欧洲建筑遗产各国比较研究

Citation: Pickard, Rob (2002) A comparative review of policy for the protection of the architectural heritage of Europe. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 8 (4). pp. 349-364. ISSN 1352-7258 Published by: Taylor & Francis URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1352725022000037191 This version was downloaded from Northumbria Research Link: http://nrl.northumbria.ac.uk/2773/ Northumbria University has developed Northumbria Research Link (NRL) to enable users to access the University’s research output. Copyright © and moral rights for items on NRL are retained by the individual author(s) and/or other copyright owners. Single copies of full items can be reproduced, displayed or performed, and given to third parties in any format or medium for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-profit purposes without prior permission or charge, provided the authors, tit le and full bibliographic details are given, as well as a hyperlink and/or URL to the original metadata page. The content must not be changed in any way. Full items must not be sold commercially in any format or medium without formal permission of the copyright holder. The full policy is available online: http://nrl.northumbria.ac.uk/policies.html This document may differ from the final, published version of the research and has been made available online in accordance with publisher policies. To read and/or cite from the published version of the research, please visit the publisher’s website (a subscription may be required.) School of the Built Environment Research Library  Journal article  Subject Group: Property and Real Estate   Full Reference:  Pickard R. (2002) A Comparative Review of Policy for the Protection of the  Architectural Heritage of Europe International Journal of Heritage Studies Vol. 8. No. 4  Routledge pp349‐364 ISSN 1352‐7258 Please scroll down to read the final draft of the journal article.  Click here to read the published article online.   Pickard, R. (2002) ‘A comparative review of policy for the protection of the architectural heritage of Europe’, in the International Journal of Heritage Studies, Vol. 8 No. 4 at pp. 349 – 363 (ISSN1352-7258). A comparative review of policy for the protection of the architectural heritage of Europe Robert Pickard Author’s note: Robert Pickard is based at the School of Built Environment, University of Northumbria at Newcastle, United Kingdom. He is a consultant to the Cultural and Natural Heritage Department of the Council of Europe and has been a member of its Legislative Support Task Force since 1997, acting as its Co-ordinator since 1998. Abstract: This paper is comparative a study of the policies for the protection of the architectural heritage currently in place in Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Georgia, Ireland, the Netherlands, Spain and the United Kingdom. These countries are a representative sample of 32 countries that have brought the provisions of the Granada Convention (the Convention for the protection of the Architectural Heritage 1985) into force. Set against the articles of the convention the paper examines different approaches that have been adopted bearing in mind that the convention called for monitoring of the implementation of its provisions, which has not yet taken place. In this respect the paper provides a current overview of the extent of implementation and the different procedures and policies utilised. Key Words: Architectural Heritage, Granada Convention, Integrated Conservation, Inventory, Council of Europe. INTRODUCTION The Convention for the Protection of the Architectural Heritage of Europe (Granada, 1985)1 (the Convention hereon) set the framework for a consistent approach for conservation law and policy within Europe. Since it opened for signature in 1985 the Convention has been brought into force in 32 countries, (from a total of 43 member states of the Council of Europe). Article 20 of the Convention identified that progress in implementing its provisions would be monitored. However, this has not taken place to date, but has recently been called for2. This study examines the way the main articles of the Convention have been interpreted and implemented in practice in 10 countries3 (Figure 1). It aims to shed light on the complexity of measures utilised in practice in comparison to the brief framework of articles identified in the Convention. 1 European Treaty Series no. 121 2 Resolutions and declarations of the 5th European Conference of Ministers responsible for the Cultural Heritage, Portorož, Slovenia, 6 – 7 April 2001. 