the hul and the australian burra charter - some

DRO Deakin Research Online, Deakin University’s Research Repository Deakin University CRICOS Provider Code: 00113B

The HUL and the Australian Burra Charter - some implications for local heritage practices

Citation: Buckley, Kristal and Fayad, Susan 2017, The HUL and the Australian Burra Charter - some implications for local heritage practices, Historic Environment, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 46-57.

URL: https://australia.icomos.org/publications/historic-environment/he-vol-29-no-2-2018-the-peoples-ground/

© 2016, The Authors

Reproduced with permission.

Downloaded from DRO: http://hdl.handle.net/10536/DRO/DU:30105219

https://australia.icomos.org/publications/historic-environment/he-vol-29-no-2-2018-the-peoples-ground/

https://australia.icomos.org/publications/historic-environment/he-vol-29-no-2-2018-the-peoples-ground/

http://hdl.handle.net/10536/DRO/DU:30105219

THE PEOPLE’S GROUND46

The HUL and the Australian Burra Charter —some implications for local heritage practices

KristalBuckleyAMandSusanFayad

HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT | VOLUME 29 NUMBER 2 - 2017 47

Abstract

This paper considers the experiences of engagement with the UNESCO Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape (HUL) in the City of Ballarat in relation to the practices established by the Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural Significance, (The Burra Charter). Examining the ways in which Australian local heritage practices have been shaped by the Burra Charter allows some of the complementarities and differences of HUL to be explored—for cities, for the ways in which current and future communities respond to change, and for localising heritage practices.

Introduction

Changeandthedynamicsofurbansystemshaveproventobechallengingforthemethodsand formal systems of global heritage practices. Globally, and in Australia, many cities areundergoing rapid and transformative changes through population increase, demographicshifts,technologicalinnovationsandmyriadsocialandeconomicfactors.Asaconsequence,manyofthemostcontestedcontextsforheritagepracticesaresituatedinurbanareas.

This paper reflects on anAustralian exampleof the implementationof a newapproach tomanagingheritageinurbanenvironments,stimulatedinpartbyUNESCO’sRecommendationontheHistoricUrbanLandscape(HUL)(UNESCO2011;WHITRAPetal.2016).However,ourpurpose is not merely to report on this experience, but rather to begin to explore what itsuggests forexistingAustralianapproaches toheritagemanagement. Inparticular, it shinesalightontheAustralia ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural Significance, (Burra Charter)(AustraliaICOMOS2013),andspeculatesonitscapacitiestocontributetostrategicthinkingaboutlocalchangeandurbanisationprocesses.

The case study for this exploration is the City of Ballarat, located in the central goldfieldsregionofVictoria(seeFigure1).Ballarat’surbancharacterandspatiallayoutreflectsthecity’sgoldrushhistory,boomandbustperiods,thegardencitymovement,modernismand,morerecently,urbansprawl.Thecity’slayoutalsoreflectsitsnaturalsetting.Thetownwasinitiallysurveyedinrelationtonaturallandmarks,includingMountWarrenheipandMountBuninyong.Its urban setting includes Lake Wendouree, waterways, a basalt ridge which separates thechaoticalluvialminingareaofBallaratEastfromtheplannedcentralbusinessdistrict,andaforestedridgetotheeast.ThesefeaturesareintegraltoBallarat’sculturallandscape.TheyholdspiritualmeaningsfortheWadawurrungtraditionalowners,andtheyarepartofthesenseofplace,identityandbelongingformanycitizens.In2013,BallaratbecamethefirstAustraliancity,andthefirstlocalgovernmentauthorityintheworldtoformallyjointheglobalpilotphasefortheHUL,ledbyaUNESCOCategory2Centre,theShanghai-basedWorldHeritageInstituteforTrainingandResearchintheAsia-Pacificregion(WHITR-AP).


The work in implementing theHUL in the City of Ballarat hasresulted in the mainstreamingofheritageandtheHULintoanewstrategytoguidethecity’sgrowthto2040(CityofBallarat2015). An enlivened purposeforheritagehasstimulatednewcommunity-basedmethodsandknowledge tools (Buckley etal. 2015; Fayad & Buckley [inpress];Fayad[inpress]).Buildingon previous observations, thepurposeofthispaperistosharesome early thinking about theHUL in relation to the Burra Charter, and by extension, toAustralian heritage practices atthelocallevel.

TheBurra CharterandAustralianheritagepracticesarewell-alignedwiththeHULduetotheirsharedvalues-basedfoundations.However,experienceswiththeHULinBallaratallowsomedifferencestobeidentifiedwhencomparing‘conventional’practicesatthelocallevelwiththeemergingHULapproach(Buckleyetal.2015:106).Whilethe internationalnetworkofcitiesworkingwiththeHULhasbeenatremendoussourceofsharing,encouragementandmomentumbuilding(Fayad&Buckley[inpress];Avila&Perez2016;Go-HUL2017;vanOers&Roders2013),therearesomeissuesthatarespecificallyapplicabletoAustralia,andworthyofdebatewithinthemembershipofAustraliaICOMOS.

The Urban Shift

‘Today, for the first time in history, humanity is predominantly an urban species’ (UNESCO2016:3).

