A property manager overseeing a heritage-fronted office building in Carlton received a call from the developer next door in the second week of a basement excavation. Fine cracks had appeared in the party wall of her building, tenants were asking questions, and the developer’s site manager was politely but firmly suggesting the cracking was pre-existing. She had no way to prove otherwise. There was no photographic record of the wall’s condition before the excavation began, no measured survey of the existing crack pattern, and no independent document either party could point to. What followed was six months of dispute, competing engineering opinions, and a settlement negotiated less on the merits than on who could tolerate the uncertainty longest. The entire episode would have been avoided by a single document commissioned before a shovel touched the ground: a dilapidation report.

For facilities managers, property managers and building owners across Melbourne, dilapidation reports are one of the most quietly important instruments in the risk management toolkit, and one of the most consistently overlooked until the moment they are needed and no longer available to commission. A dilapidation report is a formal record of the existing condition of a building, or of a structure adjacent to a site where construction, demolition, excavation or major maintenance is about to take place. It captures, in photographs, written description and measured detail, the state of a property at a fixed point in time, so that if damage is later alleged, there is an objective baseline against which any change can be assessed. The value of the document lies entirely in its timing. Commissioned before works begin, it is a shield. Commissioned after damage appears, it is worthless for the very purpose it exists to serve.

This guide is written for the Melbourne facilities and property professional who needs to understand when dilapidation reports are required, what a defensible report must contain, how they intersect with the regulatory and common-law obligations that bear on adjoining property, and how to procure them from a contractor whose access capability and technical competence produce a document that holds up when it is challenged. The stakes are not academic. In a dense, actively developing city where construction sites routinely abut occupied commercial buildings, the difference between a building manager who commissioned a report and one who did not is frequently the difference between a claim defended in an afternoon and a dispute that consumes months.

What a Dilapidation Report Actually Is

The term dilapidation is older than its modern usage suggests, drawn from property and tenancy law where it described the deterioration of a building over the course of a lease. In contemporary construction and facilities practice, these reports have taken on a more specific and more valuable meaning. They are condition surveys, prepared by a competent inspector, that document the state of a building and its elements at a defined moment, ordinarily immediately before some external event that carries a risk of causing damage.

That external event is usually construction activity on an adjoining or nearby site. Excavation, piling, demolition, dewatering, vibration from heavy plant, and the ground movement that these activities can induce are the classic causes of damage to neighbouring structures. Cracking to masonry and plaster, distortion of door and window frames, movement in floor slabs, damage to glazing, and separation at junctions between building elements are the kinds of defects that such a report is designed to record before they can be falsely attributed to work that had nothing to do with them, or correctly attributed to work that did. The report does not prevent damage. It establishes the evidentiary baseline that makes the question of causation answerable.

A thorough dilapidation report addresses the building envelope as much as its interior. The external facade, the glazing, the sealant joints, the render and masonry, the roof edge and the visible structural elements all form part of the condition record. This is where the relationship between dilapidation reporting and facade condition assessment becomes clear, because a properly executed report on a multi-storey commercial building requires the inspector to reach and document elements at height that a ground-level walk-around simply cannot capture. As covered in our detailed breakdown of facade inspection planning for building managers, the upper elevations of a commercial building frequently hold the defects that matter most, and they are precisely the elements a ground-based inspector records inadequately or not at all. A report that documents only what can be seen from the footpath is a partial record, and a partial record is a weak defence.

The document itself combines several forms of evidence. A written schedule describes each element and its condition in structured, unambiguous language. A photographic record, extensive and systematically referenced, provides the visual proof that written description alone cannot supply. Measured detail, including the length and width of existing cracks, the extent of existing movement, and the location of each recorded defect, allows subsequent comparison to determine whether a defect has changed. In more demanding cases, crack monitoring gauges are installed so that movement can be tracked over the course of the adjacent works rather than assessed only at the start and finish. The best reports are structured so that a person who was not present at the inspection can locate any recorded defect, understand its condition at the time of the report, and determine whether it has since worsened.

Why Dilapidation Reports Matter to Facilities and Property Managers

The facilities manager or property manager sits in a particular position with respect to dilapidation reports, one that differs from the developer commissioning works and from the builder carrying them out. The manager’s concern is protective. When a construction project begins on an adjoining site, the building under management becomes a potential victim of that project, and the manager becomes responsible for ensuring that the asset is protected against damage and that the owner’s interests are defensible if damage occurs. This is where commissioning an independent condition report of the managed building, rather than relying solely on the developer’s report, becomes a matter of prudent risk management.

