In Victoria - HeritageVicto'ria- March 2001 a
Page 22 or 32
James the (:ffecls of
2!.'-!he paperSoul/1 Australian Institute
of J\uclaide 1987 . . .
James Quigley lJndertook a survey of owners of heritage properties that were affected by
heritage controls. The survey examined people's perceptions of heritage controls and
their impacts on deCISion making. The conclusions were that
60% of survey respondents that had purchased properties that were afJectedby
hentage controls indicated that the heritagelisling had not influenced theamountlhat
they were prepared to pay
80% of survey respondents who hod purchased their property before the heritage
controls had corne IOto operation thought that the heritage controls had affected the
value of the property These respondents were evenly divided between those that
perceived that the heritage controls had a negative effect and those that thoughrthe
effect had been positive
"Economic Effects of -Urban ConSUlting Group 1995
This study examined the broader economic effects of heritage listing, In relatior, to
property values and heritage cc)trols, the stUdy examined previous empirical Worl<
undertaken both locally and OVerseas A finding from this study was that the effect.of .
heritage listing on property values is related to the specifics of each particular prope'ity.
To quote the study:
The limited quanti!alive resJarcfJ which has been. undertaken (mainly in the (jS
and' UK) relates to the impAct of heritage' dl:?signation on property valUes within
particular sub-markets, for example, specific residential precincts, orceHain type$
of commercial property Thes.:; studies are generally inconclusive but suggest that
heritage designation per se has little impact on the value of residential property.
The most recent research concludes that other factors such as Iqcation, general
amenity ... are possiblygrealerinfluences on value than heritage designation. :
A survey of real estate agents active in historical residential areas in AUstralian
cities, undertaken as part of this stUdy, supported tM view thal. heritage listrnfl
generally has little impact on residential property values. Moreover, the heritage
qualities of historic residential properly are generally emphasised as.a positive
attribute in marketing campaigns by developers and agents. . Analysis of case
studies demonstrated that the heritage chamcteris!icsof.buildings such as
ambience and attractive appearance are also a posttrvefeatl1te in the marketillg. of
commercial properties ...
Kevin Krastins. Thesis Deakin University "The implications ofheritagelistil1g on
property valuations: A case study of residential development in Geelong"1997
Kevin Krastins examined the Sole records and council valuatidnsfor100 resjqential
properties in Geelong over a twelVe year period from the mtdt980s when heritage
controls had first been introduced. Of these 100 residential properties,50 were subject
to heritage controls In the planning scheme while the other.50were roughly eqUivalent
properties that were not affected by a heritage controL Krastihs conclUded:
Heritage Listing &Property Valuations II) Victoria Heritage Victoria - March 2001 4
O/he! faclorS 1/1'0/ fI1flu:,/1ce proputy v;:;lues such as street width, location, off,
s/reel parking !lave the mosl siglJlflcanl impact on properly valuolion.
His results noted tlla! there was an increase in the value of the buildings with heritage
conlrols of 19.5% compared \0 6 9% tor those properties that were not subject to heritage
controls
Scott Keck. Herron Todd White - "Heritaqe Controls and Property Values - A
Review at Local Government Level" - April 1999
A 1999 study and report Identifying the effects of heritage controls and property values
was completed by Scott Keck of Herron Todd White (Property Valuers). The report
examined the potential impacts of proposed heritage controls on selected properties in
the Crty of Stonnington and City of Monash where the owners were objecting to heritage
listing in the local planning schemes.
Findings of this report included:
Of the 48 properties proposed for inclusion in the Stonnington Heritage O'Jerlay which
were the SUbject of the stUdy, the adverse effect on property value, as a group, was
estimated at 15% on average, with a total value for the group redUcing from $66Mto
S5G.15M.
In general terms, the greatest incidence of adverse valuation impact would be for
those with hl:Jhest and best use and therefore value related to land alone: Twenty-six
Qut of forty-eight properties fell into this category. The estimated decrease in value,
based upon th" assumption that the existing bUildings could not be removed, Was
calculated at approximately 20% on average, with an individual decrease ranging
from 10% to GQ% in one extreme.
Keck concluded that twenty-two of the forty-eight properties did not have an
alternative highest and best use. In these cases the added value of land arid
improvements was in balance and there was no obvious potential for major
improvement He concluded that these properties would suffer little, if any impact on
value, but !:lli!Y suffer reduced capital appreciation over time compared to s.imilar
properties not SUbject to heritage controls. The impact of heritage listing could reduce
their value by up to 10% when contrasted to their pre heritage value.
Dennis E Gale.- "The Impacts of Historic DistrictDeslgl1ation:plannlng and polict
implications", American Planning Association Journal 1991
Gale examined previous research into the effect of designating residential
neighbourlloods as historic districts in the United States. The observation was made that
in many historic districts, property values were higher or ro.se more rapidly than in other
sections of the community or in the community overall. However,Gale'found that studies
in Boston, New York and Washington DC concur in their findings that nQ association can
be identified between the act of historic district designatiOn and rising property values per
se. These studies employed pre and post designation comparisons. andlor comparisons
between historic and non historic districts.
Heritage listing & Property Vall.alions {n Victoria - Heritage 2-001 5
Conservation and \Talue .Page or 31
Gale found that, leaving aside the timing 01 designation issue "H'lere is little support here
lor the l)ellel that designation per so, significantly affectstl1eeconomic value of real
estate"
SO WHAT CONCLUSIONS CAN BE DRAWN FROM THIS MATERIAL?
The conclusions that appear to be supported by much of the research,are:
There are a myriad of factors which affect property values of which heritage
controls are but one influence, It is often very hard to separate the influence of
heritage controls from other factors, Those factors include:
macro-economic factors - such as interest rates; the availability of credit;
taxation policies (e9 the GST); and the broader economic factors that influence
the property market and whether that market is rising rapidly or comparatively
flat.
micro economic and location factors - such as the location of the property; its
access to facilities such as transport and sChools; topographical and .other
physical characteristics of the locality etc; land-use zoning; subdivision,
building and other planning requirements; council policies, codes and
guidelines
socio"economic and' lifestyle factors - such as the push for urban
consolidation; the trend towards smaller families;. current housing preferences
such as the demand for inner city apartments, warehouse accommodation,
properties with smaller gardens etc, .
2, Heritage buildings are often 'quality' bUildings with a special appeaL Because
historic buildings are rare and there is a demand in the community for them, it can
be expected that a proportion of the community will be prepared to pay a premium
to purChase such property,
3, Generally speaking heritage controls do not significantly affecfproperty values for
residential buildings particularly buildings in precincts.: In most instances,
residential heritage properties will continue to appreciate in value after the
introduction of heritage controls, although the rate of appreciation will vary
dependent on both property specific and macro variables.
4, If there is a diminution in value this may be:
A temporary diminution related to uncertainty atthe time ofthe introduction of
the heritage controls but not sustained over the longer term,
A diminution which might occur across the market and be related to various
economic or other factors but have little to do with heritage. (ie the general
state of the property market or the economy gener"lIy, interestratElS etc),
A diminution because the current value of toe property r e l ~ t e s t o its Iandvalue
alone (ie the buildings and improvements.donot.addtotoe.valueof.the
property), In this case, the level of impact will probably depend upon toe
capacity to achieve some additional development of the specific property
without compromising its heritage significance.
