EUROPEAN COMMISSION

SUIT

Guidance for the Environmental Assessment of the impacts of certain plans, programmes or projects upon the heritage value of historical areas, in order to contribute to their long-term sustainability

URBAN HISTORICAL AREAS THROUGH AN ACTIVE INTEGRATION WITHIN TOWNS

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT OF

Edited by

A. Dupagne (coordinator), C. Ruelle, J. TellerLEMA ¬ Laboratory of Architectural MethodologyUniversity of LiègeBelgium

B. CornélisSPIRAL ¬ Scientifi c and Public Involvement in RiskAllocations LaboratoryUniversity of LiègeBelgium

Directorate-General for ResearchEU FP5 EESD - Key Action 4 : The City of Tomorrow and Cultural HeritageAction 1.1.4-4.2.3 Foster integration of cultural heritage in the urban settingProject n° EVK4-2000-00017

2004 EUR 21148

Research report n°16

ph503744_Int 1 22/03/05, 10:43:11

Europe Direct is a service to help you fi nd answers to your questions about the European Union

Freephone number:00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11

LEGAL NOTICE

Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use which might be made of the following information.

The views expressed in this publication are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily refl ect the views of the European Commission.

A great deal of additional information on the European Union is available on the Internet.It can be accessed through the Europa server (http://europa.eu.int).

Cataloguing data can be found at the end of this publication.

Luxembourg: Offi ce for Offi cial Publications of the European Communities, 2004

ISBN 92-894-7819-5

© European Communities, 2004

Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.

Printed in

Printed on white chlorine-free paper

ph503744_Int 2 22/03/05, 10:43:14

ph503744_Int 3 22/03/05, 10:43:15

¬ SUIT

4

SUST

AIN

AB

LE D

EVEL

OPM

ENT O

F U

RB

AN

HIS

TO

RIC

AL

AR

EAS

TH

RO

UG

H A

N A

CT

IVE

INT

EGR

AT

ION

WIT

HIN

TO

WN

S

TABLE OF CONTENT

• Introduction, by Prof. A. Dupagne 7

• Summary Guidance, edited by C. Ruelle and J. Teller 17

1. The SUIT project: Defi nitions 19

2. EA as an entry point for a long-term active conservation 23

3. Organising an EA procedure in practice 26

4. The different stages of an EA 28

5. Plan, programme or project preparation 29

6. Screening 31

7. Preparation of assessment framework (scoping) 34

8. Environmental report 37

9. Consultation with Designated Authorities and the Public 40

10. Independent review of the adequacy of the Environmental Information 42

11. Decision-taking 43

12. Announcement of Decision 44

13. Monitoring 45

• Case Studies 49

1. Introduction, 50by J.Teller and B.Cornélis

2. A project for a new national opera house in the capital of Denmark, 55by O.Wedebrunn and G. Algreen-Ussing

3. EMAHL, a matter of defi nition and values, 60by B.Cornélis and Y.Rogister

4. Victoria Square regeneration: revitalising a derelict civic space of Belfast city centre, 68by C.Tweed and M.Sutherland

5. The construction of a new station in Namur: assessing the cumulative effects 76of three major constructions, by C. Ruelle

6. St-Mary’s hospital: transformation into the Paddington health campus, 84by A. Bond and L. Langstaff

7. Rondellplatz: large shopping centres as a threat to urban heritage diversity, 89by N.Kohler, U.Hassler, T.Bender and M.Joachim

8. Conclusions and recommendations for taking into account cultural heritage 95in spatial planning activities, by B. Cornélis and J. Teller

ph503744_Int 4 22/03/05, 10:43:15

5

SOMMAIRE

• Position Papers 99

1. The consideration of cultural heritage in present European environmental policies, 100by A. Bond and J. Teller

2. The consideration of cultural heritage within EIA practice throughout Europe, 103by L. Langstaff & A. Bond

3. Cultural heritage and sustainable development in SUIT, 107by Uta Hassler, Gregers Algreen-Ussing, Niklaus Kohler

4. Monitoring and post-evaluation of the cultural heritage component 111of Environmental Assessments, by A. Bond, L. Langstaff and C. Ruelle

5. Perception and Attitude surveys as an affordable built heritage scoping method, 114by M. Sutherland, J. Teller, C. Tweed

6. Urban Life Cycle Analysis and the conservation of the urban fabric, 117by U. Hassler, G. Algreen-Ussing, N. Kohler

ph503744_Int 5 22/03/05, 10:43:17

7

INTRODUCTION

INTRODUCTION

By Prof. Albert Dupagne, coordinator of the SUIT project.

While it was once considered as a major impediment to a continued urban development, the conservation of the built heritage presently appears as one of the cornerstones of the urban renaissance advocated for by most European authorities, at every level of decision-making, from the European Union itself to the municipal authorities. Actually, it is increas-ingly considered that the sprawl, the “des-urbanisa-tion” and the increased competition between cities witnessed during the last decades not only hamper environmental and economical resources, but also cultural ones.

1. Competition between European Cities: diversifi cation in city profi le and conver-gence in management methods.

Presently it is seldom disputed that the recent globalisation of the world communication system has intensely addressed city networks and to a lower extent the previously dominant Nation-State organisation to support the continuously altering movement of international affairs.

That signifi cant transformation has started with the large development of national networks (for instance: railways, electricity, water supply and tel-ephone companies, etc.). Such a nation-wide grow-ing has rapidly induced the enlargement and diver-sifi cation of the users’ demand with the subsequent diffi culties in management. And, when reaching the national border limits, the necessity to progressively interconnect them seems to be the obvious solution in order to improve and better secure the offered services. Consequently the national networks have been placed under a multi-state control system or under the responsibility of large private companies, lowering the States’ domination and subsequently their natural attraction for autarky.

In parallel, a signifi cant attention has been paid to city activities and regional decentralisation that have again reduced the relevance of the Nation-State model of political organisation.An interesting explanation of this alteration in lead-ership organisation can be found in one of the most outstanding aspect promoted by the globalisation movement. It is to say in its constant reference to networking activities as the best way to promote better democratic behaviours in the world. Never-

theless, this expected progress doesn’t happen so obviously in the everyday life.In principle, a network is a perfect egalitarian struc-ture. Each node is located at the same level and can be reached from any point in the net under exactly the same conditions. But, actually, the probability (and attractiveness) of any link in a net is variable. It strongly depends on two signifi cant features of that link (the communication speed and the maximum volume of mass information taken at a time). Of course it is also linked to the legibility of both nodes, but in a lesser way.

An unexpected consequence of this disparity in accessibility to the Net has been the progressive emergence, by a sort of tacit agreement, of a hier-archical organisation between cities, reinforcing the richest ones mainly located in advanced economic and technologically developed countries and, dif-ferentially reducing the capabilities of the poorest and the weakly connected ones. The resulting con-centration of communication means in a restricted number of cities in the world (that is part and parcel of the capital-city effect) has been strongly detri-mental to some of the most prominent egalitarian dreams usually attached to the electronic commu-nication-system development.

It has been sorely felt by most cities and not nec-essarily by those located in developing countries. However, the most active cities have found in In-ternet an easy access to a large number of world city networks1 allowing them to widely highlight some of their specifi c features and, by that, increase their global visibility. And the growing competition/alliance structure that has emerged from the City network takes place on a worldwide scale as well as at a regional and at local level launching the City Renaissance Movement.

In such a turbulent context, citizens and ordinary people, in turn, have substantially developed their mobility and considerably enlarge their activity fi eld and leisure occupations through networking contacts, creating an electronic proximity, ignoring the traditional borderlines and moving from place to place, from City to City.

The resulting effect of the City Renaissance Move-ment has been to reinforce the claim for more local diversity and uniqueness. By evidence, the capabili-ties offered by a particular city would reinforce its attractiveness if enhanced in an appropriate way.Providentially, most European Cities, have kept a

1 For instance and more particularly in the urban context : OWHC (Organization of World Heritage Cities) or EAHTR (European Association of Historic Towns and Cities) and WTFC (Walled Towns Friendship Circle), “L’Alliance des Villes - City Alliance” (UNCHS-Habitat & World Bank).

ph503744_Int 7 22/03/05, 10:43:17

¬ SUIT

8

SUST

AIN

AB

LE D

EVEL

OPM

ENT O

F U

RB

AN

HIS

TO

RIC

AL

AR

EAS

TH

RO

UG

H A

N A

CT

IVE

INT

EGR

AT

ION

WIT

HIN

TO

WN

S

substantial amount of signifi cant heritage assets coming from their long life that can offer them a clear guidance to actually develop an individual ap-pearance. Historical and cultural identity is a unique way to promote, in the most natural way, local specifi cities, while it could be feared that new fash-ion-based urban developments would lead to more conventional or repetitive designs and sketches.

In spite of its worldwide spreading and the actual adhesion it has met with ordinary people, the City Renaissance Movement has also induced some real fears among citizens of the Union. They are afraid that, what they perceive as their specifi c culture (in the broadest meaning) would be harmed and even destroyed by what they call the global culture im-perialism. Two dozens of international architects have devel-oped their practice as a real star-system. They rely on the support of several architectural offi ces bear-ing their name and located in the most prominent world cities. They seem to benefi t presently from a sort of monopoly of the largest and of the most visible architectural and urban projects but not only. Sometimes, even the small and medium size communities ask for their contribution in sensitive situations hoping that the “star aura” would limit the opposition criticism2. The architect star-system is also used in economically declining cities in order to draw the world attention on them and then, at-tracting visitors, it is supposed to revitalise the city activity (the Bilbao-syndrome).

In fact, architectural design and city planning have always been sensitive to fashion effects in history. Designers and crafts’ travels and communications (that have always existed from pre-historic times until now, but with various intensities) have devel-oped a mutual infl uence among them, resulting in the creation of “Styles” or “Movements” lasting for more or less long periods. The best example can be found in the spreading of Gothic and Baroque Styles all over Europe during the Ancient Regime. And closer to our time, the so-called “Art Nouveau” had spread and reached every Country in the developed world as the translation of its name demonstrates it: Modern Style in French, Jugendstil in German, Stile Nuovo in Italian, Tiffany in USA, etc.

However, there is a huge difference between the traditional spreading of art styles issued from direct contact between creators and the present diffusion of the global architecture supported by the star-system. The former supposed an adaptation of new

ideas to the local context, a sort of “translation” by local artists, and the latter is just one single produc-tion done by an international architect (sometimes of good quality) at a certain place but disregarding the local situation and its specifi c culture. The high ambiguity of the star-system is noticeable. It direct-ly drives to modernity and global development. That is considered as highly attractive by lay people and valuable to local authorities. But, at the same time, it could be very detrimental to the city identity and uniqueness. Because of the lack of an actual re-ap-propriation, there is little possible fertilisation of the local culture in such a brutal intrusion.

More specifi cally, at the Union scale, ordinary peo-ple are frightened by the standardization effect of any centralised regulation upon their claimed identity. Considering these worries, the Article 151 of the treaty adopts a very cautious approach in respect with the subsidiarity principle. The point 5 in this article explicitly requires that the Council activities are limited to incentive measures, “exclud-ing any harmonisation of the laws and regulations of the Member States”. According to this principle, the European Union will have to act “as something which guarantees the existence and fl owering of culture rather than something, which dilutes the European cultural identities”3. It is hoped that this respectful behaviour will continue in the future in spite of the strong pressure of the market and fi nancial lobbies.

2. Flowering of cultures throughout Europe (cultural diversity in places and time)

The historical development of most European cities is characterized by a series of periods that are close-ly linked to the succession of the political regime on the places. It occurs in a whole sequence of ex-ploitation, destruction and reconstruction activities taking place on the same location and, most often, reusing the remaining building parts and materials. Despite large differences in spatial and administra-tive organisations, European cities indeed belong to what is usually termed a European model of society. This specifi c European model deserves due atten-tion if it is to be kept alive and transmitted to future generations.

The emergence of such a specifi c model of develop-ment mainly results from the existence of several urban systems endowed with great inertia. First to be mentioned is the presence of highly ponderous construction materials traditionally used in Europe

2 But this resort turned out to be ineffective. When the citizens’ determination is strong, they could tear down the project. Two actual examples (among many others) of such an awkward situation can easily be quoted : the “Opera House” from Zaha Hadid in Cardiff and the “Casa da Musica” from Rem Koolhaas in Porto. (from http://www.uwp.co.uk/book_desc/1442.html)

3 CEC (1998), First Framework programme in support of Culture (2000-2004) - COM (1998) 266, Commission of the European Communities, Brussels.

ph503744_Int 8 22/03/05, 10:43:19

9

INTRODUCTION

for building production. Secondly, the high cultural value given in Europe to the urban built heritage has surely an important impact on its conservation. In the third place is a set of “administrative objects” of especially long life. For instance, the plans of the plots linked to the individual property protection and the maps of the roads whose locations are, in some cases, at the same place from their roman origin. The third system is particularly signifi cant because it shows that the land control is distributed among many hands, private and public.

These long-lifecycle urban structures haven’t failed (from their simple presence) to constantly shape (and re-shape) a dynamic European model of so-ciety. Of course, the European democratic society cannot have a unanimous opinion on such a model and confl icts on expressed opinions have not been avoided. According to several groups of citizens (including experts), the urban built heritage must be seen as a set of cumbersome objects disrupting the harmonious transformation of old cities towards modern life and, at the same time, others consider that they are invaluable heritage from the past ena-bling us to reinforce our local identity by contrast with neighbouring cities. And these two extreme attitudes map out the large fi eld of all possible posi-tions that can be taken by stakeholders concerning the urban built heritage conservation. This is at the origin of the permanent search for the instantane-ous best-acceptable balance that can be reached among the related social values.

In other respects, historical city centres are the traditional place for cultural diversity where vari-ous ideas and distinctive human behaviours have always found refuge and peaceful confrontation. A certain respect of cultural minorities has been pro-moted in Europe for long time, probably most that in other places in the world, with variable success. The US melting pot dream is defi nitely not relevant in European countries. What is more, the recent ac-celeration of European integration combined with the growing speed of globalisation have induced some oppositions among States concerning the ac-tual intention of the Union to preserve the European cultural diversity.

Considering these concerns, the Union Treaties have adopted a very cautious attitude. Regarding the cultural diversity conservation they have constantly maintained the unanimity decision procedure and kept untouched the European Union areas of competencies (international cooperation and incentive measures).

Due to the application of the so-called “subsidiarity principle” most of the work (and especially a large part of the research work in the domain) has taken place at national, regional or municipal levels. This decision has induced two relevant consequences that have been identifi ed during the preparation of the SUIT proposal and taken into consideration when carrying out the project:

• Researchers and experts of the cultural heritage domain deplore the absence a European-wide perspective in urban cultural conservation strategies, they cruelly miss useful knowledge and know-how and recognise the need for bet-ter co-ordinated research. The main aim would be to increase the cross fertilisation of national research activities and to benefi t from scaling up research in order to increase the availability of expected results. This has strongly drawn our attention on the importance of presenting good examples of professional practices and cases studies to keep the research activities in close connexion with the professional practice.

• The SUIT method must remain generic, and kept at the European level. It is supposed to help States and Regions to produce adapted lo-cal policies. Municipalities and local authorities wishing to control the impacts of local plan, programmes or projects on historical areas could then adapt the SUIT instruction guide and develop themselves a “customarised” methodology.

3. The three major hypothesis behind the SUIT methodology.

The SUIT research project has been based on the application of three main hypotheses. These basic references can be used to further detail the context of the procedure that has been set up at the occa-sion of the SUIT research project.

1. Urban projects, plans and other programmes falls under the present Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) directive as well as the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) di-rective.

As it has already been said, and according to the subsidiarity principle, the SUIT guidance is a generic method. It has been kept at the European level and aimed at helping States and Regions to produce policies adapted to their specifi c context. Consid-ering the Aarhus Convention4, which includes the

4 UN-ECE (1998), Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters, Aarhus Convention, United Nations Economic Council for Europe.

ph503744_Int 9 22/03/05, 10:43:21

¬ SUIT

10

SUST

AIN

AB

LE D

EVEL

OPM

ENT O

F U

RB

AN

HIS

TO

RIC

AL

AR

EAS

TH

RO

UG

H A

N A

CT

IVE

INT

EGR

AT

ION

WIT

HIN

TO

WN

S

“cultural sites and built structures” in the defi nition of “Environmental information”, the SUIT project hence considers the Environmental Assessment (EA) procedures a valuable framework for the urban built-heritage active conservation. Two European di-rectives have been identifi ed as being especially well fi tted to this purpose:

• The EIA Directive, or Council Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as amended by 97/11/EC and 2003/35/EC

• The SEA Directive, or Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment.

These instruments constitute a reference govern-ance framework since both directives focus mostly on the decision process rather than the fi nal product development.

In that way, they allow enough fl exibility to be transferred from one country to another and to support effective comparisons between diverse experimentations.

2. There is a need to adopt a more comprehensive understanding of urban built heritage, one that would enable taking into consideration some new and emerging cultural aspects and to integrate them into adapted conservation procedures.

The development of Charters and Conventions has mainly addressed the conservation of architectural and natural monumental heritage of exceptional cultural value. Of course, the advocates of an im-proved conservation of built heritage have (since the issue of the Charter of Venice) recurrently insisted on the necessity of adequate consideration of indi-vidual monuments environments. And most of these authors have, on a regular basis, underlined the high potential damage that lies in uncontrolled transfor-mations of protected monument neighbourhood. In most situations, when the urban fabric had been taken into consideration, it was simply considered as a context for the passive protection of individual monuments and seldom according to its intrinsic characteristics.

However, the concept of “accompanying structures” is far from encompassing the actual signifi cance of

urban structures. Obviously the urban setting can-not be reduced to a mere faire-valoir without serious risk of failure. Continuing such an attitude would actually mean disregarding much of the social, cul-tural and economic richness that characterises the complex networks of monuments, street patterns and common buildings shaping our daily experience of urban space quality. On the other hand, according to an enlarged defi nition of urban heritage, a signifi -cant number of urban elements, and especially pub-lic open spaces, should probably be considered as a genuine habitat (in the ecological meaning of the term), fairly well suited to human growth. An inter-esting effect of such an enlargement is to widely in-crease the number of built cultural assets subjected to impact as well as the number of features, aspects and attached “values” to be considered.

This has signifi cantly increased the problem solving complexity but, in turn, it has also helped to defi ne new approaches, that are much more realistic in terms of present modes of practical development, interventions and urban integration. The relative abundance of non-exceptional heritage elements drastically changes the scope of the conservation project, as well as the adapted governance style in handling it. Economic and social features indeed play a dominant role, though they may have been of secondary importance for the conservation of monuments. Considering such a situation requires simultaneously managing the fi nancial plan for funding the project, the distribution of urban func-tions, the subsequent people mobility expected and, obviously, the conservation of the different kinds of cultural assets.

A good example illustrating the actual signifi cance of such an opportunity can be found in the capabil-ity it offers for setting up turnkey actions involving, perhaps, a developer or a large number of building owners in a joint project aimed at conserving his-toric city centres and refurbishing hovels. The man-agement of such complex projects typically involves a large number of different stakeholders, having very different attitudes regarding the different values as-sociated with the urban elements. Such a situation rapidly raises intricate governance issues. How can we choose between alternative restoration and con-servation strategies when the involved stakeholders voice confl icting opinions in discussions related to values and value balance?

This is not to say that the conservation of monu-ments and listed buildings should be disregarded.

ph503744_Int 10 22/03/05, 10:43:23

11

INTRODUCTION

These signifi cant efforts aimed at sustaining their life cycle must be continued and, if possible, increased. We simply intend to underline the es-sential difference in management procedures that exist between the conservation of monuments of exceptional interest and the management of larger historical urban ensembles. Furthermore, these two sets of elements are often located very close to one another, if not completely imbricated, so that they cannot be treated as completely isolated in space. In spite of the strict delineation of status arising between listed buildings and other historic struc-tures (whether included or not in the buffer zone of monuments), there is a continuous set of partly safeguarded constructions and a complex mixing of urban elements of very different value, status and, sometimes ages.

The management of the induced complexity has led the SUIT procedure to defi ne a new concept: the urban fragment. It is to say the urban area adapted to the sustainable management of a built heritage ensemble on the basis of long-term and contextual strategies. It is characterised by some interesting features (morphological, architectural, societal, etc.) usually acknowledged by citizens and city visitors, that are in coherence with their surrounding and that can be separated from the rest of the town with limited consequences. Its limits and content evolve throughout time. This evolution results from a long process of discussions and negotiations carried out among the stakeholders during the preparation of various plans, programmes or projects.

This has led to a signifi cantly enlarged defi nition of the built urban heritage. Three main categories have been identifi ed:

• Monumental heritage of exceptional cultural value;

• Non-exceptional heritage elements but present in a coherent way with a relative abundance;

• New urban elements to be considered (for instance):

¬ The urban built form. It is to say the architec-ture of the town and not the individual build-ing architecture, or some of its aspects like the urban silhouette.

¬ The “architecture” of the open space existing between the buildings: streets, public open spaces, etc.

¬ The three main urban structures:

• the green (the vegetal in town, seen as a whole),

• the blue (the presence of water in town, in every interlinked aspects),

• the grey (routes of any kind, bridges, etc.).

¬ Urban infrastructures, material networks and equipments.

According to Michel Rautenberg5, cultural herit-age is a woolly concept with vague contour lines of delineation and content. He proposes to mainly distinguish between two different kinds of cultural heritages based on the expression’s twofold mean-ing. The fi rst one embraces all cultural objects that are listed, institutionalised and labelled by experts. Rautenberg suggests calling this heritage by desig-nation. The second one is the social or ethnologic heritage that includes landscapes, townscapes, liv-ing places, shared places of memories and minor built cultural heritage. Rautenberg proposes calling this heritage by appropriation.

Obviously, the latter is not empowered by any local authority or scientifi c competence, but simply by those citizens that recognise and transfer it to one another. This heritage, hence, appears as a distinc-tive support of citizenship in our everyday life: its le-gitimacy is based on its capability to summon up lay people, social actors and stakeholders. It does not exist a priori in a substantial way, or lasting for long time. Therefore, its defi nition has to be collectively devised during the whole duration of the project, keeping in mind that it will change continuously.

In summary, in terms of management, it is worth making the distinction between the twofold aspects of the built cultural heritage:

• Heritage by designation : all cultural objects that are listed, institutionalised and labelled by experts.

• Heritage by appropriation : the social, or ethnologic heritage that includes landscapes, townscapes, living places and non-exceptional building ensembles

Such a broadening of the urban heritage defi nition introduces promising opportunities in terms of citizens’ understanding of and adherence to urban revitalisation plans, as they can easily recognise and appropriate the presence of the more concrete and ordinary urban elements with the conservation

5 RAUTENBERG M., “L’émergence patrimoniale de l’ethnologie: entre mémoire et politiques publiques”, in Patrimoine et modernité, ed. D. Poulot, Paris L’Harmatan, 279-291, 1998.

ph503744_Int 11 22/03/05, 10:43:25

¬ SUIT

12

SUST

AIN

AB

LE D

EVEL

OPM

ENT O

F U

RB

AN

HIS

TO

RIC

AL

AR

EAS

TH

RO

UG

H A

N A

CT

IVE

INT

EGR

AT

ION

WIT

HIN

TO

WN

S

project. For instance, an abstract and immaterial object like “urban form” (built form and open space form) through its specifi c features can provide an ef-fi cient way of integrating new building shapes into urban historical areas. It can also help in assessing the impact of the introduction of new activities in traditional public open spaces as long as the appro-priate tools are available. This last extension of cul-tural heritage thereby claims to include social, cul-tural and, in more general terms, human activities as part and parcel of the citizens’ intangible heritage.

3. This enlarged and more complex view on urban

built heritage conservation problems has driven

the SUIT project to propose introducing a new

concept: the “active conservation”.

The set of criteria for cultural heritage identifi ca-tion, conservation and integration in an urban setting cannot be simply those used by experts in monument conservation (i.e. authenticity, rarity, aesthetic or symbolic value, etc.). Even the simple set of morphological constraints imposed on the “urban context” and aimed at protecting an indi-vidual monument becomes rapidly unacceptable in such a complex situation. It defi nitely needs more thorough argumentation than just an authoritative expert’s decision related only on a limited set of aspects.

These limitations have led us to propose developing a new approach called active conservation of built heritage. There is a real danger of seeing the present historical city centres become open-air museums if the contained built heritage, urban assets and net-works cannot fi nd new socio-economic uses6. When the townscape, the street patterns and the plan of the plots are treated as heritage (when applicable), it always has implications for the functioning of the city as a whole. “Current and future land-uses, traffi c circulation, and, last but not least, demographic and social composition in such areas become involved in conservation issues”7. The aim of active conser-vation strategies would be precisely to achieve a better integration of urban heritage within the rest of the town, so as to generate the investment, local development and citizens’ involvement needed to conserve it from a sustainable perspective.In summary, the SUIT approach for the control of the various proposed interventions can be charac-terized by:

• The application of Environmental Assessment (EA) procedures to the urban built-heritage active conservation. They have been used as a framework for the SUIT method development.

• The attention given to urban built heritage as a whole (and in its broadest meaning), considering it as a common “resource” that is to be man-aged in common.

The main aims of the SUIT procedure are:

• To propose a more sustainable perspective for the urban built heritage considering the cultural diversity preservation on the long-term as a signifi cant objective and making the decision-makers aware of the irreversibility of urban transformation.

• To achieve a better balance between opposing interests distributed among the numerous stake-holders. Confl ict resolution through fair negotia-tions is by far more important than trying to reach “soft consensus” based on stakeholders’ resigna-tion or imposing non-respected regulations.

• To associate local authorities, citizens and ex-perts in true participative procedures.

This raises important governance challenges that have been taken into account in the SUIT project. Especially two domains related to decision-making aspects have been managed:

1. the identifi cation of new criteria and tools for urban environment value assessment and

2. the identifi cation of emerging partners per-forming new roles within the frame of innova-tive commitment procedures.

4. The SUIT Summary Guidance and the Active Conservation principle.

1. The defi nition of strategic objectives related to urban fragments’ heritage active-conserva-tion and their management on the long-term is a collective action that necessitates the ability to evaluate the quality of an urbanfragment as a whole.

Active conservation strategic actions are complex to manage and require many human “transactions”. They have to cope with strong confl icts of values that could rise unexpectedly among stakeholders.

6 TIESDEL S., OC T., HEATH T., Revitalizing Historic Urban Quarters, Architectural Press, Oxford, 1996.7 ASHWORTH G.J. and TURNBRIDGE J.E., The Tourist-Historic City, Behalven Press, London, 1990.

ph503744_Int 12 22/03/05, 10:43:26

13

INTRODUCTION

But the fi nal decision remains under the responsibil-ity of competent authority, acting as an arbiter in dispute resolution. Competent authorities bear the environmental risk of their decisions but environ-mental experts under the “control” of citizens aid them in carrying out adapted procedures.

However, such risk evaluations have to take four puzzling aspects into consideration that are part and parcel of the dynamic character of active conserva-tion procedures. It’s to say:

• the constant alteration of any physical object and its necessary maintenance;

• the permanent transformation of the users’ expectations;

• the presence of operational actions (private or public) that can already impact on the built heritage values existing in the concerned urban fragment;

• the presently still uncertain validity of environ-mental assessment procedures.

From this very short list it is easy to perceive the complexity of this collective action. However, in order to help understanding the problem, the SUIT project suggests considering, at the same time, three different but highly inter-related logics that constitute the context of any active conservation procedure:

• design and development activities (public and/or private): promoting the improvement of social, economic, cultural and ecological performances of the urban fragment trough the development of an intervention (plan, pro-gramme or project)

• environmental control and public participa-tion : allowing the defi nition or redefi nition of urban values (social, environmental and cultural) to be protected and enhanced, and the strategic objectives to be reached in case of intervention on the urban fragment.

• knowledge acquisition and recycling : aimed at improving the evaluation tools accuracy and the decision-making procedures through feed backs from the implementation stage to the design and decision-making parties through the environmental assessment procedures.

Of course, these three logics are more or less inde-pendent and usually under the responsibility of dif-

ferent actors or groups of actors. Although several actors can be involved in more than one group, often they are in opposition regarding values and interests and the application of confl ict resolution processes are usually requested.

The fi rst aspect is out of the SUIT methodology. The activities concerned by the “design and development” aspect are those usually required for any architectural or urban application (for instance: defi nition, design, construction, operation, demolition). Further explana-tion wouldn’t probably bring any help here. However, one noticeable point is that, in active conservation contexts, the cycling approach of the design-con-struction process must be closely phased with cycling approach of the Environmental Assessment (SEA/EIA) procedures needed to manage urban built-heritage conservation. Numerous contacts and exchanges have to be assured between the design-develop-ment team and the environmental control and public participation organisation. This has been fi gured out on the diagram below (fi gure $$) where the top blue bar represents the “Private and public operational ac-tions” and the central set of rectangles the “EIA and SEA procedures”.

The second one supports the public active-conser-vation strategy and its adaptation to the evolution of the urban fragment. It is carried out by compe-tent local authorities working in close contact with cultural groups, with the active participation of lay people and citizens. They will help defi ning cul-tural values to be attached to any heritage element defi ned by designation or by appropriation and belonging to the urban fragment. On the diagram (fi gure 1) the bottom blue bar fi gures out the “Public active conservation strategic action”.

ph503744_Int 13 22/03/05, 10:43:28

¬ SUIT

14

SUST

AIN

AB

LE D

EVEL

OPM

ENT O

F U

RB

AN

HIS

TO

RIC

AL

AR

EAS

TH

RO

UG

H A

N A

CT

IVE

INT

EGR

AT

ION

WIT

HIN

TO

WN

S

2. The monitoring stage in the EA procedure

and case studies

2.1. The post-decision monitoring stage is the last one in “EIA and SEA procedures” and it is represented as the last box in the central set of rectangles on the diagram (fi gure 1). It is aimed at controlling experimentally the predicted environmental incidence of any intervention (projects, plans or programme) on the concerned urban fragment, during and after implementation. The checking verifi es the compliance with the conditions and regulations agreed at the decision-taking stage. It also ensures that mitigation measures are actu-ally implemented.

2.2. The SUIT method suggests to extend the moni-toring beyond the simple compliance checking required by the EU directive and to exert a permanent control over the quality of the ur-ban fragment in the long-term. This would help ensuring the effectiveness of the active conser-vation measures in the long-term. But it would also take the permanent transformation of the urban fragment into account, to identify in due time any disruption in the active-conservation strategy application and to advise the compe-tent authorities to intervene regardless of any project, plan or planning.

The SUIT guidelines provide competent authori-ties with recommendations and instructions to set up such an observation post dedicated to the urban built heritage active conservation in the long-term.

2.3. It is one of the most impressive features in the SUIT method to avoid fi xing standards to comply and thresholds to be reached by urban-fragment environmental performances. It is probably too early to fi x unverifi ed levels of theoretical qual-ity according to the present lack of references and experimental results. And, if the compli-ance to rules and regulations could bring some security to operational actors against resort to Courts, there is no assurance that the predicted performances are effectively reached in the ac-tual urban fragment. In such unsteady situations it is defi nitely better to leave the decision to ad hoc groups at their respective level of decision under the control of end-users and stakeholders through transparent and fair communication actions. But the counterpart is the necessity to verify the effectiveness of predictions and the compliance with agreed conditions as men-tioned here above. And this is the main role of the monitoring stage.

But the infi eld verifi cations could also go a little bit further in providing feedback to decision-makers. For instance, they could be used:

• to verify the effectiveness of predictions in order to adapt the used indicators to unexpected transformations of the decision context;

• to identify unforeseen impacts before irrevers-ible damage occurs and allow to undertake remedial action.

2.4. However, the monitoring stage must also be considered as the irreplaceable source of all operational knowledge. Cases, case studies and

Screening ScopingEnvironmental

Assessment

Consultation with

designated authorities

and the public

Quality review

Decision taking

Announce-ment

of decisionMonitoring

EIA/SEA procedures (sustainable design of actions)

Evolution of urban fragment (social ¬ economical ¬ ecological ¬ cultural)

Private and public operational actions

Public active conservation strategic action

Figure 1 - In the SUIT method, the EIA and SEA procedures are used to steer the parallel (re)defi nition of both the long-term active conservation strategies and the proposed plan, programme or project, in order to make them converge towards a win-win solution.

ph503744_Int 14 22/03/05, 10:43:30

15

INTRODUCTION

worked applications bring to the experts and to professionals the richness and the complex-ity of “living” stories. This will be a unique and valuable opportunity to create new operational knowledge:

• to provide learning opportunities for im-proving mitigation measures on future projects;

• to check the accuracy of predictions with a view to improving prediction techniques;

• to provide references on successful pro-cedures and governance actions.But this would ask a signifi cant research effort to gather, compare and generalise the cases that have been scrutinized during monitor-ing activities.

5. Concluding remarks

• Environmental Assessment (EIA & SEA) procedures areapplicable to manage urban built heritage. Their cycling approach assures a fair public participation in the decision-making procedure. They are context driven (in time and space location), through their multi-aspects and multi-actors approach.

• Therefore, they are complex and require numerous human transactions.

• This is not to say that technical aspects can be disregarded. They are even more important than before, but they are not aimed at providing local optimal solutions anymore, as it was the case until recent time. They are intricately included in the EA procedures and are supposed to help providing reliable results and to contribute to argumentation set up.

• EA tools must be considered as effi cient guides, al-lowing urban experts to produce innovative evalu-

ation methods and not prefabricated recipes.

ph503744_Int 15 22/03/05, 10:43:32

ph503744_Int 16 22/03/05, 10:43:33

SUMMARY GUIDANCE

SUMMARYph503744_Int 17 22/03/05, 10:43:53

18

SUST

AIN

AB

LE D

EVEL

OPM

ENT O

F U

RB

AN

HIS

TO

RIC

AL

AR

EAS

TH

RO

UG

H A

N A

CT

IVE

INT

EGR

AT

ION

WIT

HIN

TO

WN

S

SUMMARY GUIDANCE NOTE

Sustainable development of Urban historical areas through an active Integration within Towns

The main objective of the SUIT project is to promote the use of Environmental Impact Assessment and Strategic Environmental Assessment procedures as a way to foster a long-term active conservation of urban fragments.

Local urban heritage greatly contributes to the richness and diversity of cultural identities throughout European cities. Its conservation requires a different approach to the one used for monumental built heritage. Urban areas are “living” systems, where private action and investment are crucial, especially when public funding possibilities are limited. Furthermore, the conservation of urban fragments cannot be separated from the need to enhance the quality of life for local residents. Socio-economic development and conservation of local heritage values cannot be separated, even if they sometimes appear contradictory. This suggests that, in order to achieve sound conservation, urban fragments must be maintained within sustainable development activity cycles.

SUIT proposes to assist Competent Authorities with the sustainable design of future actions –plans, programmes or projects– by means of guidelines entitled “Guidance for the Environmental Assessment of the impacts of certain plans, programmes or projects upon the heritage value of historical areas, in order to contribute to their long-term sustainability”. The guidelines, recommendations and tools will outline references and existing practices for developers, environmental consultants and third parties – most particularly members of the wider public and special interest groups – for whom the formal process and legal procedures may otherwise seem daunting and confusing.

This document is the fi rst and most important part of the guidelines.

Historical development of Copenhagen© Indre By/Christianshavn Bydelsatlas, Bevaringsværdier i byer og bygninger, Copenhagen 1996 (Copenhagen Townatlas). The National Forest and Nature Agency, Denmark.

1

2

3 4

¬ SUIT

ph503744_Int 18 22/03/05, 10:44:11

SUMMARY GUIDANCE NOTE

19

1. The SUIT project: Defi nitions

1.1. The “urban fragment” is a coherent area of the city, suit-able for establishing a long-term management strategy.

An urban fragment may be characterised by its architectural, morphological, or sociological coherence (the area presents an internal set of features that are clearly different from those outside the area): for example, a grid of streets (an old Roman pattern of a city centre) may defi ne an urban fragment. An ur-ban fragment may also be defi ned by obvious landscape limits (river, hill, place, wall, motorway, etc). An urban fragment is not necessary physically continuous: a specifi c set of landmarks in a city, a given coherent townscape, skyline, perspective, etc., may also be considered as an urban fragment, as their coherence and characteristics may be desirable to conserve. As such, the criteria for identifying an urban fragment should be that it must have a broadly recognised or acknowledged existence (even at the local level), independent of any proposed plan, programme or project.

The site of Victoria Square Regeneration Scheme in Belfast City Centre - This scheme, one of the largest of its kind in Europe, aims to revitalise a formerly important Civic space, linking the existing commercial and historic centre, with the new cultural developments focused around the River Lagan. Photograph reproduced with permission of BKS Survey Limited, Coleraine and Belfast City Council

1.2. The heritage value of the urban fragment consists of all the tangible or intangible resources which have a cultural signifi cance for a population or a group.

The concept of Culture is very diffi cult to defi ne. It varies in space and time and it is often stamped with subjectivity. According to UNESCO, “culture consists of all distinctive, spiritual and material, intellectual and emotional features which characterise a society or a social group”. This defi nition may appear very broad, possibly too large to be operational in any way. It nevertheless refl ects the fact that “culture is no longer restricted to ‘highbrow’ culture (…). Today the concept also covers popular culture, mass-produced culture, everyday culture” (CEC, 1998).

Cultural values - Old Town Square in Prague : Town Hall, before and after manipulation showing a hypothetical development to the public, to test the public’s perception and attitudes towards the heritage values of this historic space. © School of Architecture, Queens University Belfast

The Environmental Impact Assessment procedure is regulated by Council Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as amended by 97/11/EC and 2003/35/EC.

The Strategic Environmental Assessment proce-dure is regulated by Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment.

EIA and SEA are both referred to by the term “EA” for the remainder of this document.

Up-to-date information about these tools can be found on the European Commission EIA/SEA Webpages at the following address:

http://www.europa.eu.int/

comm/environment/eia/home.htm

ph503744_Int 19 22/03/05, 10:44:13

¬ SUIT

20

SUST

AIN

AB

LE D

EVEL

OPM

ENT O

F U

RB

AN

HIS

TO

RIC

AL

AR

EAS

TH

RO

UG

H A

N A

CT

IVE

INT

EGR

AT

ION

WIT

HIN

TO

WN

S

Heritage “by appropriation” is becoming as well recognised as heritage “by designation”. According to this enlarged defi nition of urban heritage, a signifi cant number of urban elements should be considered as a genuine habitat (in the ecological meaning of the term), deserving conservation. Any appraisal of what constitutes the “heritage value” of an urban fragment should refer to cultural groups and cultural values. Ignoring this could lead to strong pub-lic reaction, resulting in controversy. “Heritage values” should be collectively identifi ed, bearing in mind that they will change continuously. Urban fragments are “living systems” involving a large number of different stakeholders, with different and evolv-ing attitudes towards the different values associated with each of its varied elements.

1.3. “Active conservation” is a term introduced by the SUIT project, to emphasise that the conservation of the nu-merous heritage values of an urban fragment requires an approach from Competent Authorities which is more pro-ac-tive and more clearly focussed towards its inhabitants.

Adopted by the Council of Europe in 1975, the Amsterdam Charter introduced the concept of “integrated conservation”, meaning that conservation of the built heritage requires better integration into urban planning policies, to resolve the possible confl icts between built heritage conservation and continued urban development. This declaration of principle led to the adoption of the Granada Convention (1985) by the members of the Council of Europe. The Granada convention requires signatories “to include the protec-tion of the architectural heritage as an essential town and country planning objective and ensure that this requirement is taken into ac-count at all stages both in the drawing up of development plans and in the procedures for authorizing work.” (Article 10)

This represented sound progress. However, to conserve the numerous “small” urban heritage values that contribute to the richness and individuality of urban fragments throughout Eu-rope, private investment and commitment are crucial. The public authorities’ role, for ensuring active conservation of an urban fragment’s heritage values, increasingly consists of four actions. Firstly, in stimulating private investment and action through public strategic actions and public-private partnerships. Secondly, of improving quality of life through strategic and operational ac-tions (directly affecting social, ecological, cultural and economic concerns within the urban fragment). Thirdly, these actions will include steering and coordinating, as well as ensuring the sus-tainable design of the various actions and, fi nally, a fourth action involves steering the cumulative effects produced by the various actions on the urban fragment, in order to adapt future actions.

“Active conservation” of the heritage value of urban fragments would help ensure an acceptable balance between socio-econom-ic development and urban heritage conservation needs. This would help to enhance the quality of life within these fragments, and be considered a step towards a their sustainable development.

The Convention for the Protection of the Architec-tural Heritage of Europe was opened for signature by the member states of the Council of Europe on 3 October 1985 in Granada (Spain). The Conven-tion had to satisfy a twofold purpose:

¬ the reinforcement and promotion of policies for protecting and enhancing the heritage within the territories of the parties;

¬ the affi rmation of European solidarity with regard to the protection of the heritage and the fostering of practical co-operation between states and regions.

More information about the Granada Convention can be found on the following website:http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Reports/

Html/121.htm

ph503744_Int 20 22/03/05, 10:44:20

SUMMARY GUIDANCE NOTE

21

1.4. The European EIA/SEA Directives establish a useful framework for Competent Authorities to fulfi l their role, by providing good opportunities for them to react in an appropriate manner when a new plan, programme or project, which is likely to produce signifi cant effects on the Environment (including urban heritage values) is proposed.