3 This study is partly derived from the findings of research project involving a sample of thirteen countries conducted in association with the Council of Europe and subsequently published in Pickard, R. (ed) (2001): Policy and law in Heritage Conservation, Conservation of the European Built Heritage Series, Spon Press. A corresponding study was published in Pickard, R. (2001): Management of Historic Centres, Conservation of the European Built Heritage Series, Spon Press. Figure 1. Granada Convention: Sample Countries Country Date of Signature Date of Ratification Brought into Force Belgium 21/10/1985 17/09/1992 01/01/1993 Czech Republic 24/06/1998 06/04/2000 01/08/2000 Denmark 03/10/1985 23/07/1987 01/12/1987 France 03/10/1985 17/03/1987 01/12/1987 Georgia 17/09/1999 13/04/2000 01/08/2000 Germany 03/10/1985 17/08/1987 01/12/1987 Ireland 03/10/1985 20/01/1997 01/05/1997 Netherlands 03/10/1985 15/02/1994 01/06/1994 Spain 03/10/1985 27/04/1989 01/08/1989 United Kingdom 03/10/1985 13/11/1987 01/03/1988 DEFINITION OF THE HERITAGE (article 1) Interest factors The Convention defines the interest factors to be used for the purpose of selecting “monuments, groups of buildings and sites” for protection as being the “conspicuous historical, archaeological artistic, scientific, social or technical interest”. In practice the terms used differ but follow a similar approach by a combination of the same or other appropriate terms. For instance, ‘landscape’ (Wallonia, Belgium), ‘revolutionary’ (Czech Republic), ‘architectural’ (Denmark, Malta and United Kingdom), ‘aesthetic’ (Georgia and France), ‘palaeontological’ (Spain), ‘ethnological’ (France, Italy and Spain), ‘spiritual’ and ‘religious’ (in Georgia and Ireland respectively), ‘urban design’ and ‘folk-lore’ (Thüringia, Germany). These illustrate the different ‘interest’, or ‘significance’ factors. Social interest may also be represented by ‘public interest’, ‘events’ or ‘persons of note in history’ and ‘military significance’, while environmental and economic considerations may also be used. Levels and categories of protection Different approaches are adopted regarding the need for one single category or other levels of protection. The argument for having more than one levels of protection would seem to be tied to the question of economics. A higher level may warrant priority support (largely due to the limited funds available to support conservation action), whereas countries that have chosen one level have decided not to discriminate on the basis that all monuments should be equally eligible or for other reasons. For instance, Denmark formerly had both A and B levels of listed buildings but due to a reassessment of the selection criteria (which recognised the importance of industrial buildings for example), the distinction was removed. Terms for categorising protected assets can be identified as follows: The Walloon region of Belgium uses the simple definitions in the Convention. The main level of protection is by ‘listing’, although there are 133 items that are listed as ‘exceptional immovable heritage’, and there is also the ‘safeguard’ (for temporary protection) and the possibility of ad hoc designations from the inventory. The Brussels-capital and Flemish regions use different approaches. In the Czech Republic assets are defined as immovable objects and sets of objects (from the oldest time to the present), with 134 exceptional having declared as ‘national cultural monuments’. Denmark adopts the concept of listed buildings (with an age criterion of being more than 50 years old) and a lower level of `buildings worthy of preservation’, which are dealt with more in relation to local planning mechanisms with the assistance the Survey of Architectural Values in the Environment (SAVE)4. France uses an all-encompassing system of ‘historic monuments’ on two levels: ‘classification’ and ‘inclusion on the supplementary list of historic monuments’ (with no age distinction). Legislation approved by the Georgian government in 1999 defines architectural monuments, monumental fine art, and monuments associated with the development of science, technology and industry. Three levels of significance have been identified (international i.e., UNESCO World Heritage Sites, national and local). As a representative of the 16 federal states within Germany, Thüringia defines the concept of ‘cultural monument’ including objects, groups of objects and parts of objects, and while there is only one level of protection, in practice the authorities prioritise action on certain monuments. (The laws in other German states are similar but can differ). Ireland has a system of national/historic monuments (generally applied to pre1700 assets), heritage buildings (in public ownership), and a new system (operational from the beginning of 2000) to give greater protection for “protected structures”. The Netherlands, defines its historic buildings as objects (generally buildings more than 50 years old). In Spain, the ‘real property’ heritage items include architectural monuments, historic sites and gardens. Autonomous regions also have their own system of local designations. In the United Kingdom listed buildings are categorised according to three levels (generally they must be at least 30 years old). The