The reason is straightforward. A report commissioned and controlled by the party carrying out the works is not a neutral document, however competently it is prepared. Its scope, its thoroughness and its emphasis reflect the interests of the party who paid for it. A developer’s report of a neighbouring building may be entirely accurate and yet still record the building’s condition in less detail than the building’s own manager would want, particularly at height, particularly in the elements most vulnerable to the specific works planned. A property manager who accepts the developer’s report as the sole record has surrendered control of the evidence on which any future claim will turn. Commissioning an independent report, prepared to the standard the manager specifies, preserves that control.

There is a second dimension that facilities managers in particular understand. A building’s condition is not static, and the manager who commissions such a report before adjacent works also acquires, as a by-product, a rigorous point-in-time condition record of the asset they manage. That record has value well beyond the immediate dispute-avoidance purpose. It feeds into maintenance planning, it documents the state of the facade and glazing at a known date, and it establishes a baseline that later inspections can be compared against. When the report is prepared by a contractor whose ordinary work includes facade maintenance and glazing assessment, the condition record is produced by inspectors who understand what they are looking at and can flag emerging defects that a generalist inspector would photograph without recognising. This is a meaningful difference. A crack recorded as a crack is evidence. A crack recognised as early-stage differential movement in a specific facade element is intelligence a manager can act on.

The protective function also extends to the manager’s own liability. Where a managed building is itself the site of works, whether major maintenance, facade remediation, re-glazing or structural repair, the manager may carry an obligation to adjoining owners to record the condition of their properties before works begin. The common-law duty of care owed to neighbours, and the specific obligations that arise when works may affect adjoining land, mean that the party carrying out works can find themselves defending damage claims from neighbours just as readily as a building can find itself the claimant. A condition report of the adjoining properties, commissioned before the managed building’s own works commence, protects the owner against those claims in exactly the same way. Facilities managers procuring window cleaning services and broader maintenance should recognise that any works reaching the building envelope at height, and any works involving vibration, water or structural intervention, may trigger the need for a dilapidation report of neighbouring properties as part of responsible project planning.

When Dilapidation Reports Are Required

There is no single statutory trigger that makes such a report mandatory in every case, which is one reason they are so often overlooked. Instead, the requirement arises from a combination of contractual obligation, planning and permit conditions, common-law duty, and simple prudence. Understanding the circumstances in which these reports become necessary is essential to procuring them at the right time, which is always before the triggering activity begins.

The most common trigger is adjacent construction. When development occurs on a neighbouring site, the developer is ordinarily required, whether by permit condition, by the standard of care expected of a reasonable builder, or by both, to record the condition of adjoining buildings before commencing. For the manager of an adjoining building, the trigger is the same event viewed from the other side: the moment a neighbouring site is about to begin excavation, demolition or piling is the moment to commission an independent report of the managed asset. The window to do so closes the instant works begin. A report commissioned after excavation has started cannot establish the pre-works baseline, because the works are already underway and any damage already caused is already embedded in the record.

Excavation and dewatering deserve particular attention in the Melbourne context. The city’s basement development, driven by land values and the demand for underground parking and services, routinely involves deep excavation immediately adjacent to existing buildings. Ground movement induced by excavation, by the removal of lateral support, and by the lowering of the water table through dewatering can affect buildings a surprising distance from the site boundary. Buildings founded on Melbourne’s reactive clay soils are especially sensitive to changes in ground moisture, and dewatering on an adjacent site can induce settlement in a building that never shares a wall with the works. A property manager who assumes their building is safe because it does not directly abut the development site may be mistaken. Condition reports for buildings within the zone of influence of a major excavation are a reasonable precaution, not an excessive one.

Demolition is a second major trigger. The removal of a building shares party walls, alters the loading on adjoining structures, and generates vibration and debris that can damage neighbours. Where a managed building shares a party wall with a structure about to be demolished, a report of the managed building, and ideally a measured record of the party wall itself, is close to essential.