The two Directives explicitly require the consideration of cultural heritage within Environmental Assessments. In particular, Annex III(2) of Council Directive 97/11/EC states that the characteristics of a project’s location, which must be considered when decid-ing if an EIA is necessary, should include: “(e) areas classifi ed or protected under Member States’ legislation; (g) densely populated areas;(h) landscapes of historical, cultural or archaeological sig-nifi cance”.Similarly, among the characteristics of the effects and of the area likely to be affected mentioned in Annex II(2) of Directive 2001/42/EC, and which have to be considered in deciding whether a SEA is necessary, are included: “the value and vulnerability of the area likely to be affected due to: (…) special natural characteristics or cultural heritage; exceeded environmental quality standards or lim-its values;” and “the effects on areas or landscapes which have a rec-ognised national, Community or international protection status”.

Annex II (1) among the characteristics of plans and programmes also includes: “the degree to which the plan or programme sets a framework for projects and other activities, either with regard to the location, nature, size and operating conditions or by allocat-ing resources”.

Screening ScopingEnvironmental

Assessment

Consultation with

designated authorities

and the public

Quality review

Decision taking

Announce-ment

of decisionMonitoring

EIA/SEA procedures (sustainable design of actions)

Evolution of urban fragment (social ¬ economical ¬ ecological ¬ cultural)

Private and public operational actions

Public active conservation strategic action

“Project” as defi ned by Council Directive 97/11/EC (Artcile 1(2)) is: “- the execution of construction works or of installations or schemes, - other interventions in the natural surroundings and landscape including those involving the extraction of mineral resources;”

“Plans and programmes” are defi ned by Directive 2001/42/EC as those:“- which are subject to preparation and/or adop-tion by an authority at national, regional or local level or which are prepared by an authority for adoption, through a legislative procedure by Par-liament or Government, and-which are required by legislative, regulatory or administrative provisions” (Article 2(a))

Projects, plans and programmes are often referred to by the term “actions” within this document.

St-Lambert place in Liège (Belgium) – Temporary reconstruction of the core of the ancient cathedral, demolished during the French Revolution. © Studio ADR

ph503744_Int 21 22/03/05, 10:44:22

¬ SUIT

22

SUST

AIN

AB

LE D

EVEL

OPM

ENT O

F U

RB

AN

HIS

TO

RIC

AL

AR

EAS

TH

RO

UG

H A

N A

CT

IVE

INT

EGR

AT

ION

WIT

HIN

TO

WN

S

The use of EIA and SEA procedures to manage sensitive deci-sion-making processes in relation to cultural heritage values is important as they impose a framework, likely to help in establish-ing a constructive debate or dialogue between all the concerned actors.

ph503744_Int 22 22/03/05, 10:44:26

SUMMARY GUIDANCE NOTE

23

2. Environmental Assessment (EA) as an entry point for long-term active conservation

2.1. The EA procedures provide a framework to allow reaction when a new plan, programme or project is proposed. They are not suffi cient however to ensure the quality of that reaction and subsequent debate. The availability of local knowledge and up to date information on the “threat-ened” urban fragment are also crucial requirements to ensure the sustainable design of the proposed action.

Information must be available concerning the past evolution and current condition or character of the urban fragment. In particu-lar this should include cultural, social, economic and ecological view points which are likely to play a signifi cant role not only in the overall “health” of the urban fragment, but also in the subse-quent conservation of its heritage values.

2.2. The last stage of the EA procedure (monitoring) is aimed at assessing the actual effects of an implemented plan, programme or project. This long-term and ongoing stage should be used as a basis for collecting any information likely to improve the quality of discussions during future EA processes.

The EIA Directive does not have any requirement for monitoring, but numerous guidance documents recommend monitoring as a way of learning from experience and progressively improving EAs. The SEA Directive (2001/42/EC) explicitly requires to “moni-tor the signifi cant environmental effects of the implementation of plans and programmes in order, inter alia, to identify at an early stage unforeseen adverse effects, and to be able to undertake ap-propriate remedial action” (Article 10(1)). This monitoring require-ment also promotes an adaptive environmental management.

2.3. In order to ensure the long-term active conservation of urban fragments, it is necessary to extend this monitor-ing task by organising a consistent “health surveillance” of the culturally signifi cant urban fragments, independently from any particular project, plan or programme.

To manage the long-term evolution of an urban fragment, it is necessary to adopt an “area-based” monitoring approach as op-posed to an “instrument-based” approach. This would then be used as a warning system, helping to identify harmful and unfore-seen trends within the urban fragment, before they result in the irreversible damage of heritage values. This is also the only way to allow for the coordination of the various actions impacting upon the urban fragment under consideration.

2.4. The fi rst pillar principle of the Aarhus convention (the public right of access to environmental information) has been implemented by the Directive 2003/4/EC, repeal-ing Council Directive 90/313/EEC. It requires that public authorities disseminate to the public the environmental information which is relevant to their functions.

The active conservation monitoring, as presented in this guidance, is inspired by the “ALARA princi-ple”. In those cases where there is no threshold be-low which the risks disappear, it is recommended to adopt the ALARA approach: “Exposure [to risk] must be kept As Low As Reasonably Achievable, taking into account economic and social factors”. Such an approach requires the establishment of clear objectives and the follow-up of possible drifts in order to implement corrective actions.

Acknowledging that both excessive urban devel-opment and dereliction imply some risk for the conservation of local heritage should lead to the adoption of a cautious precautionary approach balancing “residual risks” with economic and social criteria.(http://ean.cepn.asso.fr/alara1.html)

The Aarhus convention –UNECE Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Deci-sion-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters– was adopted on 25th June 1998. It has been signed by 39 European countries as well as the European Community. The convention establishes that sustainable development can be achieved only through the involvement of all stakeholders. It further links government account-ability and environmental protection. The Conven-tion entered into force on 30 October 2001 and progress of ratifi cation was relatively rapid. More information about this convention can be found on the following website:http://www.unece.org/env/pp/

ph503744_Int 23 22/03/05, 10:44:27

¬ SUIT

24

SUST

AIN

AB

LE D

EVEL

OPM

ENT O

F U

RB

AN

HIS

TO

RIC

AL

AR

EAS

TH

RO

UG

H A

N A

CT

IVE

INT

EGR

AT

ION

WIT

HIN

TO

WN

S

This means that local authorities have to collect and record any environmental information that could be useful for the purposes of environmental decision-making. The environmental informa-tion collected must be disseminated further and be publicly accessible; for example, through publication of regular state-of-the-environment reports (at least every four years), publication of lists/registers of available environmental information, and progressively through electronic databases and other electronic means of communication.

2.5. To organise the long-term surveillance of a signifi cant ur-ban fragment, the development of an active conservation strategy with an associated monitoring advisory panel, adapted to the specifi c needs of the considered urban fragment, is recommended.

The overall evolution of an urban fragment may be divided into social, economic, cultural and ecological aspects, to be maintained within or above/below acceptable limits. The strategy should mainly consist of defi ning a set of active conservation goals, per-haps of different levels of abstraction, until a set of “operational” goals is reached, expressed on the basis of relevant monitoring indicator(s) (both quantitative and qualitative). These operational goals should identify minimum and/or maximum acceptable and desirable limits for the future development of each indicator (these limit(s) may also set different levels and milestones).

2.6. Following the Subsidiarity principle, and for effectiveness reasons, the set of goals, indicators and acceptable – or desir-able limits for the active conservation of the heritage value of urban fragments, should be defi ned at the local level.

Article 151 of the Treaty of the European Union states that “The Community shall contribute to the fl owering of the cultures of the Member States, while respecting their national and regional diver-sity and at the same time bringing common cultural heritage to the fore”. In addition, monitoring everything everywhere would be costly and of little use. It is therefore necessary to select the in-formation to be monitored by defi ning goals and indicators which are specifi c and relevant to a particular time and space context.The active conservation goals, indicators and limits should be defi ned by taking into consideration:

• the monitored past evolution of the urban fragment (base-line evolution);

• existing benchmarks (e.g. provided by experts);

• perception of the area by the local community, as well as their needs and requirements (participation of the local community is crucial to ensure that inhabitants accept and support the defi ned strategy);

• the goals established at higher levels of decision making (e.g. sustainability or local agenda 21 boards at the city level), as well as those established at the local level and addressing issues other than heritage conservation.

The subsidiarity principle is intended to preserve the independence of the Member States and avoid excessive centralism in the European Community. According to the subsidiarity principle the Euro-pean Community should only be involved when the envisaged objective cannot be better achieved by a lower level of authority. Subsidiarity means that responsibility for public tasks is placed at the level closest to the citizens, at local author-ity or regional level, for example. It is only when a particular problem cannot be solved at that level, that authority to deal with it is passed “upwards”(http://parleunet.jrc.it/m0197.htm)

ph503744_Int 24 22/03/05, 10:44:29

SUMMARY GUIDANCE NOTE

25

Such typical active conservation goals should consist of two types. In accordance with the concept of “active conservation”, which places inhabitants’ quality of life as a central issue, there should fi rstly be direct conservation goals (e.g. maintain or promote acceptable use of the built stock; preserve local urban heritage values; enhancement of cultural images/identities of the urban fragment, etc) and secondly there should be quality of life improvement goals (e.g. maintain or promote an acceptable quality of housing; maintain an acceptable quantity/quality of public spaces; maintain an acceptable level of nuisance and pol-lutants, etc).

2.7. The active conservation strategy (and monitoring advisory panel) should initially be established, in the fi rst instance, at the start of a particular EA, and should be regularly (re)defi ned, in order to take into account the ongoing evolution of the ur-ban context and values – thereby avoiding any obsolescence.

These may initially be established at the inception of the EA for a particular plan, programme or project or on the occasion of an audit organised voluntarily by the Competent Authority (in t1 on the graph below). The strategy (and panel) would then be redefi ned for any new audit, initiated for instance, when an active conservation indicator is close to exceeding a previously defi ned acceptable limit. In such a case, the monitoring advisory panel would be used as a warning system, allowing remedial action to be undertaken. The monitoring advisory panel may also be estab-lished when a new EA is due to be initiated because of a new plan, programme or project proposal (in t2, t3, ti on the graph below).

At each new audit, the set of goals, indicators and acceptable limits may be redefi ned to take into account the current context of the urban fragment and the possible benefi ts of the develop-ment opportunities. The EIA and SEA procedures would be used to steer the parallel (re)defi nition of both the long-term active con-servation strategy and the proposed plan, programme or project, in order to make them converge towards a win-win solution (i.e. to fi nd a solution which fulfi ls not only, the various actors’ short term values and interests, but also the long-term societal values expressed in the active conservation strategy).

The Civic Trust is an example of a voluntary body which could provide a framework for the forma-tion of local conservation advisory panels. This charitable body seeks to promote progressive improvements in the quality of urban life for communities in the United Kingdom. The Civic Trust is the national umbrella body for nearly 900 local Civic Societies, representing 330,000 people. These Civic Societies seek to promote high stand-ards of planning, conservation and regeneration for the benefi t of their local community. They also undertake practical projects, including restoring old buildings, improving the quality of public plac-es and fi nding solutions to traffi c problems. Civic Societies have a non statutory role as community watchdogs commenting on planning applications for new buildings and developments and guarding against unsympathetic changes to Conservation Areas and historic buildings.More information available on this page:http://www.civictrust.org.uk/top.shtml

Activeconservationindicator

Limit of acceptability

t1 t2 t3 ti Time

Actual trend

Predicted trend

ph503744_Int 25 22/03/05, 10:44:30

¬ SUIT

26

SUST

AIN

AB

LE D

EVEL

OPM

ENT O

F U

RB

AN

HIS

TO

RIC

AL

AR

EAS

TH

RO

UG

H A

N A

CT

IVE

INT

EGR

AT

ION

WIT

HIN

TO

WN

S

3. Organising an EA procedure in practice

3.1. EA procedures should take place within a general decision-making framework, tiered from the most strategic (or abstract) levels to the most detailed project (or concrete) levels of decision-making. Decisions at the different levels will be taken with the help of an EA where necessary and reaching a broad consensus at each level of decision is necessary before progressing to the next.

Case study analyses have shown that when this principle is not respected, ongoing questioning of the decisions previously taken is observed, resulting in low public acceptance of the fi nal plan, programme or project. Furthermore, when a project is proposed by a developer which still raises strategic questions amongst the public and other stakeholders (e.g. should it be located elsewhere? Is the function appropriate? Is the size, height and massing of the proposed building appropriate?) or which is likely to produce so many signifi cant impacts that it will require major off site operations (e.g. new traffi c circulation plan, creation of car parks, etc), returning to a previous level of decision should be recommended , in order to address these questions and to defi ne clear requirements for the fi ner level of decisions, even on the basis of a SEA where necessary.

3.2. When an EA process is due to be performed, it should be exploratory and should accompany the plan, programme or project throughout its progressive defi nition.

Since there is a high risk of controversy where urban heritage values are involved, the EA process should not be limited to an a posteriori and rapid examination of a proposed plan, programme or project, but should be used as a design tool. This would greatly improve the quality and sustainable design of plans, programmes and projects, and reduce the risk of potentially irreversible dam-age infl icted upon urban heritage because of inappropriate ac-tions. One of SEAs objectives (as stated in Directive 2001/42/EC, Article 1) is “to contribute to the integration of environmental con-siderations into the preparation and adoption of certain plans and programmes with a view to promoting sustainable development”.In order to guarantee its exploratory character, throughout the progressive defi nition of the plan, programme or project, the EA process should be iterative: sometimes, it must be recognised that steps of the procedure should be (partially) repeated, because of previously overlooked information, or because of changing con-ditions. This should not be perceived as a waste of time, but as a way of ensuring that the fi nally approved plan, programme or project has a solid and consistent basis.

3.3. Participative methods, allowing genuine involvement of the local community, should be organised and managed throughout the EA process.

The specifi c nature of urban heritage issues requires that special attention is focussed upon public participation. Due to the sub-

The responsibility (and fi nancial burden) of man-aging an EIA varies between the different Member States. The different scenarios are:

¬ developer responsible for EIA (both fi nancial and physical responsibility) and has free choice in selecting a consultant(s) to undertake the EIA on his behalf e.g. UK , Ireland

¬ developer responsible for EIA (both fi nancial and physical responsibility) but has to select the consultant from a registered list e.g. Brussels and Flanders regions

¬ developer has fi nancial responsibility for the EIA and produces a report, but a further assessment of the report is conducted by the Competent Authority (or independent board or coordination authority) e.g. Portugal, Finland. The decision is then made either on the basis of the Competent Authority assessment (Portugal) or a combina-tion of the two assessments (Finland)

¬ Competent Authority (or independent board) has complete responsibility for undertaking the EIA but the developer is liable for the cost e.g. Denmark

ph503744_Int 26 22/03/05, 10:44:33

SUMMARY GUIDANCE NOTE

27

jective nature of the different values placed upon urban heritage, public perceptions of a given plan, programme or project and its impacts on the urban environment vary widely. These different values and perceptions can be just as important as “real” envi-ronmental impacts. To underestimate them is likely to result in controversy and costly delays.

3.4. Time and space are necessary in order to allow a com-prehensive defi nition of the problem, the engagement in constructive debate and subsequent exploration of suc-cessful solutions.

Several case study analyses showed that short-term time and money savings may become very costly in the long-term (they are often perceived as unfairness or unwillingness from the Com-petent Authority).

3.5. The organiser of the EA process should inform the public about the rules of decision-making and EA procedures.

It is necessary to inform the public not only about the proposed action, but also on the general procedure, its current stage, its format etc. in order to guarantee that everyone who feels con-cerned, is engaged in the process with the same level of knowl-edge. Case study analyses have shown that poor understanding of the procedures by some stakeholders is likely to generate misunderstanding and dissatisfaction.

3.6. When a public authority is engaged as the developer of a plan, programme or project wholly or partially, either as a promoter or as funder, the EA process undertaken would gain validity through being organised by a neutral author-ity or body.

To ensure constructive debate, the process needs to be sound, transparent and thorough. It is often poorly perceived by the public when an authority who supports a plan, programme or project also organises the EA process: giving the impression that the opportunities to respond and to be heard are limited. Giving responsibility for the organisation of the EA process to a neutral authority or body would contribute to increasing social and pub-lic acceptance of the fi nal plan, programme or project.

New minimum requirements for public participa-tion (to ensure that public participation is consist-ent with the provisions of the Århus Convention) are contained within Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 providing for public participation in respect of the drawing up of certain plans and programmes relating to the environment and amending with regard to public participation and access to justice Council Directives 85/337/EEC and 97/11/EC. This Directive does not apply to plans and programmes falling within the remit of Directive 2001/42/EC as this already complies with the Århus Convention.

ph503744_Int 27 22/03/05, 10:44:34

¬ SUIT

28

SUST

AIN

AB

LE D

EVEL

OPM

ENT O

F U

RB

AN

HIS

TO

RIC

AL

AR

EAS

TH

RO

UG

H A

N A

CT

IVE

INT

EGR

AT

ION

WIT

HIN

TO

WN

S

Plan, programme or project

preparation

Screening

Preparation of assessment

framework (scoping)

Environmental Report

Consultation with Designated

Authorities and the Public

Review of adequacy of

the Environmen-tal Information

Decision-taking

Announcement of Decision

Monitoring

Dark shading Mandatory under Directive 2001/42/EC and Directive 85/337/EEC as amended by Directive 97/11/EC and Directive 2003/35/EC Medium shading Mandatory under Directive 2001/42/EC only Light shading Not mandatory

4. The different stages of an EA

Firstly, a proposal for a project is prepared by a developer (private, public or private-public), or a proposal for a plan or programme is prepared by an authority at national, regional or local level.

During the Screening stage, which is a quick stage, the Compe-tent Authority determines the need for submitting the proposal to a complete EA.

The Scoping stage is aimed at establishing the programme for the environmental assessment: the likely signifi cant effects to be assessed, assessment methods to be used, alternative actions to be considered, etc. The scoping stage is a much longer stage, usually including broad consultations with the public, experts and the developer.

The Environmental Report is prepared by the designated envi-ronmental experts, on the basis of the programme established during the scoping stage.

Consultations are then usually organised with designated au-thorities and the public, on the basis of the Environmental Report, in order to obtain their views about the different alternative ac-tions and corresponding expected effects.

In some Member States, an Independent Review of adequacy of the Environmental Information is organised, aimed at con-trolling the quality of the work carried out by the designated environmental expert(s) and the soundness of the whole EA procedure.

During the Decision-taking stage, the Competent Authority takes the fi nal decision about the proposed plan, programme or project: approval, conditional approval or refusal.

The fi nal decision is announced by the Competent Authority, usually with a summary of the rationale behind it, a description of the measures required to mitigate adverse environmental effects, and a description of measures concerning monitoring.

The Monitoring and post-evaluation stage is a long-term stage during which the actual effects of the plan, programme or project are monitored, in order to allow the undertaking of remedial ac-tion when necessary.

ph503744_Int 28 22/03/05, 10:44:36

SUMMARY GUIDANCE NOTE

29

5. Plan, programme or project preparation

5.1. The main objective of this stage, with respect to the EA procedures, is to provide the basic information necessary in order to carry out the screening stage.

This information includes the general characteristics of the pro-posed plan, programme or project, the main characteristics of its location, and the main characteristics of any potential impacts.

5.2. The key challenge at this stage is to ensure the reversibil-ity of the proposed plan, programme or project.

A recurrent problem with EA procedures is that plans, programmes and projects are often already well developed and defi ned when the screening stage is carried out. As a consequence, some deci-sions are already irreversible because they have already involved an outlay of resources (fi nancial, negotiation, technical, etc). As stated in the Directive 2001/42/EC (Article 1), one of the ob-jectives of the SEA procedure is “to contribute to the integration of environmental considerations into the preparation and adoption of certain plans and programmes with a view to promoting sustaina-ble development”. Therefore, a plan or programme subject to SEA must be continuously defi ned throughout the whole procedure.The ideas prepared at this level must be understood as draft, a starting point for the debate. They can be questioned and adapt-ed later, during the EA procedure.

5.3. The defi nition of objectives is the fi rst necessary step in preparing a plan, programme or project. This should help to clarify the debate by developing an operational defi nition of the plan, programme or project which corresponds more clearly to the set objectives.

During preparation of the objectives, it is highly recommended to explore their compatibility with the objectives and require-ments fi xed at higher levels of decision making (strategic plans, programmes, policies) and, if necessary, to clarify the relation-ship with them. In the absence of such a strategic framework, it may be desirable to establish strategic requirements through the preparation of a plan or programme (with accompanying SEA where necessary). It should outline the political context and relevant decision making chain from the strategic level to the operational level.

5.4. The second step is to prepare an “outline” of the plan, programme or project.

The outline must remain general, in order to ensure, where pos-sible, the reversibility of the proposal. Alternatives and choices which are not imposed by strategic requirements should be acknowledged as an initial concept of the practical means of meeting the proposed objectives. The “outline” should not nec-essarily consist of an already coherent physical proposal or set of strategic requirements, but may be limited to the identifi ca-tion of signifi cant parameters likely to play a role in satisfying the proposed objectives. The outline should also draft the limits

Examples of objectives:

¬ The programme intends to revitalise a given urban fragment

¬ The project intends to contribute to the revitali-sation plan for a given urban fragment

¬ The project intends to create a new local com-mercial activity.

ph503744_Int 29 22/03/05, 10:44:37

¬ SUIT

30

SUST

AIN

AB

LE D

EVEL

OPM

ENT O

F U

RB

AN

HIS

TO

RIC

AL

AR

EAS

TH

RO

UG

H A

N A

CT

IVE

INT

EGR

AT

ION

WIT

HIN

TO

WN

S

or boundaries of the area subject to the plan or project, as well as the limits of the expected impact area (in terms of positive-negative impacts). An outline may also consist of more than one proposal. The generation of very general alternatives at this early stage will facilitate the procedure.

ph503744_Int 30 22/03/05, 10:44:38

SUMMARY GUIDANCE NOTE

31

6. Screening

6.1. Screening is a quick stage aimed at determining the need for a complete Environmental Assessment.

The manager of the screening stage must avoid two types of er-rors: fi rstly, “under inclusion” (exempting plans, programmes or projects with signifi cant adverse impacts) and secondly, “over inclusion” (requiring an EA for a plan, programme or project whose effects are not signifi cant). Both of these have counter-productive effects on active conservation goals. “Over inclusion” leads to unnecessary assessments which will not be cost effective and saddle the developer with excessive costs (systematic “over inclusion” may thus threaten creative initiatives and innovation). “Under inclusion” threatens active conservation and sustainabil-ity through an increased risk of accepting projects or plans which may encourage a deviation of the fragment’s evolution from acceptable limits (suppression of opportunities to uncover new but relevant concerns and preventing the rethinking of previously accepted assumptions).

6.2. The main challenge at this stage is to quickly reach an ef-fective and relevant defi nition of the problem: what are the likely signifi cant impacts (cumulative, direct and indi-rect) associated with a plan, programme or project?

Analytical methods (e.g. key informants approach or social sci-ence consultants) are a convenient solution to keep screening as a quick stage while allowing for suffi cient consideration of the context and possible public reactions. The manager of the screening stage has to balance the costs/benefi ts of carrying out a complete EA or allowing an exemption. The analysis includes fi nancial and direct or indirect impacts. For example, the time and resources needed to implement an EA and the possible benefi ts in terms of quality for the plan, programme or project (including the reduction in environmental uncertainty), or the time and re-sources needed to resolve any public controversy which may be triggered by an exemption decision. The manager of the screening stage has thus to analyse carefully the possible stakeholders in each particular case (the citizens who are likely to feel concerned by the proposed plan, programme or project). The manager of the screening stage should also consider the characteristics of the potential impacts (extent and magnitudes, probability, dura-tion, frequency and reversibility of the effects on urban heritage values). Reversibility is particularly important when considering impacts upon fi nite resources such as urban heritage.

6.3. Annex III of Directive 97/11/EC gives criteria to be taken into consideration for the screening of projects. Some of them are directly relevant to the active conservation of urban fragments.

Screening must be carried out on the basis of a list of mandatory actions subject to EIA (Annex I of the Directive 97/11/EC) and on the basis of a list of projects for which the need to carry out an

According to Directive 2003/35/EC: “the public” means: one or more natural or legal persons and, in accordance with national legislation or practice, their associations, organisations or groups;”.(Article 3(1))

A questionnaire undertaken as part of the work for the SUIT project found that few of the respond-ents considered that cultural heritage issues were given adequate regard at the screening phase of the EIA process. In some countries, such as, Ger-many and Portugal they are not included, whilst in others, for example the UK and Ireland despite the fact that in theory they should be taken into account the practice in the fi eld was, in the experience of the respondents, contrary to this. Even in countries where the respondents felt that inclusion of cultural heritage issues did occur, as in Finland, no offi cial guidelines specifi c to cultural heritage issues exist to aid the process.

ph503744_Int 31 22/03/05, 10:44:39

¬ SUIT

32

SUST

AIN

AB

LE D

EVEL

OPM

ENT O

F U

RB

AN

HIS

TO

RIC

AL

AR

EAS

TH

RO

UG

H A

N A

CT

IVE

INT

EGR

AT

ION

WIT

HIN

TO

WN

S

EIA must be determined by the Competent Authority (projects listed in Annex II of Directive 97/11/EC, among which are “urban development projects, including construction of shopping centres and car parks”, - a sub group of the “Infrastructure projects”). The Directive gives screening criteria (Annex III) to be taken into con-sideration by thresholds and case-by-case examination (or a com-bination of the two approaches). These include the following:

• characteristics of the project: e.g. size of the project; cumulation with other projects; pollu-tion and nuisances

• characteristics of the project location: e.g. areas classifi ed or protected under Member States’ legisla-tion; densely populated areas; landscapes of historical, cultural or archaeological signifi cance

• characteristics of the potential impact: e.g. extent of the impact, geographical area and size of the af-fected population; magnitude and complexity of the impact; probability of the impact; duration, frequency and reversibil-ity of the impact.

6.4. The Annex II of Directive 2001/42/EC gives similar criteria for the screening of plans and programmes. These criteria are to be used in making the decision on signifi cance of environmental effects in all cases (Art. 3(5)).

The screening criteria are of two types:

• characteristics of the plans and programmes: e.g. the degree to which the plan or programme establishes a framework for projects and other activities, either with re-gard to the location, nature, size, and operating conditions or by allocating resources; the degree to which the plan or programme infl uences other plans and programmes including those in a hierarchy; the relevance of the plan or programme for the integration of environmental considerations in par-ticular with a view to promoting sustainable development; environmental problems relevant to the plan or programme)

• characteristics of the effects and of the area likely to be af-fected: e.g. probability, reversibility of the effects; cumulative nature of the effects; magnitude and spatial extent of effects; size of the population affected; value and vulnerability of the area likely to be affected due to: special natural characteristics or cultural heritage, exceeded environmental quality standards or limit values, intensive land-use; the effects on areas or landscapes which have a recognised national, Community or international protection status.

6.5. Establishing an active conservation strategy and advisory panel is likely to help screening decisions by providing a system of evolving thresholds to be used for both EIA/SEA, and directly linked to the urban environment (rede-fi ned according to its evolution).

ph503744_Int 32 22/03/05, 10:44:40

SUMMARY GUIDANCE NOTE

33

Such a strategy and advisory panel provide useful “environmental quality standards” like those mentioned in the Directive 2001/42/EC. The set of active conservation indicators and acceptable limits, defi ned during a previous audit or EA would be used for the screening of the next EA: is there a risk that the proposed plan, programme or project to make the considered indicators exceed their acceptable limits? If yes, an EA would a priori be necessary.

The functions of urban fragments are often complex and vulne-rable to small or incremental changes. The use of evolving thres-holds or limits is likely to be better adapted to the specifi c indi-vidual local context, allowing the opportunity to correct overly stringent or down-graded thresholds and therefore limiting the risk of “over inclusion” and “under inclusion”. This method will also provide an overview of the public’s current concerns.

6.6. The manager of the screening stage is legally obliged to communicate the screening decision to the public. The decision, particularly in the case of an exemption, should always be clearly justifi ed and accompanied by a full ex-planation.

Descriptive scenarios underlined that, during this stage, a minimal and top-down approach not only triggers but can often amplify concerns amongst the public, resulting in confl ict. An exemption decision may increase these problems, which may set the man-agement process on a destructive path.Exemption may mean, for interested or concerned parties, that Competent Authorities dismiss the possibility of some signifi cant impacts and overlook public concern. Local residents may have a contextual knowledge of (potential) impacts within the opera-tional area – meaning that the decision is questioned on the basis of a lack of knowledge and understanding of the area. The pub-lic expects from authorities some empathy and co-orientation (sharing the same goals, values). It should be noted that trust and distrust are asymmetrical: that is to say that regaining trust takes much more time and effort than losing it. In many cases, losing trust means that controversial factual arguments are evaluated in terms of their plausibility and no longer in terms of the credibility of the source and that the mere modalities of the decision-mak-ing become central to the argument.

ph503744_Int 33 22/03/05, 10:44:42

¬ SUIT

34

SUST

AIN

AB

LE D

EVEL

OPM

ENT O

F U

RB

AN

HIS

TO

RIC

AL

AR

EAS

TH

RO

UG

H A

N A

CT

IVE

INT

EGR

AT

ION

WIT

HIN

TO

WN

S

7. Preparation of the assessment framework (scoping)

7.1. The aim of the scoping stage is to defi ne a programme for the Environmental Assessment, which is specifi c and appropriate to the particular plan, programme or project proposed. This mainly consists of a more detailed analysis of the problem than the one performed during the screen-ing stage.

Although not mandatory under the EIA Directive, it is easy to see that including a scoping stage in all cases is good practice. It should lead to the defi nition of “Terms of Reference” for the Environmental Assessment, specifying the expected content of the Environmental Report: the effects to be evaluated, the as-sessment methods to be used, the corresponding expertise, the time frame for the assessment, and the alternatives to be evalu-ated. The scope of the Environmental Assessment may however, be redefi ned in the course of the Environmental Assessment itself upon request from Competent Authorities, concerned actors or in light of new information arising. Directive 2001/42/EC actually notes that scoping and Environmental Assessment are likely to be repeated in a cyclical way. The Environmental Report should lead to changes in the plan or programme, requiring further assess-ment. In practice this loop will be closed once the assessment has improved the plan or programme to an acceptable level.

7.2. The scoping stage should be open to anyone who feels concerned by the proposed plan, programme or project, as recommended in the Aarhus Convention: ideally, the Terms of Reference should be defi ned through cooperative discussions between the Competent Authority, developer, environmental experts and the public concerned.

The active involvement of the local community is of major im-portance at this stage. The defi nition and identifi cation of what is of cultural signifi cance is recognised as a social and cultural con-struction, as well as the identifi cation of what is an acceptable or unacceptable effect on cultural heritage. It is very important to give all concerned actors the opportunity to comment and to be taken in consideration, at this point when corrections to the plan, programme or project are still feasible. Allowing actors to have such a “transformative voice” is important in two respects:

• their inputs may be valuable to the quality of the fi nal plan, programme or project (local knowledge, user knowledge, experts’ knowledge);

• ignoring the worries of the concerned public may set the process on a destructive course (dissatisfaction with regard to the Environmental Report, fi nal plan, programme or project, or even with the procedure).

The use of deliberative methods, rather than analytical methods, is highly recommended at this stage. The selection of the method should always be done according to the specifi c character and context of a particular case. It is necessary to obtain a shared def-

A questionnaire undertaken as part of the work for the SUIT project found that in theory cultural heritage issues are taken into account at the scop-ing stage of the EIA process in the majority of the Member States. However, in practice formal guidelines often do not exist, for example, in Por-tugal and Finland, or if they do, they focus upon the built environment and “material assets”, as in the UK and Ireland. In practice few respondents felt that cultural heritage was addressed at this stage or if it was, the range of issues considered was too narrow.

According to the Directive 2003/35/EC: “the public concerned” means: the public affected or likely to be affected by, or having an interest in, the environmental decision-making procedures referred to in Article 2(2); for the purposes of this defi nition, non-governmental organisations promoting environmental protection and meet-ing any requirements under national law shall be deemed to have an interest;”

For more information on the deliberative methods, see the deliverables available on http://www.suitproject.net

Participative methods ¬ Example of the citizens’ panel method used for the revision of land use plans in Brabant Wallon, Belgium, 2001. © Fondation pour les Générations Futures.

ph503744_Int 34 22/03/05, 10:44:43

SUMMARY GUIDANCE NOTE

35

inition of the problem, so discussions should be managed in such a way as to enlarge the problem as much as possible (consider all possible issues), and then to refocus it into a shared structure (by selecting the relevant issues). Co-operation is necessary and this can be helped by a problem-solving approach shared by all the parties (poles develop from a decide-announce-defend approach which focuses on justifi cation).

7.3. The fi rst outcome of the scoping discussions must be to reach a consensus as to the potential signifi cant impacts to be assessed. To do this, the rapid impact analysis per-formed during the screening stage is widened and dis-cussed by all the participants.

This more in-depth identifi cation of the likely effects is based on the same kind of analysis as the one performed during the screen-ing stage. It involves identifying:

• the urban fragments likely to be affected by the proposed plan, programme or project;

• the cultural heritage values of this urban fragment;

• the likely signifi cant effects on cultural heritage values, and their characteristics (extent and magnitude, reversibility, probability, direct or indirect, etc).

7.4. A second consensus must be found to decide which meth-ods and analysis techniques (and associated expertise, and costs/benefi ts) will be used for assessing the possible signifi cant effects of the plan, programme or project on the considered urban fragment.

A detailed decision-matrix, to assist in selecting appropriate methods is provided by one of the SUIT deliverables (task 1.4). Minimum professional competence should be identifi ed with regard to the particular impact assessment methods to be used. The use of deliberative methods is also helpful in discussing the costs and benefi ts of assessing the different possible signifi cant impacts, and in agreeing upon a cost effective work programme. Assessing or forecasting long-term social and cultural impacts of complex cases may be costly in terms of resources and have un-clear benefi ts. Deliberative methods create a forum which allows the opportunity to discuss the relevance of engaging such costs.

7.5. To identify all potentially signifi cant impacts, a wider per-spective beyond that of physical and material assets, must be taken of the heritage value of the urban fragment.

Scoping should not only consider the environment, both past and present, but also its network of tangible and intangible elements, all of which contribute to the fragment’s signifi cance. This wider perspective should include the association and relationship of the heritage value upon the perception and attitudes of concerned people living, working and visiting within the fragment.

In this regard, the Competent Authority may require a preference and attitude survey analysis to be carried out at the scoping stage.

Images for characteristics of the effects:

¬ Extent and magnitude of the effects:Urban Master Plan Projects often expect enormous impacts at city, regional or still international level. However they are often accompanied by negative impacts on the local environment (often disregarded in comparison with huge possible positive effects)

¬ Reversibility of the effects:

The demolition of a piece of heritage is an an example of irreversible damage; the lack of use and maintenance of a piece of heritage may also produce irreversible damage.

¬ Probability of the effects:Expected impacts in terms of positive image are often hypothetical; when the demolition of a piece of built heritage is planned, the probability of the effect is 100%.

¬ Direct or indirect effects:The demolition of a piece of heritage has a di-rect impact on heritage values; socio-economic dereliction effects may produce indirect impacts on the built heritage, by the corresponding lack of maintenance they induce.

Field survey methodology ¬ This view of Market Place in Liège, Belgium, is the second most appreciated view of Liège among those shown to the interviewees in the street (with differences of appreciation according to age and sex of the interviewees). © LEMA-ULg

ph503744_Int 35 22/03/05, 10:44:45

¬ SUIT

36

SUST

AIN

AB

LE D

EVEL

OPM

ENT O

F U

RB

AN

HIS

TO

RIC

AL

AR

EAS

TH

RO

UG

H A

N A

CT

IVE

INT

EGR

AT

ION

WIT

HIN

TO

WN

S

The rationale of this survey methodology should be to highlight possible signifi cant values that may otherwise be neglected by the EA procedure. This methodology is a valuable means of help-ing to identify the signifi cance of the area, as perceived by the local population. By engaging with the public through this survey method, measures can be recorded against indicators of percep-tion and attitude and a consensus reached as to which elements of the heritage people actually value. This perceived quality of an urban fragment will vary with time, age, gender, group etc. and values will change in response to certain events or, for example, as a result of the gradual deterioration of the urban fabric. Ac-cordingly, the assumed signifi cance of an urban fragment should be regularly updated and this can only be done through engaging the public in structured, meaningful and ongoing debate.

7.6 A fi nal consensus must be reached as to the appropriate alternative actions to be evaluated during the Environ-mental Assessment.

Their identifi cation should be based on key characteristics of the action and of potential environmental impacts. Participants may help with the use of a “divergence tree”, for generating many dif-ferent alternatives on the basis of successive choices made within relevant parameters. This helps to widen the debate and in fi nding appropriate alternatives.

The “no action” alternative must be assessed in all cases, particu-larly when urban heritage resources are engaged, since the absence of action may sometimes lead to dereliction and obsolescence.

Divergence tree -Methodical choices for each parameter of the project, plan or programme can highlight further alternatives than expected.

Parameter n°1 Parameter n°2 Parameter n°3

Alternative n°1

Alternative n°2

Alternative n°3

Alternative n°4

Alternative n°5

Alternative n°6

Alternative n°7

ph503744_Int 36 22/03/05, 10:44:55

SUMMARY GUIDANCE NOTE

37

8. Environmental Report

8.1. The Environmental Report should gather all the infor-mation which will form the basis for consultation and negotiation. It must therefore be complete and clearly structured.

Two documents should normally be produced: a non-technical summary of the Environmental Report and the complete Envi-ronmental Report. The objective of the non-technical summary is to brief the general public and to allow them the opportunity to react to the effects likely to be produced by the various plan, programme or project alternatives.

General information that should always be provided is: the title of the project, plan or programme, the date and duration of the en-vironmental assessment, those responsible for the Environmental Report, the regulations under which the Environmental Report was prepared and a contents list.

8.2. The Environmental Report is produced by the environ-mental expert(s) designated during the scoping stage. It may be refi ned through several feedback loops within the scoping stage.

If the Environmental Report does not provide satisfactory an-swers to the questions raised by the Competent Authority, ex-perts and the public, it is better to redo the appropriate impact assessments. Ignoring any voiced concerns can have a detrimen-tal effect on progress, as it may be interpreted as an unwillingness to undertake the required studies and analysis.

8.3. The Environmental Report must include a detailed de-scription of the existing context (baseline data). This is especially the case when the proposed plan, programme or project is likely to produce effects on the heritage value of the urban fragment.

It is important to describe not only the current character and context of the fragment, but also its historical development. The information to be included depends on the particular context, and on the effects that the proposed plan, programme or project is likely to produce. This information may include the following information in relation to the urban fragment:

• the limits or boundaries (pre-existing recognition of this fragment to be actively conserved, or those limits defi ned during the scoping stage).

• an inventory of the heritage (description of buildings, spaces, infrastructure, signifi cant monuments, ensembles, silhou-ettes, perspectives, townscape, landmarks, etc)

• historical development (evolution of the built environment, public spaces and infrastructure, evolution of the social structure and function, etc)

Life Cycle Analysis is an example of evaluation method of resource consumption and the impacts on the environment of a product, a system or a service during its life cycle from the extraction of the raw materials to the elimination of waste. It is basically an accounting method of mass and energy. Building LCA is characterised by some crucial aspects. System limits are both temporal and spatial; they can be subdivided in phases and processes. The observation time starts with the construction phase, covers the building use phase (beginning of occupation by the user to the beginning of fi nal demolition) and ends with building deposal. Each phase or process is linked to its spatial boundaries. The building description is normally based on a hierarchical model from the whole stock to the individual building mate-rial. LCA observes the evaluation of buildings over time and produces a large amount of impact over time and resource consumption over time data. There are different possible methods to aggregate data or to represent complex data.LCA results cannot be used directly in the decision process, they are generally contained in specifi c tools for design, management and maintenance of buildings or building stocks.

ph503744_Int 37 22/03/05, 10:44:56

¬ SUIT

38

SUST

AIN

AB

LE D

EVEL

OPM

ENT O

F U

RB

AN

HIS

TO

RIC

AL

AR

EAS

TH

RO

UG

H A

N A

CT

IVE

INT

EGR

AT

ION

WIT

HIN

TO

WN

S

• state of physical degradation or obsolescence of buildings, public spaces and infrastructure.

• economic data (land and rent values, investments in build-ings, spaces and infrastructure in recent years, commercial turnover, number of fi rms, number of workplaces, etc)

• ecological data (fauna and fl ora)

• historical knowledge, social memory, signs, evidence of the social development.

8.4. The Environmental Report should outline the different plan, programme or project alternatives.

The Competent Authority may prescribe a format for the descrip-tion of the different alternatives. The information provided should be such that it helps the different stakeholders and the public to easily gain an effective view of the proposed alternatives:

• short description of each alternative: design, size, scale, func-tions, requirements, etc. (all the choices which characterise the alternative);

• main risks associated with the considered alternative (der-eliction, gentrifi cation, over-development, etc.);

• and, for projects, the timing and duration of the different construction, demolition or refurbishment phases.

The “no action” alternative must always be included in the alter-natives to be assessed (what would be the evolution of the urban fragment without the proposed action).

8.5. The use of visualisation tools within the EA process can en-hance the benefi ts of existing participatory techniques to ensure not only a better public understanding of intended interventions, but also to allow identifi ed experts and Competent Authorities better access to local knowledge.

This will ultimately help to build trust between all the stakeholders in the process. Visualisation tools can provide a common language amongst concerned people, resulting in a more informed debate and, in some cases, overcoming potential public concerns and objections. The use of visualisations should ideally not be limited to the scoping or environmental report stage, but where possible, should be incorporated across the whole EA process from the ear-liest defi nition of the plan, programme or project. This is so that residents and other concerned people can be involved in the design of alternatives and reduction of potentially harmful impacts. The SUIT project has produced a protocol outlining the types of visu-alisation methods which should be considered in the EA process – from the very low cost, utilising basic technology to the most advanced and resource intensive. The method(s) incorporated will depend on the scale of the plan, programme or project proposed and the resources available. It should be noted that often a com-bination of methods will represent the most effective means of engaging and involving concerned people in the EA process.

ph503744_Int 38 22/03/05, 10:44:59

SUMMARY GUIDANCE NOTE

39

8.6. Finally, the assessed effects (direct, indirect and cumula-tive) should be presented in a suitable format in order to ensure their legibility.