UNESCO’scontributiontothe2016UnitedNations(UN)HabitatIIIConferenceonSustainableUrban Development held in Quito, Ecuador, indicates the magnitude of change facingcontemporarycommunitiesglobally,particularly those inurbanenvironments. In2012,UN-Habitatoutlinedthescaleofthischallenge,statingthatdevelopedcountrieslikeAustralia‘willneedtodoubletheamountofurbanspaceby2050toaccommodateexpectednumbersofpeople’,whiledevelopingcountries, likemanyofour regionalneighbours ‘need toexpandurbanspacebymorethan300percent’(UN-Habitat2012:178).

InAustralia,mediaheadlinessuchas‘PopulationgrowthhasbecomeVictoria’sbiggestpoliticalissue’(Tomazin2016),and‘PopulationBooms:Victoriahasfourofthefivefastestgrowingsuburbs in Australia’ (Martin & Lucas 2017) are commonplace. Processes of urbanisationcanbebeneficial—particularlyascitiesmovetopositionthemselvesglobally.However, thescaleandspeedof thesechangesareassociatedwithcontestedsocial,environmentalandpolitical issues, insufficiently controlledgrowth,declininghousingaffordability, commercialdevelopment pressures, unsustainable energy consumption, pollution, poverty, congestion,foodinsecurity(throughlossofruralareasbyurbansprawl)andachangingclimate(Omnilink2014).Thesearesignsofanewurbanrealityforwhichexistingcitypolicyframeworksarenotalwayswell-equipped.

Increasingly uniform urban development and design is one response to rapid urbanisation,often with associated losses of heritage, local distinctiveness and diversity. Other commonresponsesaretoturntonewiconicarchitecture(termed‘starchitecture’),citybranding,large-scaleculturalandsportingeventsandglobaltourismtrendstostand-out from the crowd.

Figure 1:MapshowingthelocationofBallaratinVictoria’sCentralGoldfieldsregion,Australia[source:CityofBallarat]


ItisthereforeunsurprisingthatUNESCOhasfocussedontheincreasinglycomplexchallengesforurbanconservation,whichasvanOers (2007:44)acknowledged,are ‘oneof themostdaunting…ofourtime’.

AnimportantmilestonehasbeentheinclusionofspecificmentionsofheritageandcultureintheUnitedNationsSustainableDevelopmentGoals(SDGs)(UNESCO2015).Whileanumberofthegoalsandtargetsarerelevant,Goal11:‘Makecitiesandhumansettlementsinclusive,safe,resilientandsustainable’,hasbeenaccompaniedbyatarget(11.4):‘Strengtheneffortstoprotectandsafeguard theworld’sculturalandnaturalheritage’.TheexplicitmentionofheritageintheSDGsisnewandacknowledgesthecrucialrolethatheritageandcultureplayinsustainableurbandevelopment(UNESCO2016).Itissignificantthatheritageisnowpartoftheglobalagendaforcitydevelopment.Thishasstimulatednewworktoensurethatthiscanbeeffectivelydeliveredatthecitylevel,complementingworkdonethroughtheHUL.Ithasalsobeguntoopennewspacesforheritageinglobalfundingprogrammes,pilotsanddiscussionsabout culture-led sustainabledevelopment. For example, investments and capacity buildingareavailablethroughtheUnitedNationsGlobalCompact—CitiesProgramme(UNGCCP)1;andthenewCityPartnerships‘sustainableurbandevelopmentinitiative’forAustraliancitiesaimsto deliver SDG goals through transparent governance, industry partnerships and high levelprojectstoattract investment(UNGCCP2017).Asheritagepractitionersandadvocates, it isimportanttoaskwhetherweareequippedandreadytoengagewiththesenewopenings.

The HUL approach and the City of Ballarat

UNESCO’sGeneralConferenceadoptedits‘RecommendationontheHistoricUrbanLandscape’in2011,followingaprogrammeofconsultationabouttheproblemsandpotentialinnovationsforurbanheritageconservation.ContentiousissuesanddebatesaboutWorldHeritagecities—suchastheinclusionofnewtallbuildingsinhistoriccitycentres—hadpushedtheneedfortheRecommendation.However,itstextisinclusiveofalltheworld’surbansettlements(Bandarin&vanOers2012).Itsstrengthscomefromthesimplebutpowerfulacknowledgementofthechallenges,provisionofaflexibleandadaptableframeworkforlocalisedapplication,andthebeginningsofacollaborativenetworkofactiveorganisationsandindividuals.

Typically,thereactiontoescalatingthreatstoheritageistostrengthenprotectivemeasures;butwhileplanningmechanismsandlegalframeworkshavetheirplaceintheHUL,theyarenotitsprimaryfocus.TheHULmovesbeyond aprotectionorpreservation-focussedlens.Itattemptstobringtogetherthegoalsofsocialandeconomicdevelopmentwiththegoalsofconservationbyrecognisingthatplacesarenotstatic;thatnewdevelopmentcanreinforceheritagemeaningsandroles;and,byembracingthepossibilitiesofpromotingheritageasanassetforcitydevelopment(UNESCO2013a).ThroughtheHUL,anawarenessofthefragilenatureofurbanconservationinconstantlychanginganddynamicenvironmentshascreatedthe basis for reimagining heritage and its role in the development of cities. Rather thanaseparateselectedandprotectedelement,oftenconsidered‘offtotheside’ofmajorurbanprocesses, theHULposesheritageasacritical resourceforthesustainabilityofthecity, tobemainstreamed.