extent of protection (articles 1 and 7) Most countries protect the ‘whole’ monument. However there are different methods of identifying the scope and regime of protection. In the United Kingdom, case law has been used to define the fixtures, objects, structures and land associated with a listed building which often causes disputes, but the idea of defining items or boundaries remains a question of discussion as is the question of the ‘setting’. Recent legislation in Ireland has attempted to deal with this problem by making a ‘record of protected structures’. In Germany the exterior and movable parts can be protected as well as the surroundings. In Belgium the opportunity exists to protect different items so that even the frontage/façade can be singled out. Surrounding ‘protection zones’ and can be defined on a `case by case basis’ (Belgium, Czech Republic, Georgia, Spain) or by a defined radius (France). 4 Ministry of Environment and Energy, National Forest and Nature Agency (1995): InterSAVE: International Survey of Architectural Values in the Environment. Types of legislation used for protection One marked difference between some of the countries is the type of law used as the basis of protection. Most of the countries use all encompassing laws for the protection of the “cultural heritage” in its widest sense – immovable, movable or other. However, Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom use different legislation and policy mechanisms for the architectural and the archaeological heritage, although there is a degree of overlap in the management of these issues. Individual objects that can be protected include ‘listed buildings’ (Denmark and United Kingdom) which are based on national criteria. The United Kingdom uses planning legislation for the protection of buildings of ‘special architectural and historic interest’ (the same applies in the Walloon region of Belgium but not in the other two regions). Whereas in Ireland the legislation requires local planning authorities to devise protection objectives for ‘structures’ in relation to the preservation of buildings according to defined interest factors. Areas and ensemble protection mechanisms The concept of ‘sites’ and ‘groups of buildings’ indicated in the Convention are often not specifically used in the sample of countries examined. The approach more often used is through area-based mechanisms. These include secteur saugardé and ZPPAUPs (zones of architectural, urban and landscape interest) (France), conservation zones and sites (Czech Republic), monument ensembles (Thüringia, Germany), the SAVE system (Denmark), urban parks including ensembles and complexes (Georgia), architectural conservation areas (Ireland), and conservation areas (United Kingdom). Historic sites that form a townscape unity, or for groups of immovable objects, can be specifically designated in Spain and the Netherlands respectively. Buildings can be listed for ‘group value’ in the United Kingdom, ‘sets’ of objects can be declared in the Czech Republic, whereas an à la carte approach in Belgium allows different approaches depending on the merits of the case. Similarly in France the law allows the possibility of applying historic monument status to entire areas of cities, towns and villages. The scale of protection In the United Kingdom, taking into consideration England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, approximately 575,000 items have protection as listed buildings and approximately 10,000 conservation areas have been established. By contrast, in France, there are currently approximately 40,000 items that have been ‘classified’ or included in the supplementary inventory of historic monuments as well as 92 secteur sauvegaurdés and 300 ZZAUP (with a further 600 in the course of preparation)5. This does not mean to say that there are less items of cultural heritage value in France, it is more a reflection of policy designation as a historic monument is tied in with a commitment to financial support, which cannot be guaranteed for all listed buildings in the United Kingdom. Moreover, for unprotected historic buildings and areas other methods are used to financially support rehabilitation such as through the national housing agency (ANAH) and planned housing improvement programmes (OPAH). In contrast to other countries, it would seem that the approach taken in the United Kingdom is quite remarkable. For instance, in the Netherlands there is a total of 5 Férault, M-A. (2001): Les zones de protection du patrimoine architectural, urbain et paysager (ZPPAUP), presented at ZZAUP et Dynamiques Territorials Colloque, Lyon, France 6- 8 december 2001. 