The different effects of each alternative should be presented for comparison. The effects should be presented within a time frame-work, as an effect is the variation that could be introduced to the evolution of the urban fragment by the proposal (thus the impor-tance of assessing the “no action” alternative, in order to allow for comparison). In particular, for threatened urban fragments, where an active conservation strategy and advisory panel exists, the En-vironmental Report should present the possible altered evolution for each threatened active conservation goal, resulting from each alternative. It must be assessed whether the different alternatives will result in certain active conservation indicators exceeding the limits of acceptability as previously fi xed.

Effect of two alternative solutions for rehabilitating a side of the Market Place in Liège, upon the sunshine of the place. © LEMA-ULg

Visualisation techniques ¬ A hypothetical intervention in Queens Conservation Area, Belfast presented as a new arts centre, and as a centre for asylum seekers - identical designs shown with “positive” and “negative” associations and depictions. © School of Architecture, Queens University Belfast.

Morphological analyses - Stereographical view of Amalienborg place in Copenhagen, for an assessment of the visual impact of the new Opera project on this historical place. © LEMA-ULg

ph503744_Int 39 22/03/05, 10:45:01

¬ SUIT

40

SUST

AIN

AB

LE D

EVEL

OPM

ENT O

F U

RB

AN

HIS

TO

RIC

AL

AR

EAS

TH

RO

UG

H A

N A

CT

IVE

INT

EGR

AT

ION

WIT

HIN

TO

WN

S

9. Consultation with Designated Authorities and the Public

9.1. Both the EIA and SEA Directives have the requirement to give designated authorities and the public the opportunity to react on the proposed plan, programme or project and on the Environmental Report, before taking the fi nal decision.

The Competent Authority is required to take into account the re-sults of this consultation when making its fi nal decision. The time available for comment and consultation varies greatly between Member States, as does the means of consultation.

9.2. Ideally, the consultation at this stage should at least equal the level of public participation used during the scoping stage (in terms of methods, participants, etc), in order that people may check that the concerns they expressed during the scoping stage (fi xed in the “Terms of references”) have been adequately addressed in the Environmental Report.

The scoping exercise is only interesting if the opportunity for assessing the quality of the Environmental Report is given to everyone –especially the general public – who participated to the scoping stage This means that the deliberative methods used dur-ing the scoping stage are still relevant. Participants, however, need information and time to effectively evaluate the quality of the En-vironmental Report and the relevance of the different alternatives. But experience with deliberative processes has shown that lay peo-ple possess the skills to effectively participate in such debate.

The use of deliberative methods here may also be valuable in providing a framework for debate on the best alternative (or the best combination of alternatives). Some alternatives may have positive effects on some active conservation goals but negatively affect others. Developer, experts and local community should thus discuss these effects in order to fi nd the acceptable balance between all the active conservation goals and the developer’s requirements.

It is however necessary to structure the debate and mediate the arguments in order to reach a consensus for progress. Models exist for analysing argumentation and mobilization strategies in controversial cases surrounding cultural heritage rehabilitation processes. This kind of model provides tools for analysing, clas-sifying and evaluating arguments likely to be used by both oppo-nents and promoters of a urban heritage rehabilitation process.

9.3. In addition, consultation at this stage should also be wid-ened as much as possible to allow any citizen who has not previously responded to do so. The use of Internet should be promoted.

It is necessary to allow everyone to participate, as required by the Directives, even if that person did not participate in the scop-

ph503744_Int 40 22/03/05, 10:45:05

SUMMARY GUIDANCE NOTE

41

ing stage. The recently adopted Directive 2003/35/EC (amended Directive 85/337/EEC with regard to public participation and access to justice) moreover reinforces public participation and public access to information, and mentions the use of the elec-tronic media where available. It also requires that the public are informed about arrangements for consultation (time frame, places and means where information is available, details of the Competent Authorities responsible for making decision, details of the Competent Authorities to which comments or questions can be submitted, etc).

Public participation - A pro-active approach of public participation is a crucial requirement for improving public confi dence in impact assessment procedures. © LEMA-ULg

9.4. T he main outcome of this stage is a report gathering and analysing all the reactions, comments from the desig-nated authorities and the public concerning the different alternatives and their possible effects. This report should also include any input, such as, design suggestions (aimed at reducing adverse impacts) as well as suggestions for mitigation and monitoring measures. This report should be annexed to the Environmental Report.

The results of consultation should be recorded in a report. All the information about the people who participated, the content of their responses, their suggestions, etc. should be recorded. This should help decision-makers in taking the fi nal decision.This document should also describe how consultation processes were organised and their detailed arrangements.

ph503744_Int 41 22/03/05, 10:45:06

¬ SUIT

42

SUST

AIN

AB

LE D

EVEL

OPM

ENT O

F U

RB

AN

HIS

TO

RIC

AL

AR

EAS

TH

RO

UG

H A

N A

CT

IVE

INT

EGR

AT

ION

WIT

HIN

TO

WN

S

10. Review of adequacy of the Environmental Information

10.1. The independent review of adequacy of the Environmen-tal Information aims to ensure that the Environmental Assessment respects the requirements outlined in the “Terms of Reference”, and provides all the information needed by the Competent Authority in order to make its decision.

The EIA Directive does not have a mandatory requirement for an independent review of the adequacy of the environmental infor-mation (it is mandatory under the SEA Directive) however, some Member States do have a formal requirement to do so.

10.2. The independent review may lead to identifying the need for the assessment of further impacts.

Specifi c urban heritage issues are generally addressed in a sim-plistic way in actual Environmental Reports, and most often lim-ited to the consideration of the legally protected heritage.

10.3. The independent review checks that the procedural requirements have been respected, for example, for con-sultation, dissemination of information, etc.

10.4. The independent organisation, which reviews the Environmental Report and the procedure, summa-rises the results of its work in a report to be annexed to the Environmental Report.

This document summarises the results of the independent re-view: quality and adequacy of information provided, conformity with legal requirements and Terms of Reference requirements, conformity with procedural requirements and terms.

10.5. The Member States should record the results of all the independent reviews, in order to assess the quality of Environmental Reports and procedures throughout time, and therefore report to the Commission about diffi culties, progresses, etc. as required by the EIA/SEA Directives.

Independent review of the adequacy of the environmental information is not mandatory under the EIA Directive but many Member States have either formal or informal provisions. In Italy there is a mandatory review stage where the EIA Commission has the responsibility for checking the quality and content of the EIS submitted by the developer. In many countries however, an informal arrangement exists, for example, UK, Ireland and Denmark. However, as none of the Member States appear to have specifi c guidelines on how to assess effects on cultural heritage, how the quality of the content of this area is judged must be open to question.

The SEA Directive does have a mandatory re-quirement for independent review but the ways in which this will be undertaken in the Member States is as yet unknown.

ph503744_Int 42 22/03/05, 10:45:08

SUMMARY GUIDANCE NOTE

43

11. Decision-taking

11.1. In reaching its fi nal decision, the Competent Authority must take into consideration the Environmental Report, the results of consultation with designated authorities and the public, and (where it takes place) the results of the review of adequacy of Environmental Information (all these are often encompassed by the term “Environ-mental Impact Statement” or EIS).

The development consent is the fi nal decision stating the ap-proval for the plan, programme or project implementation and, where applicable, conditions attached to this approval, such as mitigation measures. Sometimes, a combination of different alternatives will be revealed to be more appropriate. On other occasions, the development project may be rejected.

ph503744_Int 43 22/03/05, 10:45:09

¬ SUIT

44

SUST

AIN

AB

LE D

EVEL

OPM

ENT O

F U

RB

AN

HIS

TO

RIC

AL

AR

EAS

TH

RO

UG

H A

N A

CT

IVE

INT

EGR

AT

ION

WIT

HIN

TO

WN

S

12. Announcement of Decision

12.1. The fi nal decision has to be made publicly available, as required by the EIA and SEA Directives, and the decision must be clearly explained.

The announcement to be made by the Competent Authority must describe the content of the decision and any attached conditions, the main reasons and considerations upon which the decision is based, a description of the main measures to enhance, reduce or mitigate the possible signifi cant effects, and a description of the monitoring programme.

Environmental Assessment is, by defi nition, a process based deci-sion framework, so the fi nal decision should clearly document the overall process.

ph503744_Int 44 22/03/05, 10:45:10

SUMMARY GUIDANCE NOTE

45

13. Monitoring

13.1. Monitoring consists of “measuring” the actual effects of the plan, programme or project on a given urban frag-ment, once it is implemented.

The EIA Directive does not have any requirement for monitor-ing but in the SEA Directive, it is a mandatory requirement, to identify unforeseen adverse impacts, and allow the undertaking of remedial action when necessary.

13.2. Monitoring and post-evaluation provide a useful frame-work to avoid obsolescence of urban regulation plans and policies.

In the particular fi eld of urban cultural heritage, review of exist-ing literature and of current practice reveals that the non-im-plementation of conditions attached to consent decisions (and lack of sanction) is a common problem, as well as the rapid obsolescence, lack of dynamism, and consequent problems of status and legitimacy of urban regulation plans and policies. In this context, monitoring and post-evaluation programmes could allow a gradual evolution of the plans in order to better fi t with the monitored needs and requirements of the urban and social environments.

13.3. Monitoring is a necessary on-going task, the programme of which needs to be regularly updated. The monitoring programme should evolve throughout the EA procedure.

The existence of a long-term active conservation strategy and advisory panel for the signifi cant urban fragments would be help-ful here. Once the plan, programme or project is approved and im-plemented in the fi eld, the set of active conservation indicators, which have been (re)defi ned during the scoping and consultation stages, through interaction between the Competent Authority, experts, developer, and the public, would be regularly monitored. It would enable checking that the actual impacts are staying within acceptable limits as expected. If it is not the case, an audit should be initiated in order to defi ne a remedial action.

13.4. The fi rst step for (re)defi ning a monitoring programme is to defi ne its objectives.

Early consideration of the purpose and requirements of the moni-toring programme will increase its effectiveness. However, it is not possible nor useful to monitor everything. Monitoring may have several objectives: to check the accuracy of predictions with a view to improving prediction techniques; to monitor compliance with agreed conditions and regulations; to ensure that mitigation measures are implemented and to provide learning opportunities for improving mitigation measures on future projects; to provide feedback to decision makers about the effec-tiveness of their actions, and to identify unforeseen impacts before irreversible damage occurs thus facilitating remedial action.

ph503744_Int 45 22/03/05, 10:45:11

¬ SUIT

46

SUST

AIN

AB

LE D

EVEL

OPM

ENT O

F U

RB

AN

HIS

TO

RIC

AL

AR

EAS

TH

RO

UG

H A

N A

CT

IVE

INT

EGR

AT

ION

WIT

HIN

TO

WN

S

13.5. The second step is to defi ne the scope of the monitoring programme.

The relevant monitoring information will need to be identifi ed during scoping, to ensure its inclusion in the environmental as-sessment and hence allow inclusion in consequent post-evalua-tion. The information to monitor depends on the proposed plan, programme or project characteristics, on the “threatened” urban fragment characteristics and on the possible effects.

13.6. Operational issues

Operational issues such as, the variables to be monitored, meth-odologies, the frequency and location of data collection, who will collect the data, where it will be stored and what data are already available, all need to be considered early in the EIA / SEA processes in order that they can be fi nalised when development consent is granted or before a plan or programme is adopted. The feasibility of collecting the data in order to monitor the desired impacts will also require consideration, for example, constraints arising from fi nancial or time conditions or the absence of meth-odologies to realistically monitor the predicted impacts. Whilst it may be feasible to monitor factors such as, physical damage to existing buildings from, for example, increased traffi c fl ows or changes in social structure or employment within an area, issues such as, public perception, attitudes and use of an area or building may be more diffi cult, time consuming and costly to measure and analyse. The specifi c sites at which monitoring will take place will also require identifi cation at this stage.

13.7. Data collection.

The collection of data necessary for an effective monitoring pro-gramme can be divided into two distinct phases. Firstly, baseline data need to be obtained during the environmental assessment stage of the EIA / SEA processes. Existing data shall be identi-fi ed and any extra data required in order to assess the potential impacts will require collection at this stage. The second phase of data collection, is the collection within the monitoring pro-gramme itself. This data will be part of an ongoing process of data collection, analysis, evaluation and action.The actual data to be collected and the frequency, location and method of collection will have been defi ned in the monitoring programme at the time of development consent or plan / pro-gramme implementation.

13.8. Evaluation

Successful evaluation will be dependent upon the objectives and scope of the monitoring programme, and the quality and ap-propriateness of the data collected. Data collected to evaluate impacts may be used to determine the severity or existence of predicted impacts, to analyse trends and to determine relation-ships between activities and impacts. An issue to be resolved is who should carry out the evaluation to ensure an objective, but informed, review? This issue needs to be resolved at individual Member State level.

ph503744_Int 46 22/03/05, 10:45:12

SUMMARY GUIDANCE NOTE

47

13.9. Reporting and action

After the analysis and evaluation of the data collected the fi nal stages of the post-evaluation process involve taking necessary action, documentation and reporting. Remedial action and miti-gation programmes may be required to offset or reduce adverse impacts. The monitoring programme may require adjustment to incorporate provisions for unexpected impacts or to remove or reduce monitoring for predicted impacts that did not arise. The fi ndings of the monitoring programme, the evaluation of the data collected, the accuracy of the impact predictions, actions taken as a result of the fi ndings and changes made to the subsequent monitoring programme all need to be documented and reported in a manner appropriate to its target audience.

ph503744_Int 47 22/03/05, 10:45:13

ph503744_Int 48 22/03/05, 10:45:13

CASE STUDIES

STUDIESph503744_Int 49 22/03/05, 10:45:32

¬ SUIT

50

SUST

AIN

AB

LE D

EVEL

OPM

ENT O

F U

RB

AN

HIS

TO

RIC

AL

AR

EAS

TH

RO

UG

H A

N A

CT

IVE

INT

EGR

AT

ION

WIT

HIN

TO

WN

S

1. INTRODUCTIONJacques Teller & Bernard Cornélis

1.1. Towards an active conservation of urban heritage

A new wave of conservation policies is progressively taking shape in a number of European countries. Their aim is to achieve a better integration of his-torical urban areas within the rest of the town in order to generate the investment and local devel-opment that will provide the support needed to conserve and enhance this heritage. Conservation policies are thus more and more concerned with the revitalisation of protected historic urban areas through sustainable development. Another distinc-tive aspect of this new wave of policies is the fact that they are mostly driven by local authorities (Tiesdell et al., 1996).

An active conservation policy has to avoid unac-ceptable demolitions, which requires the proper identifi cation of elements that constitute the sig-nifi cance of a place, whether they are open spaces, the urban pattern or a set of mundane buildings. It also needs to avoid pastiche and non-authentic in-terventions that may defi nitively ruin the meaning of historical remains.

Besides preventive measures, active conservation further claims to sustain a much more directed approach. Historical urban areas have to be made attractive if they are to be maintained in the cit-ies’ sustainable cycles (Rypkema, 1992). It aims to stimulate appropriate public and private involve-ment on an area-wide and long-term basis. Hence, regulation of urban development projects, through an assessment of the risks and threats to the exist-ing heritage, becomes a central issue. It implies the adoption of reliable assessment methods, allowing the evaluation of possible alternatives and an effec-tive participation of citizens.Given its fl exibility, its integrated sustainability ra-tionale and its European status, the Environmental Assessment procedure appears as an ideal basis on which to develop such a methodology. Of particular signifi cance are the Directives on Environmental As-sessment – both Directive 85/337/EEC on Environ-mental Impact Assessment (as amended by Direc-tives 97/11/EC and 2003/35/EC), and the more re-cently adopted Directive on Strategic Environmental Assessment (Directive 2001/42/EC).

The purpose of this work is to analyse how these procedures can effectively participate in an active conservation of urban historical fragments. It is complimentary to the SUIT vade mecum and pro-poses to illustrate the application of the Environ-mental Assessment procedure to six case studies. The authors of the case studies were asked to struc-ture their chapters around fi ve main questions:

• What is the context the active conservation chal-lenge faces in this case study?

• What were the key events and outcomes of the decision-making process?

• What has been or should have been the role of En-vironmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Strate-gic Environmental Assessment (SEA) in this case?

• What characterise this urban heritage and how has it been taken into consideration by the involved stakeholders?

• What local and general lessons can be drawn that may help future decision-making?

Originally, the case studies purpose was to describe the meaning of active conservation strategies among the SUIT consortium. Accordingly each partner of the research project was asked to present one or two cases in order to illustrate his views on the issues raised by an active conservation of urban heritage. Therefore, the location of the case studies refl ects the composition of the research consortium. The majority of the cases are located in Belgium (EMAHL museum, Namur station, Mons court building, Guille-mins station, Hodimont house and factory, St-Léon-ard quarter, Spa municipality), while the other four are located in United Kingdom (St. Mary’s Hospital – London, Victoria Square – Belfast), Germany (Ron-dellplatz – Karlsruhe) and Denmark (Opera House – Copenhagen). Only two Belgian case studies are presented here, since the last two are presented in another work package and since three of them have been presented during the SUIT symposium (refer to www.suitproject.net for more information).

Even though partial and incomplete, this spatial covering allows highlighting the diversity of cur-rent “active conservation” practices and challenges throughout Europe. It also helped us to point out re-current questions, that we have called key lessons.

1.2. Investigating the Environmental Assessment procedure through case studies

The six cases were selected to highlight the various

ph503744_Int 50 22/03/05, 10:45:51

51

CASE STUDIES

issues raised by the Environmental Assessment (EA) of an active conservation plan or project. The EA process can be broken up into a certain number of activities or stages (Glasson et al., 1994; Figueroa Casas et al., 1998). The following stages helped us to make the fi nal selection of the cases that should be included into the present work so as to illustrate the various steps of the procedure.

The screening aims at determining which are the projects to be considered for an EA. The Opera House is an excellent example of how screening should not be conducted, in terms of both content and process. Conversely, St. Mary’s hospital did not undergo screening by the Competent Authority as the developer realised that an EIA was inevitable, given the nature of the development, and spontane-ously ordered an EIA. Four of the cases presented here have not been formally submitted to an EA. They were nevertheless included into this report because they allow the understanding of why they have been screened out and what should have been studied if an EIA had been undertaken.

The scoping stage relates to the environmental is-sues that are to be considered in an EA. It involves a defi nition of the context that may be affected by a project or a plan. The EMAHL case clearly highlights that the defi nition of urban heritage may be a cen-tral concern at this stage, as it may somehow trigger confl icts between different stakeholders.

The establishment of alternatives to be considered is another key issue as will be demonstrated through the case of St. Mary’s hospital. The EIA undertaken for this development project considered fi ve op-tions. The one chosen was considered to be the best solution in relation to both clinical and economic criteria.

Describing the baseline conditions, namely the evo-lution of the reference situation over time, is a par-ticularly complex problem when dealing with urban historical areas. The case of Rondellplatz provides a good illustration of lack of concern for this aspect, where the development clearly results in a develop-ment overshot and associated reduction of diversity of the heritage. It also highlights that the prepara-tion of the Environmental Impact Statement (the document produced by the developer describing the predicted impacts upon the environment) should clearly identify the impacts of development upon the rate of change of the urban fabric.

These stages should ideally be completed by a re-view of the Environmental Statement (ES) and fur-ther monitoring and feedback after the decision has been taken and implemented. In none of the pool of cases have active conservation strategies been monitored over time. Therefore, a limited monitor-ing experiment was performed in St-Léonard. That will enable us to better highlight the rationale of the follow-up (see WP 4.3 on www.suitproject.net for further detail).Finally two common issues can be identifi ed throughout the cases.

The fi rst one relates to public participation in active conservation strategies. EIA and SEA procedures present a good opportunity to open the decision-making process to a larger audience. It has to be kept in mind that an Environmental Assessment is characterised by a double motive. On the fi rst hand, it is intended to produce expert knowledge to ensure the soundness of options supported by the conclusion of the EA. Beyond this basic objective, an EA should also foster a shared and positive social construction about the validity of the rationale un-derlying the project or plan, in terms of goals, means and sequences (Shakley et al., 1998). The notion of quality hence mobilises two complimentary aspects: the technical quality and the social adherence to the project or plan. The case of Hodimont highlights how much lack of participation and information may result in a passive disinterest of citizens, which may have been addressed by a proper assessment of the active conservation strategy. The case of Victo-ria Square provides a good example of the fact that procedural requirements for participation will not be suffi cient unless they are backed by a genuine involvement of local authorities.

The second common issue relates to the consid-eration of the strategic aspects of active conserva-tion. Lack of assessment in the initial steps of the decision-making process may be detrimental to the quality of decisions as major issues are no longer questionable at the time of the EIA (Curran et al., 1998). Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) provides a good opportunity to start the assessment before projects are defi nitively fi xed. Given the novelty of this Directive (adopted in 2001), none of the cases occurred within the context of formal SEA. Still the cases of Namur and Rondellplatz illus-trate a contrario the need to consider the long-term cumulative effects of plans or projects at the very beginning of the decision-making process.

ph503744_Int 51 22/03/05, 10:45:52

¬ SUIT

52

SUST

AIN

AB

LE D

EVEL

OPM

ENT O

F U

RB

AN

HIS

TO

RIC

AL

AR

EAS

TH

RO

UG

H A

N A

CT

IVE

INT

EGR

AT

ION

WIT

HIN

TO

WN

S

1.3. The decision-making process: when does it start, when does it stop?

It is known from literature that environmental stud-ies usually take 6 to 12 months, and the preparation of an EIS another 2 to 3 months (Jones et al., 1998). These delays are obviously indicative and should be fi xed according to the complexity of the issues at stake. Furthermore they encompass the sole assessment stage of the procedure, excluding the screening stage etc. But more importantly the En-vironmental Assessment procedure is itself part and parcel of a larger decision-making process which will frame its reference and give some meaning to its results. Analysing the time dimension of this decision-making process has been a major concern of this research.

A project or a plan may indeed vary from a vague idea to a closed, irreversible programme. “Irreversi-bility” means that coming back to a signifi cantly dif-ferent alternative is no longer possible. It is related to the degree of convergence/divergence between actors (how many different actors are supporting the project?), to the comprehensiveness of the ob-ject on which they converge/diverge (for instance the criteria to assess the quality of the project and/or the assessment of this quality) and to the robust-ness of the network (resilience to appeal strategies activated by outsiders to break the network).

When selected, all the cases were open cases that could still evolve. This is explained by conditional and more theoretical reasons.

First and foremost, assuming that “fi nished” cases do exist, the information they would provide does not fi t to the needs of research. People are much more explicit when they are asked to explain why they contest than why they consent (passively), as it appears clearly through the cases of Rondellplatz and Victoria Square. Secondly, the validity of the

responses about long ago processes is always ques-tionable as it is somehow “reconstructed” by the stakeholders.

Furthermore it is always very diffi cult for a research-er to make a judgement about the irreversibility of a project or a plan. The cases of Namur and EMAHL illustrate that signifi cant parts of the programme could still evolve or be revisited even though some demolition or construction works are already achieved. These cases also highlight that claiming the irreversibility of a decision is never “neutral”. It is indeed a very common way to close the debate surrounding a case. As a consequence, irreversibility could not be taken for granted by the researchers, and our common assumption, when studying the cases was that they were not yet closed.

The starting date of the decision-making process is another complex question as it is no more consen-sual than its closing date. The case of Copenhagen clearly highlights that the starting date adopted to describe the decision-making process may dramati-cally change the perspective on its outcomes. This should be considered as a research question per se. Attempts were made to observe how the starting date might affect the perception of the whole active conservation strategy. In the case of Rondellplatz, it was decided to fi x the starting date of the case at the end of WWII so as to highlight the discontinuity introduced by the project in the temporal evolution of the urban historical area.

A timetable has been provided for some case stud-ies. It gives the start date and end date of the deci-sion-making that we adopted for studying the case, as well as key events of the process. This timeline will allow to grasp rapidly the evolution of the project or plan over time, as well as to position the environmental assessments that possibly guided the process.

Author Location Strategic level

EA performed

EA relevancy

Decision making

Urban heritage

Opera House

KA Denmark Project No screening controversial potential vista

EMAHL SPIRAL Belgium Project No scoping dead-lock urban block

Victoria Square

QUB Northern Ireland

Project Yes public participation

linear civic space

Namur station

LEMA Belgium plan Yes cumulative impacts

dead-lock urban pattern

St Mary Hospital

ABER United Kingdom

project Yes alternatives incremental class 1 monument

Hodimont SPIRAL Belgium project No public participation

linear social pattern

Rondell platz IFIB Germany project No baseline linear building stock

Table 1: Case studies at a glance

ph503744_Int 52 22/03/05, 10:45:54

53

CASE STUDIES

1.4. The urban fragment as a living system

Adopted by the Council of Europe in 1975, the Am-sterdam Charter stressed that genuine conservation of the built heritage required better integration into urban planning policies and called for “integrated conservation” as a way to resolve the possible confl icts between built heritage conservation and continued urban development. This declaration of principle ultimately led to the adoption of the Granada Convention (1985) by the members of the Council of Europe. By contrast with the Amsterdam Charter, the Granada Convention contains statutory measures to be adopted by the signatories, amongst which is the requirement to adopt integrated con-servation policies (article 10). In practice, it requires signatories “to include the protection of the archi-tectural heritage as an essential town and country planning objective and ensure that this requirement is taken into account at all stages both in the drawing up of development plans and in the procedures for authorising work”.

The urban setting cannot be reduced to a mere faire-valoir of major monuments without serious risk of failure. Such an attitude would actually mean dis-regarding much of the social, cultural and economic richness that characterises the complex networks of monuments, street patterns and common buildings shaping our daily experience of urban space quality. According to this enlarged defi nition of urban herit-age, a signifi cant number of urban elements should be considered as a genuine habitat (in the ecological meaning of the term), deserving conservation.

This heritage appears as a distinctive support of citi-zenship in our everyday life: its legitimacy is based on its capability to summon up lay people, social actors and stakeholders. It does not exist a priori in a substantial way. Therefore, its defi nition has to be collectively devised during the whole duration of the project, keeping in mind that it will change continuously. An active conservation of such “living systems” typically involves a large number of dif-ferent stakeholders, having very different attitudes regarding the different values associated with the urban elements. Such a situation rapidly raises intricate governance issues. How can one choose between alternative conservation strategies when the involved stakeholders’ voice confl icting opinions in discussions related to values and value balance?

Including such immaterial and intangible values into the defi nition of urban heritage has been a

fascinating subject of discussion throughout the entire research project. This had to be refl ected by the case studies. St. Mary’s hospital is a typical case where the usual conservation concerns, directed at monuments and exceptional buildings, dominate the whole decision-making. Besides this type of “usual situation”, one will also fi nd in this report “emerging forms of urban heritage”. The case of Rondellplatz highlights the resource value of the existing building stock with all its social and material diversity. Victo-ria Square concentrates on an old civic space, largely disrupted by recent developments, but still consid-ered as local heritage by many inhabitants of Belfast. Urban potentialities are another form of legacy from the past, as illustrated by the case of Copenhagen, where the axis of Amalienborg place has defi nitively been blocked by new developments in the harbour area. Finally, the specifi c social network that charac-terises a place is an intangible factor that increases the value of many urban districts, as illustrated by the cases of Namur and Hodimont.

Such a broadening of the urban heritage defi nition introduces promising opportunities, as citizens can easily recognise and appropriate the presence of the more concrete and ordinary urban elements with the active conservation strategy. It can also help in assessing the impact of the introduction of new activities in existing urban fragments as long as the appropriate tools are available. This last exten-sion of cultural heritage thereby claims to include environmental, social, cultural and, in more general terms, human activities as part and parcel of the urban intangible heritage.

1.5. References

¬ CURRAN J.M., WOOD C., and HILTON M. (1998) En-vironmental appraisal of UK development plans: current practices and future directions. Environ-ment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 25, pp. 411-433.

¬ FIGUEROA CASAS A., CONTRERAS RENGIFO R. and SÁNCHEZ DÍAZ J. (1998) Evaluación de impacto ambiental: Un instrumento para el desarrollo, Cali: Corporación Universitaria Autónoma de Occidente.

¬ GLASSON J., THERIVEL R., and CHADWICK A. (1994) Introduction to environment impact assessment. London: UCL Press.

¬ JONES C., WOOD C., and DIPPER B. (1998) Environmen-tal assessment in the UK planning process. Town Planning Review, 69, pp. 315-339.

ph503744_Int 53 22/03/05, 10:45:57

¬ SUIT

54

SUST

AIN

AB

LE D

EVEL

OPM

ENT O

F U

RB

AN

HIS

TO

RIC

AL

AR

EAS

TH

RO

UG

H A

N A

CT

IVE

INT

EGR

AT

ION

WIT

HIN

TO

WN

S

¬ RYPKEMA D.D. (1992) Rethinking economic values, in LEE A.J. (ed.), Past meets future: Saving America’s historic environments, National Trust for Historic Preservation/The Preservation Press, Washington.

¬ SHACKLEY S., DARIER E., and WYNNE B. (1998) Towards a “Folk Integrated Assessment” of Climate Change. In ULYSSES Working Paper – Contribution to partic-ipatory integrated assessment, ULYSSES WP-98-1, Internal Report, Darmstadt University of Technol-ogy, pp. 1-24.

¬ TIESDELL S., OC T., and HEATH T. (1996) Revitalizing historic urban quarters. Oxford: Butterworth Archi-tectural Press.

ph503744_Int 54 22/03/05, 10:45:59

55

CASE STUDIES

2. A PROJECT FOR A NEW NATIONAL OPERA HOUSE IN THE CAPITAL OF DENMARK

Ola Wedebrunn & Gregers Algreen-Ussing

2.1. An opera in the central harbour area of the capital

2.1.1. Location

In 1999, a “Management Group” for a master plan for the harbour in Copenhagen initiated negotiations. The group consisted of directors from the Municipal-ity, the Harbour Corporation, the Ministry of Energy and Environment and a Real Estate Corporation that had options on the leftover areas from closed down shipyards in the central areas in the harbour. The harbour area was divided into three sections (Fig-ure 2.1). For the middle area, the group tentatively proposed a new National Opera, a new National Theatre, a Community Centre and a residence quar-ter. This central part covers urban historical areas dating from the middle ages and urban structures from the renaissance and the enlightenment period beside areas from the shipyards including The Royal

Marine, which have been in use from the Middle Ages until our time. The result of the recommendations was a master plan connecting both sides of the waterfronts in the harbour area, which was published in June 2001 (Kval-itetsbyggeri i Københavns havn, 2001).

Figure 2.1: Copenhagen Municipality July 2001, showing three develop-ment areas (supplement to Municipal plan).

2.1.2. Characteristics of the project1

The project for a new National Opera consists of one single building created by the internationally acknowledged Danish architect Henning Larsen. The total fl oor space being 35 000 square meters and the overall height 29 meters of the building with a stage-tower reaching not over 50 meters. The construc-tion work will go down to 14,5 meters below ground level. The front façade and foyer consists of a huge overhanging roof 27 meters over ground level point-ing across the harbour of Copenhagen. Thus it will be by far the largest and highest building in the urban historical area in question (Figure 2.2). The quay-area will be expanded with approximately 10 000 square meters into the harbour basin and two new canals constructed along the sides of the opera.

Figure 2.2: View from west towards the Dokø with the opera. In the foreground the Frederiksstad, the Royal Residence and harbour approximate 300 meter wide. Photograph of model in scale 1:500.

The location of the four constructions mentioned above was respectively on the Dokøen, Kvæsthus-broen, Christiansholm and Strandgade 100, right in the middle of central Copenhagen sites often la-belled as the Crown Jewels of the town (Figure 2.3) (Kvalitetsbyggeri i Københavns havn, 2001).

Figure 2.3: The central harbour area. (Report from the management group,

June 2001).

The island Dokøen was constructed in 1781 partly on basis of an earlier island. The area was generated and occupied by the Royal Marines since the Middle Ages and was part of several islands and maritime locations related to the central harbour. The entire urban structure in these areas was built by the state for the Royal Marines and labelled Holmen. It con-sists of a strict urban pattern on the east side of the central harbour area. Some of the buildings in this pattern erected in the 18th and 19th century are list-ed, other buildings and the urban fabric designated as worthy of preservation.

1 Københavns Kommune; Tillæg nr. 1 til Lokalplan nr. 331, København , November 20012 Nominated in the Danish ICOMOS tentative list.

ph503744_Int 55 22/03/05, 10:46:00

¬ SUIT

56

SUST

AIN

AB

LE D

EVEL

OPM

ENT O

F U

RB

AN

HIS

TO

RIC

AL

AR

EAS

TH

RO

UG

H A

N A

CT

IVE

INT

EGR

AT

ION

WIT

HIN

TO

WN

S

Directly opposite to the island on the west side of the harbour is located the urban structure called Frederikss-taden. It consists of an urban fabric laid out in a master plan in 1749 by the architect N. Eigtved with two main axes. They cross each other in a central eight-edged space that is dominated by four palaces and a church with a huge dome that complete the main east-west axis from the harbour front. This axis relates to the above-mentioned urban pattern on the east side of the harbour. The urban structure Frederiksstaden is a protected area and the eight-edged building complex regarded as one of the fi nest preserved rococo town-scapes in Europe2. The central building complex is today the Royal Residence. It was announced, as a proposal, that the new opera would be built as a symmetrical building in the axis closing this across the harbour as a point of view to the East (Figure 2.4).

Figure 2.4: Excavations of Opera-site. October 2001

In September 2000, the negotiations in the Manage-ment Group were supplied by an announcement from the Government and Municipality of Copen-hagen, that it was accepted that the entire island Dokøen was bought by one of the wealthiest foun-dations in Denmark3. A. P. Møller (APM), owner of a renowned international shipping fi rm, personifi es the foundation. It was bought from the state on the conditions that APM was allowed to build an opera house on the island confronting and located in the symmetrical axis of the Royal Residence thus closing this as a point of view to the east. Furthermore, the architect should be Henning Larsen and the Munici-pality should establish all necessary infrastructures and the expenses running the opera. It was an-nounced by APM, that the opera worth 1.5 billion DK crowns (around 200 000 000 EUR) would be given as a gift to the Danish Nation and opened in 2005 on the 90th birthday of the donor and labelled The Queens Opera. The case was fi nally negotiated in November 2000 at government level and a public declaration of intent announced in June 2001.

2.2. Copenhagen waterfront regeneration

2.2.1. Active Conservation Challenge

The challenge for active conservation of this case

could be referred to a general discourse of how harbour areas are transferred from closed work-ing spaces to open public spaces for cultural and recreation purposes in European Cities. This trans-formation is a challenge to maintain the identity of the city as well as of the specifi c harbour area. The land use and the accessibility to the area are changed radically. These changes raise tangible as well as intangible questions related to the cultural heritage. It concerns change and continuity of use and visions, as well as physical relations to existing urban heritage.

The background for the opera case is the site of Co-penhagen by the sea as well as the long history of the harbour area. The transformation of the harbour front can be traced in historic plans. Modern visions for the harbour are expressed in several competi-tions dealing with the entire harbour. It can be followed in recent developments of offi ce area sold to private developers in the 1990s and expressed in several specifi c individual competitions for each building such as the Royal Danish Library of the late 1990’s.

A new general plan for the harbour was made by the municipality and harbour authorities and published in 2001. The renowned architect Henning Larsen was commissioned to make and present a study on potentialities for the location of big volumes in his-toric central area of the harbour as an annex to the general plan. His study was presented in September 2000 at an exhibition. Shortly after the exhibition, a project for a new National Opera house in the historic central area of the harbour arose and was included in the general plan as a proposal.

2.2.2. Potentialities and potential impact

In the 1990’s Royal Marines left the area Holmen except for a few islands. In 1999, a draft for a local plan was made for the entire area showing quarters for residences leaving out the Dokøen for further considerations.In January 2000, the Management Group asked the architect Henning Larsen to assess the building pos-sibilities in the central harbour area with regard to the four sites (Figure 2.3). The survey was complet-ed in June 2000 in a report (Henning Larsens Tegnes-tue A/S, ~2000) resulting in 12 possible projects on the 4 areas previously mentioned including the sites for an opera, a theatre, a community centre and a residence quarter. The opera was discussed in one of the 36 pages at its fi nal place in the axis mentioned

2 Nominated in the Danish ICOMOS tentative list.3 Press release 7th September 2000

ph503744_Int 56 22/03/05, 10:46:03

57

CASE STUDIES

above. The assessment was restricted to features at close range disregarding analysis of views from the harbour area and townscapes surrounding the opera site. It was composed of two small compu-ter drawings from bird eye view, one plan in scale 1:10 000 and six lines of description (Figure 2.2) (Henning Larsens Tegnestue A/S, ~2000, p. 13). The conclusions of the assessment was a recommenda-tion from the architect, that the opera and the three other proposed constructions would have a signifi -cant effect on the urban historical area in question and would enhance its qualities to a level equal to the best in the world. In the following process, these conclusions were referred to in several offi cial publi-cations and plans including the EIA screening report. The survey report was not published, but the opera proposal by the architect Henning Larsen was shown in a model scale 1:500 for the fi rst time and by video animation at a public exhibition in September 2000.In the same period, the potential impact of the in-creased traffi c was assessed in the urban historical area by a private fi rm. The maximum traffi c related to the opera site was estimated to be 1 400 vehicles in 24 hours. The study concluded that the traffi c induced by the opera would increase of the existing fl ow on central parts of the capital4 by 2-3 %.Finally, it was pointed out by experts in the press that the building site was located in an area where it would be most likely, that there would be archaeo-logical maritime remains as was found in other simi-lar nearby locations.

2.3. Environment Impact Assessment – Screening

The competent authority for making an EIA is in this case the County (HUR)5, which began the screening in January 2001 following a request from the Munici-pality of Copenhagen (HUR, 2001). The opera case was regarded as an issue in Annex II; no.10 (a) related to urban development projects6. In the preliminary assessment based on 17 criteria from Annex III, it was shown, that the opera project in 9 cases would have a signifi cant effect (see fi gure 2.5: second verti-cal row, “Ja”)7. The 9 cases were thereafter analysed one by one, the following translation being close to the expressions and size of the screening text:

1 ¬ The dimensions of the project

The parking facilities on location and in the neigh-bourhood was regarded suffi cient, but problematic. Reference was made to the master plan8 by architect Henning Larsen with a remark, that the proposed buildings in addition to the opera (the theatre and

community centre) in the central harbour area was not ready for screening and left out for a later EIA9. As for the architectural dimensions of the opera and its relation to the urban historical area in the harbour word for word reference was made to the recommendations from the architect and his conclu-sions. Thus it was concluded that the opera would have no signifi cant negative impact regarding the visual effects.

2 ¬ The cumulative effects with other projects

It was concluded, that the addition of an opera in the neighbourhood, where new projects for residence quarters already was planned would have a minor traffi c impact.

3 and 4 ¬ The production of waste and pollution

The eventual problems where left to general regu-lations and treatment by the Municipal authorities during the construction period.

5 ¬ The existing land use

As there were no possibilities in the existing adopted local plans which overall intentions were residence quarters in the area a new local plan was to be made permitting an opera. The conclusion being that this change in intent was not signifi cant.

6 and 7 ¬ Ground water and harbour

The eventual problems where left to general regula-tions and treatment by the Municipality.

8 ¬ Densely populated areas

It was repeated from no. 2, that the increased traf-fi c would have a minor impact in the existing urban fabric. The impact on the urban historical area in the neighbourhood would be increased by 2 to 3% when the opera was established. It was a precondi-tion that certain routes through the urban historical area where followed in approaching the opera. The conclusion being that this change would have no considerable effects on the environment.

9 ¬ Landscapes of historical, cultural or archaeo-logical signifi cance

It was furthermore stated that the opera project was not in contradiction with the overall master plan for the region. It was stated that the cultural heritage, the “preservable” considerations to the listed build-ings and relations to the valuable townscapes where to be taken into account in the following Municipal plans10.

With reference to the mentioned statements in analysis 1 to 9 it was now asked again if any of the

4 Rambøl / Nyvig; København , november 2000 ¬ 5 Hovedstadens Udviklingsråd ¬ 6 Correspond to Annex II, no. 10 (b) in 97/11/EC ¬ 7 VVM-S, Skema 1, page 3. ¬ 8 The term master plan used for the fi rst time on this document (note 7). ¬ 9 In Mai 2001 the Government took the decision to build the new National Theatre on the mentioned location. ¬ 10 This part 9 of the screening assessment as many of the other parts was made up of six lines on page 8, the total screening document made of 10 pages.

ph503744_Int 57 22/03/05, 10:46:06

¬ SUIT

58

SUST

AIN

AB

LE D

EVEL

OPM

ENT O

F U

RB

AN

HIS

TO

RIC

AL

AR

EAS

TH

RO

UG

H A

N A

CT

IVE

INT

EGR

AT

ION

WIT

HIN

TO

WN

S

following 40 combinations would create a signifi cant impact on the environment. The answer was “no”. This fi nal assessment was shown in a form with 40 blanks composed by 8 vertical sections characteris-ing the potential impact (dimension of the project; cumulative effects with other projects; pollution; existing land use; ground water; water areas; densely populated areas; important landscapes) and 5 hori-zontal sections (extent of the impact; transfrontier nature of the impact; magnitude and complexity of the impact; probability of the impact; duration, fre-quency and reversibility of the impact)

Figure 2.5: Digital photo-montage of west and east view of Opera project before (left) and after (right) realisation

The screening process done by the competent au-thority did not imply any visualisations, illustrations or considerations of how the opera would appear seen from the surrounding environment except for word by word references to the conclusions made in the architects report. The extent of the screening report in its entirety being 10 pages.