TheHULemploysalandscapelenstoreconceptualiseurbanheritage(Buckleyetal.2016).Itchallengestheboundedanddefinedstatusofheritageplaces,andrecognises that tangibleand intangible attributes and processes give the ‘living’ city its complex cultural identity,distinctiveness, sense of place and belonging. By responding to and strengthening, ratherthandiminishingthecity’sdistinctiveidentity,theHULapproachrecognisesthatchangecancontribute to its cultural vitality, resilience and sustainability. It is in this way that the HULuses identityasapoint of departure,whichprovidesaframeworkforaligningthegoalsofsocialandeconomicdevelopmentwith thoseofurbanconservation(UNESCO2013a)whilealsoprovidingthebasisfora‘comprehensiveandintegratedapproach’tourbanconservation‘withinanoverallsustainabledevelopmentframework’(UNESCO2011:pars.1,10).Noneofthiscanbeachievedwithouttheactiveparticipationoflocalcitizens,localisedapproachesandcollaborationacrossamultitudeofstakeholders.


In2013, theCityofBallarat joinedUNESCO’sglobalpilotprogrammetooperationalise theHULapproach.ThisenabledBallarat tocontribute throughpractice-ledaction researchandorganisation-wideimplementation,feedinglessonsbackintotheinternationaldialogue.Manyhaveasked,whyBallarat?Thecityisknownforitsintactheritagestreetscapes,grandboulevardsandotherhistoricfeatures,however,itwasalsoexperiencingabove-trendgrowth,includingthedevelopmentofnewareasofurbansprawlatthecity’surbanfringe.Thecity’sheritagewasbecoming increasinglyvulnerable tomarket-drivenforcesandpolicyshifts,heighteningcommunityconcerns. In2013,newprojectionsfoundthatthecitywasthefastestgrowingregionalcity inVictoriawitha60percentpopulation increaseprojectedoveratwenty-fiveyearperiod,due inpart to thepressures todecentralisepopulation fromMelbourne.Whatwas new was the speed and scale of these growth projections, supported by state policyframeworkswhichaimedtocreatea‘stateofcities’by‘unlock[ing]theirgrowthpotential’and‘achiev[ing]acceleratedgrowth’(StateofVictoria2014),includinginBallarat’shistoriccentralbusinessdistrict.ThesefactorshavegeneratednewchallengesforBallarat’scommunities,anditsheritageandplanningpractitioners,andhaveplacedadditionalpressuresonlocalregulatorytoolssuchastheHeritageOverlayplanningschemecontrol.

The Ballarat Strategy 2015 was developed as a key part of a suite of new and revampedtools for community engagement, planning, knowledge, regulation and finances (van Oers2015;Fayad&Buckley[inpress]).GuidedbytheHULapproach,theStrategyquicklyevolvedtobecomethekeycitydevelopmentframeworkforhowBallaratismanagedto2040.TheBallaratStrategynowguidesthefour-yearCouncilPlanandallotherstrategiesandplansdevelopedbythe localgovernment.Aparticipatoryprocesscalled ‘Ballarat Imagine’wasakeypartofthedevelopmentoftheStrategy—asimple,positivelyframedsurveytoidentifyBallarat’smostvaluedattributes,futurevisionsandlimitsofacceptablechangebyaskingwhatpeoplelove,imagineandwanttoretainforBallarat.ThesurveyresultedinanoverwhelmingcommitmenttoconserveandmakethemostofBallarat’svaluedidentityanddistinctiveness—particularlythecity’sheritage,historicstreetscapesandfeaturesanditsculturaleventsandtourism.

Ballarat’sexperienceof implementing theHULandtheeffectsof theBallaratStrategyhavebeen transformative on many levels. There has been a new vigour and focus on the city’sheritage,newstakeholder involvementandcommitmenttoheritagethroughan increase instaffingandfinancialresources,integrationinkeycityinitiativesandbothregulatoryandnon-regulatorypolicies(suchastheBallaratPlanningScheme,CouncilPlanandCBDStrategy).Forthecouncil’sheritageandplanningofficers,thebiggestshifthasbeenmovingfromarules-basedframeworktoaproblem-solvingframework(Fayad&Buckley[inpress]).Forexample,the city isdeveloping streetscape regenerationprojectsbasedonplace-based interpretativethemes,togetherwithanunderstandingofsocialandeconomicprocesseswhichmakeeacharea’sheritagebothvaluedandvulnerable.Storiesofplacearecapturingtheimaginationofstakeholders,inspiringmorecreativeandcontextualisedsolutionsandoutcomes.Regenerationisbeingdeliveredthroughartsactivation,linkingsocialcapitalwithworkstokeepandattractnichebusinesses.Previouscapitalworksupgradeprojectswerefocusedongeneraleconomicactivation,buttheearlysignsfromthenewHUL-inspiredapproachdemonstratebettersocialandconservationoutcomes.

Forthecityasawhole,usingtheHULhasstrengthenedthecommitmenttoBallarat’sdistinctiveidentity andheritage andhas added value to various city-wideprojects. It hasdramaticallystrengthenedtheroleofcultureacrossallCouncilfunctionsandisopeningplanningprocessesthroughnewtypesofcivicparticipationandcollaboration.Anexampleisthedeliveryofnewcommunity-ledlocalareaplans(basedonculturalmapping)andintegrationofBallaratImaginecommunityvisionthroughouttheBallaratPlanningSchemeMunicipalStrategicStatement.