Heritage Listing & Property Valuations in Victoria - Heritage Victoria- March2001
Conservmion and Value
6
Page 25 or 32

Benson, V 0 and Kline, R "The Impact of Historic Districtring on Property Values" in The
Appraisal Journal [USA) April 1988 pp 223-232
Countrywide Valuers and Trevor Budge and Associates Heritage and property valvations
in the Shire of Maldon' A study of the effects of planning ahd heritage controls on
property valuation; Melbourne, 1992
Darcy, J A "The Preservation of Historic Buildings and Sites and the Cost Implications"
Unpublished paper, Victoria 1991
Gale, D E "The Impacts of Historic District Designation - Planning and Policy
Implications" American Planning Association Journal, Summer 1991, pp 325-340
Herron Todd White "Heritage Controls and Property Values - A Review at Local
Government Level" Study and report prep?red by 1. Scott Melbourne April 1999
Krastins, K "The implications of heritage Es!ing on property valuations: A case study of
residential development in Geelong" Deakin University, Geelong 1997
Nelson, A C and Talley J "ReVitalizing Commercii''' Areas through Commercial
Historic District Cesignation" in Journal of Urban Affairs V0\13 No 2 pp221-232
Raison, B V Anc.: Webb, G R "Heritage Lis,jngs: Help or I iiildrance?" in The. Valuer and
Land Economist iAust) February 1992 pp 38-41
Reed. R "The Significance of Character in Long Term Demand for Australian H')using" in
Australian Property Journal February 1999 pr; 398-401
Scribner, D Districts as an Economic Asset to Cities" in The Real Estate
Appraiser [USA), May-June 1976 pp 7-12
Urban Consulting Group Economic Effects of Heritage Lis/ing; North Melbour(lo,1994
Conservation and Value Page 26 01'32
Illustrations 5 and 6 originate from Ontario and Vietnam respectively. I have
included the latter mainly because of Amareswar Galla's wonderful
command of the English language. I think I learnt a new word from each line!
Heritage Designation and Property Values:
Is there an Effect?
Robert Shipley
University of WaterloO
Ontario Canada
Appeared in:
The International Journal ofHeritage Studies
6 Number 1,2000
(approximately 6,000 words)
Abstract
paper research that was to examine the assertion $athistoricdesignati91i
-' I:':.:J'
of properties, under the heritage legislation in Canada's largesl:province, has a negative
the values of those The actual selling price of subjectptoperties Was USed to establish
their value history trends, which were then compared to withintlle sam'"
corrununities. Almost 1,000 properties in 24 corrununitics wete investtga,td., in.what is believed
to be the largest study ofits kind ever undertaken in North Ametici ItWaS fouu<!tbatherilage
designation couid not be shown to have a negative impact In facttheieiappeai'St6 bea ditti,'ct
and generally robust market in designated heritage properties. They geperally perf'omlwell in the
market with 74% doing average or better than avcrage. The rate ofsale among designated
properties is as good or better than the ambient market trends and the values6fheritageproperties
tend to be resistant to down-turns in the general market.
Comcrvation and Value Page 27 or 32
CULTURE AND HERITAGE
IN DEVELOPMENT
rIA LONG ECOMUSEUlv\, A CASE STUDY FROM VI ETNAM
AMARESWAR GALLA
The challenge far Vietnam at the tum of the miUennium is the 'renovation of national
institutions to be compaIible with world institutions and participate energerically in ,!,e
formulation of global irotitutions'.' (Vo Dai Luoc)
INTRODUCTION
A
sia is currently wimessing the gradual
transformation of heritage institutions
such as museums, historic places and World
Heriwge Areas imo postcolonial sites of cul-
tural preservation and representation. They
are increasingly becoHling visitor-centred,
exploring their relevance to neighbouring
community srakeholders and confronting
issues of sense of place and identity in an
increasingly globalizing environment.' The
challenge is to develop a post-colonial her-
itage discourse that is Asian in philosophy
and locally grounded in context. This is
largely dependent on the way we address her-
itage and community building and provide a
focus for facilitating productive relationships
for collaboration, cultural exchange and
enrichment of the 'culture in development'
paradigm.'
The overriding question facing heritage
institutions coday in several parts of Asia is
that of their relevance and survival. Several
of them mirror the reductive, sectarian and
typological categories, used by colonial coun-
tries, to map, appropriate and control the bio-
cultural landscape of colonised communities.
There is a continuation of thi.s paradigmeven
after decolonisation due to priorityfocus on
social and economieagendas in nation build.
ing and community development. The her-
itage sector has often been left to fend for
Con<"'<1tlon and Value
63
itself with minimal budgets in a policy vacu-
um. There have been only rare efforts to
reflect or criticise the hegemonic: textualisa-
tion of the variety, complexity and plurality
of the local culrural and heritage contexts
through institutions such as museums.'
In order to retain their relevance, her-
itage institUtions have to play <\ role in com-
bating the growing monoculture of life and
mind with globalisation, by 'documenting,
preserving and presenting poly-cultural
technologies of resource management, and
life enhancing elements of knowledge and
skill, transmitted by communities trans-
generationally. They have to treat the com
munity habitats as living museums, and col-
laborate with community groups, in reversing
the process of univocal translation of their
multicultural societies especially with the
convergence of telecommul1icarions. They
can play a role in development, not just by
commodi('tcationofheritage resources for di$
playand>representation, but by its
tionand'replenishment. They have to defend
communities against ecological terrorism,
their habitats from bio-cultural piracy and
museumi$ation andface up to the challenges
of while taking advantage of
new opportunities for strategiC pa.rtnerships
in exploring the economiC dimension of
heritagecon,servation in sustainable develop-
ment.
s
Page 28 or 32
Finally, no paper of this type would be complete without at least one excerpt
from the guru of all conservation economics, Don Rykema. In Illustration 7
he expounds the theory of conservation as 'Smart Growth.' We believe that
nowhere else in the world is this concept more important than it is here in
Malaysia. Weare a young country and yet we so often want to tum our back
on what has been achieved in such a short time. The country has grown rich
on its resources and yet they are consumed as if they were inexhaustible.
Development is regarded as a right and what has been carried through from
one generation to the next is discarded as old hat.
Conservation and Value Page 19 \)1' 32
Why Historic Preservation is Smart (jrowlh from PteselTiltion Page 1 of2
HISTORIC
PRESERVATION
Why Historic Preservation is Smart Growth
By Donovan Rykema
1, PubHc 1nfrastructure. Almost without exception, historic buildings are where
public infrastructure already exists. No new water line, sewer lines, streets,
curbs or gutters are required.
2. rv1unicipalities need financial resources if they are going to grow smart.
Vacant, unused and underused historiCblJildings brought back to life are
also brought back as tax-generating assets for a community.
3 actIvities - residential, retail, office and manufacturing - in historic
inherently reinforces the viability of pubHe transportation.
4. If we are to expect citizens to use their cars less, and use their feet more,
lhan the physical environment wilhin which they live, work, shop and play
needs to have a pedestrian rather than a vehicular orientation,
S. !\nother element in the drive to encourage human movement by means
other than the automobile is the interconnection of- uses. Based on the
foolishness of post-World War II planning and development patterns, uses
""vo been shorply separated. Historic neighborhoOds were bum from the
beginning with a mix of uses' in close proximity. Cities with foresight to
readjust their zoning to encourage integranon of uses are seeing that
interconnectivity reemerging in historic' areas.
6. As a strong proponent of economic development, I am certainly glad the
phrase is "Smart Growth,' 3S opposed to no growth. Smart Growth suggests
that growth has positive benefits, and I would agree that is true. At the
same time we cannot say we are having smart growth regardless of how
,';('11 Il IS pl1ysically planned - if at the same time we are abando'ning existing
assets. The encouraged reinvestment in historic areas in and of itself
revitalizes and revalues nearby existing investment of both the public
and private sector,
7. We sec periodic headlines about some real or imagined "Back to the City"
movement. Certainly, people moving back to the core of a town or city of
any size has a positive imp?ct on a whole ra.oge of environmental goals.