On this basis, it was concluded that the project would not have any signifi cant impact on the envi-ronment with reference to its character, dimension or location. The effects of the project on the local environment are estimated to be intercepted and regulated by the general legislation11.

The fi nal decision of the competent authority was that the screening of the opera project showed that a further EIA should not be carried through12. The decision was published in a small announcement in two newspapers 29th June 2001.

2.4. Public participation

In parallel to the EIA screening, a proposal for a new local plan dealing with the opera site was made and published in June by the Municipality. The assess-ment in the planning document concerning the cultural heritage and architectural features in this urban historical area was exclusively restricted to the survey carried out by the architect Henning

Larsen with no further investigations. Thus it was stressing the conclusion that the opera would have a signifi cant effect on the urban historical area in question and would enhance its qualities to a level which would be unique in the world.

The public inquiry period for the local plan was 8 weeks running from July 3rd to October 1st 2001 in-cluding one public meeting arranged by the Munici-pality, which is a well-established and well-known procedure to the public. The result of public inquiry for the local plan was 834 letters of complaint besides many articles in newspapers and scientifi c periodicals, discussions in TV and private organised meetings. Four acknowledged institutions deal-ing with cultural heritage made special letters of complaints. Over 800 persons participated in the meeting arranged by the Municipality. In these discussions the authorities referred to the screening result and refused to discus alternatives.In contrast to this elaborated debate almost nobody took notice of the screening result. The public in-quiry period for the screening result was 4 weeks af-ter the announcement by the County (HUR) running from the 27th July to 31st August 2001. The concern expressed at the same time by the public on the local plan was foremost related to the character, dimension and location and in some cases to the traffi c impact of the opera. Compared to the con-clusions made in the screening survey, the screening did not at all refl ect the concerns and experience that existed in the public and failed to bring this knowledge of the everyday life into the screening assessment as an information equal to the informa-tion from the developer, experts and the competent authority. Thus it was completely disregarding a valuable and necessary criteria for a trustworthy assessment.

In Denmark, the public can raise complaints on EIA to a governmental tribunal. The Tribunal for com-plaints in matters of this kind is an independent board related to the juridical courts. Their decisions cannot be appealed13. The Tribunal received one complaint14. The complaint was made up of fi ve parts:

• Firstly that the screening must take into account both positive and negative signifi cant impacts on the environment, when considering if a further EIA should be carried out as stated in the Directive 97/11/EC and in its Danish translation. Especially in projects of this kind involving the change of the architecture in urban historical areas and the

11 Translation of the full text ¬ 12 Copy, 27.07.01 from HUR without date. ¬ 13 Naturklagenævnet (NKN) ¬ 14 Complain NKN jr. nr. 97-33 / 101-0211, 27th July 2001 with supplement NKN jr. nr. 97-33 / 101-0213, 10th September 2001

ph503744_Int 58 22/03/05, 10:46:08

59

CASE STUDIES

relations to cultural heritage where no traditional thresholds or scientifi c criteria are relevant but must be related to a consensus about how experts, citizens and the competent authority signify the impact.

• Secondly, and in relation the fi rst part, that the concordant intentions expressed literally by the corporate developers in this case the Government, the competent authority (HUR), the Municipal-ity, the donor (APM) and the architect Henning Larsen was to create an outstanding building. This building would make a signifi cant impact on the harbour area and the urban historical area, because it was intended to create a new cultural and out-standing monumental landmark for Copenhagen and Denmark that would be unique in the world. This was the conclusion made in the report made by the architect Henning Larsen and was referred to in several documents including the screening report made by the Competent Authority.

• Thirdly, that the assessment, survey or master plan made by the architect as a preliminary requirement for development consent was incomplete and did not meet demands of normal scientifi c standards used in simple and swift surveys. Several of which had already been made in the recent years over the central harbour area and the site in question.

• Fourthly, that it was anticipated by several experts that the construction down to 14,5 meters under ground level would destroy archaeological mari-time remains, which should require a full EIA in it-self. This prediction happened to be right and three middle age vessels were found during excavations for the foundations and recorded by mere chance. The remains were observed on Friday 27 July 2001 by bypassing experts outside the building site. The resulting surveys were published by the National Museum (2001).

• Finally, it was argued that the static’s from ex-perts on the traffi c was used without qualitative considerations on the cumulative impact of the buildings. The results were shown in percentage of the existing traffi c not taking into account future projects of same size in the harbour area, such as a theatre or a community centre. Hence, it would show a lower percentage in the traffi c impact each time. The different projects would be assessed one by one thus regarded as having diminishing and consequently no signifi cant impact.

The Tribunal (NKN) rejected all parts of the com-plaint except for the fi rst. And in the fi nal conclu-sion the complaint was refused all together with

reference to Annex II, where the heading of no.10 is Infrastructure plants. In the rejection, it was pointed out, that this heading and “Litra a” in the Danish translation15 indicates, that the items stated in Annex II are not adopted with the intentions of assessing visual impacts or assessing impacts from a historic, cultural, archaeological, esthetical or geo-logical points of view in itself. These dimensions it was argued could only be taken into account when they especially are related to the infrastructure and changes in the traffi c fl ow, which was shown not to be signifi cant16.

2.5. Lessons to be drawn

• A clear indication of cultural heritage as a separate category in Annex II is necessary when it comes to the assessment of plans and projects to ensure ac-tive conservation of urban heritage.

• It must be stressed that according to the directive all kind of signifi cant impact, positive or negative, must lead to scoping and to a full assessment of a project.

• The Copenhagen case, show the importance to inform and develop a consensus among authori-ties, experts, and public concerned. The omitting of this possibility has lead to unsolved controver-sies between stakeholders. This situation has been unfolded through out the construction and raise of the opera, to indicate a situation that could have been foreseen in an open assessment.

2.6. References

¬ DANISH NATIONAL MUSEUM (2001) Marinarkæologisk Forskningscenter; Middelalderlige vrag på Dokøen, København, Marinarkæologisk Nyhedsbrev, nr. 17, December 2001.

¬ HENNING LARSENS TEGNESTUE A/S (~2000) Volumen-studie I, Inderhavnen, Juni 2000. (Printing date is uncertain. The report was not publicly available and printed only in 20 copies).

¬ HUR (2001) Notat, VVM-screening af Operahus på Dokøen, Københavns Kommune, 29 maj 2001 ( VVM-S).

¬ KVALITETSBYGGERI I KØBENHAVNS HAVN (2001) Afrappor-tering af samarbejdet om planlægning af Køben-havns Havn, juni 2001 (Report from the manage-ment Group).

15 Miljø- og Energiministeriet; Bekendtgørelse om supplerende regler i medfør af lov om planlægning, Bekendt. nr 428 af 2. juni 1999; Litra a is same as point b in 97/11/EC ¬ 16 Naturklagenævnet; Afgørelse i sagen om VVM-screening af operahus på Dokøen i Københavns Havn, jr. Nr. 97-33 / 101-0211, 12 oktober 2001 and Naturklagenævnet; Afgørelse i sagen om forberedende arbejder inden opførelsen af operahus på Dokøen i Københavns Hav , jr. Nr. 97-33 / 101 – 0213, 20. september 2002.

ph503744_Int 59 22/03/05, 10:46:11

¬ SUIT

60

SUST

AIN

AB

LE D

EVEL

OPM

ENT O

F U

RB

AN

HIS

TO

RIC

AL

AR

EAS

TH

RO

UG

H A

N A

CT

IVE

INT

EGR

AT

ION

WIT

HIN

TO

WN

S

3. EMAHL, A MATTER OF DEFINITION AND VALUES

Bernard Cornélis & Yves Rogister

3.1. A “Mega-museum” in the historic quarter of Liège

Shortly after getting over a long time debt situation, which was preventing it, amongst other things, from thinking about an ambitious cultural policy, the mu-nicipality of Liège eventually envisaged the creation of a mega-museum in the beginning of the 1990’s. This mega-museum project integrates itself in the reorganisation programme of Liège museums, which has already been implemented in the Walloon art museum and in the Modern and contemporary arts museum. This reorganisation programme is part of the restructuration and rationalisation of the munici-pality’s activities and resources. The mega-museum, Ensemble Muséal d’Art et d’Histoire du pays de Liège (EMAHL), also called Grand Curtius, would gather in one entity the Weapons museum (musée d’armes), the Mosan and religious arts museum (musée d’art mosan et d’art religieux – M.A.R.A.M.), the Archaeological and decorative arts museum (musée d’archéologie et des arts décoratifs – M.A.A.D.), including the archaeo-logical museum (musée dit “Curtius”), the decorative arts museum (musée d’Ansembourg) and the Glass museum (musée du verre).

The area selected for the setting-up of this museum complex is an historic block of buildings well known for its remarkable sixteenth to eighteenth century architectural specimens. A couple of these speci-mens already housed some of the collections to be integrated in the mega-museum. Several buildings of the block were legally protected, such as the Curtius Palace (Palais Curtius) – a testimony of the sixteenth century style called Renaissance Mosane – or the Brahy-Dewilde ensemble – an eighteenth century architectural testimony. Parts of the block were in a state of dereliction, hence requiring major investments.

A belief widely spread among the inhabitants is that Liège has suffered from the extravagance syndrome in its urban projects (Charmont, 1998). This fee-ling is reinforced by visitors’ fi rst impressions that there is nothing particular or historical to sightsee in the city. Several factors can explain these senti-ments: the mentalities inherited from 800 years of independence and neutrality as Principality ruled by a bishop; the destruction by the inhabitants of Saint-Lambert cathedral (taller than and as big as

Notre-Dame in Paris) in 1790’s; an early and quick industrial development based on coal extraction and steel factories; more recently for several decades in the centre of the city where the Saint-Lambert cathedral once stood an open building site while the project was being defi ned and redefi ned; a late consideration of urban fragments as touristic asset. One could say that the underlying development gui-ding line has been a quick follow of fashion trends not always in favour of an harmonious integration with past urban heritage or with trends previously fashionable. The result is scattered and fragmented historic urban buildings, giving the downtown an eclectic style in which history unsuspectedly reveals itself bites after bites.

In cultural matters like in other affairs, the civil servants and politicians of the municipality of Liège have to decide, within their territory of action, not only for the common interest of the inhabitants of the municipality (around 200.000), but also for the one of neighbouring municipalities’ residents part of Liège agglomeration (around 600.000) and sharing Liège identities and life.

3.2. Deciding for the common interest under time constraints

The collective future of a community is determined by public decisions taken either by individuals or by groups of individuals. These decision-makers are characterised by the political organisation they evolve in, by the mandate they have received and by the way they apprehend and respond to the com-plexity of the situation. This complexity originates not only from a context in constant evolution, but also from the defi nition they give to the “common interest” based on the different visions expressed or not by the components of the community. The temporal dimension of decision processes is a very critical one. The number of actors involved in the mega-museum project and their organisation (inner and inter) contributed to emphasise the effects of time in terms of possible actions. Through a brief overview of some events and of their effects on the alternatives, this case study will illustrate the impor-tance of time in conservation matters.

In terms of decision-making, the course of action or the set of potential alternatives is dependent on the constraints accepted by the actors. These cons-traints can be formulated in terms of limits, regula-tions, or objectives to fulfi l. Whether clearly stated or latent, they tend to prevent, restrict, or dictate

ph503744_Int 60 22/03/05, 10:46:14

61

CASE STUDIES

the action or thought of others through threat, use of force, or legal disqualifi cation. Hence, the charac-ter of constraints can be perceived as being strong or weak and have a lifetime more or less long. If time is considered as being a constraint, it means that all actors agree to accept it as such, for example as in a deadline. Of course, once such a time limit has been set, some actors might try to impose their choices by playing on the apparently irreversible succession of events occurring in the temporal continuum. Just like other constraints, time constraints can be reas-sessed or rejected. In a time-decision perspective, some events are reversible while others are defi ni-tive, some are recurrent while others are single-shot, some are successive while others are independent, some are simultaneous or coexistent, others are an-terior or posterior, some are stable while others are changing regularly or randomly.

In terms of heritage, time has a double contradic-ting infl uence. On the one hand, it allows a slow degradation process that can be enhanced by man’s negligence such as for the Brahy-Dewilde ensemble. On the other hand, it opens the door to a stronger identifi cation of the heritage and to more effi cient ways of conservation.

In terms of timing, an urban project can be seen as resulting from timely concordant events where the views of different actors are in harmony and for which the context is favourable. This propitious si-tuation can be subject to time constraints, whether clearly identifi ed or not. In the mega-museum case, the opportunity for external funding existed throu-gh the ERDF programme. This European support possibility is subject, among other conditions, to deadlines for spending the money. This can explain why some decisions were made in an usual way. For example, in October 1995, a European call for tender is published to select a project author. On Novem-ber 7th 1995, the municipality transmitted the spe-cifi cations to be met for the project. The next day, the jury selected one group of authors composed by three societies out of 31 letters of interest. Two days later, the development agency in charge of the project confi rmed the choice based on previously accomplished projects and not on propositions for the mega-museum. On December 30th 1996, one day before the deadline for engaging the expenses, a developer is given the job although extreme emer-gency recourses had been submitted to the State Council court against the project.

In terms of constraints, the deadlines can be reas-sessed according to the evolution of events. For example, the local authority used the ERDF funds to accelerate the decision-making process and to argue against the heritage protection groups and in favour of the project. When the State Council court annul-led the building permit of the fi rst project, a request for extending the deadline was introduced to the Commission. Due to the exceptional situation a rescheduling of expenses deadline was allowed. Similarly, the inauguration of the mega-museum was originally planned in 1994 to be taking place in 1997, now it has recently been reassessed to 2005.

In an urban project time scale, the project defi nition can evolve through time according to the options selected, the events, and the people involved in the project. In the EMAHL project, the elaboration of a draft project giving the main guidelines and a rough basic estimate of the expected impacts was decided and fi nanced by the municipality council in Decem-ber 1993. A year later, the draft was accepted at the unanimity. It proposed to divide the block in two pedestrians’ fl ow. The North-South axis would be reserved to shops, while the East-West axis would host the different exhibits. Glass roofs would cover the inner courtyards of the block. In June 1996, the architect’s project is revealed. It reorganises the block around a new glass building located in the middle of the block. Following the public consul-tation and the annulment of the building permit by the State Council court, a second revised version of the project taking into account some of the remarks expressed is produced in June 1997.

In a public consultation phase, time also plays a role. In summer 1996, the municipal deputy in charge of public works decided to extend the public consul-tation on the fi rst project from two weeks to four weeks because of its inadequate timing during the holidays. The next summer when the second project was presented, he stuck to the legal minimum of two weeks for public consultation.

In a preservation perspective, timely reaction to destructive decisions is of utmost importance but can be enfeebled by the administrative procedures. On October 15th 1997, the Walloon Region delivers a second building permit. On October 31st, two heri-tage protection associations introduce a recourse to the State Council court against the building second permit delivered two weeks earlier. Against their ex-pectations, mid-November, work starts on the block because of the costs associated with the delays of

ph503744_Int 61 22/03/05, 10:46:16

¬ SUIT

62

SUST

AIN

AB

LE D

EVEL

OPM

ENT O

F U

RB

AN

HIS

TO

RIC

AL

AR

EAS

TH

RO

UG

H A

N A

CT

IVE

INT

EGR

AT

ION

WIT

HIN

TO

WN

S

procedures. Within a couple of days, on November 17th, four neighbours afraid for the urban heritage in-troduce an extreme emergency suspension request to the State Council court. On November 24th, the court rejects the request. Three days later, the two heritage protection groups introduce an extreme emergency request for conservation measures as-sociated with fi nancial obligations. On December 2nd, the State Council court orders the immediate cessation of the on-going work. It is immediately executed since members of the association are present on the block with a justice servant. Un-fortunately for them, only the Brahy house is still intact. On December 4th, the municipality board decides to establish a protection perimeter because the un-roofed buildings are threatening to collapse. On December 18th, the State Council court suspends the second building permit, because some of the building are legally protected and should fi rst be taken off the list.

3.3. Evaluation of the impacts, or assessing the merits of a project

The EMAHL would contribute to the efforts of local politicians to give a new image promoting the City’s assets. It would also boost local tourism which is mainly based on cultural activities. Furthermore, it could potentially benefi t from the support of the European Regional Development Funds (ERDF) Ob-jective 2 programme, thanks to its important tourist dimension. Indeed, by stimulating the valorisation of tourist potential, the European Commission intends to stimulate jobs creation and, hence, the social and economic development of old industrial regions. The project would also give the opportunity to rehabilitate, renovate and revitalise a downtown quarter (quartier Féronstrée/Hors-Château) par-tially turning into squalid shacks, although next to the administrative and economic centres.

Public involvement and organised expertise in urban heritage

In an attempt to identify the people concerned by this project (not just the stakeholders) and defi ne the “common interest”, one could establish categories based on their proximity to the project (local, external, and partially local/external) and position them according to their role in the project:

investors authorities

Out of these people, the one directly affected by the project (neighbours and shopkeepers) and the ones interested in urban heritage have made their voice heard. It should be noted that most of the municipality inhabitants were neither active in the project on a regular and systematic way, nor well aware of all the dimensions of the problem. Therefore, they did not take part in the confl ict –even if actors of both sides tried to mobilise them. Interestingly, some of the strongest opponents to the creation of the glass building and the most enthusiastic self-proclaimed defenders of urban heritage were not municipality citizens but came from Liège agglomeration and even further out.At the time the EMAHL project was launched, Liège already had a highly structured associative

scene specialised in the fi eld of cultural heritage issues defence (archaeological, urban heritage, historical,…). Over the years, these associations have acquired both historical, architectural, communicational and legal skills making them able to confront with the authorities, both at the local and the regional levels. Therefore, when the glass building project was revealed, they knew what to do. So the project ended up being blocked during a long time, with as a consequence the loose of part of the European funds and a long disturbance all over the site and the surrounding streets. After the pulling down of several historic buildings and after completion of the renovation of the Feronstrée facade, the project was awarded the annual urban renovation price as well as the public award (Figure 3.2 bottom).

Local actors External actors

authors

developers

Province

visitors

Municipal Council

associations

political parties

citizens

State Council court

EU DG Regio

Walloon Region

ph503744_Int 62 22/03/05, 10:46:17

63

CASE STUDIES

Along with the draft project submitted to the mu-nicipality in 1994, came a rough basic estimate of the expected impacts. The project would benefi t the entire quarter of the historical centre and initiate the rehabilitation of this part of town. The project would generate an annual fl ow of 400.000 visitors – this number has been reassessed to 150.000 in 2003 –, compared to the actual 30.000. This would generate a direct turnover of 7.500 millions euros, not taking into account the hotel industry for which 20.000 additional nights were foreseen. These argu-ments were in favour of the unanimous adoption of the project by the municipality council. The rough estimate also suggested that to reach economic equilibrium, it is necessary to have a minimum of 200.000 visitors paying an entrance fee of 13.75 euros – at the time, it is more expensive than the Louvre in Paris or the Metropolitan in New York. The public-private fi nancial partnership reached a bud-get of 30 millions euros. It was defi ned for the fi rst phase as being 2.5 millions from Europe, 2.5 millions from the Walloon Region, 1.25 millions from the municipality and 5 millions from the private sector – originally planned as 2.85 millions.Nevertheless, the mega-museum project was not submitted to an EIA, because it was not mandatory. Furthermore there was no political will on behalf of the municipality authorities to enter a process which was seen as being a waste of time, while time seemed scarce and unanimity fragile. The feasibility study could not replace the EIA, not only because of its rough estimates but also because the project was not yet defi ned with suffi cient details, not to mention the modifi cations which appeared in the glass-box project.

To apprehend the impacts of this project and to assess the need of a SEA for the developments associated with the project, the area affected could have been divided into at least three concentric areas. The central area would include the block and its immediate surroundings. The next area would cover the Feronstrée/Hors Château neighbourhood, linking the project with the town activities. Then, the municipality, the entire agglomeration, the Pro-vince or the Euroregio could have been used for the environmental assessments.

A more extensive and detailed evaluation of the impacts than the rough estimates could have been achieved by an EIA. Such an EIA could have encom-passed the following points:

• the number of people likely to visit the mega-mu-seum and their geographic origin;

• the number of visitors likely to spend time in Liège,

• an estimation of their spending habits in shops, restaurants, hotels, close by the EMAHL or in the agglomeration;

• the number of direct and indirect job creation/loss;

• the restructuring of shops locations;

• the change in desirability of the quarter;

• the impact on the town image;

• the costs of maintenance of the museum and in this case of the glass building;

• …

As a consequence of the lack of an EIA, such ques-tions were raised by the different groups of oppo-nents to the glass building, therefore spreading the confl ict. An EIA would have provided supporters of the project with strong and credible arguments to overcome criticisms of the opponents. Moreover, by providing the different categories of stakehol-ders with a creative exchange of values prior to the launching of the project, an EIA would have helped to build a strong consensus on the project, its aims, feasibility and consequences among the different categories of stakeholders.

The effect on the urban heritage should also have been taken into account. As it turns out, the project ended up at the same time rehabilitating the urban heritage and declassifying it, hence preserving it and destroying it. So the direct effects are both positive and negative in this project in terms of urban heri-tage. The next section will enlighten this paradox.

3.4. Defi ning urban heritage for active conservation

In this project, two competing defi nitions of the urban heritage arose. On one side there were the opponents to the project trying to preserve the exis-tent. On the other side, there were the supporters of the project promoting the integration of historic buildings with modern ones, linking the past with modernity. For the former, the entire block had a high cultural value as evidence of the specifi c architecture of the Mosan region. It was one of the rare conserved urban fabrics showing the living conditions of patrician families of Liège. The block had a special historic interest because of the joint presence of buildings from various periods. Hence,

ph503744_Int 63 22/03/05, 10:46:20

¬ SUIT

64

SUST

AIN

AB

LE D

EVEL

OPM

ENT O

F U

RB

AN

HIS

TO

RIC

AL

AR

EAS

TH

RO

UG

H A

N A

CT

IVE

INT

EGR

AT

ION

WIT

HIN

TO

WN

S

the whole set of buildings had to be conserved and restored with great care. For the latter, the block was constituted of major historic buildings and of several minor elements that could be sacrifi ced. This loss was accepted with no regrets due to the advance degra-dation of some of these buildings. Hence, the project constituted a great opportunity to clarify and reor-ganise the block in a more functionally coherent way while valorising its major elements by demolishing the minor ones. As it turns out, controversy’s actors did not speak the same language and moreover, did not speak about the same object. Indeed, their sta-tements were deduced from opposite defi nitions of cultural heritage, which caused such an insuperable misunderstanding that dialogue outlived its possible virtues and reaching an agreement appeared impos-sible. Both cultural heritage’s defi nitions competed during the successive stages of the controversy such as the planned demolition of legally protected buil-dings (the Brahy-Dewilde ensemble), and the legal re-course introduced to the State Council court against the decision to suppress this legal protection.

Heinich model, a tool to analyse discourses in controversies

Based on the so-called « sociology of the translation » whose leading scholars are Callon and Latour, Nathalie Heinich developed a model for the analysis of modern art rejection. This phenomena is similar to cultural heritage management since stakeholders can be unable to understand each other. This misunderstanding, whether organised or not, originates from the statements and opinions referring to heterogeneous registers of various values. Such confl icts are characterized by public accusations which believe the public space to be occupied by actors referring to values and guiding principles, which conferred legitimacy to their opinions.

Nevertheless, insofar as there is a plurality of values registers and guiding principles, assertion of these values registers and guiding principles leads, unsurprisingly, to controversy and in extreme cases to harsh confl ict. It should be recognised that such values registers are used by actors to mobilize as many people as possible to support the positions they defend, in order to promote their own ideas/interests. Examples of these values registers are outlined below:

• The hermeneutic register is used by actors of a confl ict in order to qualify or to discredit an object in terms of its meaning or lack of meaning.

• The register of cleansing/purifi cation: gathers all the discourses referring to the preservation of the nature of a site. Hence, the construction of a modern building in a historical site can be

seen as a pollution, just like it can justify the demolition of part of a site.

• The economic/fi nancial register : refers to the economic rationality for the actions proposed.

• The civic register : is a register extremely used in cultural heritage matters. It comes into play to make sure the procedures and rules are respected, to check on the common interests of a project versus the possible personal ones, and to put forward abuses of the system.

• The register of aesthetics : refers to the “objective value” of beauty characterising an object. It does not seem used as often as one can think in artistic or cultural confl icts.

• The reputational register : can be defi ned as a quality or a quantity expressing how well-known an actor is. It also refers to the honour/dishonour of a collectivity or of a place. Hence, it calls for the dignity’s integrity.

• The functional register : the values pushed here are usefulness, convenience and functionality.

• The legal register could be seen as the secular arm of the civic values register, qualifying or disqualifying an action in terms of their legality or illegality. It allows the controversy’s actors to reach suffi cient generality to provide them with the legitimacy they fi ght for.

• The domestic register refers to the origins of the actors (i.e . the nationality of the architect in the E.M.A.H.L’s controversy).

• The ethic register is complementary to the legal register. It refers to the justice and moral values, and hence to the respect of equity.

ph503744_Int 64 22/03/05, 10:46:22

65

CASE STUDIES

The supporters of the project limited their urban heritage defi nition to the legally protected buil-dings, claiming consequently for a hierarchy among historical, esthetical and architectural goods. They did not consider the global coherence and harmony of the block. Likewise, the pulling down of historical buildings, even if legally protected, was not in itself a matter of concern. It was the price to pay for crea-ting an international museum in Liège. For example, the president of the regional committee in charge of monuments and legally protected buildings consi-dered that the creation of an international museum obliged to rank the different parameters for judging the project. Moreover, he stressed that some buil-dings of the area had already been restored during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries in a style imitating the original one. He concluded, “real va-lues lay in authenticity, both past or current”. The favourable opinion voiced by the president of the regional committee henceforth allowed both the destruction of legally protected buildings and the setting up of the glass box. Although the regional committee’s opinion is the only one legally required and legally binding, opponents asked the local com-mittee to give its opinion on the project. They were aiming at opening a competence’s confl ict between the two authorities. This strategy was directed by the hope of opponents that the local committee’s opinion would be guided by an urban heritage ap-proach closer to their own approach, as consequen-ce of a local committee’s greater awareness to the alleged “true” cultural heritage values in Liège. The opponents to the project pushed forward a spe-cifi c cultural heritage’s defi nition contrasting with the defi nition exhibited by the project’s supporters.

Although they were in favour of the fi rst draft, cul-tural heritage defence’s groups sharply criticised the project’s modalities, mainly the setting up of the glass building and the corollary pulling down of legally protected buildings. The opponents fi rst ma-naged to reduce the glass building to a simple tech-nical disposal without aesthetic dimension. They implicitly denied its status of artwork claimed by its creators and supporters, which presented the buil-ding as the project masterpiece. On the one hand, it was a way to avoid a possible “Van Gogh syndrome”. On the other hand, it stressed the sharp contrast between the glass building and “the secular fabric of the area”17. Secondly, opponents pushed forward an extensive defi nition of urban heritage, enlarging it to the whole historical area targeted by the pro-ject, including both legally protected buildings and buildings which were not. Opponents argued that one could not bring them apart if one wanted to preserve the historical area’s global harmony. To this global harmony contributed both legally protected buildings recognised of historical, esthetical and archaeological value and the other buildings which, if not legally recognised of great value, appeared to the opponents as essential to the global historical, esthetical and archaeological coherence of the area. Moreover, both building’s categories compose a testimony of a past way of life. Avoiding hierarchy and focusing on the global coherence of the area, the opponents’ strategy illustrated a specifi c rela-tion to urban heritage issues. Consequently, they claimed, as the highest priority, for the restoration of the area’s buildings, irrespective of their legally protected status or not.

Figure 3.2: The Feronstrée-side of the EMAHL, before and after rehabilitation (Photos: Jean-Paul LEGROS - Architecte: DETHIER & ASSOCIÉS S.A., 42 Rue Fabry, 4000 Liège, www.dethier.be)

ph503744_Int 65 22/03/05, 10:46:25

¬ SUIT

66

SUST

AIN

AB

LE D

EVEL

OPM

ENT O

F U

RB

AN

HIS

TO

RIC

AL

AR

EAS

TH

RO

UG

H A

N A

CT

IVE

INT

EGR

AT

ION

WIT

HIN

TO

WN

S

Early 90’s - First evocation of the idea of a “megamuseum” gathering all the collections, by LA.

1994- LA fi nds funds to create the megamuseum in the framework of EU’s ERDF funds (Objective 2).- A feasibility study is ordered by LA to Contour THR, a private consultant, and a preliminary

architectural study is ordered to a local architect.

End of 1994 - Contour THR study is very optimistic concerning the possible number of visitors (400 000 / year)

Mid 1995

- The project is divided in different stages, each of them having a specifi c timetable:1) Building of a glass box in the centre of the block;2) Rehabilitation of remaining buildings of the block;3) Internal fi ttings and management of exhibition rooms.

Mid 1996 - A committee composed of LA representatives, SPI+ (delegated developer), and other experts, selected a French architect for the project: Adeline Rispal.

Summer 1996 - Mandatory and minimum consultation stage is organised very unfairly by LA

1996/10/09 - A conditional development consent (for buildings and demolitions) is granted by Regional Authority.- Works are beginning in Curtius block.

1996/11/29 - A judicial recourse is introduced (“of extreme urgency”) against the development consent, by two neighbours, in order to stop the works that were beginning.

1996/12/06 - The Council of State provisionally stops the works.

1996/12/09 - A new judicial recourse is introduced against the same development consent, by SOS Mémoire de Liège and Le Vieux Liège. Associations.

1996/12/23 - The Council of State cancels the provisional stop of the works from 06/12 but will consider a possible cancellation of the development consent as asked by the heritage protection associations.

1997/01/17 - The Council of State cancels the development consent, because too much conditions were attached to the decision.

1997/06/27 - Local Authority (SPI+) asks for a new development consent.

1997/10/15 - A new development consent is granted by Wallonian Region.

1998/10/11 - A new judicial recourse is introduced against the development consent, by SOS Mémoire de Liège and Le Vieux Liège

1999/11- A new judicial recourse in introduced by the heritage protection groups, against the

cancellation of the designation of Brahy-Dewilde ensemble decided by the Regional Authority for the purposes of the project.

1999 - Works of demolition of the Brahy-Dewilde ensemble are beginning.

2001/02/28 - A recourse “of extreme urgency” is introduced by the heritage protection groups to stop the works of demolition of the Brahy-Dewilde ensemble.

2001/03/02

- The Council of State stops the works of demolition of Brahy-Dewilde ensemble. The auditor’s report also seems to be against the cancellation of the legal designation of the ensemble, which lets thinking that the Council of State will soon defi nitively decide that this cancellation of designation is not acceptable.

Spring 2001 - Regarding the advice of the Council auditor, LA defi nitively renounces to the stage n°1 of the project (=glass box) and to the corollary demolition of the Ensemble Brahy-Dewilde.

Spring 2002 - Works are still under progress, with subsequent disturbance for the quarter.

3.6. Timetable

3.5. Transferable key lessons

• Defi ning the common interest, and in particular for urban heritage, requires actors to speak the same language, or in other words, to agree on the concepts.

• Traditional information and consultation proce-dures, even if fairly organised, are insuffi cient to prevent confl icts.

• Keeping with the original consensus prevents re-calling of support, associated with a follow up of events it allows for its harmonious evolution.

• Co-operative and constructive exchange of ideas between the stakeholders in an early stage would

increase the chances of getting to a consensus widely accepted.

• Merits assessment and EIA/SEA are two different things which can help reach a consensus, for initi-ating a project in the former case, and for deciding on the realisation and on the mitigation measures of a project.

• Emphasising (time) constraints to impose personal values or ideas is not working.

• Haste in preservation matters is sometimes necessary.• Early EIA and updated EIA following the evolution of

the project provide arguments in favour or against a project on which sound decisions can be taken.

ph503744_Int 66 22/03/05, 10:46:38

67

CASE STUDIES

3.7. References

¬ CHARMONT J.F. (1998) Le musée qui n’existait pas – Essai d’analyse sociologique d’une controverse, Bachelor thesis in sociology, Department of social sciences, University of Liège, 109 p.

¬ COORDINATION GRAND CURTIUS (2002) Projet de pro-gramme culturel et muséographique, Plan fédéral des Grandes Villes, 33 p.

¬ LECOCQ G. (2002) Le « Grand Curtius » devrait ouvrir fi n 2004 ou 2005, A la Violette et en ville, Proxi-Liège, pp. 7-8.

¬ LEENS A. & MAIRLOT M. (1999) L’EMAHL EN PHASE II - Un projet en phase avec les citoyens, Conférence de Presse du 12.04.1999 des conseillers commu-naux Ecolo, 9 p.

¬ MAIRLOT M. (2000) MEGA-MUSEE: note de synthèse et point de la situation, Les dossiers de la locale Ecolo de Liège, 8 p.

¬ S.O.S. MÉMOIRE DE LIÈGE & LE VIEUX-LIÈGE (2000) Mé-gamusée: le point sur la situation, Chronique de la Société royale le Vieux-Liège, n°306, Tome V-4, 7 p.

¬ SPI+ (2002) EMAHL, Atrium, n° 5.

¬ ULG & SOCIÉTÉ LIBRE D’ÉMULATION (2000) Quelle culture pour Liège? Compte-rendu du colloque du 2 décembre 2000, 29 p.

¬ VILLE DE LIÈGE – DÉPARTEMENT TRAVAUX ET ENVIRONNEMENT (2002) Extraits du rapport annuel pour l’année 2001, 3 p.

ph503744_Int 67 22/03/05, 10:46:40

¬ SUIT

68

SUST

AIN

AB

LE D

EVEL

OPM

ENT O

F U

RB

AN

HIS

TO

RIC

AL

AR

EAS

TH

RO

UG

H A

N A

CT

IVE

INT

EGR

AT

ION

WIT

HIN

TO

WN

S

4. VICTORIA SQUARE REGENERATION: REVITALISING A DERELICT CIVIC SPACE OF BELFAST CITY CENTRE

Chris Tweed & Margaret Sutherland

4.1. Active conservation challenge

4.1.1. Background

Victoria Square is located on the South Eastern corner of the pedestrian zone of Belfast City Centre, in an area which has become secondary in physical and commercial terms. It is currently underused, ne-glected and poorly integrated with the remainder of the City Centre. Indeed, in recent years, it has been characterised by neglect, lack of investment and decline resulting in an environment which is insensi-tive to not only its previous heritage as a civic space and market area, but which alienates the pedestrian and city centre visitor (Figure 4.1).

Figure 4.1:Belfast centre with the Victoria Square regeneration area out-lined in red.

The Victoria Square Regeneration Initiative intends to provide a major new retail extension to Belfast City Centre, incorporating a mixed-use development intended to enhance its overall vitality and viability. More particularly the development has the follow-ing objectives:

• to regenerate the declining Victoria Square area;

• to respond in form, design and content to the op-portunities for providing new civic/cultural facili-ties, urban regeneration and townscape repair;

• to signifi cantly improve the retail offer of the City;

• to contribute to the health of Belfast City;

• to provide linkages with the City Centre;

• to deliver a wide range of environmental enhance-ments;

• to create a 24-hour secure environment.

Also key to the regeneration of this historic urban space is the desire to link the city centre with the new developments around the River Lagan by ensur-

ing that the regenerated Victoria Square encourages a through fl ow of pedestrian movement. The pro-moters of the scheme are also keen to encompass an open street structure as an integral part of their redevelopment plans, refl ecting the traditional ur-ban form and heritage of the site.In considering the Victoria Square Regeneration Initiative as a case study for the SUIT project, it was anticipated that the character and heritage of this historic urban space could form a vital part of the assessment procedure for the project. Following an analysis of the decision making process for the scheme, a number of interesting issues and some transferable lessons are highlighted, namely:

1. issues surrounding the regeneration of a derelict former civic space within a Victorian City Centre;

2. delays resulting from a complicated decision making process;

3. possible impacts of the proposal upon the ur-ban heritage and resulting confl icts which have arisen.

4.1.2. Issues Surrounding the Regeneration of Victoria Square

The area was fi rst formalised as a civic space in the early part of the 19th century when it was known as Poultry Square after the fowl and provisions mar-kets that were held in this part of the city (including the streets around the Corn Market). At this time, the square was dominated by May’s Dock, located on the reclaimed beds of the River Blackstaff (a tributary of the River Lagan). From 1842 to 1871 Belfast’s Town Hall occupied the square’s corner with Montgomery Street. When this civic amenity closed the newer (now Old) Town Hall in Victoria Street came into use. For a short time in the middle part of the 19th century the square was then known as Police Square but since approximately 1880 it has been known as Victoria Square (Figure 4.2).

Figure 4.2: Victoria Square in 1880

From this time through to the fi rst half of the 20th century, the square was an attractive public and civic space featuring a theatre (the “Empire Theatre of Varieties”), markets, pubs,

ph503744_Int 68 22/03/05, 10:46:44

69

CASE STUDIES

and trees. Nearby were the headquarters of the distilling fi rm Hollywood and Donnelly (located within Banquet Buildings named after its famous Banquet Whiskey), Cantrell and Cochrane (aerated water manufacturers) and the Irish Distillery Grain store. As a counter measure to so many pubs and drinks fi rms in one place, the Irish Temperance League operated a coffee kiosk in Victoria Square for many years. It was a busy thoroughfare for leisure and commerce and acted as a prominent meeting place. At the eastern end of the square stood the Jaffé fountain (which has since been relocated to another part of Belfast) and from 1894 to 1966 an ornate wrought iron public lavatory was located in the area. The loss of the food and retailing heritage of the area corresponded with the development in the mid 20th century of modern government buildings – in particular Churchill House (which replaced the fi ne Banquet Buildings in 1961) and its surrounding car park, which now dominate the northern side of Victoria Square.

The decline experienced in the area in the mid to late 20th century can be linked to not only the mod-ern offi ce development but also to its increasingly peripheral location in relation to the rest of the city centre. The public space function was effectively destroyed by the multi storey car park and large-scale offi ce developments, and the conversion of the space into a car park in the 1970’s. The space does not now function as either a square or an informal civic space, and no longer acts as a natural route or link to other parts of the city centre. The Laganside area which lies to the east of the site was previ-ously not a desirable area to visit (this has currently changed with large scale investment) and pedestrian activity is further dissuaded by Victoria Street to the eastern boundary, which is currently a very wide and busy one way, four-lane street.

During the 1970’s and 1980’s Victoria Square was further blighted by the fact that it lay within the heavy security cordon around the city centre. These troubled political times resulted in a lack of invest-ment in Belfast city centre and the little that did exist was focussed within other areas of the city centre – particularly around the pedestrianised area of High Street (Figure 4.3).

Since the Peace Process in Northern Ireland began in 1994 and with the signing of the Peace Agreement in 1996 there has been a growing investor confi -dence in Belfast. The city centre has lost its security cordon and is now open to and fully accessible from all parts of the city. Belfast, as the capital city, acts as the economic hub for the region. However, de-spite this status, the city centre still lacks many of the major retail outlets and names that are evident in equivalent cities throughout the UK and the rest of Europe. There was a growing recognition of this fact during the 1990’s and that there was an under provision of retailing. The city centre, despite pres-sure from out of centre development, was seen as offering a safer place for focussing new investment due to its neutral perception as a location.

The Regional Development Strategy (2001) empha-sises that the City Centre is the primary retail loca-tion and that its importance needs to be reinforced. In contrast to many other cities, expansion of the retailing core in the city is not a problem of available space but how to maximise the potential of existing space and how to link new developments within the existing street networks and public spaces. Previ-ously development had taken place on a piecemeal basis as opposed to forming part of an overall plan or vision. With increasing pressure for expanding the city centre retail offer, the City was experiencing interest from a number of developers keen to pursue new large-scale proposals. It is within this planning context that the Victoria Square Redevelopment Scheme was considered as an option for Belfast City Centre.

The Victoria Square Regeneration Initiative is a pro-posal by the Dutch company AM Developments (formerly Multi Development Corporation) for a comprehensive, retail led, mixed-use scheme for the Victoria Square area in Belfast City Centre. The site (Figure 4.4) incorporates:

• Victoria Square itself

• Victoria Street, now a four-lane one-way route out of Belfast;

• Chichester Street, the principal west-east arterial route through the city-centre;

• Ann Street, another four lane one way street with pedestrian linkages in the form of a subway.

Figure 4.3: Victoria Square in 2002

ph503744_Int 69 22/03/05, 10:46:52

¬ SUIT

70

SUST

AIN

AB

LE D

EVEL

OPM

ENT O

F U

RB

AN

HIS

TO

RIC

AL

AR

EAS

TH

RO

UG

H A

N A

CT

IVE

INT

EGR

AT

ION

WIT

HIN

TO

WN

S

Figure 4.4: Boundary of the Victoria Square Regeneration Scheme: current layout (left) and proposal (right)

The concept behind the regeneration initiative is to provide a high quality mixed use development to enhance both the vitality and the viability of Belfast City Centre as a whole. Nico Veldhuis, the Director of AM Development says “The idea was to link Bel-fast’s shopping district with the River Lagan – that’s how we came to Victoria Square”. The scheme in-tends to comprise the redevelopment of the site to provide a mix of uses including retail, offi ces, leisure, catering; residential and civic and cultural activities.

The following sections will highlight the local politi-cal support for this major development to proceed in order that it act as a focus for not only the regen-eration of the now derelict Victoria Square, but in order to demonstrate increasing investor confi dence and realise regeneration benefi ts in the rest of Bel-fast city centre.