Withthebenefitsofdigitaltechnologies,theHULinBallarathasprovidedastrongplatformfor new people to take part in the city’s future. As the city moves from investigation toimplementationphases,thetransformationsarestartingtobefelton-the-groundandrequirecontinuedefforttosupporttheobservableshiftsinmindsetsandpractices.TheHULhasopenednewwaysofunderstandingBallarat’shistoricandmoderndaylegacies,aswellasopportunitiesforthecity’sfuture.Mostofall,theHUL-orientedStrategyforBallaratisgraduallymovingthe


cityawayfromahomogenisedandprescribedpathwayforgrowth,buildinginsteadaplatformforlocalisedsolutions.

The HUL approach and the Burra Charter

DiscussionoftheHULinAustraliahasslowlyemerged,butthereisnowaconversationaboutitsapplicabilityandusefulness (see forexample,Taylor2015).Like theexperiences inotherpartsof theworld, thede-centringof thearchitectural fabric, theconsiderationofcitiesaslandscapes, the challenges of sustainability, and the development of community-centredmethods for determining heritage values are of interest to practitioners (see for example,Rodwell2011).

AustralianheritagepracticeisguidedandinfluencedbytheBurra Charter (AustraliaICOMOS2013).Trackingthehistory,evolutionandimpactoftheBurra Charterisbeyondtheconfinesof this paper,2 yet the Charter itself is a relevant focus, since this has been the mannerin which new ideas arising through practice have been incorporated into formal andprofessionalsystems.

TheBurra CharterwasadoptedbyAustraliaICOMOSin1979asalocalisedadaptationoftheVenice Charter(InternationalCharterfortheConservationandRestorationofMonumentsandSites,1964)(Walker2014;Hanna2015).WhiletheVenice Charteranticipatedthearticulationof further regional and disciplinary applications and texts, the Burra Charter was an earlyattemptatspecifyinghowitsideascouldbetranslatedintoaspecificnationalsetting(AustraliaICOMOS 2016). According to Meredith Walker (2014), the early membership of AustraliaICOMOSfeltthatthefocusoftheVenice Charteron‘monuments’couldbemisunderstoodbyAustralianusers,andthatamorepracticalandmulti-disciplinarydocumentwasneeded.Shedescribeshowthe1979Burra Chartertexttookonsomeofthecharacteristicsthathavebeenretainedsincethattime,includingthecentralityofaclearandcomprehensiveunderstandingoftheplacebeforemakinganydecisions.SheridanBurke(2004:54)recallstheprocessasapragmaticone:

TherewasnosenseofeitherwantoncriticismorantipodeandistastefortheVeniceCharterinthework,ratherthesimpleneedtorespectfullytranslatetheprinciplestoa practical document that would be specifically applicable to Australian places andculturalconditions.

UnliketheVenice Charter,theBurra Charterisperiodicallyreviewedandhasbeenchanged,sometimessubstantially,causingan inadvertentbutneverthelessapparentdrift further fromits Venice Charter beginnings (Logan 2004). The current version is dated 2013, but themost significant shifts in its contentwereadopted in1999,and includedchanges tomoreexplicitlyaddressAustralia’sculturaldiversity,andtoreinforcetherecognitionoftheintangibledimensions(meaning,uses,associations)ofplace(Truscott2004).TheBurra CharterhasalsobeenavehicleforpromotingacertainAustralianformofpracticeinternationally,andhasbeenappliedinothercountries.Ithasbeeninfluentialinthelate-20thcenturydisseminationofthe‘values-based’ approaches to the identificationandmanagementof cultural heritage (de laTorre2005).Forthisreason,theBurra Charterhasbeenthesubjectofvariousexternalcritiques(seeforexample,Zanchetiet.al.2009;Watertonet.al.2006).

InAustralia,thelegalandregulatoryframeworksforheritageprotectionoperateatnational,stateand local levels.Whileeachrelieson listingasameansofsinglingoutsomeareasas‘heritage’,theyarelegallyandadministrativelydistinct.Thispaperisfocusedonwhatcouldbeconsidered‘typical’or‘conventional’practicesatthelocal levelsincethisseemsmostrelevantfor the mechanisms provided by the HUL. In Victoria, heritage places that are consideredsignificant at the local threshold are listed in schedules to the local government planningscheme,andallplacesintheschedulearethensubjecttotheprovisionsoftheHeritageOverlaycontrol(DELWP2014).Ingeneral,demolitionorsignificantmodificationtothefabricoflocallylistedheritageplaces requires formalplanningpermission,guidedby the identifiedheritagevaluesoftheplace.Asaresult,theprocessesfortheconservationoflocalheritageplacesareintegratedintotheprocessesofdevelopmentdecision-making.


As a non-statutory document, the Burra Charter sits alongside the framing provided bylocallawsandplanningschemes,butisacommonfactorindecision-making.ThelegalandpolicyframeworkscommonlydeliverheritageprotectionthroughassessmentsofsignificanceguidedbytheBurra Charter,providedecisionguidelinesrequiringtheapplicationoftheBurra Charterand,insomecases,explicitlyreferencetheBurra Charterinlocalplanningschemes.Itisrelativelycommonforall‘sides’ofheritageconservationplanningmatterstoinvoketheCharter’sspiritandprovisionstoadvancetheirpositions.