Well, across America and in many places in my home state of New York,
peopie are indeed moving "back to the city." But almost nowhere is it "back
to the city" in general. In nearly every instance it is back to the historic
neighborhoods and buildings within the city. We do need to pay attention to
market patterns, and if it Is back to historic neighborhoods to which people
are moving, we need to keep those neighborhoods viable for that to happen.
8. Smart Growth ought to imply not just physical growth but economic growth.
And economic growth means new jobs. But who Is creating the net of new
jobs in America? Not General Motors, or IBM, Or Kodak. Eighty-five percent
of all new jobs in America are created by small businesses. And for most
small businesses there are few costs that are controllable, but there Is one -
occupancy. Barring massive public subsidies, you cannot build new and rent
cheap. Older and historic buildings often provide the affordable rent that
allows small business needs to get started.
9. Business districts are sustalnably succesSful' when there Is a diversity of
businesses. And that diverse mix requires a diverse range of rental rates.
Only in downtowns and older commercial neighborhoods Is there such a
diversity. Try finding any rental rate diversity in the regional shopping
center or the so-calledotfice park; There Isn't any. Older business districts
with their diverse rents are Smart Growth.
10. Smart growlh ought tobe about jobs. Let me distinguish new construction
from rehabilitation in terms of creating jobs. As a gen'eral rule, new
construction is SO percent labor and SO percent rnaterials. Rehabilitation, 011
the other hand, is 60 to 70 percent labor. While we put In an HVACsystem
from Ohio, sheet-rock from Texas and. timber (rom Oregon, we bUY the
services of the carpenter and plumber,. painter and electrician from across
the street. They subsequently spend that paycheck for a haircut,
membership in the local Y and a new car, resulting ina significantly greater
local economic impact dollar than new construction. The rehabilitation of
older structures IS Smart Growth.
httl" !!\\ww.wisconsi nhistory,o\"2/hp!sl11arrgrowth/rykema.asp
Conservation ;.}n({ Value
8/2212006
Page 30 or 32
Why Historic Preservation is Smart Growth from Historic Preservation atJhc,Wisetms... Pllge 201'2
11. Solid waste landfill is increasfngly expensive in both dollars and
environmental Twenty-rour percent of most I<:mdfilf sites is made: up
of construction debris. And much of th0t waste comes from the razing of
eXi$ting structures. Preserving insle()d of demOlis.hing out inventory of
historic bUildings reduces that construction waste.
12. lts-critics have pointed out that the so-called New Urbanism is neither new
nor urban. But 1 don't think anyone here would dispute thatin most
instances. at least, New Urbanist development isfuUy compahble with the
goals of Smart Growth. I would argue that New Urbanism reflects good
urban design principles. But those principles have already bel?o at work for a
century or more in our historic neighborhoods.
13. Smart Growth advocates a density of use. Historic residential and
commercial neighborhoods are built to be dense.
Historic buildings themselves are not liabilities as often seen by public and
private-sector demolition advocates, but are assets not yet returned to
productive use.
15. The rehabilitation of older and historic neighborhoods is putting Jobs where
the workers already are.
16. Around the country historic preservation is the one form of economic
development that is simultaneously community development.
17. Reinvigorating historic neighborhoods reinforces existing schools and allows
them to recapture their important educational, social,. and- cultural role on a
neighborhood'ievel.
18. No new land i,; consumed when rehabilitating a historic building.
19. The diversity of housing sites, qualities, styles and characteristics of historic
neighborhoods stands in sharp contrast to the monolithic character of
current subdiviSions. The diversity of housing opinions means a diversity of
human beings who can live in historic neighborhoods.
20. Historic constitutes a demand-side approach to Smart Growth.
I'm not at all 0pposed to acquiring greenbelts around cities or development
rights on agnrultural properties. Those are certainly important and valuable
tools In a comprehensive Smart Growth strategy. But they only reduce the
supply of lami to be developed - they do not address the demand for the
use of that land. The conversion of a historic warehouse into 40 residential
. units reduces the demand for ten acres of farmland. The economic
revitalization of Main Street reduces the demand for another strip center.
The restoration of empty 1920s skyscrapers reduces the demand for
another glassand-chrome building at the office park. Again, I don't mean to
be remotely critical of supply-side strategies, but without demand-side
responses their successes will be limited at best.
Donovan Rykema is a nationally known consuitant on historic preservation
economics. This article is reprinted from Wisconsin Preservation News, the
newsletter of the fHstoric Preservation Division of the Wisconsin Historical Society.
WisconSin Historical Society 816 State Street, Madison, WI 53706
hI f n' i 1\\,\\,\v. \\'1 scollsi nhi .0f!2/hp/smartgro.Vv1h/iykema.asp
8122/2006
Page 31 or 32
There has to be a better appreciation of Malaysia's journey through time and
conservation leaves us with milestones that are not just valuable, but
irreplaceable.
Thank you.
Dato' Professor Sr. Mani Usilappan and Chris Boyd.
August 2006.
C-'on:::,ci-vntion andVaiuc Page 32 or 32
NATIONAL.HERITAGE ACT 2005
29 August 2006
PAPERS
TIME: 3.00 P.M
TOPIC: The Conservation of National Heritage Buildings
-The Australian Experience
SPEAKER: MR JOHN SHEEHAN
(RleS AUSTRALIA)
Invited paper presented to the Property Consultancy and Valuation Surveying Division l5t CPD Talk-
"The National Heritage Act" The Institution of Surveyors Malaysia, Cititel Midvalley, Kuala Lumpur,
29 August 2006.
THE CONSERVATIONOF NATIONAL HERITAGE BUILDINGS:
THE AUSTRALIANEXPERIENCE
JOHN SHEEHAN
l
John Sheehan, Honorary Associate, Property and Culture Research Cluster, Faculty of
Design Architecture and Building, University of Technology, Sydney, and Candidate PhD,
University ofSydney, and Chair Government Liaison and Past President (2001-2003), NSW
Division, Australian Property Institute,
INTRODUCTION
On 16 October 2002 a paper entitled Environmental Issues and their impact on
Australian real estate
2
was presented by the writer to the 21 st Pan Pacific Congress of
Real Estate Appraisers, Valuers and Counsellors in Kuala Lumpur. At that time, the
introductory comment was made that:
[t}he disconcerting challenge to real estate professionals when attempting to
understand how environmental issues have impacted upon real estate values in
Australia, is that traditional approaches to the valuation of real estate are
inappropriate, and probably incapable of transformation. The shibboleths of real
estate professionals reveal upon inspection how ill structured they are to deal with
the impact of environmental issues upon real estate values. Environmental issues
have stealthily crept up upon real estate over the fast thirty years, and such issues
are increasingly impacting upon real estate values.
Such challenges to the property professions still exist nearly four years later, however
whilst environmental issues are often seen as pertaining to natural resources, it is also
understood that such issues also encompass the built environment, in particular
noteworthy buildings. The protection of historic or important heritage items and sites
I Dip TCP (Sydney), Dip Urban Studies (Macq), M Environmental Law (Sydney), LFAPI,
FRICS, MRTPI, MPIA.
2 Sheehan, J. (2002) Environmental Issues and their impact on Australian real estate
Australian Property Journal3? (4) November, 291-295.