4.2. The Decision-making process

The decision making process in relation to the Victo-ria Square Scheme has been long and complicated, involving a number of different public bodies and other actors. The scheme was fi rst proposed in 1998/99 with an application for planning permis-sion, accompanied by an Environmental Statement, submitted in June 2001. The project did not receive planning permission until April 2003. In the context of the SUIT project, it is interesting to consider the different assessment stages the scheme has gone through prior to fi nal approval in order to consider whether such a lengthy process is unavoidable when considering a project of this size in an urban histori-cal area – or whether lessons can be learned as to how unnecessary delay could be avoided.

Given the long history of under investment and de-velopment in Belfast city centre, combined with the potential opportunity which it offered, a number of

competing retail development schemes came to the fore in the late 1990’s. All of these schemes required government assistance in some way, usually in terms of assistance with land assembly. Belfast Regenera-tion Offi ce (B.R.O.) (an agency of the Department for Social Development), the body in charge of the necessary Vesting Order process in relation to large development schemes, could not support all four schemes. Belfast City Council therefore decided to hold a competition and asked for submissions on a formal basis (Figure 4.5).

Figure 4.5: Regeneration proposals

All four proposed schemes were assessed on the basis of criteria taken from the Urban White Paper “Towards an Urban Renaissance” (The main princi-ples of this paper are diversity; compact form, con-nectivity, economic strength, ecological awareness, good governance, social inclusion, good design). In early 2000, the schemes were examined as to how they would improve the quality of the Belfast en-vironment, assist in preventing the spread of decay and dereliction in the city centre, ensure that the project proved benefi cial and could be accessed by the majority of citizens, result in linkages and in bal-anced development across the city centre, help to enhance the central shopping area, create a vibrant, attractive and welcoming image and preserve the heritage and character of the city. On the basis of this assessment, the decision was made by the Council to support the Victoria Square scheme as the preferred option for the future development of Belfast City Centre. At the same time, private con-sultants carried out a retail assessment. This study also suggested that the Victoria Square proposals offered the most benefi ts to the City Centre.

ph503744_Int 70 22/03/05, 10:46:55

71

CASE STUDIES

It is important to note that unlike in other UK cities, Belfast City Council is not the local planning author-ity and as such is not responsible for the granting of permission or assessment of any EIA. This is the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Planning Service – a central government agency. However the City Council’s support is important in terms of having lobbying power and in liasing with, and infl uencing, the Department of Social Development and other government departments and decision making bodies.

Following the Council’s decision, the Department for Social Development (DSD) formally supported the Victoria Square scheme. Their support meant that a Development Scheme for the site could be prepared and the Vesting Order process undertaken by Belfast Regeneration Offi ce. DSD considered that this proc-ess was necessary in the public interest in order to achieve the proper planning of the area and secure the comprehensive and integrated redevelopment of the Victoria square area. This process was started in the autumn of 2000.

In January 2002, a Public Inquiry was heard by the Northern Ireland Planning Appeals Commission (PAC) into the public objections to the Develop-ment Scheme and Vesting Order. This inquiry lasted for several days and represented a key opportunity for public concerns to be aired and objectors to make their cases against any part of the scheme. It should be noted that under Article 86 of the 1991 Planning Order, the purpose of a public inquiry into a development scheme is to consider objections only. There is no entitlement for supporters of a scheme to take part. As such, bodies such as the City Council who had carried out their own assessment of the merits of the scheme or indeed the private develop-ers of the scheme (AM) could not represent their views at the Public Inquiry.

Running concurrently with the Vesting Order and the Development Scheme, the Planning Service also considered the planning application for the scheme (submitted in June 2001). It was decided that a de-cision on this application would not be heard until the outcome of the Public Inquiry for the develop-ment scheme and the Vesting Order was known. The Planning Service could also have decided to hold a Public Inquiry into the Planning Application. Such an Inquiry could have been held at the same time as the Vesting order Inquiry – in the form of a conjoined inquiry. This would have ensured a full hearing of all the planning issues, including the her-

itage concerns at the same time. By not doing so, the decision making process was in danger of being further delayed.

In May 2002, the report from the PAC indicated that it was likely to reject the development scheme and vesting order, on several grounds. The main objec-tions centred around the extent of the properties to be compulsorily acquired, the consequences of business relocation and the loss of opportunity to develop various business interests on an individual basis. The grounds of objection also included some consideration of the built heritage of the site stating that “the scheme as devised is in practical terms in-capable of correction”. Following the publication of the PAC report however, the Minister for Social De-velopment expressed concerns about this outcome. The Minister was concerned that such a decision would not allow the potential regeneration benefi ts of the scheme to be realised. The Minister therefore rejected the PAC report and issued an Interim Deci-sion Statement (IDS) in September, which outlined his intention to support the Victoria Square scheme. The IDS was then subject to a further period of consultation. This time supporters of the scheme as well as objectors were asked to make their written representations.

In January 2003 the Minister for Social Development issued the Final Decision Notice that the Develop-ment Scheme should be adopted. This was followed in June 2003 by a Notice of Intention to adopt the Vesting Order for the site.In light of this exceptional action by the Minister for Social Development, the Planning Service decided not to hold a Public Inquiry into the planning ap-plication. This considerably speeded up the decision process and a Notice of Opinion under Article 31 of the 1991 Planning Order was issued. Thirty-two con-ditions were attached to this permission of which four are related to the built heritage of the site.

Many concerns have been expressed about the po-tentially adverse impact that such delays in the stat-utory decision making process can have on projects such as the Victoria Square Regeneration Initiative. It may impact on investor confi dence and raise un-certainty. The continued absence of a decision has knock-on effects on investment decisions and could undermine efforts by agencies keen to regenerate this historical area. Such delays could of course re-sult in a greater quality of decision in relation to con-sideration of all the heritage issues, however in this case it seems that the key concerns were economic

ph503744_Int 71 22/03/05, 10:47:01

¬ SUIT

72

SUST

AIN

AB

LE D

EVEL

OPM

ENT O

F U

RB

AN

HIS

TO

RIC

AL

AR

EAS

TH

RO

UG

H A

N A

CT

IVE

INT

EGR

AT

ION

WIT

HIN

TO

WN

S

– i.e. the interests of the individual business owner versus the interests of the wider city.

4.3. Likely impact on Urban Heritage

Victoria Square lies within Belfast City Centre Con-servation area. The scheme as outlined in both the EIA and the Development Scheme will result in sig-nifi cant changes to the urban fabric within the area – however the two listed buildings and several other buildings of character within the site are proposed to be retained as integral parts of the development proposals.

The issue of heritage impacts was considered at dif-ferent stages by Belfast City Council. The Council when making its response to the scheme accepted that several historic buildings and features would be lost. This was considered by the Council to be balanced by the need for regeneration of the wider area and the fact that it was considered that the potential of the scheme offered to enhance not only the site but also the wider city centre.

The Development Scheme adopted by Belfast Re-generation Offi ce also considered the impact of the Scheme on the heritage of the area. Amongst its recommendations were the following:

• New development should incorporate a transition between the buildings in the area which are to remain, whilst seeking to create an overall density that is in scale and sympathy with the neighbour-ing city centre.

• The main character of Victoria Square from the 1900’s where it acted as a busy thoroughfare for leisure and commerce and a prominent meeting place should be enhanced and respected in the layout of new buildings and public spaces.

• Identifying that Victoria Square was laid out in 1880 and has provided public open space since that date, the development scheme required that a permeable and high quality public amenity space with 24-hour public access be provided to become the focus of activity and part of a network of pub-lic spaces within the city centre.

The most contentious part of the regeneration scheme was the proposed loss of a public house (The Kitchen Bar) and historic street entry (Telfair Street). Despite their role in the history of Victoria Square, these two built heritage features were not protected through statutory listing by the Environ-ment and Heritage Service of Northern Ireland.

There is some dispute as to the exact establishment of the Kitchen Bar but records show that it dates back prior to 1880. For much of its history it has been linked to its close neighbour, the Empire Music Hall which closed in 1961. This music hall witnessed performances from many legends of the day includ-ing Laurel and Hardy, Charlie Chaplin, Lily Langtry and George Formby. It was commonplace for these performers to cross Telfair’s Entry (the former name for Telfair Street) during the interval or after the fi -nal curtain call for a drink in the Kitchen Bar. The bar still features many mementoes from these former times and famous patrons (Law 2002). As recently as 1995 the pub was still the location for talks and stories under the banner “Old Belfast and a Pint”.

From the beginning of the scheme, Ulster Architec-tural Heritage Society (UAHS) raised their concerns on the basis of the loss of built heritage resulting from the scheme. Their objections centred in partic-ular on the loss of the Kitchen bar and Telfair Street. UAHS was formed in 1967, has a membership of 1200 and is the only voluntary body with a remit to campaign for the conservation of the built heritage in Northern Ireland. As well as its campaigning and promotion role, the Society also produces a series of publications concerning buildings at risk. The society made its concerns known about the Victoria Square regeneration scheme from the earliest point. It took the opportunity to make a written representation to the developers of the scheme when they put their proposals on display for public consultation. As a result they were involved in several discussions and negotiations with the Directors of AM Develop-ments. Subsequently, UAHS made representations to the Department of Social Development in respect of the Development Scheme. Their view was that the Scheme should make more specifi c reference to the built heritage and in particular that the Kitchen Bar and Telfair Street should be retained. Following these representations, the society presented evi-dence as an objector to the Public Inquiry in January 2002. This evidence reiterated their concerns that the built heritage of Victoria Square was not being given suffi cient consideration by the Development Scheme. The Society also made their representa-tions to the Planning Service in respect of the plan-ning application for the new development. Repre-sentations were also made on the Interim Decision Statement made by the Minister in September 2002, and in June 2003 in respect of the notice of inten-tion to adopt the Vesting order.

ph503744_Int 72 22/03/05, 10:47:06

73

CASE STUDIES

UAHS feel frustrated by the decision making proc-ess and their inability to infl uence the fi nal decision, despite their lengthy and expert participation at all stages of the process. They believe that the regen-eration aims and the protection of the built heritage should not have been seen as mutually exclusive. Rita Harkin, the society’s Research Offi cer believes that regeneration should involve breathing new life into the historic buildings and street pattern of the area. The PAC report was supportive of the soci-ety’s views but the subsequent intervention by the Minister overruled the report’s recommendations. UAHS also feel disappointed that the Planning Service, who ultimately had the fi nal say over the future of the Kitchen Bar and Telfair Street did not seek to protect them through conditions attached to the planning consent. The society is currently awaiting the outcome of the Vesting Order decision process, which is the only remaining opportunity for this heritage to be retained. The society currently doubts that their representations will outweigh the regeneration lobby.

4.4. The Environmental Statement

The Environmental Statement for the Scheme has been prepared by the developers in accordance with the planning (EIA) Regulations (of Northern Ireland) 1999. This Statement provides a comprehensive as-sessment of all the potential impacts and mitigating measures arising from the Initiative. The Environ-mental Statement accompanied the submission of the planning application in June 2001. Appendix One of the Environmental Statement specifi cally addresses the cultural heritage of the site.

The First section of Appendix One “Cultural Herit-age”, considers the history, archaeology, topogra-phy, built environment, cartographic development and townscape of Belfast and Victoria Square. The document is rich in detail about the city in general but less detailed in terms of the specifi c heritage of Victoria Square itself. Section 2 briefl y describes the characteristics of the development proposal. Section 3 then looks at the potential impact of the proposal on the cultural heritage. This section considers the impact on the archaeology and the built environment of the site and considers remedial or reductive measures. The appendix is thirty-two pages in length of which three pages are devoted to considering the potential impact of the proposal. The statement recommends four actions to be taken in order to remedy or reduce the impact of the proposed development on the cultural heritage.

These are:

• That a detailed architectural survey and appraisal of the 19th century buildings and those of architec-tural merit as described in the statement be made. This would allow for the recording and preserva-tion of information, which buildings represent even if the structures are to be destroyed.

• That a programme of archaeological potential of the area and archaeological test excavation should take place within the accessible areas of the north-ern part of the square - in advance of demolition or ground disturbance works.

• That archaeological test excavation be imple-mented in the southern section of the square, post demolition in advance of the construction of the proposed retail units.

• That a programme of archaeological monitoring may be required.

These recommendations were incorporated as con-ditions in the notice of planning approval in April 2003, forming the extent to which cultural and built heritage was incorporated into the fi nal decision.

As part of the EIA process, a wide consultation exercise was carried out by the Building Design Partnership (BDP) - the agent for the developer. This consultation involved discussions with numerous stakeholders: traders, statutory bodies, residents, Aviation authority, Short Strand Markets, Shop Mo-bility, etc.. Among these were NGOs specialised in Cultural Heritage issues as Ulster Architectural Herit-age Society (see earlier section). Public exhibitions were also held which were aimed at explaining the development proposals to the local community. Ac-cording to BDP, there was a high response to these consultation exercises. BDP indicate that certain elements of the original scheme have been modifi ed in light of public concern. (Figure 4.6)

It is interesting to note that although the Environ-mental statement was prepared by the developers of the scheme to accompany the planning applica-tion, in many respects the EIA was superseded by the Development Scheme process undertaken by the Department of Social Development. This proc-ess effectively acted as a strategic assessment of the site and its surrounding context, considering the strategic implications of the initiative and its poten-tial for regenerating not just Victoria Square but also the whole city centre. The Development Scheme and Vesting Order process was subject not only to extensive consultation but also to a major Public

ph503744_Int 73 22/03/05, 10:47:07

¬ SUIT

74

SUST

AIN

AB

LE D

EVEL

OPM

ENT O

F U

RB

AN

HIS

TO

RIC

AL

AR

EAS

TH

RO

UG

H A

N A

CT

IVE

INT

EGR

AT

ION

WIT

HIN

TO

WN

S

Inquiry, which received much national publicity. So despite this process adding considerably to the deci-sion making time scale it did open the process to a more rigorous debate in addition to legal and public scrutiny.

Figure 4.6: The foreseen Victoria Square layout

4.5. Transferable key lessons

• The Victoria Square regeneration initiative provides an interesting example of the consideration of herit-age issues in an historic space faced with a major redevelopment proposal. The key aims of this case study were, fi rstly, to illustrate the issues surround-ing the regeneration of a derelict former civic space within a Victorian city centre. It can be seen that the gradual introduction of insensitive development over the years and lack of investment can result in a neglected and derelict space. As a result, political and commercial pressure may come to bear in order to secure the improvement and regeneration of the space. This regeneration pressure may be greater than the pressure to safeguard the heritage and original character of the historic space.

• Secondly, the case study aimed to provide an illus-tration of how the assessment procedure for such a major development in an historic area can result in delays to the decision making process. Despite such delays, it is not clear that a better quality decision resulted in terms of consideration of the impacts of the development on the built heritage. The decision process was overruled by a politician and justifi ed to be in the public interest in order to ensure regenera-tion of the space. However, despite concerns over the quality of the fi nal decision, this long process did ensure that the details of the project, including its impacts on the built and cultural heritage, were subjected to extensive consultation, debate and legal rigor.

• Finally, this case study illustrates that in the herit-age versus regeneration argument, the regeneration argument was strongest. The decision process in Northern Ireland encouraged extremes of views on either side of the debate – the middle ground was not fostered. The Public Inquiry into the Develop-ment Scheme and Vesting Order only allowed objec-tors to the scheme to make representations. Those who may have suggested some alternatives but as a whole supported the scheme, were not allowed to be heard. Such an approach may have stifl ed creative solutions or alternatives. It appears that the issue was heritage or regeneration rather than a middle ground that could satisfy both aims.

ph503744_Int 74 22/03/05, 10:47:09

75

CASE STUDIES

4.6. Timetable

18421880

- Civic Space formally established, known as “Poultry Square” and featuring Belfast Town Hall. Subsequently known as “Police Square”.

18801950

- Square now called Victoria Square. Lively and popular public space, featuring many commercial and leisure uses.

19501970

- Construction of large scale offi ces, loss of traditional buildings and market functions.

19701990

- Square became a car park and ceased functioning as a public or civic space. Decline and dereliction resulting. Lack of investment due to troubled political times and peripheral location in relation to city centre.

19941996

- Paramilitary Groups declare Ceasefi re / Peace Agreement Signed

1999/05

- Number of retail development proposals in relation to Belfast City Centre come to attention of the City Council

- Appointment by Belfast Regeneration Offi ce of Retail Consultants to assess 4 different retail proposals.

1999/12- Report compiled by retail consultants identifying that the main issues affecting the city

centre were (a) location and (b)impact on future development of the city centre.

2000/05

- Belfast City Council considered an assessment of the different retail schemes against the Urban Task Force Principles.

- The schemes were examined as to how they would improve the quality of the Belfast environment, assist in preventing the spread of decay and dereliction in the city centre, ensure that the project proved benefi cial and could be accessed by the majority of citizens, result in linkages and in balanced development across the city centre, help to enhance the central shopping area, create a vibrant, attractive and welcoming image and preserve the heritage and character of the city.

- Concluded that in terms of the economic, social and environmental enhancement, the Victoria Square scheme would result in the greatest benefi ts accruing to the City. Council took formal decision to support the Victoria Square Scheme as the preferred option for the extension of the retail offer of Belfast City Centre.

2000/09

- Department for Social Development confi rmed that the Victoria Square Regeneration Project offered the best opportunity to consolidate Belfast’s position as a major retail centre.

- Development Scheme prepared by Belfast Regeneration Offi ce. Known as Comprehensive Development Area 136, Victoria Square, Belfast under Article 86 of the Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1991.

- The Development Scheme was prepared in the public interest in order to achieve the proper planning of the area and as an impetus to revitalisation of Belfast City Centre.

2001/06 - Planning Application for Victoria Square submitted to the Northern Ireland Planning Service2002/01 - Public Inquiry into the Development Scheme and Vesting Notice held by Northern Ireland

2002/05- Recommendation by PAC that Development Scheme not be approved and the Vesting Order

should not be made.

2002/09- “Interim Decision Statement” issued by the Minister for Social Development that he was

minded to adopt the Victoria Square scheme subject to a further consultation period of 1 month with interested parties.

2003/01 - Final Decision Statement Issued by the DSD to adopt the Development Scheme.

2003/04- Notice of Opinion to approve the full planning application for Victoria Square (issued under

article 31 of the 1991 Planning Order) made by Planning Service subject to a number conditions.

2003/06 - Notice of intention to adopt the Vesting Order issued by DSD.

ph503744_Int 75 22/03/05, 10:47:11

¬ SUIT

76

SUST

AIN

AB

LE D

EVEL

OPM

ENT O

F U

RB

AN

HIS

TO

RIC

AL

AR

EAS

TH

RO

UG

H A

N A

CT

IVE

INT

EGR

AT

ION

WIT

HIN

TO

WN

S

5. THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW STATION IN NAMUR: ASSESSING THE CUMULATIVE EFFECTS OF THREE MAJOR CONSTRUCTIONS

Christine Ruelle

5.1. The active conservation challenge: linking a XIXth century neighbourhood to the city centre of Namur

Isolated from the Namur protected historic city cen-tre by railway infrastructures and an urban boulevard, the neighbourhood of Bomel was witnessing diffi cul-ties in the early 1980’s, due to its poor physical and visual accessibility, perceived security problems and the poor quality of its public open spaces. The situ-ation was deserving due care from local authorities, since, although fragile, the area was not yet facing a steady decline. Even if far from being “prestigious”, the quarter was indeed perceived as quiet and charm-ing by many of its inhabitants. Small working-class houses, with some important public buildings and some derelict sites mostly constituted the urban structure. There is no protected heritage in Bomel but the quarter is located just outside the protected city centre. And the station (Figure 5.1), just on the other side of the railways, is mentioned as a valuable building in the atlas of cultural heritage for the pro-tected city centre.

Figure 5.1 – The Namur station. © David De Neef, www.belrail.be

The local authorities started the elaboration of a strategic plan for the whole territory of the city in the early 1990’s (SDC – Schéma de Struc-ture Communal and RCU – Règlement Communal d’Urbanisme), in which they formulated three stra-tegic objectives that may contribute to the active renewal of the neighbourhood:

• To strengthen the cultural identity of Namur, by re-inforcing the historical urban structure and physi-cally materialise what has been called the “anse” (handle) in Namur.

• The “anse” constitutes an important histori-

cal landmark of the city. It is the large way of circulation (rail and cars), surrounding the town centre and separating it from the crown of XIXth century quarters (including Bomel). Most public buildings of the city (administrative, education, services, and cultural functions) are located along this ring. According to the strategic plan, cultural infrastructures were also to be promoted along the “anse”, which corresponds to the ancient position of the medieval town walls, demolished between 1863 and 1890 to create the actual place in front of the station.

• To reinforce conviviality and residential attractive-ness of XIXth century quarters by improving the links between the centre and surrounding neigh-bourhoods.

• Bomel neighbourhood has been integrated into the same planning area as the protected historic centre. It is especially intended to improve pedes-trian links and accessibility between Bomel and the centre of the town. The “anse” will become a part of the future ring road of the town, which will be underground in the surroundings of the station. It is expected that this will allow reducing the car traffi c in this area.

• To set up operational plans for some quarters in order to defi ne a coherent strategy for these ones, going in the sense of a better conviviality and resi-dential attractiveness.

• It was intended to set up a local strategic plan (PCA – Plan communal d’Aménagement) including the Bomel neighbourhood, the railway infrastructures, the station and the station place, with the inten-tion to better integrate Bomel in the city centre. This local strategic plan would elaborate the local authorities intentions and objectives with regard to the development of new constructions in this place.

Some major operational projects, developed in parallel, were to facilitate the implementation of these strategic objectives, in helping to physically reinforce the image of the ancient city walls and creating a pedestrian connection between the cen-tre of the city and the Bomel neighbourhood. The most important of these projects was the complete transformation of the railway station and infrastruc-tures. This project had four objectives, as explained by the railway company (SNCB): to separate the traffi c of people and goods, to increase the number of rail tracks in order to improve the traffi c fl uidity, to increase the speed of the trains entering and leav-ing the station and, fi nally, to improve the welcome

ph503744_Int 76 22/03/05, 10:47:12

77

CASE STUDIES

of travellers and station capacity. Accordingly the railway company proposed to build a platform be-yond the existing façade of the station, crossing the railway infrastructure. The rail tracks and platforms would thus remain on the ground fl oor and a large hall mimicking an “urban street” would be realised on the fi rst fl oor, with ticket offi ces, shops and facili-ties arranged around.

In order to make the project more cost-effective, the railway company managed to couple the station project with an important offi ce building, devoted to a regional administration (MET – Transport Min-istry of the Walloon Region) and a 12 rooms cinema complex located on the second fl oor of the station, that would be taken in charge by a private developer (Les ateliers du cinéma). The combined initiative triggered the elaboration of a fourth project, the Saint-Luc project, a private development dedicated to offi ce buildings for 300 to 500 persons combined with shops and restaurants.

5.2. The decision-making process: an ad-hoc public-private partnership

The decision of the Walloon Region to locate a new administrative building for the MET on the railway site took place during the discussions about the intention of the SNCB to entirely renew the Namur station. As said in a communication from the railway company, “when the decision has been taken to renew the station (beginning of the nineties), the different actors, from the railway company, from the Local Authority and from the Regional Authority discussed together about their own objectives and intentions: the railway company wanted to build a new station in order to revitalise the rail transportation, the Walloon Region was looking for a good location for one of its two major ministries, and the Local Authority of Na-mur wanted to reduce the rail fracture ands therefore link the city centre with the quarter of Bomel… the platform hence appeared as a meeting point between different wishes. This addition of different energies and therefore budgets allowed considering ideas that were impossible until then. For the railway company, the platform appears as an enormous saving in space, when the existing buildings had reached their maximal use for quite a long time. For the Walloon Region, the platform would ideally complete the Walloon Region building. For the Local Authority, it was an opportu-nity to increase the place of the station, but fi rst, to create a new linking axis between the North and the South of the town.”

Theoretically, the decision-making processes for major operational projects in the surroundings of the station were to be framed by a local strategic plan, as stated in the strategic plan under develop-ment for the whole city (SS – Schéma de Structure and RCU). But since the railway station project came when the strategic plan for the whole city was still under development, the railway company, the Walloon Region and the private developer of the cinemas infl uenced the elaboration of this plan, by providing the local administration with suggestions of “positive” operational projects they were ready to fund. In parallel, a local plan (PCA) was set up to “steer” the station project, but its scope was lim-ited to the area of the platform planned to be built beyond the station instead of addressing the whole neighbourhood.

The political majority of the Local Authority changed at the end of 2000. This meant a dramatic change of direction with regard to the strategic plan, as the new mayor does no longer support the “Schéma de Struc-ture” and the “Règlement Communal d’Urbanisme”. He indeed considers that adopting these legal in-struments would block the Local Authority within the limits of a rigid strategy that generally becomes rapidly obsolete! Another argument for not adopt-ing these instruments, mentioned by the mayor cabinet, is that “the quality of the decisions would be improved when civil offi cers assess the projects on a case-by-case basis, instead of taking refuge beyond legal instruments previously adopted”.

The Project of the station platform is now partly stopped. A recourse to the Council of State has been introduced against the PCA approved by the Regional authority. The developer of the cinemas renounced to the project given the negative advice from the local fi remen about safety conditions. The Regional Authority has granted development con-sent to the SNCB to build the general structure of the fi rst fl oor of the platform (where hall, ticket of-fi ces, shops, etc. would later take place) in Novem-ber 2001. The works were achieved in May 2002 and the Council of State will probably cancel the PCA local plan since the auditor of the Council produced a negative report. Local Authority of Namur, accord-ing to the latest news (May 2002), intends to restart all the procedure: to recreate a new PCA local plan, followed by a new SEA, in order to legally legitimate the achieved works and the unachieved part of the project.

ph503744_Int 77 22/03/05, 10:47:16

¬ SUIT

78

SUST

AIN

AB

LE D

EVEL

OPM

ENT O

F U

RB

AN

HIS

TO

RIC

AL

AR

EAS

TH

RO

UG

H A

N A

CT

IVE

INT

EGR

AT

ION

WIT

HIN

TO

WN

S

5.3. Likely impacts on the urban heritage: a case of cumulative effects

The demolition of part of the station building, dat-ing from 1861, is probably the most direct but also somehow invisible effect of the operational project on “cultural heritage”. Actually, the façade of the building is the only element that has been conserved by the project. Even if not listed, it was mentioned as an interesting element of the protected city centre, and it was a real symbol for the town. It is considered as Cultural Heritage by numerous inhab-

itants, because dating from the middle of the XIXth century (1861), and because its symmetry is rein-forcing the axis of the Godefroid street - which had been created after the construction of the station. “Nobody wanted to pull it down” as says the railway company representative. For this reason, it was de-cided to conserve this façade, although demolishing the rest of the building beyond (Figure 5.2).

Monitoring the social satisfaction of Bomel inhabitants with regard to their neighbourhood

The study carried out by Pierre Mathus and Catherine Servotte for the CPDT, explored the Bomel actual and ancient inhabitants’ feelings and reactions, face to the recent master projects and the changes occurring for their quarter. Lots of these inhabitants feel separated from the centre of the city. They generally consider that the MET building is a further thickness to the pre-existing visual and symbolic barrier constituted by the station and its buildings. Some inhabitants were also happy when the St-Luc Hospital has been demolished, because it was allowing them to “see what is on the other side of the railway”. Some inhabitants have even the feeling that the politicians are trying to isolate them and to hide them from the rest of the city….In addition, they deplore the lack of pedestrian accessibility between Bomel and the centre of the city. In their talks, they use recurrent negative words such as “to get over”, “limit”, “Iron curtain”, “labyrinth”, “obstacle course”, “barrier”, “to undergo”, “pain”, “unnecessary complication”, etc. The railway appears as very present in all the mental maps that inhabitants drew during the CPDT study. They still recurrently mentioned the following:

• “I pay taxes as everyone and I may not go to the city centre!»

• “The cars do not respect the traffi c lights in front of the MET (2x) so it is diffi cult and dangerous to cross the street (6x), the traffi c is too speedy, policemen are absent.”

• “To reach the centre is highly diffi cult (18x); it is a “struggle for life” (2x), a sportive exploit, a labyrinth for children 8-10 years old coming back

from the school, it is impossible because I am handicapped (3x), the escalators and elevators are defi cient (8x), the escalators on the station side are stopped and too high (7x), etc.”

• “As there is no acceptable pedestrian link between Bomel and the centre, we make the detour by the Louvain bridge (7x), but it is ridiculous (and still complicated because of stairs between Bomel and the bridge, which makes the passage very diffi cult for a handicapped people or a pushchair)”

• “the station is not accessible by cyclists!”

Furthermore, they deplore that the passage under the MET building is not accessible during the night, and is obscure and frightening.

Concerning the impacts of the big urban construction projects on the quarter and the quality of life in the quarter, the Bomel inhabitants recurrently mention that:

• they have the feeling that works will never end;

• they have the feeling that the MET building produces an important increase of the location prices in the quarter;

• they consider that there are too much transformation of familial houses into small fl ats, and therefore, problems of parking places for the cars, and too much inhabitants who do not stay enough time in the quarter to be integrated to its life;

• they have the sentiment that the quarter is insecure with numerous robberies, vandalism actions, aggressions, “people getting out of prison”, “persons with social problems”, …

ph503744_Int 78 22/03/05, 10:47:19

79

CASE STUDIES

Figure 5.2 - The Namur station’s main facade, axed on Godefroid Street. © David De Neef, www.belrail.be

But the most signifi cant effects on cultural heritage may be indirect ones. Namur is located in a valley, and the Walloon Region building, as well as the sta-tion project and the St-Luc development are highly visible from everywhere when getting towards the centre of Namur. These buildings have important effects on the morphology of the town, furthermore because they are also located on the axis created by Godefroid street and station façade.

The Bomel quarter also seems being subject to negative impacts on built heritage, townscape and quality of life. The three important operational projects triggered the setting-up of a quarter com-mittee, intended at defending the Bomel quarter interests, in quite a wide sense (larger than the sole urban heritage protection). The committee claims for EIAs for such big urban construction projects (to see what will be the consequences on the quality of life, environment, etc. of the inhabitants of quarters such as Bomel). It claims for a whole strategy for the Bomel quarter, intended to steer the develop-ments induced in the quarter by the recent projects and to control the real estate pressure which is developing.

Competing values also appear about the architec-tural quality of the recent developments (Figure 5.3). According to the SNCB, “on the architectural point of view, each developer took the environment into consideration: the railway company maintained the existing station façade; the Walloon Region built its offi ce building not as a uniform block, but as a true street composed of numerous buildings of various heights and it realised the necessary passages in order to favour the circulation between the two parts of

the city. Today you pass beyond the Walloon Region building so easily to be on the other side… the scar will be fi nally closed up”. On the contrary, according to lot of Bomel inhabitants (and it seems that it is the same for numerous inhabitants of Namur), the offi ce building of the Walloon Region is perceived as a huge “made in one piece” building, operating like a barrage, and damaging the townscape!

Figure 5.3 – The new internal spaces of the station, contrasting with the conserved facade. © David De Neef, www.belrail.be

It has to be stressed that deep changes can already be observed in the Bomel neighbourhood since the achievement of the Walloon Region building. Inhab-itants claim that streets are crowded by cars that the numerous offi ce workers park in the quarter. In-habitants as well as local offi cers and urban planners also monitor important changes in housing types: more and more families are leaving Bomel, and the remaining empty houses are divided in “kots” (little fl ats for students or poor people). Shops and small restaurants are appearing near the Walloon Region building. It can be expected that the new station building as well as the St-Luc project increase these negative effects on Bomel neighbourhood. The Bomel inhabitants reacted very negatively concern-ing the Saint-Luc offi ce building, arguing it would be a supplementary barrier between them and the cen-tre of the city. The station platform is however seen as a possible opportunity to create a pedestrian link between the city centre and Bomel, opened 24h/24h, easily accessible, secured and lighted.

5.4. SEA hindered by the mere operational plan formulation

The distinction between the strategic and the project level is not very clear in this case, as there is such a strong intertwining between projects and plans.

ph503744_Int 79 22/03/05, 10:47:21

¬ SUIT

80

SUST

AIN

AB

LE D

EVEL

OPM

ENT O

F U

RB

AN

HIS

TO

RIC

AL

AR

EAS

TH

RO

UG

H A

N A

CT

IVE

INT

EGR

AT

ION

WIT

HIN

TO

WN

S

No SEA of the strategic plan for the whole city of Namur (SS) has been carried out, as it was not yet a mandatory requirement to perform an Environ-mental Assessments of such plans in Walloon Re-gion. Furthermore the legal status of the local plan was somehow confuse. Actually, since 1998, the “schéma de structure” requirements have not any-more a mandatory and legal character for the local authority. It rather turns to be a fl exible indicative document, a sort of “programme” if one refers to the last discussions on interpretation of the SEA Direc-tive. The following revisions of the land planning regulations in the Walloon Region again lessened the importance of such indicative plans, as they are no longer a mandatory condition for a local author-ity to be independent from the Regional author-ity. Finally this strategic plan was never formally adopted, which is the decisive step that should have triggered a SEA.

On the opposite of the spectrum, the MET build-ing has neither been submitted to an EIA. Only a public enquiry stage just before the development consent decision was allowing citizens to react to the project.

Obviously there was a risk that important changes of the cityscape and urban heritage would progres-sively occur without any global evaluation nor strategic guidance if a similar attitude was adopted for all the projects surrounding the station construc-tion. Hence, for the Station platform project, the lo-cal authorities decided to steer the project through the setting-up of a local plan (PCA). But this local plan may not be considered as a strategic document that would set-up guidelines and intentions for the transformation of this area of the town, since the limits of the plan were indeed reduced to the built area of the project (or the area of the platform). Lo-cal urban planners deplore this situation and consid-er that the surroundings – including the place of the station, the Bomel quarter, and the railway spaces – should have been integrated in this operational plan, but the Local and Regional Authorities agreed to limit the area of the plan to the strictest because of the “urgency of the situation”. This decision would have strong implications for the rest of the decision-making procedure and especially the assessment of the effects of the different projects surrounding the station.

A SEA of this plan was mandatory as the local plan (PCA) did not comply with the requirements of a higher level regional plan (plan de secteur). The SEA

has been trusted to an EIA consultant, Poly’art from Mons, and the delay given by the local authority for the SEA was 3 months. According to some local of-fi cers, the programme defi ned by the local author-ity for this SEA was too limited in scope. It mainly addressed the townscape, the mobility plan, the car parks and the pedestrian circulation. The SEA is still considered as globally positive as its results forced the author of the project to propose other designs and silhouettes for his project. It argued that since the project is located just on the limit of the protected historic centre (the south of the PCA area is located within the protected perimeter, when the north is just outside), one should pay particular attention to the architectural quality of the project (the station somehow already suffering from inap-propriate recent developments). Furthermore, the report of the SEA reminded what had already been promoted in the strategic plan (SS and RCU), namely the need to improve the pedestrian accessibility between Bomel and the city centre. Poly’art was stressing on the fact that an axis exists in the urban morphology - materialised by the Godefroid street, the symmetry of the station façade, and more re-cently, by the MET building – and that this axis had to be reinforced and pursued towards Bomel.

5.5. Judicial controversy: from a win-win to a lose-lose situation

Considering the social impacts of the strategic plan and corresponding operational projects, the most af-fected people are the inhabitants of Bomel quarter, or about 2600 inhabitants. Since 1981, some 100 inhabitants moved into the quarter, which does not seems as important as predicted by the Bomel com-mittee. But one must be cautious with these fi gures, since there are more and more fl ats and “kots” in the quarter, which means a lot of people that are not offi cially domiciled in the quarter.Bomel population is relatively poor. According to the statistical atlas of the town, Bomel is the poor-est of the 46 quarters of Namur. A high number of inhabitants (about 10% according to 1999 estima-tion) are receiving an allocation to survive. Numer-ous social houses, NGOs and associations are in-stalled in the neighbourhood. Many schools, SMEs, liberal professions, shops, administrations,… are also present in the quarter. The public involvement in the decision-making process has been limited to passive consultation stages or “public enquiries” for most of the project. But some interventions turned into negative stances:

ph503744_Int 80 22/03/05, 10:47:32

81

CASE STUDIES

A confl ict occurred between the railway company and a private developer building a new cinema com-plex in the suburbs of Namur. The development consent had been granted, after a positive advice from the railway company, which was concerned by the project since the future complex was planned near the railways. Still, in October 2001, while the works had already begun, the SNCB stated that it was the owner of the street allowing to access to the site along the railway, and asked to a court to forbid the cinema developer to use this street. This situation is related in the Press and interpreted as a way of obstructing a project concurrent of the cinema project on the railway platform… As repris-als, the cinema developer did introduce a judicial recourse to the Council of State against the PCA lo-cal plan related to the station platform project. This recourse is still under examination but the Council will very likely cancel the PCA.

This confl ict may appear as mere marginal and laughable, let it be its indirect impact on the Bomel neighbourhood.The Bomel neighbourhood committee always re-acted outside the legal framework of the “public enquiries” and sent spontaneously letters and petitions to the Local Authority deputy mayors. Their general main requests were concerning a real participation of inhabitants (advises and reactions listened and integrated into the political decisions), through a reconnaissance of the committees and citizens. The inhabitant committee was especially eager to suggest projects and priorities and de-manding a coherent strategic plan to be defi ned for the whole neighbourhood and discussed prior to any new major construction. It was especially arguing for an equal consideration of inhabitants of the different Namur neighbourhoods, which they do not consider as being the case presently18. Besides traditional claims (traffi c, security and cleanliness), the neighbourhood committee basically considers the platform as a possible opportunity to ensure an opened (24h/24), secure, and convivial passage to the city centre.

Despite these spontaneous reactions, no real opened confl ict occurred, and the Bomel inhabitants did not undertake any judicial actions against the projects. Given that the operational plan is questioned by a recourse to the Council of State, nobody may say how this platform project will evolve and when the Bomel inhabitants will be allowed to reach easily and rapidly the centre of the city, nor what will be done for the Bomel quarter. The local urban plan-

ners would like to set up a strategic local plan for Bomel quarter, and the Land Control administration, which regularly undertakes urban revitalisation op-eration by buying buildings, setting urban regulation rules on these buildings, and reselling them, would like to pursue this kind of operation in the quarter of Bomel. They are waiting for decisions from the local authorities to do so.

The misunderstanding between Bomel inhabitants and the municipality hence reached a climax and no real will of de-escalation can be observed from the city side: the Local Authority does not really consider nor understand the Bomel inhabitants’ reactions. The cabinet of the mayor even claims not being informed of the letters and petitions sent by the inhabitants’ committee to the previous deputy may-ors (yet largely reported in the newspapers). More importantly, the pedestrian accessibility between Bomel and the city centre is still perceived as non-existing by most of the inhabitants, and it is cumu-lated with the negative sentiment that both the big construction projects along the “anse” (like the MET building) and the absence of strategic plan for the Bomel quarter are producing among inhabitants.

5.6. Transferable key lessons

Here below is gathered what has to be remembered from this case study, and from cross-comparison of this case study with others.

• Despite positive intentions, the partial implemen-tation of the local plan (“schéma de structure”) does not seem to satisfy the population, which was targeted by the plan. An impact assessment could have highlighted and prevent from the particularly negative issue that a partial implementation of the plan could produce.

• The politic of hurry up and accelerate the proce-dures, even though quite usual and understandable, may have very negative outcomes. The case study of Namur highlights how a project blocked halfway may be more harmful than the “no project” or fully developed project situation.

• The public enquiry revealed insuffi cient to really consider the population concerns. The existing par-ticipative framework, based on passive consultation methods and related to a particular and concrete plan or project, does not seems suffi ciently opened, since limited to specifi c aspects of a particular project or plan, when the concerns of people are much more general. It should be agreed that the public does not think through the limited view of

ph503744_Int 81 22/03/05, 10:47:34

¬ SUIT

82

SUST

AIN

AB

LE D

EVEL

OPM

ENT O

F U

RB

AN

HIS

TO

RIC

AL

AR

EAS

TH

RO

UG

H A

N A

CT

IVE

INT

EGR

AT

ION

WIT

HIN

TO

WN

S

a particular project or plan, as it may be the case of a developer, or a civil servant in charge of the follow-up of a particular project or plan. Concerns expressed by the public are usually referring to a global apprehension of the urban environment.

Therefore, the use of more proactive participation methods, to identify very general strategies, could be helpful.

5.7. Timetable

1990- The RAILWAY COMPANY is setting up its new investment plan (Star 21) … in Namur, a

comprehensive reorganisation is needed around the station.

1991- Les ateliers du cinema presents a project of cinema for the station platform. LA welcomes

the idea of a cinema complex on the station platform. It will thus be integrated into the plan for the whole Namur

1997/09- Les ateliers du cinema presents a project of cinema for the station platform. LA welcomes

the idea of a cinema complex on the station platform. It will thus be integrated into the plan for the whole Namur

1998/02/18- The local plan around the station project will be a PCA (Plan Communal d’Aménagement),

unfortunately limited to the area of the platform, so closer from a project level than from a strategic level.

1998/10/29- Regional authority welcomes the platform project PCA but asks for an SEA of the plan, as

legally required.

1999/04/12

- Results of SEA by Poly’Art: the design of the building must be adapted to fi t with the surrounding urban morphology ; the cinema project will generate important problems of circulation and car parks; the cinema project, in addition to the one on Acina site, will produce the closing of the little cinemas of the city centre.

1999/09/03

- LA organises a public consultation meeting, about the SEA on the PCA platform project, as required by the legal procedure.