HowtheBurra CharterrelatestoandsupportstheapproachesforeshadowedintheHUListhereforerelevant.TherearemanywaysinwhichtheArticlesoftheBurraCharterpreparethegroundfortheworkthathasbeenadvancedwithintheHULinBallarat,suchastherequirementtofullyunderstandallthevaluesofplacesbeforedecisionsaremade.However,itisalsothecasethatatthelocallevel,typicalor‘conventional’heritagepracticesdonotalwaysexhibitthebreadthoftheBurra Charter’sinclusiveintentions.

Toaidthisreflection,wehavehighlightedtenelementsoftheBurra CharterthatcontrastwiththeevolvingHULapproach.This isaninitialreviewthat illustratessomepotentialgaps,andindicateswhereothertoolsthatcouldmovebeyondtheconfinesoftheCharter,areneeded.

1. The notion of ‘place’: The Burra Charterdefines‘place’broadlyas‘ageograph-ically defined area. It may include elements, objects, spaces and views. Place mayhave tangible and intangible dimensions’ (Article 1.1), and can range froma singlestructure, treeor archaeological deposit to an entire landscape,mountain rangeorcityneighbourhood(seealso,Silberman2016).IntheHULapproach,heritagemovesbeyondthefocuson‘place’andincludeselementssuchascommunitylifeandidentity,intangibleheritage,socialandeconomicprocesses,uses,andwaysofmovinginandthroughtheurbanlandscape.

2. The notion that values are inherent in place:ThisisacommonlycriticisedpartoftheBurra Charter’sunderlyingworldview(seeforexample,Smith2006).Article1.2statesthat‘Culturalsignificanceisembodiedintheplaceitself,itsfabric,setting,use,associations,meanings,records,relatedplacesandrelatedobjects’.Whilethisseemstousefullyacknowledgefluidityinthewaythatvalueisconstructed,theembodimentofthevaluesintheplaceitselfisstronglyasserted.Inconventionalpracticesatthelocallevel,thisisoftendistilledintoanexpectationthatvaluesaretangiblyexpressedandembeddedinthephysicalfabricoftheplace,witharelativelylighterweightgiventothesocialandspiritualvalues(comparedtotheaesthetic/architecturalandhistorical).InourexperienceoftheHULapproach,valuesarecarriedbypeopleandareappliedandevolvingratherthaninherent.

3. The centrality of the Statement of Significance in policy making and management decisions: Article 6.2 of the Burra Charter says that ‘Policy formanagingaplacemustbebasedonanunderstandingofitsculturalsignificance’.ThisistheheartoftheconstructedlogicoftheBurra CharterandofmostheritagepracticesinAustralia.Yetinpractice,StatementsofSignificanceareadoptedandappliedthroughformal processes that havenot alwaysbeen fully inclusive and comprehensive; andarethenfixedforverylongperiodsoftime.Inotherwords,whiletheBurra Charteracknowledges the fluidity of the values that are ascribed to heritage places, this isseldomwhathappens inpractice. In theHULapproach,significance isfluid,and itscontestabilityisrecognisedasaconstant,withtheneedtorecogniseandfrequentlyrevisitunderstandingsof themultiple ‘significances’or ‘values’ (and importantly, theprocessesofengagementthatarenecessarytoarticulatethem).

4. The tangible and intangible dimensions of place: Article 1.1 of theBurra Charter clearly indicates the interconnectednessof the tangible and intangible, andmany parts of the Charter draw attention to fabric, associations and meanings. Asalreadynoted,thereisastrongfocusonthefabricinlocalheritagepractices,especiallytheexterior fabricandvisualappearanceofhistoricbuildings. In theHULapproach,peoplecarryvalues,whichareattributedtotangibleand intangibleelements.Whilefabric,spaceandsenseofplacecanoftenbecriticallyimportant,theauthentichistoricfabricofaplacemightbeonlyonewayoftransmittingsignificantmeanings.


5. Localising heritage understanding: Article1.2oftheBurra Charterscopesthepossibledimensionsofculturalsignificanceasthe‘aesthetic,historic,scientific,socialorspiritualvalueforpast,presentorfuturegenerations’.InAustralia,eachjurisdictionhasadoptedaslightlydifferentversionofthesequalities;3andinpracticeinVictoria,aesthetic, architectural and historical significance are used more frequently thantheothers.TheHULapproachpromotesthatculturalsignificanceshouldbelocalised—andbemoreexplicitlyfocussedonthedistinctivenessoftheplaceandthevaluesheldbypeople.

6. Factoring in ‘uses’: TheBurra Chartersaysthat‘use’canbeacomponentoftheculturalsignificanceofaplace(Article7.1),andspecifiestheimportanceof‘compatibleuses’ that respect the place’s cultural significance (Article 1.11). However, whileadaptivere-useisacommonlyappliedsolution,itislesscommonforparticularusestobeincludedinthelegalrecognitionofheritageplacesorinlocalstatutoryrequirementsfortheirfuture.TheHULandtheBurra Charteraresimilaronthispointinsofarasvaluesguidethemanagementofchange.Itispossiblethatcontinuityofaparticularusemightbeespeciallyimportant,orevenvaluedabovetheretentionofhistoricfabric,althoughthisispoorlyreflectedinmostlocalregulatoryframeworks.