3 Sheehan, 291.
The Conservation of National Heritage Buildings - The Australian Experience John Sheehan
has according to the noted English town planner William Solesbury4, arisen as part of
the development of the environmental agenda, wherein specific buildings for example
become political issues demanding responses (or the lack of) from government. The
recent gazettal by the Malaysian government of the National Heritage Act, 2005
supports Solesbury's thesis, and he observes that not only local environmental issues
command political attention, but also those of a more holistic or national nature,
noting:
.. .not only specific issues have observably emerged in the past few years, but the
environment as a general issue has risen to a dominant position among political
concerns.
5
Solesbury further notes that environmental issues that first emerged in England in the
mid 19
th
century such as public health and Ebenezer Howard's Garden Citl
movement were the genesis of concerns in the 1960s about historic areas,
subsequently resulting in the Civic Amenities Act 1967 (UK), however:
... what is new about the issues which have emerged in the last few years is that they
are all related to, and take added strength from, more global concepts of
environmental quality, improvement and conservation. 7
In the next section of this paper, the early development of national heritage protection
in Australia will be discussed in the light of the above.
EARLY AUSTRALIAN HERITAGE PROTECTION
In a similar vein to the UK experience outlined, early Australian environmentalists in
the 1980s such as Gwen Piper
8
identified the preservation of natural resources as part
of the environmental agenda, whilst contemporary issues of preserving noteworthy
buildings can be traced back even earlier to the establishment in 1945 of the National
Trust of Australia (NSW). This community organisation first published in 1967
categorised listings of heritage buildings in the National Trust Register which at that
time listed a mere 330 buildings in NSW.
9
Brown and Sherrard point out in their classic 1951 treatise An Introduction to Town
and Country Pianning
10
that the National Trust of Australia is similar to other
community bodies globally with identical objects, and that:
4 William Solesbury (1976) "The Environmental Agenda: An illustration of how situations may
become political issues and issues may demand responses from government: or how they may not",
Public Administration 5(Winter), 379-397.
5 Solesbury, 379.
6 CfEbenezer Howard (1898) Garden Cities ofTo-Morrow (1965 edition) (London: Faber and Faber)
7 Solesbury 380.
8 Gwen Piper (1980) My One Fourteen Millionth Share, (Sydney: Temnor Publications).
9 John Morris, (then) Director National Trust Australia (NSW) cited in The National Trust of
Australia (NSW) (1982) National Trust Register (Sydney: The National Trust of Australia (NSW)), iii.
10 Brown, A.J. & Sherrard, H.M. (1951) An Introduction to Town and Country Planning 2
nd
ed. 1969
(Sydney: Angus and Robertson).
Page 2 of 18
... [t[hroughout the world societies exist whose object is the preservation of historic
buildings and monuments. In Britain, the National Trust has for many years done
excellent work in this field with the result that many fine buildings under its
protection are thrown open for public inspection and an interest in these things has
thus been awakened among members ofthe publicI1.
However, such community organisations have now been largely overshadowed in
Australia by the current statutory framework of national heritage protection, which
includes penalties for regulatory breaches. This enforcement aspect was not available
to organisations such as the National Trust of Australia, and as a result the listing of a
noteworthy building on the National Trust Register still has no legal effect.
Arguably, the enforcement of conservation of heritage buildings through this national
framework of heritage legislation was a result of changes in the Australian
environmental agenda in the late 1970s, and as Solesbury points out:
[c]hanging situations in any of these dimensions can give rise to consequences to
which the community does not feel neutral. Such aspects come to be defined as issues.
An issue is therefore a situation that by common consent is bad and could be
better... The language ofenvironmental issues revolves around a number ofkey words
.. , all ofwhich are strongly value-laden. 12
In 1978, environmental ethicist Robert Elliot identified the growing impact of these
changing environmental views, pointing out that:
[a]gain there is the problem of how a particular policy is to be assessed; a problem
about how the relevant calculation is to be made. 13
Conceptual problems can be identified in these early writings on environmental
issues, primarily that they eschewed established property valuation techniques, and
largely made the error that mere assertions of the value of a natural resource or a
noteworthy building could be made without an actual valuation.
14
Nevertheless, some early writers such as Elliot identified that some specific issues
were clearly perceived by the community to have an intrinsic value, and he observes
that holistically:
... the environment constitutes a resource for the satisfaction of important interests
h
'h . 'lI5
w lC are notJust commerCla .
The contemporary conservation of historic or otherwise important buildings in
Australia by executive fiat confirms Elliot's assertions, revealing that some buildings
such as the Sydney Harbour Bridge and Opera House are regarded as having iconic
values which are clearly not just commercial. Such important buildings or structures
11 Brown and Sherrard, 186-187.
12 Solesbury 381.
13 Robert Elliot (1978) "Ethics and Conservation" Habitat Australia 6(2) May, 11.
14 Elliot 12.
15 Elliot 13.
Page 3 of 18
do not however comprise the majority of protected buildings in the national heritage
protection framework.
The focus of the following sections of this paper, will deal firstly with the details of
the national heritage framework, and secondly the sometimes vexed issue of
maximising commercial value vis a vis the conservation of heritage buildings.
AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL HERITAGE PROTECTION FRAMEWORK
Arguably, the contemporary national heritage protection framework commenced with
the adoption in Burra, South Australia in 1978 of the Charter for the Conservation of
Places ofCultural Significance by the Australian Chapter of the International Council
on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS). This document now known simply as the Burra
Charter was revised in 1981, 1988, and 1999
16
and provides guidance for the
conservation and management of places of cultural significance. The Burra Charter
was influenced by the earlier ICOMOS Athens Charter of 1933 and the subsequent
Venice Charter of 1964 both of which establish principles for:
... the preservation and restoration ofancient monuments and buildings. I?
The Venice Charter apart from expanding the concept of a "historic monument" from
a building to possibly a setting,18 also recognises that such items may not only
embody works of art but also historical evidence. 19 The Venice Charter also states in
Article 5 that the conservation and restoration of noteworthy buildings or settings
should occur in a context that recognises:
.. .[t]he role of utilising monuments for a socially useful purpose in the conservation
if
20
o monuments ....
The Venice Charter and the Burra Charter provide the conservation principles and
processes behind the national heritage protection framework in Australia. As a
signatory to the Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and
Natural Heritage (known as the World Heritage Convention/I, the Australian
government has obligations under international law for national heritage protection.
Such national obligations can be dissected into four distinct but interrelated
responsibilities for heritage protection, and in descending order are World Heritage,
National Heritage, Commonwealth Heritage and the National Estate Register as
shown in the following table:
16 For a discussion on the Burra Charter see Gillian Walker, (2006) "Heritage Protection" in Farrier,
D. & Stein, P., (eds.) The Environmental Law Handbook: Planning and Land Use in NSW 4
th
ed.,
(Sydney: Redfern Legal Centre Publishing) 558, 592.