Major maintenance and remediation works on the managed building can themselves trigger the need for dilapidation reports of neighbouring properties. Facade remediation involving vibration, structural repair, re-glazing of a large curtain wall, or any works that could plausibly affect an adjoining owner may expose the building owner to claims from neighbours. Recording the neighbours’ condition before the managed building’s works begin protects against those claims. As covered in our guide to post-construction window cleaning and builder’s clean handover, the transition from construction to occupation is a phase where condition records matter, and the same logic applies at the front end of any works programme: establishing condition before works begin is what makes the eventual handover defensible.

Vibration-generating works, road and infrastructure projects near a building, and tunnelling all fall within the same principle. Where an external activity carries a credible risk of causing structural damage to a building, a report commissioned before that activity begins converts a potential dispute into an answerable question.

What a Defensible Dilapidation Report Must Contain

The value of a dilapidation report is measured entirely by how well it performs when it is challenged, and challenges are common. A report that is vague, incomplete, poorly referenced or unable to withstand scrutiny is worse than no report, because it creates a false sense of security and may actively undermine the position of the party relying on it. Understanding what separates a defensible report from a weak one allows a facilities manager to specify the standard they require rather than accepting whatever the contractor chooses to provide.

The foundation is comprehensive photographic evidence. Every element of the building being recorded should be photographed systematically, with sufficient resolution and framing that the condition of the element is unambiguous. General views establish context; detailed views record specific defects. Each photograph must be referenced to a location, so that any image can be tied to a precise part of the building. A photographic record that cannot be spatially located is difficult to rely on, because the party challenging the report can question whether a given image depicts the element it is claimed to depict. Systematic referencing, ordinarily through a floor-by-floor and elevation-by-elevation scheme, removes that ambiguity.

The written schedule accompanies the photographic record and describes each element in structured language. The description records the material, the condition, and any existing defects, using terminology that is precise and consistent. Existing cracks are described with their location, orientation, length and width. Existing movement, staining, spalling, corrosion and distortion are recorded with the same discipline. The purpose of the written schedule is to fix in words what the photographs fix in images, so that the two forms of evidence reinforce each other and any change is detectable by comparison.

Measured detail elevates a report from a qualitative record to a quantitative one. The width of an existing crack, recorded in millimetres, allows a subsequent inspection to determine whether the crack has widened. The extent of existing lean or movement, measured against a datum, allows change to be assessed objectively rather than impressionistically. Where the risk of movement is significant, crack monitoring gauges installed across existing cracks allow movement to be tracked continuously through the period of the adjacent works, producing a record of when any movement occurred and how it correlated with the activity on the neighbouring site. This correlation is often decisive in causation disputes.

Coverage at height is where many reports fail, and where the access capability of the contractor becomes central to the quality of the document. A commercial building’s most consequential defects are frequently in the upper facade, the glazing, the sealant joints and the roof edge, all beyond the reach of a ground-based inspector. A report that records the ground floor in detail and the upper floors from the footpath through a long lens is not a complete record, and its incompleteness is a vulnerability. This is why the contractor’s access methodology matters so directly to the value of the report. Inspectors who can reach the full height of the facade, whether through rope access, elevating work platforms or building maintenance units, produce a record of the whole building rather than the portion of it visible from the ground. The rope access capability that IRATA-certified technicians bring is particularly valuable here, because it allows close, systematic, photographable inspection of upper-level elements that no ground-based method can match, and it does so without the cost and disruption of large plant.

Independence and competence complete the picture. The report should be prepared by an inspector with the technical knowledge to recognise what they are recording, and it should be prepared to a standard that is defensible regardless of which party commissioned it. A report that reads as an advocacy document for the party who paid for it invites the challenge that its emphasis is self-serving. A report that records condition dispassionately, comprehensively and with equal rigour across every element, whether or not that element is likely to become contentious, is far harder to attack.

The Regulatory and Legal Framework

Dilapidation reports operate at the intersection of several legal and regulatory frameworks, none of which mandates them universally but all of which create the circumstances in which they become necessary. For the Melbourne facilities and property manager, understanding this framework clarifies why they are commissioned, who bears the obligations they address, and how they fit within the broader compliance landscape of building management in Victoria.

The starting point is the common-law duty of care owed to neighbours. A party carrying out works owes a duty to take reasonable care not to cause damage to adjoining properties, and a party whose works do cause damage may be liable for that damage. This duty is the reason developers commission reports of neighbouring buildings before commencing, and it is the reason a building manager whose own building undertakes works affecting neighbours should do the same. The dilapidation report does not discharge the duty of care, but it provides the evidence that allows the question of whether the duty was breached, and whether any given damage was caused by the works, to be answered on the basis of fact rather than assertion.