7. Inter-relatedness of nature and culture: The Burra Charter suggests that‘conservationofaplaceshouldidentifyallaspectsofculturalandnaturalsignificance…’(Article5.1).Yetinpractice,naturalvaluesareoftenconsideredandconservedthroughseparate systems of decision-making. While the rationale for separate systems canbeappreciated, therecanbea lackofconnected thinkingandpractice that fails toappropriatelyreflectthelivedexperienceofplace,landscapeandlocality.IntheHULapproach,practices shouldaccommodateculturalperspectives thatdonot separatenatureandculture.

8. The problem of boundaries: While theBurra Charter urges consideration ofthe setting of heritage places (Article 8), establishing place boundaries can changetherelationshipsbetweenwhat is insideandoutside.TheVictorianplanningsystemallowsfortheidentificationofprecinctsor‘heritageareas’,butovertime,therecanbeanincrementallossofcontributoryelements.TheHULmovesawayfromtheneedtodelineate‘significant’placesandareasinordertoappreciatethefullrangeofsocialandeconomicdynamicsandcontext.

9. Expert-led processes: TheBurra Charterismindfulofitsbroadaudiencesandisorientedatpeoplewhoprovideadvice,makedecisionsorundertakeworks(Preamble).Compared to theVenice Charter, theBurra Charter shifted thebalanceaway fromexpert-based decision-making through the articulation of a transparent decision-making sequence (known as the ‘Burra Charter process’). This is one of the Burra Charter’smostobviousattributes.Yet,despitegoodexampleswhereitsusehasshiftedthe roleofpractitioner toone that facilitatesprocessesandoutcomes,manyevery-daylocalpracticesremainexpert-led.IntheHULapproach,methodsarecommunity-centred(empowering),interdisciplinaryandlocallyfocused,transformingthepotentialroleofheritageexpertise.

10. Methods of articulating values: AccordingtotheBurra Charter(Article4.1),‘Conservationshouldmakeuseofalltheknowledge,skillsanddisciplineswhichcancontributetothestudyandcareoftheplace’.Inpractice,methodsareheavilyfocusedonphysicalobservationsanddocumentaryresearch.IntheHULapproach,newvisualandspatialmethodsofengagement,suchasculturalmappinganduseofdigitaltoolsareincreasinglycommonplace.

UsersoftheBurra ChartermaycountertheseexamplesbypointingoutthatthelimitationswehaveobservedarenotthefaultoftheBurra Charteritself,butofitslimitedapplicationwithinlocalheritageregimes.AsMeredithWalker(2014:15)comments:‘TherearesignsthatsomeoftheprinciplesofgoodpracticefollowingtheBurraCharterarenotwell-understoodorthatthereareinsufficienttechnicalresources,orperhapsgoodwill,toaddresstheissues.’While


itiscertainlythecasethatpracticescouldbeimprovedbymorefaithfullyapplyingtheBurra Charter,wesuggestthatthereareopportunitiestomovebeyonditsconfines.Whenappliedtospecificplaces,theBurra Charter’slogiccanbehighlyinstrumentalinproblem-solving.Yet,therecanbeadeclineinitseffectiveapplicationforcomplexplacesthathavemultiplevalues,associations,communitiesandpressures.Itsprovisionsmaynotworkaswellwhenappliedtoawholeurbanareaorentirecity.Furthermore,theBurra Charter isnotapplicabletothefullambitofculture,heritageandattachment—whicharenotalwaysspecificallyanchoredtoplace.

Concluding thoughts

Basedonthis reflection,weproposethatmoreintegratedstrategicplanning,assess-ment and vision finding processes areneeded that can operate ahead of andforeshadowtheuseof theBurra Charterasasupplementarytoolthatisapplicablefor specific places. Acknowledging thattherearelimitstothecapacityoftheBurra Charter, Australia ICOMOS has begun todiversifyitsguidancetextstoinclude‘Burra CharterPracticeNotes’.Thesecanexplainthe application of the Burra Charter inmoredetailordemonstrateitsapplicationinspecificcontexts.Wethereforepropose‘something bigger than Burra’ to parallelthiskindofdiversification.

Ballarat’s new HUL-inspired model forurban conservation begins to capturethese possibilities. It has moved fromposingheritageconservationanddevelop-mentasseparateandsometimesopposingprocesses to form a virtuous cycle (seeFigure 2). The things that make the citydistinctive and valued are used to inspire

changeinmutuallyreinforcingways(CityofBallarat2016).Thehigher-leveloperationofthismodelaimsatbuildingcapacitytodealwithchallengesfacingcities,andrequiresthefollowingqualities:

• Veryhighlevelsofactivecitizenandstakeholderparticipation(overtime,movingfromconsultationtoempowermentandcollaboration);

• An open platform to collect comprehensive knowledge and diverse perspectivesaboutthedynamicandlivingcity, includingaspectsofvulnerability,opportunityandadaptability;and

• Collaboration with many and diverse partners (including universities), and workingtowardsinter-disciplinarity.