17 Walker, 591.
18 Article 1, Venice Charter of 1964 cited in Walker, 59l.
19 Article 3, Venice Charter of 1964 cited in Walker, 592.
20 Walker, 592.
21 Walker, 588.
Page 4 of 18
I
IWorld Heritage
National Commonwealth Register of the
Heritage Heritage National Estate
IAdministration
Minister for the Minister for the Minister for the
Australian
Environment and Environment and Environment and
oflegislation
Heritage Heritage Heritage
Heritage Council
Any person
Any person including
Australian
including the
the Minister and the
Nomination
Government
Minister and the
Australian Heritage
Any person
Australian
Heritage Council
Council
EJ
Outstanding
Outstanding
Commonwealth National Estate
universal value
heritage value to
heritage value value
our nation
Natural and
Natural,
Natural, Indigenous,
Natural,
Types ofvalue
cultural
Indigenous,
historic
Indigenous,
historic historic
ICriteria
IWorld Heritage
!EPBCAct IIEPBCAct !!AHCAct
i
Committee
Fssessment
IWorld Heritage
Australian Australian Heritage Australian
Heritage Council Council Heritage Council Bureau
Decision on World Heritage
Minister for the Minister for the
Australian
Environment and Environment and
listing Committee
Heritage Heritage
Heritage Council
Any tenure may Any tenure may Only Commonwealth Any tenure may
Tenure
be listed but be listed but areas may be listed be listed but
status of tenure status of tenure but status of tenure status of tenure
unaffected unaffected unaffected unaffected
A person must A person must
not take an action not take an action A person must not
that has, will that has, will take an action that The Australian
have, or is likely have, or is likely has, will have, or is Government
to have, a to have, a likely to have, a Minister for the
significant impact significant impact significant impact on Environment and
on the world on the national the environment Heritage must
heritage values of heritage values of (including heritage have regard to
Obligations a declared World a national values) in a information in
Heritage heritage place, Commonwealth the Register in
property, without without approval heritage place, making any
approval from the from the without approval decision under
Australian Australian from the Australian the to which the
Government Government Government Minister information is
Minister for the Minister for the for the Environment relevant.
Environment and Environment and and Heritage.
Heritage. Heritage.
Scource: Department of the Environment and Heritage (2004) Heritage at a Glance - Differences
between World Heritage, National Heritage, Commonwealth Heritage, and the Register of the
National Estate, Information Sheet 21, roneo (Canberra: Department of Environment and Heritage).
Page 5 of 18
There are currently 16 World Heritage properties in Australia on the World Heritage
List, however only one is a building, the Royal Exhibition Building and adjoining
Carlton Gardens in Melbourne which were included on the List in 2004. UNESCO
provides the following description under the listing:
The Royal Exhibition Building and its surrounding Carlton Gardens were designed
for the great international exhibitions of 1880 and 1888 in Melbourne. The building
and grounds were designed by Joseph Reed. The building is constructed ofbrick and
timber, steel and slate. It combines elements from the Byzantine, Romanesque,
Lombardic and Italian Renaissance styles. The property is typical ofthe international
exhibition movement which saw over 50 exhibitions staged between 1851 and 1915 in
venues including Paris, New York, Vienna, Calcutta, Kingston (Jamaica) and
Santiago (Chile). All shared a common theme and aims: to chart material and moral
progress through displays ofindustryfrom all nations. 22
UNESCO also provides the following justification for the listing of the Royal
Exhibition Building and Carlton Gardens:
The Royal Exhibition Building and the surrounding Carlton Gardens, as the main
extant survivors of a Palace of Industry and its setting, together reflect the global
influence of the international exhibition movement of the 19th and early 20th
centuries. The movement showcased technological innovation and change, which
helped promote a rapid increase in industrialisation and international trade through
the exchange ofknowledge and ideas. 23
There have been suggestions that the Sydney Opera House should also be placed on
the World Heritage List, however at the date of writing there remains only one
Australian building on the World Heritage List.
Apart from the national heritage protection framework listed above which has been
settled by the High Court in Commonwealth v Tasmania
24
as a remit of the Australian
Government under the Australian Constitution, the respective States of the Australian
Commonwealth also have heritage protection legislation. At this level, heritage
protection is arguably at its most controversial, and State governments have to deal
with seemingly prosaic conservation and restoration issues which often impact upon
private property rights, given that many noteworthy buildings are held in private
ownership.
Apart from the vexed issue of public good versus private property rights, the decision
to include a building on a heritage list at State or even local government level can
present controversy, Walker observing that:
... it can be difJicult to identifY the many aspects ofa nation's heritage that are worth
protecting. Heritage must not simply include the aesthetically pleasing, but must be
representative of all stages of culture and all aspects of the environment. Hence,
examples of brutalist architecture are listed as heritage objects along with examples
22 UNESCO (2004) "Royal Exhibition Building and Carlton Gardens" [online] World Heritage
Available from: http://whc.unesco.org/enllistIl131 (Accessed 22 August 2006).
23 UNESCO.
24 Commonwealth v Tasmania (Tasmanian Dam case) (1983) 158 CLR 1: 46 ALR 625.
Page 6 of 18
offine art and federation-style buildings Very often a panel ofprofessional experts
will be appointed by statute to identifY heritage items and places, but these experts
cannot represent all sectors ofa diverse society. 25
In a recent report by the Productivity Commission entitled Conservation of
Australia's Historic Heritage Placei
6
it was noted there was apparent community
agreement that "iconic historic heritage places,,27 such as the World Heritage List
Royal Exhibition Building had a value "beyond doubt".28 The Productivity
Commission observes that the listing of lesser noteworthy buildings especially by
State and local government, is where the benefits of conservation and restoration are
more likely to be questioned, stating:
... [I]t is at the margin, where the benefits ofplaces proposedfor heritage designation
will typically be finely balanced against the costs of conservation, that policy
potentially has the greatest impact ...If marginal cases are assessed in a way that
ensures the benefits ... exceed the costs, then a policy intervention which is necessary
to ensure conservation shouldproduce a net benefit.
29
Such conflict can be anticipated when listing of a building is proposed, because as
Solesbury points out:
... [a]t one extreme there is the ideology ofradicalism which would sacrifice historic
environments for the future, at the other extreme conservatism which wouldforgo the
future for the sake ofretaining the environmental past. 30
Also, arguments against listing can be derived from a traditional normative ethic of
utilitarianism, whereby according to Elliot the destruction of a unique natural
resource, or by analogy a unique part of the built environment, can occur "if this
action affected no one's interests,,31and hence is not wrong. Utilitarianism appears to
rely on a broad notion that if the value of a specific resource or building cannot be
determined, then hence it has no meaningful value. This view has been addressed by
the Productivity Commission as follows:
...problems associated with measuring heritage values, are precisely the reasons why
market-based solutions should be sought. Broadly speaking, market-based solutions
are mechanisms by which the true costs and benefits to those involved in an activity
are elicited. 32
Furthermore, the Productivity Commission states that restrictions upon private
property rights such as the listing of an important private building, should
simultaneously activate:
25 Walker, 558.
26 Productivity Commission (2006) Conservation ofAustralia's Historic Heritage Places, Productivity
Commission Inquiry Report No. 37 (Canberra: Productivity Commission) 6 April
27 Productivity Commission, 133.
30 Solesbury, 389
31 Elliot, 12.
Page 7 of 18
.. .an explicit mechanismfor assessing the costs imposed on owners or for identifying
the community benefits that governments are seeking to maximise. 33
Attempts have been made to create such mechanisms especially where a building is to
be listed which has or may have had commercial potential. It is in this context that the
following sections of this paper consider firstly explicit traditional mechanisms,
secondly transferable heritage floor space, and thirdly the issue of development
consent for adaptive reuse or continuing use.
EXPLICIT MECHANISMS
Unsurprisingly, a very traditional explicit mechanism is provided for in the Heritage
Act 1977 (NSW) to provide financial and other assistance to the owner of a listed
heritage item in order to permit its conservation or restoration.
34
A Heritage Incentive
Fund is established as the source of funds for deserving owners, however additional
resources are also available from the Heritage Conservation Fund
35
to permit amongst
other activities the acquisition of property for the purposes of the Act. 36
The Heritage Conservation Fund is also responsible for appropriating funds from
Parliament, borrowing funds and imposing fees and charges under the Heritage Act
1977(NSW). Such funds can also be used for the conservation of a heritage item once
acquired by the corporate entity established under the Heritage Act 1977 (NSW), and
also for the making of grants or loans to promote the conservation of heritage items.