- Twelve people attended the public consultation meeting, including a representative from Les ateliers du cinema, and a representative of La Renaissance19. This one questioned the choice of the platform to locate a cinema complex, as well as some shopkeepers, Ecologists’ representatives, and Bomel committee. The problems of circulation and car parks are severely reminded.

2000/01/05

- A second public enquiry stage for the platform PCA. Is organised by LA, which was not legally mandatory.

- During the second public enquiry, Bomel inhabitants still react and stress on the necessity of a 24h/24h public passage on the platform, on a better integration of the project within the townscape, and to limit the platform to one fl oor. Opposition parties (IC and Ecolo) also react but less strongly.

2000/10/08

- Change of political majority - LA new political team refuses the “schema de structure» and the “règlement communal d’urbanisme”, arguing that public consultations and procedure gave them enough weight, “approve them would freeze the things!»; the new mayor do not want to be decentralised because he considers that he would be “blocked” by these urban regulation instruments, and because he knows about the future changes in the Walloon legislation (all the LA will be “decentralised” automatically).

???- Recourse introduced by La Renaissance (concurrent private cinema developer) against the

approval of the platform project PCA.

2002/06- It seems that the Council of State will cancel the platform PCA development consent

(the auditor of the council produced a negative report), because LA did not address recommendations from the SEA report concerning car parks

ph503744_Int 82 22/03/05, 10:47:36

83

CASE STUDIES

5.8. References

¬ COOPARCH-R.U. s.c.r.l., Société d’Architecture, de Rénovation et d’Urbanisme, (2000) Schéma de structure – Ville de Namur, Phase III, Objectifs dé-taillés et programmation – Etape 1, Namur, février 2000.

¬ COOPARCH-R.U. s.c.r.l., Société d’Architecture, de Rénovation et d’Urbanisme, (2000) Ville de Namur - Règlement Communal d’Urbanisme, Phase 3 – Etape 2, Etablissement du règlement d’urbanisme, Namur, février 2000.

¬ DUPAGNE A., MATHUS P. & SERVOTTE C. (2001) Les espaces urbains – Extrait du rapport fi nal du thème 1.3 – les espaces, LEPUR-ULg, Liège, sep-tembre 2001.

¬ POLY’ART (Bureau d’Etudes), (1999) Étude d’incidence sur le PCA dérogatoire au plan de secteur concernant le site de la gare de Namur – Résumé non-technique, Mons, avril 1999.

ph503744_Int 83 22/03/05, 10:47:37

¬ SUIT

84

SUST

AIN

AB

LE D

EVEL

OPM

ENT O

F U

RB

AN

HIS

TO

RIC

AL

AR

EAS

TH

RO

UG

H A

N A

CT

IVE

INT

EGR

AT

ION

WIT

HIN

TO

WN

S

6. ST-MARY’S HOSPITAL: TRANSFORMATION INTO THE PADDINGTON HEALTH CAMPUS

Alan Bond & Lesley Langstaff

6.1. Modernisation of health care facilities in an area of urban regeneration

The St-Mary’s Hospital case study relates to the project level redevelopment of an existing hospital and its surroundings, near Paddington station in London (UK). Much of the surrounding area is cur-rently under active redevelopment or has proposed development programmes. The development of Paddington Waterside constitutes a major regenera-tion opportunity for central London as it has close proximity to the West End and the City and excel-lent transport links already exist.

In addition to the new hospital the development in the area around Paddington Station will include of-fi ces, homes and retail and leisure facilities and is ex-pected to total 8 million square feet20. The Padding-ton Regeneration Partnership was formally launched in October 1998 and aims to establish Paddington Waterside as a premier business and residential area of London and to deliver a range of economic, com-munity and social benefi ts. In order to assist local people in gaining access to the 30,000 jobs which the development is expected to create, in 1999 the Partnership established Paddington First, a free job broker service. Other initiatives include working with local people and Westminster City Council to create new public spaces. In addition to the Paddington Health Campus other organisations involved include Railtrack; BAA/Heathrow Express; British Waterways; Hilton, and the Network Housing Association. Fur-ther goals identifi ed by the partnership are:

• “To ensure sustainable environmental improvement - creating a safe and pleasant environment for the Paddington Waterside area; providing the forum in which the landowners and developers work to-gether to create schemes within a co-ordinated de-velopment of high intrinsic merit. This work includes actions to upgrade Praed Street and establishing a public realm framework for the Paddington area.

• To co-ordinate employment and other social bene-fi ts drawing on the experience and expertise of those with a local interest. This work includes a bespoke recruitment service for employers, Paddington First, developing links with local businesses and position-ing the regeneration of Paddington Waterside as part of the curriculum in local schools.”21

The initial phases of the regeneration have already

been, or are nearing, completion. The regeneration

scheme will be funded from a variety of sources

both from the commercial sector and government

fi nance, for example, from the London Development

Agency. Table 6.1 summarises the key features of

the developments in the area.

The map below (Figure 6.1) shows the area in which

the Paddington Health Campus development will

occur (in green), with Paddington Station towards

the bottom on the left hand side and the existing St.

Mary’s site to the right of the station in a triangular

area bounded by the Paddington Basin, Praed Street

and London Street.

The Key Features of the Paddington Waterside Development

• Paddington Health Campus

• Paddington Central (Former goods yard 11 acre site)

¬ 1.5 million sq. ft. of offi ces¬ 80,000 sq. ft. of retail and restaurants¬ 60,000 sq. ft. of studio workshops¬ A health and fi tness centre¬ 200 + apartments¬ Landscaped areas including a public

square, tree lined avenue and a canal side walk

• Paddington Basin¬ 2 million sq. ft. mixed development

of offi ce space, residential (including affordable housing) and ancillary leisure and retail space.

• West End Quay¬ 468 apartments ¬ 346 car parking spaces¬ 29,000 sq. ft. of retail and leisure

• Paddington Station¬ Additional track and platform capacity¬ Improved passenger links to the

underground, buses and taxis¬ New traffi c management deck¬ New canal side concourse ¬ Additional 40,000 sq. ft retail, bar and

restaurant facilities

• Hilton Hotel Edgware Road¬ New wing completed in 2000

Table 6.1: Key features of the Paddington RegenerationFigure

20 source http://www.p-r-p.co.uk accessed 29/05/0321 source http://www.p-r-p.co.uk/Pages/objective.html accessed 29/05/03.

ph503744_Int 84 22/03/05, 10:47:38

85

CASE STUDIES

6.1: Map showing the area surrounding the existing St. Mary’s Hospital site

The schematic below (Figure 6.2) shows the pro-posed development, as can be seen on the right hand side and top of the diagram large areas close to the hospital development are also to be devel-oped as part of the Paddington Basin regeneration scheme.

Figure 6.2: The proposed Paddington Health Campus

The current hospital facilities were no longer ad-equate for the usage now required. The concen-tration of the additional facilities provided by the Royal Brompton and Harefi eld Hospitals will enable patients to be treated at one site only reducing the need for patient transfer. Access problems resulting from current usage should also be reduced by in-creased (and safer) pedestrian access and increased parking facilities for hospital vehicles and disabled users of the hospital.

Five options were selected for detailed analysis and the proposed development was chosen on the basis that it provided the best solution on both economic and clinical criteria. The proposed development al-lowed the use of excellent public transport links and the re-use of some of the existing buildings. The budget of the project is estimated to be £360m22. A Private Finance Initiative will fi nance the project.

The existing hospital site covers a triangular area, bounded by the Paddington Basin, Praed Street and London Street, of approximately three hectares. The total existing fl oor space is 99,000m²; this includes buildings on South Wharf Road, Winsland Street and Winsland Mews, which form part of the Imperial College School of Medicine. The proposed development will extend the buildings fl oor space to 146,453m² and increase the total parking facilities from 280 to 493 spaces.

The case study addresses the evolution of an urban redevelopment project from the earliest stages of specifi cations and project preparation to the end of the EIA process. The initial EIS was submitted with the planning application in July 2000, a review period of approximately six months followed and supplementary information to the ES was provided in September 2001. The Secretary of State, Alan Milburn approved the development in October 200123 and it is anticipated that the new facilities will be open in 2007. The fi nal planning permission details still require completion by Westminster City Council.

6.2. The development and decision making process

The developer is a public organisation (individual representing the County): the West London Partner-ship Forum. Its motivations and interests were fi -nancial and quality of life enhancement. The general values it defends are: quality of life, socio-economic wealth, heritage protection, aesthetical values and access. The practical arguments it used to promote the development include: positive visual effects, better functionality, congruity, fi nancial benefi ts, good siting and increased employment. They have access to good media coverage, expertise and fi nan-cial resources. The organisation is well-known at the national level and has a good reputation.

The competent authorities are the ones from the county level (CH, Town Planning, Environment, Culture) which have an advisory role and the ones from the local level (CH, Town Planning, Environ-ment, Culture), which have a mandatory role in the decision-making.

Statutory consultees include English Heritage – although they were consulted about industrial archaeology only.The original planning application was submitted in July 2000 by GL Hearn Planning on behalf of St.

22 source www.st-marys.org.uk/newsmedia/pressrelease.htm - Press Release St Mary’s Hospital 8 October 200123 source Press Release St Mary’s Hospital, www.st-marys.org.uk/newsmedia/pressrelease.htm

ph503744_Int 85 22/03/05, 10:47:41

¬ SUIT

86

SUST

AIN

AB

LE D

EVEL

OPM

ENT O

F U

RB

AN

HIS

TO

RIC

AL

AR

EAS

TH

RO

UG

H A

N A

CT

IVE

INT

EGR

AT

ION

WIT

HIN

TO

WN

S

Mary’s NHS Trust. The development is a collabora-tion between St Mary’s NHS Trust and the Royal Brompton and Harefi eld NHS Trust whose current facilities will be relocated to this site. The Trusts have jointly employed a Project Director to oversee the development process. Imperial College Medical School is also involved in the development as the medical school is based at the current site. The design of the site has been undertaken by the Archi-tects SOM (Skidmore, Owings & Merrill Inc.).

The scheme gained strategic approval from the North West London Strategic Health Authority on the 10th June 200324. The project can now be taken forward to it’s procurement phase in which private sector fi nance will be sought and the fi nal planning permission details can now be smoothed out. An advertisement in the European Journal will invite companies to bid to be partners in the new develop-ment. It is intended that the plans to move services will come into operation in 2003 and that the con-struction work will commence in 2004, with the fi rst buildings coming into use in 200825.

6.3. The EIA/SEA process

The new design of the buildings and the central square was subject to an EIA (2000). The reason for this was not directly related to the presence of C.H., but to the overall size of the proposed inter-ventions.

The decision to undertake an EIA was made by the developer on the advice of the consultant, as no request was made to the competent authority for a screening decision the decision was not publicised. Due to the nature of the project (size, location, con-text) it was inevitable that an EIA would be required. The developers by initiating the process themselves will have saved time and possibly gained “goodwill” with those affected by the proposal. In the UK developers undertake the scoping but can ask the Competent Authority for an opinion (as per the re-quirements of the EIA Directive), the request for an opinion can only occur prior to the submission of a planning application. In this case an initial scop-ing was undertaken at a meeting with Westminster City Council where a table of content for the ES was agreed with Brent Turton (Construction Impact Manager – Paddington Special Policy Area). Letters requesting comments on the proposed scope of the assessment and identifi cation of areas of concern were then sent to the Environment Agency, English Heritage (industrial archaeology), British waterways,

Traffi c Director for London, Metropolitan Police, London Ecology Unit, Countryside Agency and West-minster City Council. A wider consultation process also occurred throughout the assessment.

The assessment was undertaken by Arup Environ-mental, a private consultant designated by the developer and competent authorities, on the basis of scoping exercise. Specifi c reference is made to listed buildings and townscape effects. This is a regeneration area and extensive construction is be-ing carried out in the basin, a detailed assessment of cumulative effects was not made in the initial EIS as many of the potential developments in the area were at the early stages of design and had not been submitted for planning approval. However, concerns about the potential cumulative effects of developments within the area caused Westminster City Council to commission ERM (Environmental Resources Management) Ltd. To review three EIS’s supporting planning applications within the Pad-dington Basin, these were: the Paddington Basin Health Campus; Paddington Station Phase 2; and, Grand Union Building.The report was wide ranging in its coverage and con-tained chapters on: access; noise and vibration; air quality; townscape and visual impact; listed build-ings; soils, geology; hydrogeology and contaminated land; construction; waste management; ecological resources; socio-economic and regeneration; surface water resources; archaeological resources; wind con-ditions; sunlight and daylight; utilities and building services; and TV and radio reception.Five alternatives were examined in detail, these were:

1. “Do-Nothing” at any of the sites considered

2. Rebuilding St Mary’s but making no other changes

3. “ The Fulham Road option”: redeveloping St. Mary’s and concentrating heart and lung and specialist services in Chelsea.

4. “ The Paddington Basin option”: the proposed de-velopment, and;

5. “ The Paddington Goods Yard site”: rebuilding all the hospital services on a brown fi eld site.

The appraisal found Paddington Basin to be the preferred option on both economic and clinical grounds.

It took Arup Environmental 2 months to produce the initial ES, this was then subject to review by the public and stakeholders, but not by an independent

24 source Press Release St Mary’s Hospital, www.st-marys.org.uk/newsmedia/pressrelease.htm accessed 11/06/0325 source www.st-marys.org.uk/paddington/health_campus.htm accessed 29/05/03

ph503744_Int 86 22/03/05, 10:47:48

87

CASE STUDIES

organisation. The review phase took approximately six months. This review resulted in supplementary material being produced. In addition to addressing concerns raised the supplementary material dealt with a number of amendments that had been made to the scheme and also took into account the fi nd-ings of the review undertaken by ERM on behalf of Westminster CC. A review of whether a building to be demolished SHOULD be listed and a survey of historical context and evolution were included in this additional information. The production of the supplementary ES took a further two months. The EIS contained chapters on both Listed Buildings and Townscape and Visual Impacts.

As is typical the design scheme continued to change after completion of the EIA. Its results are there-fore somehow out of date, which raises important questions as regards to the required intertwining between the design and evaluation processes. Per-mission for the development was announced by the Secretary of State in October 2001, however, fi nal details of the design and planning conditions have yet to be fi nalised. The table below summarises the key stages in the history and development of the site and proposed Paddington Health Campus.

6.4. Direct or indirect effects on CH

The main focus of the ES in relation to cultural her-itage is confi ned to listed buildings and scheduled monuments. There are no scheduled monuments within the proposed development site. The City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan identifi es an area of Special Archaeological Priority approxi-mately 300m south of the development area and the Greater London Sites and Monuments Record was consulted to obtain a list for the site and an area of 500m surrounding. This search indicated a low level of data for both the site and the surround-ing area. The site has been subject to intensive development in the past there is however, potential industrial archaeological value at the site as it is at the terminus of the Grand Union Canal. Investiga-tion of the site in advance of the development is suggested in the ES.

The area contains several designated buildings. The Station itself is the largest designated building in Britain, as can be seen in Figure 6.1, the Station is adjacent to the western end of the hospital site. The hospital site is bounded by the Paddington Basin to the north, Praed Street to the south and by London Street to the west. The site also contains two Grade II listed buildings; Clarence Wing and Mint Wing and

the Great Western Hotel (grade II) and Paddington Station (Grade I) are nearby. The proposal includes the demolition of the Mint Wing and of other struc-tures that are close to the Clarence Wing.

The impact area is mainly an urban historical area identifi ed from UDP for obvious designations – listed buildings, protected views, conservation areas, areas of archaeological potential as relevant. The EIS contained chapters on listed buildings and the townscape and visual impacts of the proposed development. Supplementary information was re-quired after the review of adequacy and this includ-ed a survey of the historical context and evolution of the site and a review of whether a building that was earmarked for demolition should be listed. The supplementary material provided included visual analysis of the site.

The minimum consultation required was been carried out: the statutory consultees were consulted and the EIS was made available to public for comment.

The development site is situated in an area with low-density residential use, the majority of public use being for employment and visiting the area. The development will increase and improve public pedestrian access and also increase parking facilities for those unable to attend the hospital by public transport. Patients to the hospital site will benefi t from the improved facilities and the increase in spe-cialist services on the site. The development does not affect any existing areas of public amenity and will create new open space and a canal side walk. Other potential benefi ts include the increase in em-ployment at the site. Disruption caused during the development will affect both users of the hospital facilities and other members of the public working and living in the area.

No confl ict or reaction appeared after screening stage, although the proposal had not been discussed with all actors nor submitted for their agreement. The screening decision was made by the developer on advice of the consultant – a request for a screen-ing opinion was not made of the competent author-ity. The screening decision was not publicised, as the competent authority did not take the decision. There was no confl ict or reaction during the scop-ing stage. The content of the ES was been discussed with all the actors, but not with the public. The communication between all actors was formalised, interactive, constructive but at times diffi cult! The dialogue between institutional actors was good, both vertically and horizontally.

ph503744_Int 87 22/03/05, 10:47:50

¬ SUIT

88

SUST

AIN

AB

LE D

EVEL

OPM

ENT O

F U

RB

AN

HIS

TO

RIC

AL

AR

EAS

TH

RO

UG

H A

N A

CT

IVE

INT

EGR

AT

ION

WIT

HIN

TO

WN

S

6.5. Transferable key lessons

• Although the developer initiated the EIA process this case cannot truly be regarded as one of vol-untary EIA, as it was inevitable that an EIA would be required for the development. The developer by acknowledging that an EIA would be required saved time, and possibly gained “goodwill”, in the initial stages of the development consent process.

• Despite consultation with the Competent Author-ity, and a request for comments from the statutory consultees, at the scoping phase subsidiary infor-mation relating to cultural heritage was required after the EIA review. A scoping checklist for cul-tural heritage (as is being produced by the SUIT project) may have avoided this.

• The cultural heritage issues considered in this EIA were confi ned to those of built heritage and visual impacts, a scoping checklist for cultural heritage could have broadened the range of issues examined.

• Although not included in the EIA broader socio-cultural issues have been considered by the Pad-dington Regeneration Partnership, of which the Paddington Health Campus is a part. The initiatives set up by this partnership and the fact that the de-velopment is taking place within the context of the regeneration of the whole area will have inevitably infl uenced the process.

• Westminster City Council concerned about the potential cumulative effects of the developments within the area commissioned an external consult-ant to review three EISs it had received for devel-opments within the area. This action by the City Council highlights the need for the consideration of impacts upon the whole “urban fragment” rather than just the development in isolation.

6.6. Timetable

17411745

- Paddington Basin site open fi elds

1801 - Grand Union Canal constructed

1815- Area to the west of the basin open fi elds but considerable development to the east beyond

Edgware Road. The south side of the basin was occupied by building merchants and the northern side for refuse sorting and disposal

1827- Area south of the basin and north of South Wharf Road occupied by buildings. Construction

of a water works1845 - St Mary’s Hosp. First built1862 - Paddington area fully developed, hospital, school and station all present

1902- Rectangular buildings to the south of the post offi ce and west of the hospital occupied by

shops

1968- Little change to site a building immediately to the east of St. Mary’s appears linked to the

hospital (location of present medical school)

Late 80’s- Development of the site commenced with the construction of the Queen Elizabeth the

Queen Mother (QEQM) building,

1991- Location of medical school as present.- Consideration of further development at this site since this time.

2000- Planning application and EIS Paddington basin Health Campus.- Public able to respond to the EIS. No strong opposition to the proposal from either public or

statutory consultees2001/10 - Secretary of State grants development consent

2002/07- The Health Minister John Hutton gives permission for the hospitals to proceed in seeking a

private sector partner to build the new hospital2003/01 - Project director appointed2003/06 - The North West London Strategic Health Authority gives its approval to the scheme

ph503744_Int 88 22/03/05, 10:47:52

89

CASE STUDIES

7. RONDELLPLATZ: LARGE SHOPPING CENTRES AS A THREAT TO URBAN HERITAGE DIVERSITY

Niklaus Kohler, Uta Hassler, Thomas Bender, & Markus Joachim

7.1. How an oversized project changes the character of Karlsruhe city centre

The Rondellplatz case study relates the story of an urban construction project for a central area of Kalrsruhe. A historical surrounding will be transformed into a modern shopping centre with various commercial facilities. Monuments or cultural heritage buildings are not directly touched but the urban situation is extremely delicate as it touches via triumphalis, the main north-south axis of the classical street pattern of Karlsruhe which is still visible today. It links the ducal palace with the market square and Rondellplatz and leads via Ettlinger Tor, the former city gate, down to the railway station. Its rank is emphasised by the noble houses and monuments which arise along the street, the city hall and the main church facing each other with their portico and the pyramid between them at market square, the constitution column and the elegant Markgräfl iches Palais at Rondellplatz. When it was originally designed at the end of the 18th century, Ettlinger Tor formed the southern border of the city. During the following centuries the area changed its character, the arrival of the railway had a considerable impact and of course the destruction of World War II left deep wounds. But the classical scale and impression has always prevailed. Only the actual project seems to break up the grown structure.

The fi rst stage of the project was initiated through a design competition for the via triumphalis area in the centre of Karlsruhe in 1997. The competition focused on the southern part of via triumphalis. Severely disturbed by the four-lane motorway, the linkage between the inner city and the Südstadt neighbourhood is almost cut. The competition in-tended to bring new ideas and hoped to stimulate a development process for the next 25 years, includ-ing traffi c concepts and future use possibilities. The City of Karlsruhe and two important bank institutes of the region initiated the competition.

One of the participants of the competition included the block of Rondellplatz which interests us par-ticularly, into his design proposal. Later, the ECE investment group was informed about develop-

ment possibilities there and decided to make their own project for this block. During the year 2000, the planning process was continued, a new design competition for Rondellplatz/Ettlinger Tor decided and several public hearings and meetings of city authorities took place (Figure 7.1). In March 2001, the centre project was approved by the city council of Karlsruhe: 38 members of the council voted in fa-vour of the centre, ten were against it, one member abstained. These decisions were not legally binding as ECE had the possibility to withdraw from the project until the end of 2001. As soon as all the planning discussions are fi nished, building works can start. The opening of the shopping centre is sched-uled for 2005.The affected area is bordered by Kriegsstrasse, Lammstrasse, Erbprinzenstrasse and Karl-Friedrich-Strasse/Rondellplatz. Its surface amounts to about 33674 m² and the total shopping surface will reach about 35000 m² distributed over several fl oors. The investor group will invest about 200 millions euros for the project. The city of Karlsruhe has to add another 25 millions euros for moving the exist-ing school and buying several properties, without counting additional sums for further infrastructure needs and traffi c solutions.

Figure 7.1: Oblique view on Rondellplatz and its surrounding areas

Although the planning and decision process seemed to take longer than expected, ECE centre kept pre-cisely to the schedule. From spring 2003 on, the tenants of the area were looking for new premises; the fi rst left their site in March. Already in April de-struction work began. Rapidly one after the other the buildings disappeared, fi rst the large fi ne 1950s architecture offi ce building, then the smaller 19th century town houses. The façade of the main build-ing on Rondellplatz has been put in scaffold – it is the only part of the building that will survive.

ph503744_Int 89 22/03/05, 10:47:53

¬ SUIT

90

SUST

AIN

AB

LE D

EVEL

OPM

ENT O

F U

RB

AN

HIS

TO

RIC

AL

AR

EAS

TH

RO

UG

H A

N A

CT

IVE

INT

EGR

AT

ION

WIT

HIN

TO

WN

S

7.2. The involvement of the municipality and private development

The major developer and author of the project is ECE Group. ECE Projektmanagement G.m.b.H. & Co. KG is Germany’s biggest investor group for shopping centres. They have been building shopping centres throughout the country since the 1960s. Today ECE owns and runs about 70 centres in Germany, Poland, Hungary, Turkey and the Czech Republic. Together with an architectural offi ce, they develop design, marketing and management of the Ettlinger Tor cen-tre. There was a design competition with six invited offi ces out of which Kramm & Striegel offi ce was chosen. They developed a concept for the mall in close connection to ECE architects and were fi nally responsible for the design of the façades. The city magistrate of Karlsruhe is directly con-cerned by this case as it has the power to grant or refuse the development consent. Quite interest-ingly the administration of the city is highly satisfi ed by the project and expects it will have considerable positive effects for the city while the political par-ties sitting in the city parliament of Karlsruhe had controversial discussions about it. Karlsruhe suffers traditionally from the overwhelming concurrence of Stuttgart, especially since it lost all capital functions after the foundation of the state of Baden-Württem-berg after World War II. More and more political and fi nancial power is drawn to Stuttgart. At the same time Mannheim, the neighbouring big city further north increases the pressure on Karlsruhe. All three compete for the same clients as they share the same surrounding territory. Now, Karlsruhe seems to have fallen on the third place with fewer people coming to the city centre than to Mannheim or Stuttgart. The decision-makers of Karlsruhe consider the shopping centre project as the unique chance for Karlsruhe to keep in touch with the concurrence or even to outshine the two other cities. They hope that not only people from the region fi nd their way to Karlsruhe city centre but that the centre profi ts even from clients of Strasbourg. Short sighted city management and an exaggerated economic expec-tation may have infl uenced the decision-making process and lead to devastating effects on the urban structure of the city centre of Karlsruhe.

The project was indeed to be strongly advocated by the mayor to get approval, even in his own party, the Christian Democrats (CDU), which was against the project at the beginning. The green party strongly disagreed with the commercial centre in its existing size and function. They were also against the park-

ing space, which they considered too important for the project. According to them, reducing the park-ing space would allow giving up a whole fl oor of the project, and in addition public transport would be strengthened. They had new ideas for car lanes to access the building from the motorway and from Lammstrasse. They also considered that the diversity of functions of the block (school, theatre, housing…) should be preserved. Finally they spoke for more green spaces on the roofs. Another point was that they strictly saw the project in combina-tion with future works to rebuild the four-lane mo-torway. Nevertheless, it has to be stressed that the political debate was biased by the enormous invest-ment of 200 millions euros and the 1000 new jobs which would be endangered if the project was not achieved. This explains that, in the fi nal voting, the project passed through despite criticism.

The city of Karlsruhe, in addition to its role of com-petent authority, also plays a role of developer, since it allowed a certain subvention by bearing the costs to relocate the school building and to solve propriety questions. Further costs will follow due to infrastructure works.

The scientifi c conservation authority (Federal State Level/Landesdenkamlamt) has been involved in the beginning of the decision process. They sent in a building historical assessment that recommended preserving most of the buildings in addition to the few buildings inscribed on the monument list. The local cultural heritage body was also involved and asked for an assessment of the endangered build-ings. The recommendations of these two organisms are however not legally binding and consequently, they were more or less ignored.

7.3. The diversity of the existing urban fragment

The projected centre has direct and indirect effects on urban heritage. The railway administration build-ing, two of the old houses on Kriegsstrasse and the façade of the central Rondellplatz house are on the list of buildings of cultural interest. The northern corner of the railway building has to be sacrifi ced for the mall entrance, the two Kriegsstrasse houses loose their historical surroundings and are severely touched by the proximity of the building and over-whelming size of the commercial centre whereas the façade of the building leads to the “Disneyfi ca-tion” feeling.The palace building on Rondellplatz represents an

ph503744_Int 90 22/03/05, 10:48:00

91

CASE STUDIES

even more severe diffi culty. It is not directly hit or touched by physical interference but it is a direct neighbour of the shopping centre. The new building does not respect its subtle proportion and classical composition lines but sets its own standards – it is much higher and ignores the nobility of the princi-pal neighbour. The monotony of the huge centre destroys the small scale of classical planning still awake in the neighbourhood. (Figure 7.2)

Figure 7.2: The actual situation of Rondellplatz

The character of this area totally changed after war reconstructions took place. And if it was until the war a well functioning lively area, administration and offi ce buildings and a school now dominate it. Green areas resulting from moving the facades backwards confer an impression of isolation to this block. It is reinforced by the broad inner city motor-way, which cuts every connection to neighbouring areas in the south. Some of the houses facing this road demand some renovation but the other build-ings are in fairly good condition. Generally speaking, the houses on Rondellplatz are in a very good condi-tion, problems of dereliction cannot be considered a cause for redevelopment of the area. The French Institute and the theatre are two popular attractions of the block. The remaining old buildings and the post-war constructions respond to the dominating house of the area, the classical palace on the op-posite side of Karl-Friedrich-Strasse. Together they still form a lively ensemble inspired by the classical spirit of the second extension of Karlsruhe in the beginning of the 19th century.

The quality of life within the whole city of Karlsruhe may be affected by this project. The purchasing power of the city will indeed be considerably affect-ed as the shopping surface is largely affected by this new project. Many of the smaller shops will endure hard concurrence and might have to give up sooner or later. No one can tell how the city can support a third huge inner city shopping mall, two of them

having recently opened with mediocre success. But of course, people living in the neighbouring areas suffer most. Traffi c will rise and consequently air pollution and noise. There will be dense car move-ments when entertainment events start or end and a general higher fl ow for shoppers and visitors as the centre is well linked to the local motorway and well equipped with parking space.Similar phenomena have been observed in other German towns. The most impressive example is CentrO in Oberhausen in the Ruharea, where Eu-rope’s largest Urban Entertainment Centre was built. In 1996, about 200 shops and more than two dozens of restaurants covering more than 70.000 m² were inaugurated. They cover the 83 ha surface of a former industrial plant. Since then, 23 mio. cli-ents from the whole region have come to the centre every year, ignoring the inner city of Oberhausen and the old commercial centres and inner cities of the area. An offi cial report talks about a minus of 20 %, even towns further away, for example Essen, once the main commercial centre of the region suf-fer from the new concurrence. Of course, the neigh-bouring cities did not want to give up but decided to enter the competition, they built their own centres. CentrO reacted with an enlarged commercial sur-face and a vicious circle was initiated (Davy, 2003).

Structural changes particularly affect surrounding houses. To build this shopping centre, almost the whole structure of the existing block has to be taken away. The classical impression that partly still exists today will be severely damaged. The composition of portico and lower houses around the circular square will loose its balance. The mono-functional block formed by the shopping centre will replace the vari-ety of individual houses.

Despite all this, no impact assessment study, as de-fi ned by the SEA/EIA directives, has been carried out, at any level of development. Two feasibility studies have been undertaken in 2000 and 2001. The fi rst study only confi rmed the project whereas the second which was a traffi c assessment brought new informa-tion about traffi c needs. It turned out that less parking space then expected is necessary. Urban heritage has never been genuinely considered by these studies.The effects on the diversity of inhabitants are as severe as the consequences for the built structure. The historical analysis has shown how the variety of uses and inhabitants has gradually decreased. In the beginning, craftsmen lived next door to members of the aristocracy, the department of foreign affairs stood not far away from the school for girls, a hotel

ph503744_Int 91 22/03/05, 10:48:02

92

SUST

AIN

AB

LE D

EVEL

OPM

ENT O

F U

RB

AN

HIS

TO

RIC

AL

AR

EAS

TH

RO

UG

H A

N A

CT

IVE

INT

EGR

AT

ION

WIT

HIN

TO

WN

S¬ SUIT

group of units (building, infrastr.)

unit(building, infrastr., ext. surface)

element (roof, wall, segment, ...

life cycle process

direct inputs upstream input data sets

ressource, emission data sets

effects (aggreate emissions)

1m21m2

new build

operation

maintenance

refurbishment

deconstruction

materials

energy

work

emission

ressource

damage

GMP

massfl ow

DALY

materal prod.

energy transf.

transport

Life Cycle Assessment of the Urban Fragment

The upcoming changes at Rondellplatz and Ettlin-ger Tor show how important it is to execute a Life Cycle Assessment. The assessment would have shown how tremendous the consequences are initiated by a project such as ECE shopping cen-tre. Life Cycle Analysis is an evaluation method of resource consumption and the impacts on the environment of a product, a system or a service during his life cycle from the extraction of the raw materials to the elimination of waste. It is basi-cally an accounting method of mass and energy.

The fi rst part of the LCA work was the histori-cal analysis which helped to provide important information about all kinds of energetic, eco-nomical or socio-cultural performance during the past three centuries. A precise description of each building within the area of interest (system limits) delivered enough material to conceive a detailed picture of the block at any date in the past. To achieve this, comprehensive archive work was necessary. It is necessary to invest suffi cient time to provide data to allow a well-function-ing simulation afterwards. The description of a building includes a photo-documentary and an

overview of the inhabitant structure.

In a second step, all fl ows which have taken place up to now can be modelled using reference data. This shows us how the urban fragment has func-tioned, how much energy was used, how people lived, what they consumed and with what they constructed their houses. The assessment is com-pleted by the analysis of the condition of today which serves as the starting point for future de-velopment.

In the following part of the analysis, the future development can be assessed. The evaluation basically compares sustainability protection objectives in the form of operational objectives and indicators which refl ect the situation of the urban fragment at a certain time in a certain scenario. To do this, it is necessary to defi ne dif-ferent scenarios. The comparison between the alternatives helps to understand the problem and to underline the advantages and disadvantages of each project. Up to now, the over dimensioned shopping centre is the only scenario for Karlsruhe except the to-do-nothing solution which is the continuance of status quo. Its effects are impres-sive enough though.

Relations between stocks, units, elements, process and effects

ph503744_Int 92 22/03/05, 10:48:04

93

CASE STUDIES

has always been there. Later, restaurants, shops and entertainment facilities such as cinemas, clubs or a bowling alley dominated, the structure of inhabit-ants however was still balanced. In the end, offi ce surface prevailed but there still was the school, the restaurant, the cultural institutions and some production facilities. In Erbprinzenstrasse, some of the old tenants remained, whereas people on Kriegsstrasse changed. The old structure dissolved probably because of the new traffi c situation caused by the 4-lane motorway. One of the buildings was used to house homeless people; others were over-taken by the railway administration whereas some were still owned by their old proprietors. The new shopping centre will replace this last modest diver-sity by its commercial monoculture. The rich urban mixture, which is important for a well-functioning neighbourhood, is given up in favour of a few new clients arriving from distant places.

7.4. The public feels hardly concerned by the quality of the existing block

At this stage of the process there does not seem to be any confl ict. After having gained political favour by passing through the city magistrate committees, information about the project dwindled away. No one really knew what would happen next. Then all of a sudden, building works for the new school that had to be relocated begun. And after some months had passed, fi rst signs appeared that the shops and estab-lishments, which were still present in the block, were about to leave. Only a few months later, destruction work started.

The general attitude towards the block is very indif-ferent. People only noticed single points of the en-semble, which were the central Rondellplatz building with the theatre and the old railway administration building with a more positive view; the school building and the buildings which stand inside the block with a more negative view. The houses on Kriegsstrasse were rather neglected and forgotten, as they are only per-ceived from the motorway when passing by at high speed. Hardly any pedestrian ever came along there. When destruction work started the area attracted new attention as the machines and collapsing facades made an exciting spectacle.

Newspaper articles talked about 38 inhabitants, nine enterprises and four public institutions that occupied the area. There arose diffi culties concerning the ex-propriations of some of the users established there. Some had leases up to 2008 and did not see any need

to move. They claimed to have been badly informed by the city and that co-operation was not satisfying. The catholic youth organisation had not been offered new premises; other tenants claimed high compensa-tion payment. The French Cultural institute encoun-tered ignorance and lacking sensibility when they were forced to leave and the future situation of the theatre was long time totally insecure. We presented a questionnaire to one of the staff members of the institute. Other people of the affected area refused to answer.Local pressure groups in Karlsruhe concerned about cultural heritage are generally weak or do not exist at all, no citizen initiative to fi ght for the Ron-dellplatz area was founded. As the public interest is almost negligible, actors are free to do and to decide.

7.5. Transferable key lessons

Here below is gathered what has to be remembered from this case study, and from cross-comparison of this case study with others:

• The main problem of this project is its size, the rate of destruction and the unknown consequences afterwards. No one ever thought of the extreme change of character of the block which has never been equalled before. Profi t maximisation is the only objective – which is understandable for the investor. But the arguments of the mayor or the city magistrate should be less single-dimensional. An enormous loss of resources, historical structure and identity of the city is accepted for a question-able gain of economic prosperity. It is a fact that Karlsruhe stands behind its neighbours Mannheim and Karlsruhe, but it is very doubtful that a single – although enormous – shopping mall helps to de-velop the attraction of the city and to ensure its place in the fi rst line. The political power however pushed this project through and made generous of-fers to the investor. This must be better controlled in future projects.

• Cultural heritage concerns were ignored within this project. The historical assessment of the scientifi c conservation authority had no considerable conse-quence and important buildings (the 1950s railway buildings) will be torn down. There should be a way to better protect buildings which are not heritage monuments, but are still characterised by a use value as in this case.

• There should be public participation following the process. General information was rather poor and public hearings hardly took place. Such an impor-tant process demands transparency to become accountable.

ph503744_Int 93 22/03/05, 10:48:06

¬ SUIT

94

SUST

AIN

AB

LE D

EVEL

OPM

ENT O

F U

RB

AN

HIS

TO

RIC

AL

AR

EAS

TH

RO

UG

H A

N A

CT

IVE

INT

EGR

AT

ION

WIT

HIN

TO

WN

S

7.6. Timetable

1715 - Foundation of Karlsruhe. Building works of palace and town houses begins.1768 - First design of Rondellplatz

around 1800 - Layout for via triumphalis is settled (Design of Market Square, Rondellplatz, Ettlinger Tor)1841 - Railway station is built south of Ettlinger Tor1913 - Railway station is moved1945 - Neighbourhood severely hit by WW II50s - Rebuilding following classical Weinbrenner design ideas, repair of Markgräfl iches Palais.60s - Surviving pre-war buildings are integrated in the new design, whereas several ruins are

replaced by modern constructions1997 - Architect Tobias Wulf wins competition of ideas for “via triumphalis”, including drastic

changes at Ettlinger Tor1998 - Design competition for “via triumphalis” initiating ideas about Ettlinger Tor area

2000/02 - District council discusses ECE-project2000/03/02 - Bebauungsplanverfahren initiated

2000/06 - Jury meeting, 6 designs, Kramm & Striegel chosen 2000/09/20 - Public hearing (following German building law) about consequences: bad information,

noise/traffi c expertise in work2000/11 - Shop owner hearing brings astonishingly few results

- Long debates about centre, split opinion 2001/02 - ECE-group gives a more favourable offer

- Decision postponed (hidden subvention against EU rules)- Second independent study confi rms centre, although others say that a 10%-income loss

is enough to stop project (Baden-Württ. ministry of economy)- Decline of land cost of Kaiserstrasse is considered

2001/03 - Podium discussion, showing change of opinion in favour of centre (A. Lederer)2001/03/13 - District council decision, approving centre with large majority

2001/05 - Feasibility study by ECE until end of year- Disputes about moving institutions to other sites

2001/06 - About 52 mio costs for commune2001/07/24 - Non-public assembly about details of treaty for ECE

2002/01 - Begin of building work for new school building2003/03 - Relocating of institutions begins2003/04 - Destruction work begins

2005 - Opening previewed

7.7. References

¬ DAVY B. (2003) Metropolisierung von unten in, Transfer. Wissenschaft im Ruhrgebiet, 1/2003, Essen

¬ SASSEN S. & ROOST F. (2000) Standorte der Enter-tainment Industrie, Stadtbauwelt, 48/00, Berlin.

ph503744_Int 94 22/03/05, 10:48:08

95

CASE STUDIES

8. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDA-TIONS FOR TAKING INTO ACCOUNT CULTURAL HERITAGE IN SPATIAL PLANNING ACTIVITIES

Bernard Cornélis, Jacques Teller

8.1. Spatial planning, a multi-facets and multi-actors activity

Figure 8.1 The relationship among the actors of modern planning (modi-fi ed after Marsh, 1991)

The action of planning requires a proactive attitude since it calls for the formulation beforehand of de-sired states or proposed projects. Hence, a good knowledge of the existing situation is necessary for a wise planning. This intrinsic characteristic of human and organisation activities can be subdivided into three classes of operation according either to the actors involved (stakeholders, experts and design-ers) or to the actions taken (issue setting, analysis and design). These operations involve very different types of thought process, which partially explain the diffi culty of sound planning. As Birkin et al. (1996, p.16) put it, “the highest levels of skill in each [op-eration] are not typically found in the same person, and it is not easy to assemble planning teams within which these skills can be integrated effectively”. The stakeholders defi ne the issue by expressing their will in terms of objectives to be reached, of problems to be solved or of needs to be fulfi lled. They can be organised in formal bodies or not. They might share the same vision of the desired state for the same reasons or not or they might have confl icting ob-jectives. The experts perform analysis both for the stakeholders and for the designers. They are also responsible for providing baseline information such

as environmental inventories and maps, impact as-sessments, suitability studies,… Hence, the experts should cover a wide variety of specialists from urban planners, geographers and architects to economists, engineers, ecologists and sociologists. The designers have the most creative part of planning. They pro-pose to the stakeholders solutions and alternatives that have been technically assessed by the experts. The proposition can either be laid out on paper or on computer screens. It should be noted that these three types of operations although conceptually dis-tinct have many relations. Especially if integrated in time, this static representation hides the underling iterative process which lead to the fi nalisation of a project and the combination of several decisions into a fi nal decision.

Although crucial, the spatial component of planning has often been neglected or underestimated. Things are slowly changing thanks to the efforts of spatial specialists involved in public education and to the development of spatial technologies entering eve-ryday life (e.g. navigation systems). For example, it is only recently that the European Commission rec-ognised territoriality has being an important dimen-sion of its policy (EC, 2001). “Although spatial plan-ning is not the responsibility of the Community, the spatial planning aspect of Community and national policies is nonetheless of paramount importance because all political decisions are implemented in a given territory”26. The territory is the stage where the planning actors are performing, therefore they can decide what characteristics to use, to change, to create or to ignore in their play.