We acknowledge equal measures of optimism and provocation in our intentions for thisoverview. Reactions to our presentation at the ‘People’s Ground’ conference (Melbourne,October 2016) demonstrate that suggestions about change are contentious, although thisisnotnewwithinAustraliaICOMOS(seeforexample,Mackay2004).TheBurra Charterhashadcloseto40yearsofcarefulandcreativeimplementationbyAustraliaICOMOSmembers,andhasbeentestedbythetribunalsandhearingsthatdeterminethefutureofmanyheritageplaces. Ithasprovena robust tool,useful indiversesettings,andcapableofevolution.WedonotproposethattheBurra CharterandassociatedAustralianheritagepracticesshouldbejettisonedorsubstantiallyamendedinthefaceoftheseideasandissues.Atthisstage,theHUL

Figure 2:Ballarat’sHULModel[source:CityofBallarat]


approach is not easily codified although several promotional guidancematerials havebeenprepared(seeUNESCO2013b;WHITR-AP&CityofBallarat2016;GO-HUL2017).PossiblyitisthisamorphouscharacterthathasmadetheHULuseful,permittingpractitionerstostepoutof(andbeyond)theusualconflictsandcompromisestoexperimentwithnewtools.Inmanyways,thisforeshadowsthemoreflexibleandlocalisedresponsesthatarerequiredtoachieveadaptable,resilientandsustainablecities.

TheexampleofBallaratsuggeststhattheHULoffersopportunitiestoshiftsomeunhelpfullyentrenchedpositionsabouttherelationshipsbetweenheritageandchange.Fornow, ithashadtheeffectofmainstreamingheritageandcultureintothefutureofthemunicipality’surbansettlementsandlandscapes.Forheritagepracticestomovefromtheedgesandintothecentreofpoliticalandsocialconversationsaboutthe‘bigissues’facingAustraliaandtheworld,wewillallneedsomeadditionalperspectivesandtools.

Acknowledgements

We are indebted to the inspiring leadership of the late Ron van Oers, and his support ofBallarat’s HUL pilot. The ideas in this paper were initially discussed with Dr Steven Cooke(DeakinUniversity),althoughthispaperwasfurtherdevelopedwithouthisinvolvement.ManycolleaguesandcommunitieshaveprovidedkeypiecesofthecontinuingworkinBallarat,whilsttheCityofBallarathasgenerouslyprovidedastrongplatformforcollaborationandexplorationofurbanconservationpracticethroughitscommitmenttoUNESCO’sHULapproachandglobalpilotprogramme.ThispaperhasbenefittedfromfeedbackattheNationalTrustofAustraliaandAustraliaICOMOSnationalconference‘ThePeople’sGround’heldinMelbourne,October2016;andfromtwoanonymousreviewers.

References:

Allen,C.2004,‘TheRoadfromBurra:thoughtsonusingtheCharterinthefuture’,Historic Environment, vol.18,no.1,pp.50-53.

AustraliaICOMOS2013,The Burra Charter: The Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural Significance.AustraliaICOMOSInc.,Burwood.

AustraliaICOMOS2016,Collaboration for Conservation: a brief history of Australia ICOMOS and the Burra Charter. AustraliaICOMOSInc.,Burwood.

Avila,M.E.S.&Perez,J.R.2016,‘HeritageValuesProtection,fromtheMonumenttotheUrbanDimension.CaseStudy:theHistoricCentreofSantaAnadelosRiosdeCuenca,Ecuador’,The Historic Environment: Policy & Practice, vol. 7,no.2-3,pp.164-176.

Bandarin,F.&vanOers,R.2012,The Historic Urban Landscape,JohnWiley&Sons,Chichester.

Buckley,K.,Cooke,S.&Fayad,S.2016,‘UsingtheHistoricUrbanLandscapetore-imagineBallarat:thelocalcontext’,inS.Labadi&W.Logan(eds),Urban Heritage, Development and Sustainability. International Frameworks, National and Local Governance,1sted.Routledge,Oxon.pp.93-113.

Burke,S.2004,‘WorkingwiththeCharteroverseas:apersonalBurraCharterexperience’,Historic Environment, vol.18,no.1,pp.54-56.

CityofBallarat2013,‘BallaratImagine’,viewed7April2017,<http://www.ballarat.vic.gov.au/haveyoursay/2013/ballaratimagine.aspx>

CityofBallarat2015,Today, Tomorrow, Together: The Ballarat Strategy,viewed7April2017,<http://www.ballarat.vic.gov.au/pbs/city-strategy/ballarat-strategy.aspx>

CityofBallarat2016,Our People, Culture & Place. A new heritage plan for Ballarat 2016-2030.(PreliminaryPlan),viewed7April2017,<http://www.ballarat.vic.gov.au/media/3985655/preliminary_heritage_plan_our_people__culture_and_place_august_2016.pdf>


delaTorre,M.2005,Heritage Values in Site Management: Four Case Studies, GettyConservationInstitute,LosAngeles.

DepartmentofEnvironment,Land,WaterandPlanning,Victoria(DELWP)2014,‘HeritageOverlayGuidelines’(online).Melbourne:DELWP,viewed7April2017,<http://www.dtpli.vic.gov.au/heritage/local-government/heritage-overlay-guidelines>

GlobalObservatoryontheHistoricUrbanLandscape(GO-HUL)2017,[website]viewed7April2017,<https://go-hul.com/>

Fayad,S.&Buckley,K.[inpress],‘TheTransformationalPoweroftheHULApproach:lessonsfromBallarat,Australia,2012-2016’,inA.P.Roders&F.Bandarin(eds),Historic Urban Landscape: five years, twenty-five cities, hundred lessons, Springer,NewYork.