The Heritage Act 1977 (NSW) also provides for relief to be granted to an owner of an
item listed on the State Heritage Register. After listing, a valuation is made of the
land for rating and taxing purposes based upon the value of the property with the
heritage stigma,3? and this valuation is the basis oflevying oflocal government rates
payable on the property.38 In addition any land tax levied on the property under the
Land Tax Management Act 1956 (NSW) can be ameliorated by separating the listed
property from the combined value of all other taxable properties held by the owner,
and assessed separately utilising the heritage valuation.
39
All of the above provisions presume that there is a differential between the pre-listing
value and post-listing value of the property, however this view is not strongly
supported by the finding of the Productivity Commission, namely:
.. .[w]hUe under some circumstances (particularly where neighbourhood amenity is
to be preserved) heritage listing can have a positive impact on property values, the
constraints on development potential associated with listing can have a significant
negative impact on the prices of individual properties ( or parts of a heritage
34 s.45 Heritage Act 1977 (NSW).
36 s.112, Heritage Act 1977 (NSW).
37 s. 124 Heritage Act 1977 (NSW).
39 s.128, Heritage Act 1977 (NSW).
Page 8 of 18
conservation area). The potential for owner's detriment to arise from development
controls can differ significantly between properties
4o
.
In support, Annitage and Irons in a paper presented to the 2005 European Real Estate
Society Conference
41
and in a subsequent submission to the Productivity
Commission, stated that:
... the evidence did not indicate... a strong relationship between listing and property
values, although where neighbourhood amenity was likely to be preserved through
the listing of a heritage precinct, there was greater likelihood of a positive
I
h' 42
re atlOns Ip.
Furthennore, Annitage and Irons advise the Commission that:
.. .[t]he effect appears generally marginal for residential property when taken as a
whole - although the evidence indicates a tendency for the direction of value
movement to be positive as opposed to negative. 43
Apart from the relief offered to the owners of listed items under the Heritage Act
1977 (NSW), the Australian Government also offers financial assistance to such
owners. Income taxation relief is provided for in the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936
(Cth.),44 enabling owners who are planning conservation work to gain a rebate of 20
cents in the dollar, however the total pool of annual funds available nationally for this
purpose is currently limited to $A9.5 million.
TRANSFERABLE HERITAGE FLOOR SPACE
All of the above explicit mechanisms provide financial assistance for the conservation
or restoration of a heritage building. However when such a building is capable of
redevelopment under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW)
except for the heritage restraint, a mechanism exists in some local government areas
such as the City of Sydney45 to transfer heritage floor space (HFS) to another site in
lieu of redevelopment.
HFS as an explicit mechanism results from an interplay between the Heritage Act
1977 (NSW) and the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW).The
Central Sydney Local Environmental Plan 1996 zones the CBD as "City Centre",
confonning to that previously placed on the CBD pursuant to the Central Sydney
Local Environmental Plan 1993 which pennitted the use ofland for purposes which
confonned with the objectives of the zone, namely:
41 Armitage, L. and Irons, J. (2005) "Managing cultural heritage: heritage listing and property value,"
Unpublished paper presented at the European Real Estate Society Conference, Dublin (June).
44 S.159 Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth.)
45 The example being used of transferable floor space in the City of Sydney is based upon the 1996
Central Sydney Local Environmental Plan, and it should be recognised that some changes to the
zonings and permissible floor space ratios has recently occurred, however the example is provided for
illustrative purposes only,.
Page 9 of 18
... to maintain, encourage & provide for the city centre's growth as the State's
principal centre for finance, commerce, retailing, tourism, culture, entertainment &
government, & as a location for residential development.
If a building were to be the subject of an application for Development Consent, the
controls contained in the Central Sydney Development Control Plan 1996 (and other
control documents) could permit a floor space ratio (FSR) of 10: 1, with bonuses up to
an FSR of 12.5:1 if redeveloped for residential uses.
However, such FSR considerations are problematic, if a building has been identified
as an item of heritage significance listed in Schedules to the Central Sydney Local
Environmental Plan 1992 - Conservation ofHeritage Items. The building could also
be subject to an interim heritage order under the Heritage Act, 1979 (NSW),46 or be
listed permanently on the State Heritage Register,47 to protect the fac;ade or to
prohibit overall demolition.
The provisions of the 1992 plan coupled with the controls under the Heritage Act
1977 (NSW) would effectively prohibit redevelopment of an existing building,
although refurbishment or compatible rebuilding ofthe internal area may be feasible.
It is possible in certain circumstances to refurbish a heritage item as recommended by
an approved Conservation Plan and Development Consent, and to then transfer HFS
earned to another site. The HFS is calculated using a basically simple formula, which
for the City of Sydney has been in the past equivalent to five times the heritage site
area. The resultant FSR equivalent could be sold to a developer elsewhere in the
CBD, and added to that site FSR.
Ordinarily, the work of heritage conservation and restoration must be completed prior
to the HFS being sold and transferred elsewhere. Effectively, the cost of restoration is
paid for by the value of the HFS, however the efficacy of the exercise depends on at
least three variables.
Firstly, the cost of the works for the heritage restoration must generally be less than
the market value of the resultant HFS, and the differential between the two must be
such that the effective residue value accruing to the proponent is economically
acceptable. Accurate costs for the heritage works prepared by a suitably experienced
quality surveyor are clearly critical at this stage of decision-making.
Secondly, the market value of HFS is a further critical stage in this process.
Investigation often reveals that there is a significant supply of HFS available for
purchase and transfer, and the restricted market for such space is often not strong.
While there is evidence that HFS can have a significant dollar value per square metre,
it is clear that market conditions may not be conducive to prompt sales and transfers.
46 5.24(1) Heritage Act 1977 (NSW)
47 5 .25(3) Heritage Act 1977 (NSW)
Page 10 of 18
Thirdly, construction activity in the CBD may suggest that an oversupply for office
space is likely, with significant amounts of HFS having been purchased and
transferred over past years dampening further demand.
A typical listed building would be small perhaps a four level brick structure
comprising approximately 2,580 square metres of gross floor area as follows:
Basement (level 1)
Ground floor (level 2)
First floor (level 3)
Second floor (level 4)
430 square metres
860 square metres
860 square metres
430 square metres
Excluding the basement, the gross floor area would be 2,150 square metres.
Typically, the building would have been erected in the late 19
th
Century and currently
occupied by a low rent user due to its poor condition or even totally unused.
The highest and best use of the building would not that for which the subject property
was originally erected, and almost certainly currently used. However, such a property
would undeniably present as a small potentially attractive historic building within the
CBD, however the potential of the land for redevelopment either alone or in
association with adjoining sites in part or whole for residential and/or commercial
purposes would be problematic. Redevelopment of the site would almost certainly be
uneconomIC.
In addition, the building would no longer enjoy potential redevelopment given the
restrictions imposed by heritage listing. Statutory land use controls placed over the
land by Sydney City Council are an amalgam of heritage protection and commercial
zone, within which only limited uses would be permissible.
In determining the highest and best use of the building, it would be necessary to
realistically assess the prospect of gainfully using the building for a use which could
be approved by Sydney City Council. Such an approach is supported by the decision
in Brisbane City Council v. The Crown ((1978) 5 QCLR 202).
.. .that a valuer mayfairly reach the conclusion that an application ... had reasonable
prospects of being successful, and that a prudent purchaser might allow something
morefor such a chance ofchange ... 48
In this typical example there would be little prospect of a substantive redevelopment
of the land, and possibly little agreement as to a suitable use for the existing listed
building. HFS can be a valuable tool in preserving noteworthy buildings, however
given that such buildings are often small the value of the transferable HFS is probably
uneconomic, given that restoration work would normally have to be completed prior
to sale and transfer of the HFS.