8.2. Cultural heritage, a facet of many confronted to the will of a few

Among the spatial characteristics of a territory, the cultural heritage is often ignored, not only because of a lack of concern for that matter or because of views favouring new developments, but also because of inventories limited to listed heritage and because of the nature of cultural heritage itself (changing and depending on people and society identities). Compared to other large economic zones, the Eu-ropean Union presents a characteristic territorial feature in its cultural diversity concentrated over a small area. This cultural diversity has infl uenced the ways of expression (languages, music, paint-ing,…) and has shaped to a considerable extent the landscapes, towns, settlement patterns and archi-tectural styles. This specifi city is recognised, at the European level, as being a richness to be preserved

26 http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/regional_policy/themes/spatial_en.htm

Stakeholder

Expert Designer

Detailed questionsand evaluations

Data, tests resultsand assessments

Informationand data

Solutions and alternatives

Questionsand tasks

Choices, goalsand criteria

ph503744_Int 95 22/03/05, 10:48:10

¬ SUIT

96

SUST

AIN

AB

LE D

EVEL

OPM

ENT O

F U

RB

AN

HIS

TO

RIC

AL

AR

EAS

TH

RO

UG

H A

N A

CT

IVE

INT

EGR

AT

ION

WIT

HIN

TO

WN

S

and maintained. A shortsighted view could argue that it is counter-productive due to the large efforts requested for not standardising local and regional identities. On the contrary, increasing the appeal of localities and regions for investors, tourists and the general public by enhancing the cultural heritage is recognised to make an important contribution to economic development and to strengthen re-gional identity (CEMAT, 2000). When adopting the European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP), the Member States and the Commission reached agreement on common objectives for a balanced and sustainable spatial development within which cultural heritage is clearly identifi ed. They also pointed out that “rigorous protection measures, such as those envisaged for architectural conservation for certain areas and monuments, can only cover a small part of this heritage” and that “for the greater part, a creative approach is required, to reverse in a number of areas the predominant trend of neglect, damage and destruction and thus pass the cultural heritage, including current achievements, on to future genera-tions” (EC, 1999).

Although cultural heritage is a matter of many (e.g. the different lifestyles of town inhabitants), it is still too often threatened by the will of a few public or private actors. Real estate speculations, accessibility improvements, infrastructure projects out of scale with their environment, ill-considered adaptations to mass tourism, global merchandising, are just but a few examples of public or private threats to the urban heritage which can lead to the standardisation of buildings and facades, to seriously damaging the structure and the social life of towns, and to the re-duction of cities potential as attractive locations for mobile investments. The conservation attitude is not opposed to innovation and to adaptation to modern life, but to the blind or voluntary destruction of what makes Hall’s hidden dimension (1966). It favours the respect of the local character and its cultural value. Just like when a new actor getting on stage has to adapt its play to the history which has taken place so far, modern innovative buildings or projects should make use of the urban heritage in order to enrich it through an harmonious integration.

8.3. Public participation, a good habit to have in spatial planning

Ever since its fi rst meeting in 1970, the European conference of Ministers responsible for regional planning identifi ed the participation of the public as being an important aspect of regional planning

by stating that “governments should encourage ef-fective regional structures to enable the population to play a part in the preparation and implementation of regional programmes” (CEMAT, 1970). This state-ment was confi rmed and enhanced in the following years when the same conference affi rm that spatial planning should be democratic, comprehensive, functional and oriented towards the long term. Fur-thermore, they stressed that “Any regional/spatial planning policy, at whatever level, must be based on active citizen participation. It is essential that the citi-zen be informed clearly and in a comprehensive way at all stages of the planning process and in the frame-work of institutional structures and procedures” (CE-MAT, 1983). Informing the public is necessary but not suffi cient. This is the point the last conference raised by concluding that an active participation is necessary for projects from local to supra-regional levels. The public “involvement at an early stage of the process makes a signifi cant contribution not only increasing the planning process’s chances of success but also avoiding unproductive investments. Societal consensus is very important not only for the success of local and regional initiatives; it also creates a dynamic environment for outside investors and economic ac-tors” (CEMAT, 2000). This conference also suggested involving the younger generation in the planning process as a way to work on the long term and to mobilise innovation and effi ciency. Scientists have also been active in promoting the public participation approach. On the one hand, several participative methods have been estab-lished such as focus group, delphi, scenario work-shop,…. On the other hand, technology lead to the development of computer based information systems (CBIS) some of them specialised in spatial features handling such as land information systems, geographic information systems, or spatial decision support systems. These CBIS have mainly been used as data and information provider, role which has been accentuated by the internet wave. The combi-nation of both fi elds led to pilot projects combining participation and technology. Several examples of implementation and theoretical background for these approaches can be fi nd in recent literature (e.g. Craig et al. 2002; Jankowski & Nyerges 2001, URISA 2003).

Due to the specifi c nature of urban heritage, spatial planning should emphasise public participation, not just for informing citizens about projects. Besides the experts agreement found in listed heritage, the public should be involved in the identifi cation

ph503744_Int 96 22/03/05, 10:48:12

97

CASE STUDIES

of its local cultural values. Spatial planning also contributes to the making of the cultural heritage and people can partially adapt to the environment conditions. Unfortunately, there are still many actors who prefer to act in the shadow in front of empty seats then to interact with the public under the spotlights.

8.4. Fixing the limits, or facing a universal question

Besides the considerations that the spatial planning activity implies and in particular for the sustainable management of cultural heritage involving public participation, all the actors active whether on the stakeholder pole, on the designer pole or on the expert pole, are facing consciously or not the philo-sophical question of fi xing the limits. What is the time frame within which the planning or the project is taking place? What is the space to be considered? How often and how long should the monitoring be done? How much should the public be involved? Where does the cultural heritage stop?

Fixing the limits is intrinsic to the occidental culture which favour a sharp limit of objects. In operational terms, decision-taking activities are made easier when the framing is well defi ned. The framing re-duces the uncertainties and makes assumptions to simplify the issue under considerations. Hence, step after step, assumptions after assumptions, choice after choice, projects are taking form and the terri-tory is changing shape.

Directive 2001/42/EC fails to clearly address the temporal and spatial dimensions. It probably origi-nates from the particular character of planning in a context evolving both in its spatial and temporal dimensions. Ideally, one project should be assessed compared to all the past, present and future projects at the different levels from local to supra-regional within the different administrative and natural limits. This of course is not feasible. Actors are per-forming in a multi-stage environment where their actions would have to be assessed on their stage as well as on the neighbouring stages and on larger and smaller stages which can partially, totally or not at all overlap one another. Their actions can have im-mediate or delayed effects. They can combine with or be cancelled by other actors’ actions. Further-more, the involvement of the public makes the stage coincides with the theatre (our planet or is it?), but that is what make spatial planning such an interest-ing and challenging fi eld.

8.5. Key recommendations fostering the sustainable management of urban heritage

Out of the different case studies, the following gen-eral recommendations can be drawn:

• The gradual introduction of insensitive develop-ment over the years and lack of investment can result in a neglected and derelict space. As a re-sult, political and commercial pressure may come to bear in order to secure the improvement and regeneration of the space. This regeneration pres-sure may be greater than the pressure to safeguard the heritage and original character of the historic space.

• There should be a way to better protect buildings that are not heritage monuments, but are still char-acterised by a use value.

• A clear indication of cultural heritage as a separate category in Annex II is necessary when it comes to the assessment of plans and projects to ensure the active conservation of urban heritage.

• Early EIA and updated EIA following the evolu-tion of the project provide arguments in favour or against a project on which sound decisions can be taken.

• It must be stressed that according to the directive all kind of signifi cant impact, positive or negative, must lead to scoping and to a full assessment of a project.

• An impact assessment can highlight the negative issues of the partial or total implementation of a plan thought with positive intentions, and hence prevent dissatisfaction of the population targeted by the plan.

• Merits assessment and EIA/SEA are two different things which can help reach a consensus, for initi-ating a project in the former case, and for deciding on the realisation and on the mitigation measures of a project.

• A scoping checklist for cultural heritage (as is be-ing produced by the SUIT project) can broaden the range of issues examined.

• There is a middle ground between cultural heritage conservation and regeneration.

• Co-operative and constructive exchange of ideas between the stakeholders in an early stage would increase the chances of getting to a consensus widely accepted even if based on constructive confl icts.

• A long process is often necessary to ensure that

ph503744_Int 97 22/03/05, 10:48:14

¬ SUIT

98

SUST

AIN

AB

LE D

EVEL

OPM

ENT O

F U

RB

AN

HIS

TO

RIC

AL

AR

EAS

TH

RO

UG

H A

N A

CT

IVE

INT

EGR

AT

ION

WIT

HIN

TO

WN

S

the details of a project, including its impacts on the built and cultural heritage, are subject to extensive consultation, debate and legal rigor.

• The importance to inform and develop a consensus among authorities, experts, and public concerned. Omitting this possibility lead to destructive con-troversies between stakeholders.

• Defi ning the common interest, and in particular for urban heritage, requires actors to speak the same language, or in other words, to agree on the concepts.

• Traditional information and consultation proce-dures, even if fairly organised, are insuffi cient to prevent confl icts.

• The existing participative framework, based on passive consultation methods and related to a particular and concrete plan or project, does not seems suffi ciently opened, since limited to spe-cifi c aspects of a particular project or plan, when the concerns of people are much more general. It should be agreed that the public does not think through the limited view of a particular project or plan, as it may be the case of a developer, or a civil servant in charge of the follow-up of a particular project or plan. Concerns expressed by the public are usually referring to a global apprehension of the urban environment. Therefore, the use of more proactive participation methods to identify very general strategies is helpful.

• Keeping with the original consensus prevents re-calling of support, associated with a follow up of events it allows for its harmonious evolution.

• Public participation process demands transparency to become accountable.

• Emphasising (time) constraints to impose personal values or ideas is not working.

• Haste in preservation matters is sometimes neces-sary.

• The assessment procedure for major development in an historic area can result in delays to the deci-sion making process.

• The politic of hurry up and accelerate the proce-dures, even though quite usual and understandable, may have very negative outcomes.

• A project blocked halfway may be more harmful than the “no project” or fully developed project situation.

• By acknowledging that an EIA could be required, developers can save time, and possibly gain “good-will”, in the initial stages of the development con-sent process.

• There is a need for the consideration of impacts upon the whole “urban fragment” rather than just on the development in isolation.

8.6. References

¬ BIRKIN M., CLARKE G.P., CLARKE M. & WILSON A. (1996) Intelligent GIS - Location decisions and strategic planning, Pearson Professional Ltd, Cambridge, ISBN 1-899761-25-X.

¬ CEMAT (1970) Factors to be taken into account in promoting balanced regional development in Eu-rope, Council of Europe - Conseil de l’Europe, 11.

¬ CEMAT (1983) The European regional/spatial planning charter, Council of Europe - Conseil de l’Europe, 7.

¬ CEMAT (2000) Guiding principles for sustainable spatial development of the European continent, Council of Europe - Conseil de l’Europe, 7.

¬ CRAIG W.J., HARRIS T.M. & WEINER D. (ed.) (2002) Community participation and geographic infor-mation systems, Taylor & Francis, London, ISBN 0-415-23752-1.

¬ EUROPEAN COMMISSION (1999) ESDP - Europe-an spatial development perspective: towards bal-anced and sustainable development of the territory of the European Union, Offi ce for Offi cial Publica-tions of the European Communities, Luxembourg.

¬ EUROPEAN COMMISSION (2001) Unity, solidar-ity, diversity for Europe, its people and its territory: second report on economic and social cohesion, Offi ce for Offi cial Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg.

¬ HALL E. T. (1966) The hidden dimension, Doubleday & Cie, New York

¬ JANKOWSKI P. & NYERGES T. (2001) Geographic in-formation systems for group decision making - Towards a participatory, geographic information science, Taylor & Francis, FISHER P.F. & RAPER J. (Series ed.), Research monographs in GIS series, London, ISBN 0-7484-0932-7.

¬ MARSH W.M. (1991) Landscape planning: Environ-mental applications, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2nd edition, (1983), New York, ISBN 0471-52506-5.

¬ URISA (2003) Special issues on public participation and GIS

ph503744_Int 98 22/03/05, 10:48:16

¬ EUROPEAN COMMISSION (2001) Unity, solidarity, diversity for Europe, its people and its territory: sec-ond report on economic and social cohesion, Offi ce for Offi cial Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg.

¬ HALL E. T. (1966) The hidden dimension, Doubleday & Cie, New York

¬ JANKOWSKI P. & NYERGES T. (2001) Geographic informa-tion systems for group decision making - Towards a participatory, geographic information science, Taylor & Francis, FISHER P.F. & RAPER J. (Series ed.), Research mono-graphs in GIS series, London, ISBN 0-7484-0932-7.

¬ MARSH W.M. (1991) Landscape planning: Environ-mental applications, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2nd edition, (1983), New York, ISBN 0471-52506-5.

¬ URISA (2003) Special issues on public participation and GIS

POSITION PAPERS

POSITIONSph503744_Int 99 22/03/05, 10:48:37

¬ SUIT

100

SUST

AIN

AB

LE D

EVEL

OPM

ENT O

F U

RB

AN

HIS

TO

RIC

AL

AR

EAS

TH

RO

UG

H A

N A

CT

IVE

INT

EGR

AT

ION

WIT

HIN

TO

WN

S

1. THE CONSIDERATION OF CULTURAL HERITAGE IN PRESENT EUROPEAN ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES

A. Bond (*), J. Teller (**)

(*) EIA centre – University of Aberyswyth(**) LEMA – University of Liege

The preservation of cultural heritage falls under the scope of numerous European Union policies. First and foremost Article 151 of the Treaty (ex. Article 128) states that “The Community shall contribute to the fl owering of the cultures of the Member States, while respecting their national and regional diversity and at the same time bringing common cultural heritage to the fore”.

Yet the recent acceleration of European integration (common monetary unit, enlargement process etc.) combined with the growing speed of globalisation raised real anxieties among citizens of the Union that what they perceive as their culture, in the broader meaning, may be harmed by foreign or centralised regulations.

Considering these concerns, Article 151 of the Treaty adopts a very cautious approach with respect to the subsidiarity principle. Point 5 of this Article explicitly requires that the Council activities are limited to incentive measures, excluding any harmonisation of the laws and regulations of the Member States. It also states that the Council shall act unanimously in cultural matters.

Subsidiarity and cultural policy

This context has led some authors to consider that there hardly exists a genuine cultural policy at the European level, but rather a patchwork of diverse and uncoordinated national measures and Commission initiatives. Yet such a pessimistic statement would be forgetful of two main aspects of present EU policy.

• The EU has recently adopted its fi rst framework programme in support of culture1. This program, called Culture 2000, seeks to integrate into a unifi ed framework the different incentive measures that until then were scattered along three main programmes, Kaleidoscope, Ariane and Raphael. Some of these incentives will specifi cally deal with built heritage and material assets.

• It has also to be acknowledged that given its

broad defi nition, culture is likely to be affected by a number of other EU policies. It is important to remember in this respect that the subsidiarity principle does not affect the bases on which a number of harmonisation measures with a cultural dimension have already been, and continue to be, taken in other EU competency areas.

Point 4 of article 151 of the Treaty thereby states that “the Community shall take cultural aspects into account in its action under other provisions of the Treaty, in particular in order to respect and promote the diversity of its cultures.” This provision was far from being impotent, since it placed culture amongst the major objectives of the European Union.

A First Report on the consideration of cultural aspects in European Community action was issued by the Commission in 19962. It was rapidly followed by a report more specifi cally addressing the impact of cohesion policies on cultural development and derived employment3.

But it is mostly environmental policies that will retain our attention in this regard. Interestingly, since their initial implementation in 1972, it can indeed be observed that environmental policies have progressively involved more of a cultural heritage dimension, be it through incentive measures (LIFE program for instance) or through the scope of their directives and guidance.

The right of access to information

As soon as one considers the environment as modifi ed by the interaction between human beings and nature, it is quite obvious that nearly all our present ecosystems are characterised by a strong cultural stance. This has led to a progressive extension of the defi nition of environment, which now includes a human and cultural dimension besides the traditional ones.

Initially designed to build upon the experience gained through the application of the Directive 90/313/EEC, on freedom of access to information on the environment, the Aarhus Convention4 has notably contributed to this extension. Yet, besides “elements” and “factors/activities”, the two traditional dimensions of the environment, it added a third bullet considering human and cultural aspects “inasmuch as they are or may be affected by the state of elements of the environment or, through these elements, by the factors, activities or measures”.

1 CEC (1998), First Framework programme in support of Culture (2000-2004) - COM (1998) 266, Commission of the European Communities, Brussels.2 First Report on the consideration of cultural aspects in European Community action - COM (96) 160, Commission of the European Communities, Brussels.¬ 3 Cohesion policy and Culture. A contribution to employment - COM (96) 512, Commission of the European Communities, Brussels.4 Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters, Aarhus Convention, United Nations Economic Council for Europe.

ph503744_Int 100 22/03/05, 10:48:56

101

POSITIONS 1 ¬ 8

It has also been stressed that the phrasing of the objectives of the Convention shifted from ensuring a “freedom of access”, as required by the Directive 90/313, to guaranteeing effective “rights of access to information” and public participation in environmental matters.

Cultural sites and built structures are thus explic-itly acknowledged as legitimate environmental concerns, deserving a genuine public information and participation. This modifi cation will now have to be refl ected in all environmental policies, from the European to the local levels.

The Environmental Impact Assessment Directive

The right of access to information truly appears as a valuable contribution to a greater environmental awareness, transparency and debate. It can still be argued that environmental information would not really foster a pro-active decision-making since it mostly covers existing effects, factors or discharges. Hence this model of information would keep assuming an ex post decision-making, through recourses, protest or any form of reaction against existing environmental nuisances.

Environmental Impact Assessment may be an answer to this issue as it basically tends to reverse the “burden of the proof” —as has already been the case for quite a long time in other industrial sectors such as the pharmaceutical industry for instance. In this approach, it is up to the developer to demonstrate ex ante that its scheme is not excessively harmful for the environment in its broader meaning. This way of shifting responsibilities for producing scientifi c, technical and environmental evidence towards the applicant appears to be an effi cient way of applying the precautionary principle5.

The European Directive 85/337/EEC established, in 1985, a fi rst European-wide framework for environmental impact assessment. One of its major aims was to reduce the existing disparities between Member States with regard to environmental protection. It was, in the early eighties, considered that such disparities might constitute a bias towards competition and thereby “affect the functioning of the common market”. This Directive did require the consideration of effects of projects on “architectural and archaeological heritage” from July 1988.

The Directive 85/337/EEC has since been transposed in national law by the different Member States. Some twelve years later it had to be amended by Directive 97/11/EC. This new Directive gives provision to identify, describe and assess in an appropriate manner the direct and indirect effects of a private or public particular project on factors including “landscape, material assets and cultural heritage” Which recognises the restricted nature of the defi nition used in the 1985 Directive.

Interestingly the Annex III of the Directive 97/11/EC gave more precise criteria to determine whether an EIA is needed (environmental screening). Among the project location’s criteria, we now fi nd “… (e) areas classifi ed or protected under Member States’ legislation”, referring to Member States’ designated areas like some urban historical areas, but also “… (g) densely populated areas, and (h) landscapes of historical, cultural or archaeological signifi cance”. Among the characteristics of the impact, we now fi nd the issue of reversibility. It may prove to be a crucial factor when heritage is involved.

These new dispositions should imply a greater consideration for built heritage issues in future EIA. Still it has to be acknowledged that the methodological background to support this trend is not yet ready, as clearly refl ected by the limited number of publications dealing with cultural heritage impact assessment as compared with other specialised fi elds of assessment —social impact or health impact for instance.

Also the consideration of alternatives is too often limited to the location of the project. This is probably not so relevant when heritage values are at stake. There is indeed quite a long tradition of heritage charters and documents paving the way towards ways of deriving alternatives, usually much subtler than simply playing on the location.

The Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive

Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) consists of the formal extension of EIA to policies, plans and programmes. It has been defi ned, by Therivel6 et al., as :“the formalised, systematic and comprehensive process of evaluating the environmental effects of a policy, plan or programme and its alternatives, including the preparation of a written report on the fi ndings of that evaluation, and using the fi ndings in publicly accountable decision making.”

5 Communication from the Commission on the precautionary principle - COM (2000) 1, Commission of the European Communities, Brussels.6 Therivel R., Wilson E., Thompson S., Heaney D., Pritchard D., Strategic Environmental Assessment, Earthscan, London, 1992.

ph503744_Int 101 22/03/05, 10:48:59

¬ SUIT

102

SUST

AIN

AB

LE D

EVEL

OPM

ENT O

F U

RB

AN

HIS

TO

RIC

AL

AR

EAS

TH

RO

UG

H A

N A

CT

IVE

INT

EGR

AT

ION

WIT

HIN

TO

WN

S

By the mid-nineties, practical experience with “kind of” SEA was rapidly growing at different decision-making levels in Europe. The rationale of a SEA is to better take into account the effects of a number of projects in a given area and, once a land-use plan is adopted, it may prove very diffi cult to deny a planning permission to a project that conforms to the plan, even when its likely environmental impact seems signifi cant, hence the point of assessing the effects of the plan itself. The same logic applied to other types of plans and programmes would lead to further ex ante assessments, thereby achieving a better integration of environmental concerns within the decision-making process.

These issues were to lead the European Union to prepare a directive on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment. After a long reviewing process, the Directive has entered into force on 21 July 20017. The Member States will now have three years to transpose the Directive.

The Annex II of the Directive recommends to have regard, in particular, to “the value and vulnerability of the area likely to be affected due to special natural characteristics or cultural heritage, exceeded environmental quality standards or limit values, intensive land-use; the effects on the areas or landscapes which have a recognised national, Community or international protection status”.

Accordingly, the SEA procedure should probably be applied, after a case-by-case analysis, to local plans directly affecting sensitive urban historical areas, which has been far from systematic before now.Hence the European Structural Funds, and more specifi cally European Regional Development Funds (ERDF) projects, should normally constitute an ideal candidate for SEA. Even if these funds are basically aimed at economic and social development, they usually also involve a strong strategic land planning dimension, may it be at a regional or at a local level. It has been observed that these programmes often make use of urban redevelopment and cultural activities as a way to enhance regional or local resources as well as economic development.

Such an integration of a strong cultural dimension in ERDF urban infrastructure projects should normally increase in the future years. Accordingly the Parliament’s Second Reading of the amended SEA proposal wanted to make all future plans and programmes under the current Structural Funds

and rural development Regulations or under new EC Regulations subject to SEA, but the Commission did not accept this amendment, at least for the current programming period (2000-2006) and SEA of fi nancial or budget plans and programs are specifi cally exempt from the Directive.

Recommendations

1. The extension of the notion of environment should now be refl ected in each tier of decision-making, from the European to the more local level, so as to integrate cultural heritage and material assets, as expressed in the Aarhus convention.

2. Following the provisions of articles 6 and 7 of the Aarhus convention, the screening and scoping stages of both EIA and SEA should be more participative as the defi nition of what constitutes heritage is rapidly evolving, and usually results from a social construction.

3. Proven and reliable assessment methodologies dedicated to cultural heritage are urgently required. These methods should tend to reach a similar level of genericity as other environmental instruments.

4. ERDF projects developed in dense city centres should be submitted to an environmental impact assessment and projects with severe environmental impacts should no longer be funded without serious mitigation measures. In this perspective, cultural heritage should be regarded as long-term resource deserving due care.

5. Alternatives should address the basic nature of the project, in terms of precautionary measures, construction phasing, integration and respect for the historical authenticity, reversibility of the interventions etc.

7 Directive 2001/42/EC on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment.

ph503744_Int 102 22/03/05, 10:49:01

103

POSITIONS 1 ¬ 8

2. THE CONSIDERATION OF CULTURAL HERITAGE WITHIN EIA PRACTICE THROUGHOUT EUROPE.

L. Langstaff & A. Bond

EIA Unit– University of Wales, Aberyswyth

The consideration of cultural heritage is explicit within the current EU legislation for Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). However, there is great variation in the way in which cultural heritage is accounted for between the Member States and, at times, discrepancies in the consideration of cultural heritage between regions or Competent Authorities within individual countries.

This paper will briefl y outline the provisions of Directive 85/337/EEC1 as amended by 97/11/EC2 in relation to cultural heritage. The actual practice in the Member States, as reported by EIA practitioners, cultural heritage experts and people involved with the development consent process, will then be discussed and common problems and concerns identifi ed.

The EU legislative position

The specifi c provision for the consideration of cultural heritage within Directive 85/337/EEC as amended by Directive 97/11/EC is detailed below.

Article 3 of the Directive states that “The environmental impact assessment shall identify, describe and assess in an appropriate manner..., the direct effects of a project on the following factors:

• human beings, fl ora and fauna;

• soil, water, air, climate and the landscape;

• material assets and the cultural heritage;

• the interaction between the factors mentioned in the fi rst, second and third indents”

Cultural heritage is specifi cally referred to in Annex III, which provides the selection criteria for screening, and states “The environmental sensitivity of geographical areas likely to be affected by the projects must be considered, having regard, in particular, to:…the absorption capacity of the natural environment, paying particular attention to the following areas:

(h) Landscapes of historical, cultural or archaeological signifi cance”

Similarly, in Annex IV which relates to the information requirements within the EIS, Section 3 requires “A description of the aspects of the environment likely to be signifi cantly affected by the proposed project, including, in particular…material assets, including the architectural and archaeological heritage…”Three guidance documents have been produced by the European Commission to assist with screening3, scoping4 and EIS review5 and these not only cover tangible aspects of cultural heritage, such as, designated or protected areas or features of archaeological or cultural importance but also refer to intangible features, as illustrated by Question 9 in the scoping checklist4: “Is the project likely to affect human or community health or welfare? – including facets, such as, cultural identity and associations, community cohesion and identity, and social institutions. Will the project result in social changes, for example, in demography, traditional lifestyles, employment?”

As can clearly be seen from the Directives and guidance documents cultural heritage issues are integral to the whole procedure and require proper consideration and assessment in conjunction with other potential impacts on the environment.

The consideration of cultural heritage within EIA practice.

Information relating to actual practice within the Member States was gained by means of two questionnaires and reference to available literature. The fi rst questionnaire was sent to EIA practitioners and “experts”, to both provide up-to-date details of current legislation within each Member State and to seek opinion as to how well cultural heritage considerations were served in practice by this legislation. The second questionnaire was sent to practitioners within the fi eld of cultural heritage, planners and local authority personnel and sought to identify actual practice and any shortcomings or apparent failings in the systems currently in place.

Based on the responses and the literature review, the variation in practice of consideration of cultural heritage in the separate stages of the EIA process across the EU will be considered below.

Screening.

Few of the respondents considered that cultural heritage issues were given adequate regard at the screening phase of the EIA process. In some

1 European Council (1985) Directive on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, 85/337/EEC Offi cial Journal of the European Communities, L175, 40-8 ¬ 2 European Council (1997) Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March amending Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, Offi cial Journal of the European Communities, L73, 14 March 1997 ¬ 3 Environmental Resources Management (2001) Guidance on EIA: Screening. Report for the Directorate General Environment of the European Commission. June 2001 ¬ 4 Environmental Resources Management (2001) Guidance on EIA: Scoping. Report for the Directorate General Environment of the European Commission. June 2001 ¬ 5 Environmental Resources Management (2001) Guidance on EIA: EIS Review. Report for the Directorate General Environment of the European Commission. June 2001

ph503744_Int 103 22/03/05, 10:49:03

¬ SUIT

104

SUST

AIN

AB

LE D

EVEL

OPM

ENT O

F U

RB

AN

HIS

TO

RIC

AL

AR

EAS

TH

RO

UG

H A

N A

CT

IVE

INT

EGR

AT

ION

WIT

HIN

TO

WN

S

countries, such as, Germany and Portugal they are not included, whilst in others, for example the UK6 and Ireland the experience of the respondents was that they were not considered in practice contrary to the legislation. Even in countries where the respondents felt that inclusion of cultural heritage issues did occur, as in Finland, no offi cial guidelines specifi c to cultural heritage issues exist to aid the process.

Scoping

In theory cultural heritage issues are taken into account at the scoping stage of the EIA process in the majority of the Member States, however, in practice formal guidelines often do not exist, for example, in Portugal and Finland, or if they do, they focus upon the built environment and “material assets”, as in the UK and Ireland. In practice few respondents felt that cultural heritage was addressed at this stage or, if it was, the range of issues considered was too narrow.

In many of the Member States the body with responsibility for approving proposals has the opportunity to set the scope of the EIA at the request of the developer, this however is not necessarily a formal arrangement and does not necessarily guarantee the proper or full consideration of cultural heritage issues. Both the Netherlands and Finland have systems which allow for contributions to the process from a wider audience. In the Netherlands the public has the opportunity to comment right at the start of the development control procedure providing the opportunity for cultural heritage issues that concern the local community to be raised. The Finnish EIA Act not only formally provides an opportunity for the authority to comment on the scope of the EIS but also for other stakeholders, hence, cultural heritage bodies and the public have the right of input into the process.

Impact evaluation

Respondents from many countries commented that in practice the consideration of cultural heritage issues is limited to built, primarily archaeological and architectural, heritage, for example, Ireland & the UK. The situation in Northern Ireland appears similar to that in mainland UK with “qualitative analysis often being ignored with tangible issues being given greater weighting”. However, some respondents felt that even the consideration of built culture could at times be limited as there were no proper guidelines on how and what to assess.

One respondent from Northern Ireland stated that “unless a building or area enjoys statutory protection in reality its use, landmark value and local affection has no signifi cance” and continued to note that the “sensitive area” defi nition omits listed buildings and conservation areas and notes that “urban locations may also be considered sensitive as effects on a densely populated area may be signifi cant”.

In Sweden and Denmark cultural heritage issues are considered in EIA of urban developments, in order to comply with the EIS content requirements of Annex IV of the EIA Directive but there are no general guidelines or an exact method of how to assess historical structures or values. A rather different situation appears to occur in Finland where the respondents felt that issues relating to built cultural heritage are treated with proper regard when they are present, the issue being instead being that only 7% of Finland’s building stock was built prior to 19217 and hence often there is little or no built heritage to consider.Another problem raised relating to the situation in Portugal was that development in urban areas tended to be small-scale housing developments that do not require EIA. The respondent did not personally know of any EIAs that had been performed within an urban area.

EIA Quality Review

This is not a mandatory requirement of the EIA Directive but many Member States have either formal or informal provisions. In Italy there is a mandatory review stage where the EIA Commission has the responsibility for checking the quality and content of the EIS submitted by the developer. In many countries however, an informal arrangement exists, for example, in the Danish system the EIS is submitted for public scrutiny and participation prior to the County Councils adoption of the plan. However, none of the Member States appear to have specifi c guidelines on how to assess the quality of the content in relation to cultural heritage.

Development Consent

Under Article 8 of the EIA Directive the EIS has to be considered when the competent authority makes its decision on the application for development consent. The consideration of cultural heritage issues at this stage is therefore dependent upon their inclusion, and the quality of the assessment made, in the environmental impact statement. In theory therefore, cultural heritage issues will be

¬ 6 Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (2000) Environmental impact assessment: A guide to procedures. HMSO, London.

ph503744_Int 104 22/03/05, 10:49:06

105

POSITIONS 1 ¬ 8

considered in the majority of the Member States at this stage of the process. However, as the consensus appears to be that it is primarily built culture, listed buildings and designated areas, that are assessed in the environmental impact statement, and that often poorly, the quality of the information that the competent authority has will usually be limited. A respondent from the UK however, felt that the general development control process did give proper regard to cultural heritage issues despite the EIA process falling short.

In the majority of cases it is the local authority that approves consent for development applications. In the absence in the majority of countries of clear guidelines on how cultural heritage should be taken into account during the EIA process it was suggested that this could result in variations in the importance given to these issues from region to region depending upon the views of the individuals concerned.

Monitoring and follow-up

Monitoring and follow-up is not a mandatory part of the EIA process. Provisions within the Member States are rare and, where they do exist, they are not usually part of the EIA legislation.8

Public participation

In many Member States the public notifi cation and participation procedures are more directly linked to the development consent process than to EIA. The procedures vary from the minimum required by the EIA Directive of notifi cation at key stages, as in Ireland, to mandatory public inquiries which take place in Italy and the Netherlands. The levels and timing of participation and the amount of credence given to contributions from the public varies and this infl uences the impact the public can make in the different Member States.

The right of appeal against development consent decisions also varies greatly, although typically only the developer has such a right. Examples of other practice are varied. In Finland the right of appeal has recently been extended to associations and foundations that promote the protection of the environment, health, nature or that improve the living environment. In Styria, Austria the system allows municipalities, the ombudsman for the environment and citizens groups the right of appeal, however, the citizens group must have a minimum of 200 signatures to qualify. The Danish system

allows, in addition to the Minister for Environment and Energy, anyone with a legal interest to appeal, whilst in Ireland anyone who made submissions or observations in writing in relation to the application may appeal.

Many respondents considered that cultural heritage needed to be addressed earlier in the process, with greater public participation (and for this participation to be treated seriously) and information gathering on cultural value to prevent the issue being “side-stepped” throughout the procedure. A wide range of stakeholders should be consulted to refl ect cultural heritage concerns in urban developments, including; community groups; local councils, Art and Heritage units; local historical and arts societies; and architectural heritage groups. Cultural heritage was viewed by many of the respondents as the property of everyone and, as such, the participation process should be without restrictions.

Conclusions

1. Cultural heritage issues are intended to be an integral part of the EIA process. However, in practice cultural heritage issues are often poorly addressed.

2. The assessment of cultural heritage within urban areas tends to be confi ned to the assessment of built culture, often limited to designated buildings and protected areas. The intangible aspects of cultural heritage, such as, cultural identity, community cohesion and language are rarely assessed.

3. The majority of respondents to the questionnaires were unhappy with the level of consideration that is given to cultural heritage issues and would like to see an increase, especially in relation to the assessment of intangible facets. This view was commonly held regardless of nationality or professional background.

4. The methodologies being developed in this project have the potential to meet a need, identifi ed by EIA practitioners and other professionals in the cultural heritage and planning fi elds, for practical tools to assess cultural heritage.

Appendix: Questionnaire respondent details

Responses to the questionnaires were gained from individuals within the following organisations. The views expressed are those of the individual respondents and not necessarily the organisation by which they are employed.

7 Finnish Ministry of the Environment (accessed 12/07/2001) http://www.vyh.fi /eng/environ/legis/index.htm8 Bond, A.J & P. Wathern (1999). Environmental Impact Evaluation in the European Union. In Handbook of Environmental Impact Assessment. Volume 2:

Environmental Impact Assessment in Practice: Impact and Limitations. Edited by J. Petts. Blackwell Science, Oxford

ph503744_Int 105 22/03/05, 10:49:08

¬ SUIT

106

SUST

AIN

AB

LE D

EVEL

OPM

ENT O

F U

RB

AN

HIS

TO

RIC

AL

AR

EAS

TH

RO

UG

H A

N A

CT

IVE

INT

EGR

AT

ION

WIT

HIN

TO

WN

S

Austrian Institute for the Development of EA, Austria; Ministère de la Région wallonne, Belgium; Institute bruxellois de la Gestion de l’Environnement, Belguim; Roskilde University, Denmark; Finnish Environment Institute, Finland; Ministry of the Environment, Finland; Pro Terra Team, Germany; Department of Environmental Resource Management, University College Dublin, Ireland; UTAD, Portugal; National Road Administration, Sweden; Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, Sweden; IWACO B. V., The Netherlands; Commission for EIA, The Netherlands; Province of Overÿssel, The Netherlands; Belfast City Council, UK; Department of Environmental Planning, University of Strathclyde, UK, DETR, UK; Southampton City Council, UK; Terrence O’Rourke plc, UK; The Ulster Architectural Heritage Society, UK.

ph503744_Int 106 22/03/05, 10:49:10

107

POSITIONS 1 ¬ 8

3. CULTURAL HERITAGE AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT IN SUIT

Uta Hassler (*), Gregers Algreen-Ussing (**), Niklaus Kohler (***)

(*) Lehrstuhl für Denkmalpfl ege und Bauforschung – University of Dortmund(**) Bygningsarkæologi – School of Architecture of Copenhagen(***) IFIB – University of Karlsruhe

The paper is composed of 18 thesis, which are presented in four groups:

• Cultural heritage

• Monuments and public space

• Active conservation

• Sustainable development

Cultural heritage

1. Risks and threats for urban historical areas

Risks and threats for urban historical areas, urban spaces and structures do generally not concern outstanding objects. In most cases these objects are legally protected and they are often more threatened by the intensive over-use due to their exclusivity. The main risks arise from the loss of density, historic nature, complexity and quality of urban historical areas as such. Speculative developments, driven by short term interests, menace the substance and identity of European towns by trying to take advantage of their historic nature as “context” or as “background”.

2. From cultural heritage to architectural heritage

The issue of the cultural value of buildings has been associated mainly with the conservation of individual monuments and historic urban fragments. Developments over the last 20 years have shown that signifi cant urban qualities, which are independent of monument and site protection issues, are disappearing. The notion of cultural heritage has been extended gradually from individual buildings to the architectural heritage and the building stock (patrimoine).

3. Architectural heritage is the long-term memory of a society

Protected monuments amount only to 1-2 % of all buildings. Our perception of the urban environment is determined by the built heritage in its totality. Buildings and cultural landscapes shape the sense of belonging somewhere, of social traditions, of

cultural identity of a history spanning centuries. Buildings are material witnesses, which can be questioned and analysed over and over again.

4. The Invisible and the Immaterial

The qualities of many objects and structures cannot be defi ned through the visible urban appearance (facades, places etc.). It is therefore diffi cult to take into account the “invisible” when procedures on aesthetics, form and “images” are applied. This is the case of archaeological structures, which have been covered and of infrastructures in general which constitute the “invisible town”. One solution might be to include historic cadastres as well as building research analysis of objects and their construction, which cannot be integrated directly into quantitative evaluations.

5. Cultural tradition is regional

The cultural capital of the European tradition has been based on exchange and international contact since the antique. Despite of that, up to the twentieth century national and above all regional forms of culture have been developed in the built environment in the form of regional building traditions and cultural landscapes. Through modernism the ideal of the international becomes predominant, architecture at the end of the 20th century becomes mass culture, the media world creates an “international Region-folklore” whose products replace, at least in the public understanding, monuments.

Monuments and public space

6. The evolving role of (monument) conservation and economy of resources

The traditional preservation of cultural heritage through the protection of historical monuments must be integrated in a larger strategy of sustainable management of the building stock, which in turn must be considered as an integrated part of the cultural heritage. This does not take away any of the traditional obligations of monument preservation. It does only avoid that monument conservation is used in an opportunistic way to prevent undesirable urban developments. Many developments cannot be rationally discussed because there is no clear urban strategy and no integrated value system for the management of building stocks and urban fragments. In a differentiated strategy of the management of the built environment, monument conservation will continue to assure that particularly

ph503744_Int 107 22/03/05, 10:49:11

¬ SUIT

108

SUST

AIN

AB

LE D

EVEL

OPM

ENT O

F U

RB

AN

HIS

TO

RIC

AL

AR

EAS

TH

RO

UG

H A

N A

CT

IVE

INT

EGR

AT

ION

WIT

HIN

TO

WN

S

important buildings survive in their present (or maybe past) form. Other parts of the building stock will be managed by taking into account their long-term quality of use as well as their economic, ecological and social value. In practice, monument conservation techniques, which make possible a long-term preservation, can be of use to other parts of the stock if they can be adapted to present constructive needs and professional qualifi cations.

7. Outstanding monuments attract developers

Cultural objects are leading objects for societal and political consensus (“world cultural heritage”). Through the privatisation of public cultural goods, monuments are endangered through commercialisation, depreciation through overuse (in particular through the tourism industry). Life Style and Event Marketing create and use cultural myths and cult-objects. Historical town centres are endangered through projects that use the historical aura and the familiar images. By doing so they destroy the historic substance which is transformed into publicity.

8. The market of the post-industrial world will be culture

Cultural production will become one of the leading sectors in the post-industrial economy. Products will be more and more transformed into “experiences”. Tourism has become more and more commercial entertainment reducing monuments and urban settings to decoration. The commercialisation of the access to cultural resources risks to lead to an over exploitation and destruction of cultural resources, comparable to the exploitation of natural resources.

9. Public space is privatised

Public space has been community property for hundreds of years. It was the place where the creation of market capital was secondary to the creation of social capital. Public space is the arena where all social classes could develop and reproduce culture in all its forms. The ongoing privatisation of public space takes different forms (car-traffi c, shopping centres, entertainment districts etc.) and continues the erosion of neighbourhood and community that defi nes the urban culture. It adds to the disintegration and fl attening of place. Everywhere becomes the same as everywhere else. Community becomes commodity.

10. The traditional instruments of public policy fail - the long-term perspective disappears

The reduced margins of public budgets are compensated through “public private partnerships”. Deregulation of public action is supposed to solve the problems of the shrinking revenue of the public administration. The result in both cases is negative for the architectural heritage. The long term perspective (and responsibility) of the public service, in particular through his administrative body, progressively disappears. The growing social (external) costs are hidden. Traditional planing procedures are abandoned and replaced by short term, ad hoc mechanisms with diminishing public (democratic) control.

Active conservation

11. Traditional conservation policy

A weak point of the traditional conservation policies of the built heritage is its incapacity to protect heritage buildings from damages caused by inappropriate developments in their close surrounding. The extension of the protection zone through a buffer risks transforming the zone in a historic open-air museum with subsequent risks of social segregation through gentrifi cation. The alternative would be to take into consideration the architectural heritage in itself and to develop strategies to foster an appropriate long-term development of the urban fabric, integrating ecological as well as economic, social and cultural aspects. “Active conservation” will allow the protection of urban areas by protecting the vital social and economic mechanism of towns through history, which have been and can be again the origin and matrix of all monuments.