The removal of, or interference with, the support that one property provides to another engages specific legal principles concerning support of adjoining land. Excavation that removes lateral support from a neighbouring building, and works that affect a party wall, sit within a body of law that has developed to govern the rights and obligations of adjoining owners. Building surveyors and the building permit system in Victoria interact with these principles, and permit conditions for developments adjacent to existing structures frequently require protection works and the recording of adjoining building condition. A facilities manager whose building is adjacent to a permitted development should understand that the permit conditions attaching to that development may create obligations on the developer to record the managed building’s condition, and that the manager’s independent report complements rather than duplicates that process.

The broader Victorian building compliance framework provides the context within which dilapidation reporting sits. The Building Act 1993 and the regulations made under it govern building work in Victoria, the building permit and surveyor system controls how works are approved and inspected, and the essential safety measures regime imposes ongoing obligations on building owners to maintain the safety systems of their buildings. While essential safety measures obligations are distinct from dilapidation reporting, they belong to the same universe of building condition and compliance documentation that a competent facilities manager maintains, and the condition record such a report produces can inform the manager’s understanding of the facade and envelope elements that bear on those broader obligations.

Where works at height are involved, whether in the preparation of the report itself or in the works that make it necessary, the occupational health and safety framework governs how that work is carried out. The Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 and the Occupational Health and Safety Regulations 2017 impose duties on those who conduct work at height, and WorkSafe Victoria enforces them. An inspector reaching the upper facade of a commercial building to record its condition is performing high-risk work, and the contractor providing that inspection must hold the appropriate high-risk work licences, prepare safe work method statements, and comply with the standards governing rope access and elevated work. As covered in our guide to height safety compliance for Melbourne commercial buildings, the duty-holder obligations under Victorian OHS law extend to every party who engages a contractor to work at height, which means the facilities manager commissioning a dilapidation report that involves facade access carries a responsibility to ensure the contractor is competent and compliant. Engaging an IRATA-certified provider whose systems satisfy AS/NZS 1891.4 and the relevant access standards discharges that responsibility and ensures the report is produced without exposing anyone to uncontrolled risk.

Dilapidation Reports and the Melbourne Development Context

Melbourne presents a particular concentration of the circumstances that make these reports necessary, and the character of the city’s building stock and development activity shapes how the reports should be approached. A facilities manager working in Melbourne is operating in one of the most actively developed urban environments in the country, where construction routinely occurs cheek by jowl with occupied commercial buildings, and where the ground conditions add a dimension of risk that managers in other cities may not face to the same degree.

The density of the central city and the inner suburbs means that construction sites frequently share boundaries, and sometimes party walls, with existing buildings. In the CBD, in Southbank, in Docklands and across the inner ring of Carlton, Fitzroy, Collingwood, Richmond and South Melbourne, the pattern of development on constrained sites immediately adjacent to occupied buildings is the norm rather than the exception. A property manager in these areas can reasonably expect that, over the life of their management, a neighbouring site will be developed, and the prudent manager treats the commencement of any such development as a prompt to consider whether a report of the managed building is warranted. The heritage building stock across the inner suburbs raises the stakes further, because older masonry buildings are both more vulnerable to movement and more expensive to repair, and because the condition of a heritage facade before adjacent works is exactly the kind of record that becomes contentious when cracking later appears.

Melbourne’s ground conditions are a distinctive risk factor. Large parts of the metropolitan area are founded on reactive clay soils that shrink and swell with changes in moisture content, and buildings on these soils are sensitive to anything that alters the ground moisture regime. Excavation and dewatering on an adjacent site can change the moisture conditions beneath a neighbouring building, inducing settlement or heave that manifests as cracking. This is why the zone of influence of a major excavation in Melbourne can extend beyond the immediate boundary, and why dilapidation reports for buildings near, not only directly adjoining, a significant excavation are worth considering. A manager who understands the local geology understands why a building that shares no wall with a development can still be affected by it.

The coastal and bayside corridor introduces its own considerations. Buildings in the bayside suburbs, exposed to salt air and the accelerated facade deterioration it causes, may already carry facade defects that a report will record, and distinguishing pre-existing salt-driven deterioration from damage caused by adjacent works requires an inspector who understands both. As covered in our examination of window cleaning for coastal areas of Melbourne, the marine environment along Port Phillip Bay drives corrosion and glass deterioration that a competent inspector must recognise and correctly attribute, so that pre-existing coastal weathering is recorded as such and not confused with construction-induced damage. This is another instance where an inspector who understands facade behaviour produces a more defensible report than one who merely photographs what they see.