48 Brisbane City Council v. The Crown (1978) 5 QCLR 202, at 215.
Page 11 of 18
The next section of this paper deals with the issue of obtaining of development
consent of adaptive reuse or continuing use of a heritage item.
BALANCING BETWEEN COMMERCIAL AND CONSERVATION VALUES
Once a building of heritage significance is incorporated into the national heritage
protection framework or listed by a State or local government as a noteworthy
building, the vexed issue unsurprisingly arises of maximising commercial value vis a
vis the conservation and restoration of a specific building.
In NSW for example, a development application for adaptive reuse or continuing use
of a building of heritage significance must be lodged with the relevant local
government authority and also with the Heritage Council. Ordinarily development
consent is issued by a local government authority for alterations or demolition and
redevelopment of a building, however in the case of items of State or local
significance, these must be referred by the authority upon receipt to the Heritage
Council for prior approval.
49
Often, a proponent will lodge an application for
approval with the Heritage Council prior to approaching the local government
authority to obtain an understanding as to the likely conditions that would be imposed
if the development were to be approved.
In determining the application, both the Heritage Council and the local government
authority are required to consider a range of issues, particularly the impact of the
proposal on the heritage significance, issues of conservation, and any submissions
that might have been received as a result of the advertising of the development
application
50
If development consent is issued the approval authority can attach
conditions
51
which can also include the lodging of a financial security for satisfactory
completion, or conditions pertaining to public safety and convenience. 52 If approval is
not granted there can be grounds for appeal to either the Minister or the Land and
Environment Court ofNSW.
The above process involves two quite separate but related streams of approval
processes, one within the Heritage Council and ordinarily concurrently within the
local government authority. This process has been considered by the Productivity
Commission noting the following problems:
Inconsistent heritage outcomes within local governments;
More onerous development requirements for heritage properties, including a greater
red tape burden;
Imposition of heritage controls over properties that are not listed in local planning
schemes; and
Unclear and uncertain restrictions imposed on heritage properties
53
49 s.60 Heritage Act 1977 (NSW)
50 8.61 (3) Heritage Act 1977 (NSW)
51 8.63 Heritage Act 1977 (NSW)
52 8.63 (1), (4) Heritage Act 1977 (NSW)
Page 12 of 18
The Conservation of National Heritage Buildings - The Australian Experience
Furthermore, the Productivity Commission pungently reported that:
John Sheehan
.. .[wJhile many property owners may not fully understand the effect heritage listing
has on their property, this is not caused by owner's unwillingness, but rather it flows
from unclear statutory rules. That is, the statutory controls dictating what activities
owners can not undertake, do not clearly state what can and can not be done. The
only guidance is that owners cannot adversely affect their property's heritage values.
Combine this rule with the failure ofevery State to require a statement ofsignificance
at the local level, and it is not surprising owners are unsure ofthe controls imposed
or their implications. In addition to the lack ofstatutory guidance, the use ofheritage
advisors with differing opinions ofsignificance, and differing application of heritage
controls, exacerbates the uncertaintyfaced by property owners. 54
Apart from the duplication in gaining approvals from the local government authority
and from the relevant heritage body such as the Heritage Council in NSW, there is
also a view that a lack of consistency exists between local government areas, and as
the Productivity Commission highlights:
... a greater problem exists where there is inconsistency in heritage outcomes within a
local council. 55
Some State heritage legislation such as the Heritage Act 1977 (NSW) has been in
existence for nearly three decades, and the NSW Heritage Office of the (then)
Department of Infrastructure Planning and Natural Resources proposed changes to
some aspects of the operation of that Act. In the (then) proposed Heritage Regulation
2005 (NSW), the earlier Heritage Regulation 1999 (NSW) was to be repealed, and
replaced by this new regulation.
The NSW Heritage Office attempted to address a number of issues, some of which
have already resulted in unforeseen consequences for the owners and tenants of
heritage listed buildings. The Regulatory Impact Statement accompanying the
Heritage Regulation 2005 (NSW) contained two distinct elements embedded within
the various matters canvassed, namely the need for proactive preservation, and
proposed increases in processing fees for applications to the NSW Heritage Office.
As at May 2005 there were only 1473 heritage items recorded on the State Heritage
Register, however according to the Regulatory Impact Statement:
... [t}here may be as many as 8,000 items that warrant inclusion on the Register. 56
If these items were to be hypothetically added to the State Heritage Register at a rate
greater than 50 items per yearS? the proposed requirement for a "guaranteed minimum
standard of repair and maintenance"s8 would have been an impost upon a very large
number of private property owners. This prospect was considered quite daunting, by
56 NSW Heritage Office (2005) Regulatory Impact Statement accompanying Heritage Regulation 2005
(Sydney: NSW Heritage Office, Department ofInfrastructure Planning and Natural Resources, May) 5.
57 Regulatory Impact Statement, 5.
Page 13 of 18
the NSW Division of the Australian Property Institute, and in a submission to the
NSW Heritage Office the Institute expressed concern about this obligation:
... especially if coercive measures proposed in the Heritage Regulation 2005 (NSW)
are implemented - specifically annual inspections by an appropriately qualified
person, followed up by compliance with the maintenance and repairs that are needed
(viz cl. 11(1)) Heritage Regulation 2005
59
.
The Heritage Act 1977 (NSW) contains coercive measures which require
compliance
6o
, and the extension of the number of items listed on the State Heritage
Register from 1473 items to possibly over 8000 items could expose a large number of
private owners to these compliance measures. This is of concern given that many
owners are drawn from humble, financially moderate, and even impecunious
circumstances, especially those owning residential or small commercial or industrial
buildings.
61
The annual budget of the NSW Heritage Office was in 2005 $A7.7 million 62, and
with an enlarged number of listed items it is difficult to understand how private
owners could obtain funds from such a small budget, especially if they were in
financial circumstances such that they were unable to comply with an order tor
maintenance and repairs. Even if an increase in processing fees for applications
occurred
63
the resultant combined sum of additional fees earned of $681,100 would
no have been available in total for grants to deserving owners of listed items.
64
The Australian Property Institute (NSW Division) reported that even if the number of
listed items rose to 8000 as hinted to in the Regulatory Impact Statement,65 the
increased funds would not necessarily significantly increase the total pool of money
available for grants to deserving owners of the 8000 listed items. Also, a number of
the newly listed items would be commercial and industrial rather than residential,
significantly increasing the likely funding sought by deserving owners to maintain
and repair their buildings.
66
With the increase in applications to the NSW Heritage Office for listed CBD
commercial buildings in particular, the processing of these increasing complex
development applications will require a cross disciplinary approach. There is a
perceived need for greater efficiency in the processing of the current level of
development applications referred to the Heritage Office through increased numbers
of processing staff, drawn from a wider disciplinary base including facilities
management, engineering, land economics, and commercial, industrial and retail
architecture.
59 Australian Property Institute, NSW Division (2005) Submission to NSWHeritage Office,
Department ofInfrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources on the Heritage Regulation 2005 and
Regulatory Impact Statement (Sydney, 12 July) 3.
60 s.119 Heritage Act 1977 (NSW)
61 Australian Property Institute, NSW Division, 4.
63 Regulatory Impact Statement, 34, 35.
Page 14 of 18
This increased resources will be particularly important if buildings such as Australia
Square, MLC Centre and other iconic CBD commercial buildings are to be listed.