12. Public participation and experts

A number of European cities and communes have decided to develop individual measures to further approach a sustainable development within cities. Public participation is vital, as the inhabitants are those best acquainted to the problems of the environment surrounding them. It is generally acknowledged that towns are “living” systems, involving social dynamics, technical and building networks and the presence of people living there. Historical evidence suggests that for their sound conservation they must be kept within sustainable development activity cycles. Concerning cultural heritage there has often been a time lag between expert judgements and public acceptance. The task of monument conservation bodies in the last half of the 20th century has been to defend also

ph503744_Int 108 22/03/05, 10:49:13

109

POSITIONS 1 ¬ 8

the unwanted and unliked part of the cultural heritage against elimination and disappearance. To day “Active conservation” has to express and take into account both the historical, long perspective, judgements of experts and public participation as well as powerful economic interests in exploiting the cultural heritage.

13. Urban form and historical meaning

In the 70 ties of the 20 Th. century the fracture of modernism has led to the abandon of the vision of the heroic modern which sacrifi ced the grown historical town structure for a car based, low density sprawl like town. The reestablishment of the acceptance of historical urban structures has often been communicated through an aesthetic discourse on urban form beside references to historical events. As long as the appreciation of urban morphological phenomena cannot be related to historical meaning, immaterial qualities, authenticity and resource conservation (in a large sense) it cannot be integrated in long term, active conservation efforts.

Sustainable development

14. Cultural diversity and bio-diversity

Traditional approaches of the protection of the environment were concentrated on limiting the impacts on the natural and to a certain degree social and cultural environment. The perspective was essentially repair and short-term oriented. In the longer (intergenerational) time frames of sustainable development, resource and diversity issues become predominant. The protection of environmental, economic, social and cultural resources is linked and can draw on common defi nitions of resources. The conservation of diversity in its different forms becomes a central long-term objective which must be based on a dynamic integration. Through their historic diversity, quality and continuity the building stock and the urban continuity constitute non-renewable resources. Urban culture is intrinsically sustainable and has a high stability. It is the result of the accumulated investments of generations in the urban environment. The better we understand how to administer and develop these investments, the stronger the urban environment will become.

15. The speed of transformation

The speed of transformation is certainly one of the key parameters of sustainable urban development. Towns, cities, urban contexts have historically evolved with a certain speed. There have been faster

and slower developments, but the overall relatively low speed allowed at the same time a conservation of resources and a cultural continuity, which could be understood by the inhabitants and allowed an identifi cation or created it. There has always been a difference between the time constants of the establishment of basic infrastructure (decades and centuries) and of their use (decades). The underlying physical transformation of the built environment (as expressed by different energy and mass-fl ow levels as well as by the overall appearance, stays within limits even if these limits evolve slowly over time. Recent developments show that when those limits are passed urban historical areas either become unstable and enigmatic when the speed of transformation is too high - or they perish by dereliction when the speed of transformation is too low.

16. Solution corridor instead of optimisation

Towns, cities and urban contexts have historically evolved with a certain speed that allowed a cultural continuity which is understood by the inhabitants and which allows identifi cation or creates identifi cation. The physical transformation of towns (as expressed by different fl ows - energy, massfl ow, biotope transformation, monetary fl ows, transport fl ows etc.) can be described as taking place within a time corridor. Beyond the limits of this corridor, urban historical areas either become unstable and enigmatic or they perish (dereliction). Acceptable solutions can be situated within such a corridor composed of a past, historic, a present and a future (simulation, scenario) part. “Active conservation” can be defi ned as a set of methods, tools and heuristics that allow us to keep the urban development within a corridor of sustainable development.

17. Cultural and material parameters

The generic diffi culty to take into consideration cultural dimensions within economic, social and ecological evaluation frameworks and participation structures, resides in the diffi culty that only some cultural aspects can be characterised through material parameters. The objective cannot be to ”integrate” cultural values inside such frameworks, but to enlarge the scope of the evaluation in such a way that cultural and historic dimensions can be recognised. This can be achieved through the recognition of additional properties:

• time (age, history, historical dynamic)

• complexity (complexity of different historical di-mensions)

ph503744_Int 109 22/03/05, 10:49:14

¬ SUIT

110

SUST

AIN

AB

LE D

EVEL

OPM

ENT O

F U

RB

AN

HIS

TO

RIC

AL

AR

EAS

TH

RO

UG

H A

N A

CT

IVE

INT

EGR

AT

ION

WIT

HIN

TO

WN

S

• quality (of the parts, materials, architecture and construction)

• signifi cation (including immaterial dimensions)

• resource value (material, use value, bequest value)

18. The evolution of EIA and SEA

The urban historical areas or urban fragments are considered in their temporal and spatial continuity as complex resources. This understanding and appreciation needs new instruments. They go further than classical Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) i.e. assessment of the effects of a proposed new activity or development on the environment and its strategic extension, (SEA). The urban historical area is not only to be considered as an environment (in a large sense) which is to be protected against impacts, but as a starting point, a complex resource which evolves over a long time frame. The objective is not only to minimise the impacts over a short period but to maximise the value of the resource in a long-term (historical, cultural) perspective.

ph503744_Int 110 22/03/05, 10:49:16

111

POSITIONS 1 ¬ 8

4. MONITORING AND POST-EVALUA-TION OF THE CULTURAL HERITAGE COMPONENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS.

A. Bond*, L. Langstaff* and C. Ruelle**

(*) EIA Unit– University of Aberystwyth (**) LEMA – University of Liege

This paper considers the current position relating to monitoring and post-evaluation procedures in the EIA and SEA processes. The term “monitoring” refers to the measuring and recording over time and space of information related to a considered project or plan (effects on the urban and social environment). “Post-evaluation” or “audit” means the comparison of the monitored information with some reference information (predicted effects, baseline condi-tions, standard/thresholds, original objectives, etc). Monitoring information has three common uses: (i) control and sanction, (ii) dynamic and adaptive environmental management and, (iii) building of knowledge, and the post-evaluation or audit of the information in any of these contexts lends credibil-ity to the resulting actions.

The prime objectives commonly cited, to extol the benefi ts of post-decision monitoring and evaluation programmes, are:

• to check the accuracy of predictions with a view to improving prediction techniques

• to monitor compliance with agreed conditions and regulations

• to ensure mitigation measures are implemented and to provide learning opportunities for improv-ing mitigation measures on future projects

• to provide feedback to decision makers about the effectiveness of their actions

• to identify unforeseen impacts before irreversible damage occurs and allow to undertake remedial action

In the particular fi eld of urban cultural heritage, review of existing literature and of current practice, reveals that the fi rst two objectives are especially crucial. The non-implementation of conditions at-tached to consent decisions (and lack of sanction) is a common problem, as well as the rapid obsoles-cence, lack of dynamism, and consequent problems of status and legitimacy of urban regulation plans and policies. In such a context, monitoring and post-evaluation programmes that could allow an

evolution of the plans throughout time to facilitate a better fi t with the monitored needs and require-ments of the urban and social environments, would be of great help. For example, unexpected derelic-tion trends in urban historical areas could be rapidly identifi ed and managed before irreversible damage occurs.

European Union Directives

Under the EIA directive1, post project monitoring and evaluation is not mandatory.

The situation for SEA is better as the SEA Directive2 contains specifi c provision for post implementation monitoring:

“Article 10, MonitoringMember States shall monitor the signifi cant environ-mental effects of the implementation of plans and programmes in order, inter alia, to identify at an early stage unforeseen adverse effects, and to be able to undertake appropriate remedial action.”

By stating that monitoring must have an objective “to be able to undertake appropriate remedial action”, the SEA Directive tends to promote a more dynamic management of the urban environment.

However, the SEA Directive only entered into force on July 21st 2001 and Member States have three years to implement its requirements. Currently only a few Member States have specifi c SEA legislation in place and information relating to this area, and more specifi cally to the consideration of cultural heritage at this stage, was not available at the time of writing.

In parallel to these two directives, a process of open-ness in relation to public access to environmental information, initiated by the Directive on the free-dom of access to information on the environment (90/313/EEC3), is under development. The more recent Aarhus convention4, actually promotes post-monitoring and evaluation procedures, aiming at guaranteeing the right of access to information in environmental matters. Its article 5 states that “each party shall ensure that public authorities possess and update environmental information which is relevant to their” functions, where the “environmental informa-tion”, defi ned in article 2, includes “conditions of hu-man life, cultural sites and built structures, inasmuch as they are or may be affected by the state of the ele-ments of the environment or, through these elements,

1 Council Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment as amended by Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 (Council of the European Communities 1985; Council of the European Union 1997) ¬ 2 Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the assessment of the Effects of Certain Plans and Programmes on the Environment of 27 June 2001 ¬ 3 Council Directive 90/313/EEC on the freedom of access to information on the environment of 7 June 1990 ¬ 4 UN-ECE convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters, done at Aarhus, Denmark, on 25 June 1998.

ph503744_Int 111 22/03/05, 10:49:17

¬ SUIT

112

SUST

AIN

AB

LE D

EVEL

OPM

ENT O

F U

RB

AN

HIS

TO

RIC

AL

AR

EAS

TH

RO

UG

H A

N A

CT

IVE

INT

EGR

AT

ION

WIT

HIN

TO

WN

S

by the factors, activities or measures”. A directive is currently under preparation to replace Directive 90/313/EEC and to implement the Aarhus convention’s objectives. It may therefore be expected that the EU legal requirements for post-monitoring will be strengthened in the near future.

Member States legislation and practice

As post project monitoring and evaluation are not mandatory stages in the EIA process the provi-sions for it are uncommon throughout the Member States.

Questionnaires were sent, as part of the SUIT project, to ascertain the state of current legislation and practice within Member States in relation to EIA/SEA and the consideration of cultural heritage.Even where provisions for monitoring formally ex-ist, such as, in Portugal, cultural heritage issues are unlikely to be assessed at this stage. Both Spain and Greece also have specifi c legislation for monitoring, however no information has yet been obtained for this project to assess how effective these proce-dures are in relation to cultural heritage issues.

In theory cultural heritage issues are considered at this stage in the UK, The Netherlands and Finland but insuffi cient information was gained to ascertain whether this is carried through to the practical situ-ation, one respondent suggested that this was not the case in the UK. None of the respondents to the questionnaire from Ireland considered that cultural heritage issues were considered when post-evalua-tion occurred. The general consensus from the ques-tionnaire responses suggested that even in countries where cultural heritage issues are considered at the majority of the other stages of the process, such as in Denmark and Ireland, they are not considered in post-decision monitoring and evaluation when it occurs.

Despite the generally acknowledged benefi ts of post-evaluation and the view that it should form an integral part of the EIA process, in practice pro-cedures are rarely conducted. The absence of any requirement, within the EIA Directive, for post-de-cision monitoring and evaluation has resulted in a failure to maximise the potential for learning from experience within the EIA process in Europe. Even in the few countries where post-evaluation is manda-tory there seems to be little incentive for undertak-ing it or often it only takes place for impacts that fall under the remit of specifi c legislation.

Research has also shown that in the cases where post-evaluation does occur, its effectiveness is often questionable. Numerous studies have shown that there is a low level of auditable predictions. More re-assuringly, there is generally a high level of accuracy for those impact predictions that can be audited.

As with the perceived benefi ts of post-evaluation, there appears to be general consensus regarding the necessary components of a successful procedure. Post-evaluation procedures need to be developed throughout, and be integral to, the EIA process in or-der that by the time development consent is grant-ed, the programme for post-development monitor-ing and evaluation has been defi ned. Factors, such as, the purpose of the monitoring programme, who it is being done for, why it is being done, for example, to check compliance with legislation or develop-ment consent conditions, need to be considered at the beginning of the process. In addition to the ob-jectives of the monitoring programme, the impacts to be studied, the monitoring sites, the data to be collected (when and what) and how this data will be analysed all need to be clearly defi ned prior to the inception of the monitoring programme. Studies to assess feasibility in relation to costs, data col-lection, storage and the suitability of the proposed programme to meet the objectives, along with the collection of pre-development baseline data, are all required prior to the main monitoring programme.

Post-evaluation procedures specifi c to cultural heritage.The apparent lack of post-evaluation procedures specifi c to the fi eld of cultural heritage, and indeed, the paucity of post-evaluation of projects in general may be perceived as an opportunity for the SUIT project.

The procedures developed will not be constrained by current practice and preconceived ideas relating to what cultural heritage encompasses. Conse-quently, the tool developed will be able to address cultural heritage in its broadest form rather than being confi ned to narrow aspects, such as, listed buildings and designated sites. There is a need for the involvement of further actors including the public in the cultural heritage defi nition and iden-tifi cation, as well as in the choice of an appropriate management approach, since these processes are recognised as being highly subjective and so subject to controversy. However, the publics’ point of view must be considered alongside those of practition-ers, technicians, experts and decision-makers, in order to reach consensus within the development

ph503744_Int 112 22/03/05, 10:49:20

113

POSITIONS 1 ¬ 8

process and to ensure that the resultant tool will be of practical use in the working environment. In this context, the development of social (or participative) post-evaluation procedures would be of great help.

Even though initial uptake of the procedures de-veloped for this project could be limited because of the current general lack of post-evaluation of projects, due to its non-mandatory status within the EIA Directive and the EIA legislation of most Member States, it can be expected, seeing the re-cent developments of EU legislation (inter alia, the SEA Directive), that such procedures will become mandatory in the coming years. The tools developed in the course of the SUIT project, therefore, have the potential to infl uence the consideration of cultural heritage in the post-evaluation stage of both EIA and SEA practice. This is of particular importance in the case of SEA procedures where, as Directive 2001/42/EC is transposed into Member States leg-islation, post-evaluation procedures will become a necessary stage of the SEA process.

Finally, it is necessary to develop monitoring and evaluation tools compatible with those developed for predicting impacts. Research on post-evaluation makes it clear that most impacts cannot be audited at a later date because the predictions were not presented in an auditable form. This has to be ad-dressed at the scoping stage, and post-evaluation procedures must be used to infl uence the prediction techniques developed to ensure that, where best practice prevails in spite of lack of legal requirement, post-evaluation will be possible.

ph503744_Int 113 22/03/05, 10:49:22

¬ SUIT

114

SUST

AIN

AB

LE D

EVEL

OPM

ENT O

F U

RB

AN

HIS

TO

RIC

AL

AR

EAS

TH

RO

UG

H A

N A

CT

IVE

INT

EGR

AT

ION

WIT

HIN

TO

WN

S

5. PERCEPTION AND ATTITUDE SURVEYS AS AN AFFORDABLE BUILT HERITAGE SCOPING METHOD

M. Sutherland (*) , J. Teller (**), C. Tweed (*)

(*) Queens University of Belfast – School of Architecture

(**) LEMA – University of Liege

The aim of scoping is to identify potential impact issues for each of the appropriate alternatives to be covered by the detailed EIA studies. It is usually based on discussions with outside organisations including local authorities, government bodies, interest groups and local communities. It is considered that a good EIS should focus on the relevant environmental issues rather than being too broad in scope. By identifying the information (and its form) to be provided and gathered by the developer in the EIS (Environmental Impact Statement or EIA report), scoping tends to stimulate the production of a higher quality impact assessment.

The European Directive 85/337/EC1, on Environmental Impact Assessment, lacks precise requirements about the nature of scoping. Accordingly there are important variations among Member States, mainly concerning the mandatory character of scoping and the people involved in it. It has to be underlined that, whilst there were genuine efforts to promote a more formal scoping stage in the amended Directive, the requirement for scoping to be mandatory was not carried forward into the fi nal document. The European Directive 97/11/EC2 amending the 85/337/EEC Directive only requires that “if requested by the developer”, the competent authority must provide an opinion on the scope of the EIA.

The European Commission has produced Guidance on scoping to assist developers and competent authorities, which has recently been updated3. This Guidance provides a scoping checklist with a part on “project characteristics” and a part on “characteristics of the project environment”. Even though the former does not include any specifi c reference to cultural heritage, the section on characteristics of the project environment does explicitly refer to “Areas which are protected under international or national or local legislation for their ecological, landscape, cultural or other value, which could be affected by the project?” and to “areas or features of historic or cultural importance”. There is also reference to visibility of the project and a

question on whether the project is likely to affect “cultural identity or associations”. The Guidance also promotes early consultation with a wide range of stakeholders including “authorities responsible for protection of nature, cultural heritage and the landscape” and, of course, the general public.

The signifi cance of Heritage

The identifi cation of signifi cant heritage values, as proposed in the EC Guidance, is quite a complex issue. Identifying signifi cant heritage value typically involves more than a rapid overview of possible designated buildings and areas in the close vicinity of the project or the plan submitted to an assessment.

Different stakeholders will place different values and signifi cance upon different elements. There may also exist a discrepancy between what is perceived as signifi cant by the acknowledged and perceived experts and therefore protected through the relevant legislation – and the quality or signifi cance of the heritage as perceived by the general public.

The perceived quality of historical areas may indeed vary with time, age, gender, group etc. Values change in response to events, but also evolve as the result of gradual deterioration of the urban fabric for example or, conversely, with the progressive social appropriation of given artefacts by the population. Accordingly, the assumed signifi cance of an urban historical area should be regularly updated. This is especially important when assessing the effects of a project or plan upon the environment. Of course, this requirement poses many practical questions, such as: how can a single, measurable value be attached to an historical area? How representative can this value be for a heterogeneous group of individuals? When there is a lack of consensus, how can confl icting “values” be resolved?

SUIT Perception and Attitude survey methodology

A survey technique, addressing these different issues, has been developed within the SUIT project. It could be adapted to different cultural and urban settings and its aim is to provide indicators of the strength of people’s perceptions with regard to urban landscapes. The methodology has been fi eld tested in three European cities to validate its practicality and sensitivity to different urban and cultural contexts.

1 Council Directive of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment ¬ 2 Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 amending Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment ¬ 3 Environmental Resources Management. Guidance on EIA - Scoping. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities, 2001.

ph503744_Int 114 22/03/05, 10:49:22

115

POSITIONS 1 ¬ 8

Our survey took the form of a questionnaire schedule where each question aimed to provide a measure against identifi ed indicators of perceived quality. These included indicators associated with perception, indicators associated with proposed interventions and categorical indicators.

The survey was made of two groups of respondents – experts – i.e. those stakeholders with a professional role to play in relation to the survey space and “non experts” – i.e. the general public. The key characteristics of the survey methodology were the use of preference judgement scales, open-ended questions and the use of visual aids as illustration.

Preference judgement scales were particularly useful for trying to attach a value to perceived quality, using a simple approach devoid of technical jargon such as “aesthetics”, “heritage” etc. The respondents were asked for example “How much do you like this feature?” and then asked to place themselves on a scale of 1 to 5 (1 equalling “not at all” and 5 equalling “like very much”). Open-ended questions were used sparingly, for example “What are the fi rst three things you recall when you think about this area” and “What are the three best or the three worst things about this area?” Responses were then categorised into “Activity or ambient factors” (atmosphere, social life etc), “Built environment” (buildings, architecture etc) and “Open Space” (landscaping etc.). The answers to these two questions were a way of identifying most salient features of the space.

Visual Aids were used extensively to illustrate examples and also to keep the interest of the respondents. Aerial photographs for example were used to measure the respondent’s awareness of their surroundings. Digitally altered photographs were used to introduce imaginary interventions into the historical space to assess the respondents awareness of change and attitude towards such changes – for example a high rise building inserted at the end of a vista, the complete removal of a key building or the introduction of some public art in the space.

Practicality of the Tool

The methodology was successfully applied to three different urban and cultural settings within Northern Europe: Belfast, Liege and Copenhagen. Liege and Copenhagen both made modifi cations to the phrasing of certain questions and, particularly in the

case of Liege, the researchers were able to expand sections they felt were of particular importance to their own city character or morphology.

The methodology does not require expensive technology or software and, as such, does not incur great expense. It is based on photographs that can be manipulated without diffi culty with an intermediate knowledge of a software programme such as Adobe Photoshop™. Analysis requires a statistics software package such as Pinpoint™ or Access™. The main drawback to the methodology is the time required to carryout the interviews within the survey space. Each individual interview should take no more than 10 to 15 minutes – however for a robust sample at least 100 interviews need to be completed.

The short duration of interviews helped to hold the respondents’ attention and interest, and as such elicit qualitative responses. Boredom would have manifested itself through the results of the general preference judgement sections of the survey – that is, when the respondents were asked to indicate how much they liked a particular view or space. The experience gained through the application of the methodology was that the great majority of respondents did not give the neutral response – or the response of least effort – that is, a score of 3 out of 5 when asked for their preference judgements.

Photographs altered digitally are a successful means of suggesting simple changes and alterations to the respondent. Additional time and cost implications however could occur when trying to introduce more complex or sophisticated proposals. Interviewers however do need to exercise caution when showing respondents images of spaces outside of the survey area – such images could unknowingly infl uence respondents into making certain conclusions or preference judgements based upon composition of the image – for example where the addition of landscaping, people and sunny weather to images of interventions can all help to increase its acceptability to the respondent

Preference Judgement Scales also proved effective in helping to aid the competency of respondents in making quality assessments.

Conclusions were reached in relation to the Indicators of Perceived Quality and the data collected during the fi eld-testing of the methodology. It is possible to build on the initial indicators and incorporate more detailed questions and subsequent analysis

ph503744_Int 115 22/03/05, 10:49:25

¬ SUIT

116

SUST

AIN

AB

LE D

EVEL

OPM

ENT O

F U

RB

AN

HIS

TO

RIC

AL

AR

EAS

TH

RO

UG

H A

N A

CT

IVE

INT

EGR

AT

ION

WIT

HIN

TO

WN

S

concerning the confi dence of respondents in the participation process and the impact that this may have on their competency to make qualitative judgements.

The last question of the survey addressed the interviewee’s confi dence in the consideration of their opinion in the urban decision-making process. The proportion of the interviewees that expressed a lack of confi dence towards any participation in the decision-making deserves to be mentioned at this stage. Especially as the level of distrust seems to rise with age. This result is particularly striking when one notes that most of the interviewees considered the places where the surveys were conducted as highly representative of their city.

Accordingly, the importance of public participation in Environmental Assessment needs to be urgently addressed, if the urban policy is not to disconnect even more from the views of lay people. In this respect, the questionnaire proves to be a very valuable tool, as it allows researchers to better identify the signifi cance of urban historical areas, as perceived by the local population.

The survey methodology helps to better gauge people’s attitudes to a given place or area, and possibly to compare a particular space with other places within the same city. It could also help to elicit signifi cant local values that may not be identifi ed otherwise. This was particularly evident in the general public surveys where the respondents in each city highlighted the importance of visual, activity and ambient concepts (such as sunshine, quietness, light or colours) as more signifi cant than the built or natural heritage. Expert responses failed to identify these factors as signifi cant, placing value instead upon the built heritage and open space features of the survey spaces.

The main conclusion reached from the fi eld testing of the methodology is that it can successfully provide quantitative measures against what is a qualitative subject area – “perceived value”, and in this way appears to be a possible tool for the scoping stage of the EIA and SEA procedures.

Key recommendations

1. Scoping should help to build a consensus amongst different stakeholders about the cultural heritage resources, located on- and off-site, that could be affected by the project. Thus, to identify all

potentially signifi cant impacts, a wide perspective should be taken of cultural heritage resources, and scoping should not only consider the material assets, but also their broader context.

2. Scoping should consider the environment, both past and present, of which the cultural heritage resource is an integral part. It should also include the association and relationship of cultural heritage to the network of tangible and intangible elements which contribute to its signifi cance. The EIA Directive constitutes a fi rst step in this direction, but it still falls short of addressing the complexity of the issue.

3. Local authorities may require a survey of perception and attitude at the scoping stage of the environmental assessment of projects and plans. Especially when the modifi cations are expected to have an impact over the urban heritage conceived in its broader meaning. The rationale of such surveys should be to highlight possible signifi cant values that may otherwise be neglected by the EIA or the SEA.

4. The SUIT project has devised and tested a survey methodology that provides an appropriate basis for this task.

ph503744_Int 116 22/03/05, 10:49:27

117

POSITIONS 1 ¬ 8

6. URBAN LIFE CYCLE ANALYSIS AND THE CONSERVATION OF THE URBAN FABRIC

U. Hassler (*), G. Algreen-Ussing (**), N. Kohler (***)

(*) Lehrstuhl für Denkmalpfl ege und Bauforschung – University of Dortmund

(**) Bygningsarkæologi – School of Architecture of Copenhagen(***) IFIB – University of Karlsruhe

The application of Life Cycle Analysis to urban fragments is only relevant if situated within the larger conceptual framework of sustainable urban development. Furthermore, the traditional focus on environmental impacts has to be completed by taking into account the aspects of the long-term resource conservation of the urban fabric. The position paper develops these points and it is structured in 4 themes and 19 theses.

Theme A: Sustainable urban development is the conceptual comprehensive framework

1. The principles of sustainable development

The principles of sustainable development are considered within the EU today as the guiding principle for policy actions in general (Aalborg Charter, 1994) and for particular actions in the realm of the built environment (EC-Expert group, 1996). This constitutes a considerable enlargement of the predominantly economic preoccupations, which characterised urban development and planning since the Second World War. The principles of sustainable development introduce the concept of time, taking into consideration the interests of present as well as of future generations. Current thinking about sustainable development considers simultaneously economic, environmental, social and cultural objectives in political decisions as well as in regional and urban planning. In SUIT (Sustainable development of Urban historical areas through active Integration within Towns – an EU Programme Environment and Sustainable Development, Key Action 4: The City of Tomorrow and Cultural Heritage), the principles of sustainable urban development are basic objectives, which guide the development of urban historical areas.

2. Policies and tools for the assessment of sustainable urban development

Policies, methods and tools are necessary to realise a transition to a sustainable urban development. These

allow the sustainability protection objectives to be formalised and for the results to be assessed. Among different assessment methods, Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) has been considered particularly relevant because it has enlarged traditional system limits in space, time and in the number of concerned aspects. Life Cycle Analysis can be directly and structurally related to Life Cycle Costing as well as to other types of social and cultural impact assessment.

3. Urban metabolism

In recent EU work on sustainable cities (Aalborg Charter, 1994; EC-Expert group, 1996), cities are considered as complex urban systems which, in turn, creates signifi cant analogies to ecosystems. Ecosystem concepts are helpful for understanding the problems of urban sustainability and for choosing approaches to solving them. Cities can be described as a complex, physical ecosystem in a similar way to wetlands or forests. Techniques from empirical ecology can be applied to modelling cities in terms of fl ows of energy, nutrients, abiotic materials and the effects can be analysed on other physical ecosystems (such as the surrounding countryside). One refers to such a system description as “urban metabolism”. The concepts of physical ecology can also be applied metaphorically to the social dimension of cities - to think of each city as a social ecosystem.

4. System limits, time horizon and urban fl ows

Ecosystems thinking emphasizes the city as a complex system characterized by continuous processes of change and development. Aspects such as energy, natural resources, transportation and waste can be regarded as fl ows or processes. The acts of maintaining, restoring, stimulating and closing cycles contribute to sustainable development. The measurement of system performance raises specifi c methodological problems, in particular concerning system limits, time horizons and functional units. Conceptually, it is necessary to know the full environmental consequences of each decision or action from “cradle to grave” in order to evaluate different performance or compare options. The basic methods for this are Mass Flow Accounting (MFA), Life Cycle Analysis (LCA), Life Cycle Costing (LCC) and combinations of these methods. These constitute a basis for the estimation of the medium and long-term outcomes, in particular for the global economic consequences which include “externalities”. The measurement of systems performance provides an improved basis for citizens’ information and for political decisions.

ph503744_Int 117 22/03/05, 10:49:28

¬ SUIT

118

SUST

AIN

AB

LE D

EVEL

OPM

ENT O

F U

RB

AN

HIS

TO

RIC

AL

AR

EAS

TH

RO

UG

H A

N A

CT

IVE

INT

EGR

AT

ION

WIT

HIN

TO

WN

S

5. Complex relations between objectives and indicators

In the assessment of sustainability, objectives and indicators are related in a complex way. Like other assessment methods, LCA establishes the relation between objectives and indicators where one objective can relate to several indicators and one indicator can be used to assess the fulfi lment of several objectives. A new holistic approach becomes possible through the sharing of data between different assessment methods.

6. From impact related methods to resource oriented methods

Existing assessment methods (EIA, Risk Assess-ment, SEA, Cost-Benefi t, LCA and LCC) are nearly exclusively impact related. The objective is to minimize the impact or cost of a product or service (LCA, LCC), project (EIA) or plan (SEA). Although the effi ciency of all processes, products and plans can be improved, this is insuffi cient to meet sus-tainability objectives. Over the long-term, suffi -ciency and resource conservation become equally important criteria and need integration within all assessments.

Theme B: Sustainable urban development as a new planning paradigm

7. From the preventative principle to the precautionary principle

As presently operationalised, EIA and SEA methods are primarily applied to minimize and mitigate, as far as possible, the non-desired, adverse effects of projects and plans. The EIA process is usually applied in accordance with the preventative principle rather than the precautionary principle. The preventative principle has the limited aim of avoiding reasonably known or predictable environmental impacts and risks rather than maintaining natural, social or cultural capital under conditions of uncertainty (where outcomes cannot be predicted with confi dence or assigned a probability of occurrence). It is not possible to realise the necessary extension of these methods without a new framework.

8. Outline of a common framework for several assessment methods

The necessary combination of several assessment methods can therefore only be realised by engaging with a common framework of objectives and by sharing common data describing the

built environment. This integration allows for understanding and controlling the interdependencies between the different sustainability protection objectives and indicators of the present and future situations. Until now, assessment methods have been used independently and generally did not take into account longer time frames (in particular intergenerational and historical dimensions). Their focus was either on individual buildings or on regions. However, their focus did not include urban fragments that appear as planning projects today. The proposed integration of both objectives / indicators with the basic physical framework (fl ows) will constitute a new, more powerful basis for the management of the built environment (defi ned as the construction, operation, renovation and disposal of buildings, infrastructures and exterior surfaces).

9. Integrated Life Cycle Assessment

Life Cycle Analysis has been normalised by ISO and proceeds in 4 steps: (1) Goal and scope defi nition, (2) inventory of extraction and emissions, (3) impact assessment, (4) evaluation and interpretation. Time and space limits can be shared with other methods like MFA and LCC to allow the transfer and the aggregation of results. The built environment has to be described in an appropriate way to establish mass, energy, fi nancial and information fl ows over specifi c periods, in many cases over the whole life span. LCC is similar from a methodological point of view to LCA except for the problems of discounting.

10. Common description of an urban fragment

To improve the applicability of LCA, the description of urban fragments requires integration with current professional tools like Geographic Information Systems (GIS), Computer Assisted Architectural Design (CAAD), Quantity Surveying and Simulation. The existing practice of separating the assessment in distinct parts along methodological lines has resulted from the diversity of concepts and data. This allowed complexity to be reduced by defi ning partial rules of quality and by excluding assessments that were not desired for political or economic reasons. The proposed integrated, sustainable approach is designed purposely to not separate conceptually or practically the different aspects. This is made possible through a common description of the urban fragment and the sharing of data.

ph503744_Int 118 22/03/05, 10:49:30

119

11. Extension of knowledge improves planning expertise

The integration of comprehensive LCA methods and of general considerations of long-term resource conservation into SEA type procedures are a great opportunity to improve both democratic decision methods and professional planning expertise. A large number of investigation and documentation meth-ods can be used simultaneously, combining system (ecosystem simulation), physical (engineering) and historical (textual and contextual) approaches and sources. The focus on the built environment is wid-ened to consider how and why it was designed, built, transformed, repaired or restored. Technical infor-mation is as important as the use of non-technical and fuzzy information, present information is as im-portant as historic knowledge. Extending the scope of interest to constructive and building processes including the history of the building site and the general building production conditions offer an ideal bridge to engineering (technical) and economic his-tory as well as to the conditions of use of buildings and the social and managerial aspects. The acquired knowledge from the investigation about the age and survival of materials, components and whole build-ing ensembles constitutes a highly relevant link to understanding the past and future resource use.

Theme C: Accounting for time in sustainable urban development and LCA

12. The importance of historic information for resource conservation

In the case of the European towns, it is necessary to engage historical information about the built environment in order to predict the long-term be-haviour of the built environment. The integration of the mentioned tools needs specifi c properties of advanced spatial-temporal databases, such as GIS systems. A detailed social/historical description of the development of the existing built environment creates understanding and allows future actions to be quantifi ed in order to maintain the resource value over a longer period. However supplementary exog-enous aspects of the development (e.g. political de-cisions, changing planning paradigms etc.) as well as internal aspects (e.g. the change of utility networks, technical equipment, IT technologies, new materials etc.) limit extrapolations.

13. Historic information as the point of departure of simulations of the future

The information about the course of the historic

development contributes to the simulation of future outcomes (base line, alternative outcomes). Historic information on both the urban fabric and the way it is used is also necessary to estimate the use-related social values (social capital) and the non-use related cultural values (immaterial values). This explains why parts of towns can develop along different speeds because of their particular character (religious buildings, very expensive and exclusive buildings or very large objects).

14. Consistent consideration of time

The consistent consideration of time is of great importance for establishing scenarios for possible future developments. In LCA, as well as in historical research, all data are time relevant. However, there are problems in dealing with historical, present and future time scales. Through simulations different periods can be linked. There are different simulation procedures:

• Ex post: The future development is simulated based on the past development (trend) to obtain information about the possible future behaviour of the system (building)

• Ex ante: The known past is simulated to appreciate (and validate) a model.

• Fore-casting: The future is simulated on the basis of the past to obtain the state of the system at a certain future moment (path given, result open)

• Back casting: The simulation seeks paths to reach a given value at a given moment in future (results given path open).

15. The importance of scenarios in scoping

The main difference between the present practice of EIA and partially of SEA is the emphasis on the evaluation phase of a project / plan which has been prepared by a third party. The methods range from simple checklists to complicated environmental impact simulation. In the SEA literature, a higher im-portance is associated in the scoping phase where the base line alternative (continuation of the status-quo) and alternative developments should be estab-lished and partially assessed (at least to judge if they should continue to be part of the procedure). The development of such scenarios can only be based on a relatively detailed knowledge of the present state as the result of a historical process. This process has physical, economic, social and cultural reasons and aspects. In particular, the refurbishment dynamic of the existing building stock is a highly determining factor for the volume and type of building activity over longer time periods.

POSITIONS 1 ¬ 8

ph503744_Int 119 22/03/05, 10:49:32

¬ SUIT

120

SUST

AIN

AB

LE D

EVEL

OPM

ENT O

F U

RB

AN

HIS

TO

RIC

AL

AR

EAS

TH

RO

UG

H A

N A

CT

IVE

INT

EGR

AT

ION

WIT

HIN

TO

WN

S

Theme D: The urban fabric as a resource

16. The urban fabric and outstanding objects

These considerations concern the urban fabric as a whole and do not only apply as such to outstanding objects (which are generally defi ned and protected as monuments). However, there are differences because of the one-of-a-kind character and the uniqueness of monuments that mean that they cannot be replicated. In terms of ecosystems, this would mean the disappearance of a species with no possible mitigation measures (which are possible for large parts of the built environment). In the domain of cultural heritage, there is an implicit social convention which defi nes the part of the built environment as necessary and cannot be renounced in order to maintain the transmission of cultural techniques as well as for the cultural memory of a society. This small part of the built environment (which is generally well below the 1 % limit) cannot be naturally reproduced; the disappearance can only be slowed down. The defi nition of this non-reproducible part of the built environment exists in all European societies and is under the responsibility of a group of experts. Their judgement can be overruled by political decisions (which have to be legitimised democratically). However, it is not possible to replace expert judgements in this domain by democratic participation methods or confl ict management strategies.

17. The European town and regional expertise

The European built environment is the result of very different regional and local cultural techniques and building traditions. The expression of each European town’s uniqueness is achieved through a high differentiation in small urban scales. The evaluation of its cultural signifi cance depends largely on regional expertise (which is much less the case for the assessment of ecosystems). Furthermore the past losses (through war destruction, traffi c planning, etc) inform highly different local appreciation of what amount (number, scope and scale) of objects require absolute protection. The protection of the urban fabric is of higher actuality now because of the acceleration of urban transformation due to the growing commodifi cation process of historic environments. The rapid ongoing changes might also lead to a loss of longer time scales.

18. Physical and non-physical aspect of the urban fabric

The proposed extensions of LCA and other assessment methods to historic urban fragments

must take into account the system limits of cultural signifi cation and the necessary related methods to appreciate it. The SUIT project is certainly at the beginning of a longer development. Its objective cannot be to close the debate by simplifi ed procedures before a larger discussion has taken place. The urban fabric, with its unique characteristics embedded to each society, has a physical and non-physical character. It furthermore has a continuity that is both spatial and temporal. This continuity constitutes a basic value; it is a fundamental urban resource and must be protected. Protection signifi es that the urban fabric is not static and that it is not the fabric itself that is to be protected (except particularly remarkable parts like monuments). Instead, protection is required to ensure sustainability through the continuity of development and the embedded social and physical understanding and values for the members of the urban society.

19. The continuity of the urban fabric

The built environment constitutes a physical, economic, social and cultural capital (resource), which generally exists in an integrated form. The notion of “urban fabric” is well suited to describe a continuity which has physical, spatial and cultural signifi cance. The fabric is characterised by a high degree of differentiation as well as a high continuity. Problems arise when the elimination of physical parts of the fabric will gradually also tend to eliminate social and cultural aspects of the fabric even if the concerned objects are not outstanding monuments. There is no simple theoretical solution to this problem, it cannot be solved by democratic participation techniques (open to “short-termism”) and existing experts do not have the power or expertise to decide. There is a large realm of the public sphere where democratic discussion, scientifi c work, planning procedures, architectural and cultural productions impinge. In terms of long-term resource conservation, it is probably preferable to apply the precautionary principle as a basic principle in this discussion.

ph503744_Int 120 22/03/05, 10:49:33

121

Sources for basic defi nitions

¬ EC-EXPERT GROUP ON THE URBAN ENVIRON-MENT (1996) European sustainable cities. Report. Directorate General XI, Bruxelles.

¬ AALBORG CHARTER (1994) European Confer-ence on Sustainable Cities & Towns. Charter of European Cities and Towns Towards Sustainability Aalborg, 1994

¬ ISO 14040 - 14043 (2000). Environmental Man-agement - Life Cycle Assessment - Principles and Framework. ISO/FDIS/TC207SC514040/1997(E).

¬ ISO 15686 (2001) Buildings and constructed as-sets – service life planning.

¬ THE LIFE CYCLE INITIATIVE (2003): The Life Cycle Impact framework. LCinitiative@epfl .ch

¬ SETAC (2002) SETAC: LCA in Building and Con-struction A State-Of-The-Art Report of Setac-Europe.

¬ EC - WORKING GROUP SUSTAINABLE CON-STRUCTION. TG4: Life Cycle Cost in Construction Final Report. August 2003. http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/construction/index.htm

POSITIONS 1 ¬ 8

ph503744_Int 121 22/03/05, 10:49:35

ph503744_Int 122 22/03/05, 10:49:36

123

Coordinator of the SUIT project :

¬ LEMA • Université de LiègeAlbert DUPAGNE, Jacques TELLER, Christine RUELLE

¬ LEMA-ULg, Bât. B52/3,1 Chemin des Chevreuils • 4000 Liège 1http://www.lema.ulg.ac.be

SUIT project partners :

¬ SPIRAL • Université de LiègeCatherine ZWETKOFF, Yves ROGISTER, Bernard CORNÉLIS

http://www.ulg.ac.be/spiral

¬ Queen’s University Belfast (QUB) • School of ArchitectureChris TWEED, Margaret SUTHERLAND

http://www.qub.ac.uk/arc

¬ IFIB • University KarlsruheNiklaus KOHLER, Thomas BENDER

http://www.ifi b.uni-karlsruhe.de/en/index.html

¬ University DortmundUta HASSLER, Markus JOACHIM

http://www.bauwesen.uni-dortmund.de/lehrst/b1/db/index.html

¬ Kunstakademiets Arkitektskole • The Royal Danish Academy’s of Fine Arts School of ArchitectureGregers ALGREEN-USSING, Ola WEDEBRUNN

http://www.karch.dk

¬ University of East AngliaAlan BOND

http://www.uea.ac.uk/env

¬ University of Wales Aberystwyth, EIA Unit.Lesley LANGSTAFF

http://www.aber.ac.uk/environment/the_eia_unit.html

¬ Ministry of Walloon Region • DGATLPGhislain GÉRON, Emmanuel VANDERHEYDEN

http://mrw.wallonie.be/dgatlp

European Commission :

¬ EC • Research Directorate General, BelgiumMichel CHAPUIS, Project Offi cermichel.chapuis@cec.eu.int

More information is available on :

¬ http://www.suitproject.net

Contact :

¬ suit@lema.ulg.ac.be

ph503744_Int 123 22/03/05, 10:49:36

ph503744_Int 124 22/03/05, 10:49:38

ph503744_Int 125 22/03/05, 10:49:38

ph503744_Int 126 22/03/05, 10:49:38

European Commission

EUR 21148 ¬ SUIT ¬ Sustainable development of Urban historical areas through an active Integration within Towns ¬ Guidance for the Environmental Assessment of the impacts of certain plans, programmes or projects upon the heritage value of historical areas, in order to contribute to their long-term sustainability

Luxembourg: Offi ce for Offi cial Publications of the European Communities

2004 ¬ 128 pp. ¬ 21.0 x 29.7 cm

ISBN 92-894-7819-5

Price (excluding VAT) in Luxembourg: EUR 25

ph503744_Int 127 22/03/05, 10:49:39

ph503744_Int 126 22/03/05, 10:49:38