The seasonal dimension matters too. Melbourne’s pronounced wet and dry cycles, and the movement they induce in reactive-soil-founded buildings, mean that a building’s crack pattern is not static across the year. A crack recorded in the depth of a dry summer may be wider than the same crack in a wet winter, entirely independent of any adjacent works. A competent report acknowledges this seasonal movement and, where the risk warrants it, uses crack monitoring rather than single-point measurement to distinguish seasonal fluctuation from works-induced movement. The manager who understands Melbourne’s soil and seasonal behaviour appreciates why this distinction is not pedantry but the difference between a report that answers the causation question and one that muddies it.

Procuring Dilapidation Reports: What to Look For in a Contractor

Commissioning a dilapidation report is a procurement decision, and like any procurement decision in facilities management, it rewards the manager who specifies the standard they require and selects a provider capable of meeting it. The market for condition surveys and dilapidation reports includes engineering consultancies, building surveyors, specialist inspection firms and facade contractors, and the right choice depends on the nature of the building, the works that make the report necessary, and the access challenges the building presents.

Access capability is the first and often the decisive consideration for a multi-storey commercial building. A report that comprehensively documents the full height of the facade is worth far more than one confined to the elements visible from the ground, and the ability to produce the former depends entirely on how the inspector reaches the building. A provider whose access capability spans rope access, elevating work platforms and building maintenance unit operation can record the whole envelope, close up and in detail, rather than relying on distant photography for everything above the ground floor. The rope access dimension is particularly valuable for dilapidation reporting, because it allows an inspector to move systematically across a facade, positioning precisely at each element that needs recording, capturing close photographs and taking measurements at height that no ground-based method can supply. Facilities managers procuring window cleaning services and facade maintenance from a provider with this capability are often best placed to commission these reports from the same provider, because the contractor already understands the building, already holds the access competencies, and can fold condition recording into the relationship that already covers cleaning, glazing and building maintenance.

Technical competence in facade and glazing behaviour is the second consideration. A report of this kind is only as good as the inspector’s ability to recognise and correctly describe what they are recording. An inspector who understands facade systems, glazing assemblies, sealant behaviour and the failure modes of the materials they are documenting produces a record that distinguishes pre-existing deterioration from fresh damage, that recognises the early signs of movement, and that describes each defect in terms an engineer or a court can rely on. A generalist who photographs a facade without understanding it produces images without insight, and images without insight are a weaker foundation for a defence. Where a report will inform not only dispute avoidance but also maintenance planning, the value of an inspector who understands the building envelope is greater still, because the same inspection that establishes the dilapidation baseline can flag the emerging defects a manager needs to plan around.

Compliance and licensing are non-negotiable. Any report involving facade access at height requires the contractor to hold the appropriate high-risk work licences, to operate under documented safe work method statements, and to comply with the Victorian OHS framework and the applicable Australian Standards governing rope access and elevated work. A facilities manager who engages a contractor without confirming these credentials carries duty-holder exposure under the OHS Act, and receives a report produced by a provider whose competence and safety systems are unverified. Confirming IRATA certification for rope access, current high-risk work licences for the access methods to be used, and appropriate public liability insurance is a basic and essential step in the procurement.

Documentation quality is the final consideration, and it is the one that determines whether the report performs when it is needed. The manager should establish, before commissioning, what the report will contain: the photographic standard and referencing scheme, the structure of the written schedule, the measurement discipline, whether crack monitoring is included where warranted, and the format in which the report will be delivered and stored. A report delivered as a structured, systematically referenced document with a clear defect register and comprehensive photographic evidence is an asset the manager can rely on for years. A report delivered as an unstructured collection of images is a liability dressed as a record. Specifying the standard at the outset is how the manager ensures they receive the former.

Integrating Dilapidation Reporting into Building Management

The facilities managers who derive the most value from dilapidation reports are those who treat them not as isolated one-off documents commissioned reactively when a neighbouring site breaks ground, but as one element of a disciplined approach to building condition and risk management. Integrating dilapidation reporting into the broader management of the building, and into the relationship with the contractors who maintain it, turns a defensive necessity into a source of ongoing intelligence about the asset.