48,474 protected immovable monuments, in Denmark 9200 listed buildings and 38,700 immovable monuments (and nearly 600 conservation sites and zones) in the Czech Republic. IDENTIFICATION OF THE HERITAGE (article 2) Since the Convention came into force, identifying the need to maintain inventories and to document threatened items of the heritage, further work has been developed at the international level to identify core data information6. Moreover, geographical information systems (GIS) and other new information technology methods have provided the means to improve recording methods. In Denmark and Ireland new inventory systems have been developed in response to these countries signing the Convention. Furthermore recording systems have been developed along the lines of the core data index in Belgium, Georgia and Ireland and most countries are now recording inventory information on computer databases. GIS systems are now being used in Belgium, Czech Republic, and France (where the concept of a ‘heritage atlas’ is being considered to combine all heritage data in a given region - similar to the ‘preservation atlas’ developed through the SAVE system in Denmark). Inventory systems In Belgium an inventory for the Walloon region was completed in 1998 and a new inventory is to be developed which will recognise a wider concept of the heritage (to consider the interplay between built ‘landscapes’, economic and social history and the morphology of territories). The aim is to develop this work as a management tool for decision-makers in land-use planning of the ‘living environment’. Furthermore, the inventory has been an important instrument for ad hoc protection of assets and a benchmark for framing integrated policies. In the Czech Republic, there has been a need to revise inventory records since the ‘velvet revolution’ in 1989, particularly due to the restitution of property to private owners and resulting development pressure. The Central List is currently being updated and the information contained in it is used to determine items for protection. In Denmark, the inventory records developed in the 1960s - 1980s are now being augmented by ‘thematic surveys’ (for example, to re-evaluate the industrial heritage) and by the topographical assessment of areas through the SAVE system to assist in the management strategies - the aim to produce a ‘preservation atlas’ for each of the 267 municipal areas. In France, the general inventory was set up in 1964 and covers 25% of French territory. This work does not form the basis of protection but the results are increasingly used in this context. Current action is also concentrating on developing a ‘heritage atlas’ for each region and further studies are being carried out to assist in management activities. 6 Council of Europe (1995) Core Data Index to Historic Buildings and Monuments of the Architectural Heritage (further Guidance on Inventory and Documentation of Cultural Heritage will be published in 2002); Getty Information Institute (1998): Documenting the Cultural Heritage. In Georgia a new form of identification was adopted for the architectural heritage in 1997. Planning legislation also still awaits approval and it will therefore take some time before the information can be integrated with land-use planning. In Germany, at the national level a handbook of the most important building and art monuments was completed in 1998. However, each of the 16 federal states is responsible for recording the heritage in their territory. A considerable amount of updating and reform has taken place over the last decade due to the re-unification of eastern states. A national inventory of the architectural heritage in Ireland was placed on a statutory footing in 1999 and survey action has occurred over the last decade, and is on-going, to develop inventories for towns and also for geographical county areas. This information is to be used as a management tool for the protection of ‘structures’ under planning legislation enacted in 2000. All protected monuments dating from before 1850 have been recorded on the official register in the Netherlands and from 1985 to 1995 the heritage from the period of 1850 – 1994 was recorded and subsequent registrations have been made. In 2000 a new project has commenced to record items from the period of reconstruction following World War II. Identification of the Spanish historical heritage has concentrated on recording items in a General Register (for protection) and the autonomous regions have also been involved in developing their own special inventories which can be used to as a management tool. In the United Kingdom a re-survey of the architectural heritage was completed in 1989 (for England) and has played the most significant role in determining which assets should be put on the statutory ‘list’. Since the mid-1990s recent survey work has been of a thematic basis, looking in particular at buildings of the 20th century. Other work to assist in the management of the immovable heritage includes the building-at-risk surveys that have been develop in recent years to prioritise action. In general inventories are not normally utilised as the basis for protecting assets, but as a means to determine which as