Such buildings with their multifarious tenancies require the lodgement of a significant
number of development applications annually. The Australian Property Institute,
NSW Division reported that in so far as Australia Square was concerned:
... over 40 development applications are lodged annually for Australia Square, many
involving alterations to leased tenancy space, and some of course involving
significant alteration to the interior, and exterior of the building. For example, the
recent refurbishment of the interior of the Tower Building at Australia Square
involved ten separate and quite discreet works, namely:
Double glazed windows throughout the Tower
New window sills
New ceiling grid and lights
New mechanical services
Sprinkler heads
New lift call buttons
New lift indicator lights
Refurbished lift car interiors
New electrical services reticulation
New mechanical controls and monitoring
The above cost was approximately $110 million, and understandably the development
applications required a complex interplay ofprofessional skills and expertise drawn
from the disciplines of engineering, architecture and property economics, together
. h h . . 67
WIt entage conservatlOn.
Further, it was observed that:
.. .[n]ew tenancies in buildings such as Australia Square require afresh development
consent to be lodged with Sydney City Council, and in the commercial property
environment, prospective tenants expect approval of their Development Applications
and Construction Certificates within two weeks (assuming that works are not
involved. Often changes in tenancies do not involve any construction work, and are
purely the movement offurniture). Referral of such matters to the Heritage Office
with its current under resourcing will impact significantly upon the ability ofowners
to achieve tenants' expectations. 68
As more and more commercial, industrial and retail buildings are listed on the State
Heritage Register, the current under resourcing of the processing and management of
applications will be further aggravated, and it has been argued by the Institute that the
processing times will lengthen. 69
Great concern has been expressed by owners and managers of buildings such as
Australia Square and other iconic CBD buildings, that time delays involved in the
processing of applications by the NSW Heritage Office will impact adversely upon
67 Australian Property Division, NSW Division, 6.
Page 15 of 18
The Conservation ofNational Heritage Buildings - The Australian Experience John Sheehan
the leasing uptake of commercial space. Arguably, the value of such buildings will be
impacted upon through increased vacancy rates, and greater perceived risk of
investment.
Finally, a salient comment by the Australian Property Institute NSW Division in its
submission on the Heritage Regulation 2005 (NSW) reveals how vexed the issue of
valuable commercial buildings can be, namely:
It is the Institute's view that the proposed Heritage Regulation 2005 (NSW) is further
reinforcing the view ofmany owners ofheritage listed buildings, that conservation of
such buildings is public benefit at private cost.
The proposed cost increases are a further disincentive to the ownership of heritage
Z
d . 70
lste propertles.
SUMMARY
This paper has attempted to demonstrate firstly the various layers of heritage
protection in Australia, ranging from national to State to local government. The layers
within the framework are separate but intertwined, and at the State and local layers
more problematic. At the interface between private property owner and heritage
regulator, the vexed issue of maximising commercial value vis a vis heritage integrity
becomes most contentious.
The remarkable complexity of heritage legislation at the State and local government
level borders on the unfathomable to all but the highly experienced and expert. There
is a distinct risk that heritage conservation and restoration of noteworthy buildings at
this level is being comprised due to this complexity.
As increasing numbers of valuable private commercial and retail buildings are being
listed on heritage registers by State government agencies, and the impact upon their
commercial value is now being reassessed. There is a need for a greater
understanding of the operation of the commercial and retail property investment
market, so that a more comfortable and productive outcome can be achieved which
both maximises property values but does not necessarily compromise heritage values.
Page 16 of 18
The Conservation of National Heritage Buildings - The Australian Experience
BIBLIOGRAPHY
John Sheehan
Annitage, L. and Irons, J., (2005) "Managing cultural heritage: heritage listing and
property value," Unpublished paper presented at the European Real Estate Society
Conference, Dublin (June).
Australian Heritage Commission, Department of Industry, Science and Resources, &
Cooperative Research Centre for Sustainable Tourism (2001) Successful Tourism at
Heritage Places: A guide for Tourism operators Heritage Managers and
Communities 2
nd
ed. (Canberra: Australian Heritage Commission), July.
Australian Property Institute, NSW Division (2005) Submission to NSWHeritage
Office, Department ofInfrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources on the
Heritage Regulation 2005 and Regulatory Impact Statement (Sydney, 12 July).
Brown, A.J. & Sherrard, H.M. (1951) An Introduction to Town and Country
Planning 2
nd
ed. 1969 (Sydney: Angus and Robertson).
Department of the Environment and Heritage (2004) steps to sustainable tourism:
planning a sustainable future for tourism, heritage and the environment (Canberra:
Heritage Division, Department of the Environment and Heritage) June.
Department of the Environment and Heritage (2004) Heritage at a Glance -
Differences between World Heritage, National Heritage, Commonwealth Heritage,
and the Register of the National Estate, Infonnation Sheet 21, roneo (Canberra:
Department of Environment and Heritage).
Elliott, R., (1978) "Ethics and Conservation" Habitat Australia 6(2) May, 9-13.
Farrier, D. & Stein, P.,( eds) (2006) The Environmental Law Handbook: Planning
and Land Use in NSW4
th
ed., (Sydney: Redfern Legal Centre Publishing).
Howard, E., (1898) Garden Cities ofTo-Morrow (1965 edition) (London: Faber and
Faber)
NSW Heritage Office (2005) Regulatory Impact Statement accompanying Heritage
Regulation 2005 (Sydney: NSW Heritage Office, Department of Infrastructure
Planning and Natural Resources, May).
Gwen Piper (1980) My One Fourteen Millionth Share, (Sydney: Temnor
Publications).
Productivity Commission (2006) Conservation of Australia's Historic Heritage
Places, Productivity Commission Inquiry Report No. 37 (Canberra: Productivity
Commission) 6 April.
Sheehan, J. (2002) Environmental Issues and their impact on Australian real estate
Australian Property Journal 37 (4) November, 291-295.
Page 17 of 18
Solesbury, W., (1976) "The Environmental Agenda: An illustration of how situations
may become political issues and issues may demand responses from government: or
how they may not", Public Administration 5(Winter), 379-397.
The National Trust of Australia (NSW) (1982) National Trust Register (Sydney: The
National Trust of Australia (NSW))
UNESCO (2004) "Royal Exhibition Building and Carlton Gardens" [ online] World
Heritage Available from: http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/I131 (Accessed 22 August
2006).
Walker, G., (2006) "Heritage Protection" in Farrier, D. & Stein, P., (eds.) The
Environmental Law Handbook: Planning and Land Use in NSW 4
th
ed., (Sydney:
Redfern Legal Centre Publishing) 558, 592.
CASES CITED
Brisbane City Council v. The Crown ((1978) 5 QCLR 202),
Commonwealth v Tasmania (Tasmanian Dam case) (1983) 158 CLR 1: 46 ALR 625.
STATUTES CITED
Australian Constitution
Central Sydney Local Environmental Plan 1993
Central Sydney Local Environmental Plan 1996
Central Sydney Development Control Plan 1996
Civic Amenities Act 1967 (UK),
Central Sydney Local Environmental Plan 1992 - Conservation ofHeritage Items
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW)
Heritage Act 1977 (NSW)
Heritage Regulation 1999 (NSW
Heritage Regulation 2005 (NSW)
Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth.)
Land Tax Management Act 1956 (NSW)
National Heritage Act, 2005 (Malaysia)
Page 18 of 18

National Heritage Act 2005

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

National Heritage Act 2005

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

NATIONAL HERITAGE ACT 2005

Warisan Semulajadi V\{ar.isan Kebudayaan

Pendaftaran Ke Dalam Buku

Ar. Chen Voon Pee

IlOI( tOJSE. KJNII. Llm"IptIr-A. s.wu:n-. 1Q96

NATIONAL HERITAGE ACT

The scope is wider than what was

You might also like