The integration begins with the recognition that a dilapidation report and a facade condition assessment share most of the same inputs. Both require systematic, at-height inspection of the building envelope. Both produce a photographic and written record of condition. Both are more valuable when prepared by an inspector who understands what they are documenting. A manager who has established a relationship with a contractor capable of facade inspection, glazing assessment and building maintenance already has the capability in place to produce these reports when they are needed, and the contractor who conducts the building’s routine maintenance already holds the accumulated knowledge of its condition that makes each successive report more useful than the last. This continuity is difficult to replicate through one-off engagements of separate inspection firms, each of whom starts without any prior knowledge of the building.

The condition record such a report produces also feeds directly into maintenance planning. The defects it documents, the emerging movement it captures, and the state of the glazing and facade it records all inform the manager’s understanding of what the building will need and when. A dilapidation report commissioned before adjacent works, and then retained as a point-in-time record, becomes a reference point that later inspections build on, allowing the manager to track the building’s condition over time rather than assessing it afresh at each inspection. Building maintenance is most effective when it is informed by an accurate and current understanding of condition, and the disciplined condition recording that dilapidation reporting demands supplies exactly that understanding.

There is also a scheduling and cost efficiency to be gained. When the contractor who cleans the building’s windows, maintains its facade and assesses its glazing is also the contractor who can produce its condition reports, the access mobilisation that each of these activities requires can, where timing allows, be shared rather than duplicated. A single mobilisation of rope access technicians can accomplish inspection, condition recording, minor maintenance and cleaning in a coordinated programme, reducing the cost and disruption of repeatedly bringing access capability to the building. For the facilities manager managing a maintenance budget across a portfolio, this integration is a meaningful efficiency, and it is available only when the contractor’s capability spans the full range of envelope work rather than a single narrow service.

Finally, integrating dilapidation reporting into building management means anticipating the need rather than reacting to it. A manager who monitors development activity around their buildings, who understands which of their assets sit near sites likely to be developed, and who has a contractor relationship in place capable of producing such a report at short notice is positioned to commission the report in the narrow window before adjacent works begin. A manager who waits until a neighbour’s excavation is underway has already missed the window. The value of dilapidation reports is entirely a function of timing, and the manager who has integrated the capability into their ongoing building management is the manager who captures that value rather than losing it.

Protecting Your Building Before Works Begin

Dilapidation reports occupy a peculiar place in the facilities manager’s world. They cost relatively little, they take relatively little time, and for long stretches they appear to do nothing at all, sitting in a file as a record no one consults. Then a neighbouring excavation induces movement, a party wall cracks, a tenant complains, and a developer’s site manager suggests the damage was always there, and in that moment the report becomes the single most valuable document the manager holds. It converts an unanswerable dispute into an answerable question, it protects the owner’s asset and the owner’s interests, and it does so on the basis of fact rather than assertion. The manager who commissioned it defends the claim in an afternoon. The manager who did not spends months in a dispute settled less on the merits than on endurance.

The Melbourne context makes the case stronger still. In a city where construction routinely abuts occupied commercial buildings, where reactive clay soils extend the zone of influence of every major excavation, and where the heritage building stock is both vulnerable and expensive to repair, the circumstances that make dilapidation reports necessary are not occasional but recurring. The facilities and property managers who understand this, who monitor the development activity around their buildings, who specify the standard of report they require, and who engage contractors with the access capability and technical competence to document the whole building rather than the portion visible from the ground, are the managers who turn dilapidation reporting from an afterthought into a reliable instrument of risk management.

McPherson brings to dilapidation reporting the combination of capabilities that produces a genuinely defensible document: IRATA-certified rope access that reaches and records the full height of a commercial facade, the technical competence in facade, glazing and building maintenance that allows our inspectors to recognise and correctly describe what they document, full compliance with the Victorian OHS framework and the high-risk work licensing that facade access at height demands, and the systematic documentation discipline that ensures the report performs when it is challenged. Whether you are managing a building adjacent to an imminent development, planning works of your own that may affect neighbouring properties, or building a condition record into your ongoing maintenance programme, we can produce the dilapidation reports that protect your building and your interests before works begin. To discuss a dilapidation report for your building, or to integrate condition recording into your facade and window cleaning programme, call us today on 1300 30 15 40.