Fayad,S.[inpress],‘TheHistoricUrbanLandscapeApproach:findingabetterwaytomanagechangeinthedynamichistoriccityofBallarat’,inR.VanOers(ed.),Publication of Proceedings for 2014 Symposium on HUL.WHITRAP,Shanghai.

Hanna,B.2015,‘FoundationsofanOralHistoryProject:thewritingoftheBurraCharter’,Historic Environment,vol.27,no.2,pp.84-95.

Logan,W.2004,‘Introduction:VoicesfromthePeriphery:theBurraCharterincontext’,Historic Environment,vol.18,no.1,pp.2-8.

Mackay,R.2004,‘AssociativeValueandtheRevisedBurraCharter:apersonalperspective’,Historic Environment, vol.18,no.1,pp.35-36.

Martin,P.&Lucas,C.2016,‘Populationbooms:VictoriahasfourofthefivefastestgrowingsuburbsinAustralia’,The Age,30March2017[Online],viewed7April2017,<http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/population-booms-victoria-has-four-of-the-five-fastest-growing-suburbs-in-australia-20170330-gv9smg.html>

Omnilink2014,‘3DMappingSystem–ScopingStudy.Melbourne’.UnpublishedreporttotheCityofBallarat.

Rodwell,D.2011,‘TheoryandPracticeinSustainableUrbanDevelopment’,Historic Environment, vol. 23,no.1,pp.8-14.

Silberman,N.A.2016,‘HeritagePlaces:evolvingconceptionsandchangingforms’,inW.Logan,M.NicCraith&U.Kokkel(eds),A Companion to Heritage Studies.JohnWiley&Sons,Chichester.pp.29-40.

Smith,L.2006,Uses of Heritage, Routledge,London.

StateofVictoria2014,‘PlanMelbourne:MetropolitanPlanningStrategy’.Melbourne.

Taylor,K.2015,‘TheHULconceptandcitiesasculturallandscapes:Canberraamissedopportunity’,Historic Environment, vol.27,no.1,pp.58-67.

Tomazin,F.2016,‘PopulationgrowthhasbecomeVictoria’sbiggestpoliticalissue’,Sydney Morning Herald [Online],7May2016,viewed7April2017,<http://www.smh.com.au/national/population-growth-has-become-victorias-biggest-political-issue-20160506-goo1d6.html>

Truscott,M.2004,‘Contextsforchange:pavingthewaytothe1999BurraCharter’,Historic Environment, vol. 18,no.1,pp.30-34.

UNHabitat2012,Urban Planning for City Leaders, Nairobi.

UNHabitat2016,The New Urban Agenda,AdoptedatQuito,Ecuador,20October2016,viewed7April2017,<https://habitat3.org/the-new-urban-agenda/>

UNESCO2011,‘RecommendationontheHistoricUrbanLandscape’,Paris.viewed7April2017,<http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=48857&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html>


UNESCO2013a,Summary of the reflection meeting on the implementation of the Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape two years after its adoption (HUL+2). Paris.

UNESCO2013b,New Life for Historic Cities: The historic urban landscape approach explained.Paris.

UNESCO2015,CultureforSustainableDevelopment,Paris,viewed7April2017,<http://www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/themes/culture-and-development/the-future-we-want-the-role-of-culture/>

UNESCO2016,‘CultureUrbanFuture.GlobalReportonCultureforSustainableUrbanDevelopment(Summary)’,Paris.

UnitedNations2015,‘ResolutionAdoptedbytheGeneralAssemblyon25September2015:‘TransformingourWorld:the2030AgendaforSustainableDevelopment’,A/RES/70/1.NewYork:UnitedNations’,NewYork.

UnitedNationsGlobalCompactCitiesProgramme(UNGCCP)2017,‘CityPartnerships.OffertoAustralianCities’,viewed3August2017.https://citiesprogramme.org/get-involved/city-partnerships/

vanOers,R.&Roders,A.P.2013,‘RoadMapforApplicationoftheHULApproachinChina’,Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development,vol.3,no.1,pp.4-1.

vanOers,R.2007,‘TowardsnewinternationalguidelinesfortheconservationofHistoricUrbanLandscapes(HUL)’,City & Time, vol.3,pp.43-51.

vanOers,R.2015,‘TheWayForward:AnAgendaforReconnectingtheCity’,inF.Bandarin&R.vanOers(eds),Reconnecting the City. The Historic Urban Landscape Approach and the Future of Urban Heritage,JohnWiley&Sons,Chichester,pp.317-332.

Walker,M.2014,‘TheDevelopmentoftheAustraliaICOMOSBurraCharter’,APT Bulletin,vol.45,no.2/3,pp.9-16.

Waterton,E.,Smith,L.&Campbell,G.2006,‘TheUtilityofDiscourseAnalysistoHeritageStudies:theBurraCharterandsocialinclusion’,International Journal of Heritage Studies, vol. 12,no.4,pp.339-355.

WorldHeritageInstituteofTrainingandResearchinAsiaandthePacific(WHITR-AP)andCityofBallarat2016,The HUL Guidebook: A practical guide to UNESCO’s Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape,ShanghaiandBallarat.

Zancheti,S.M.,Hidaka,L.T.F.,Ribeiro,C.&Aguiar,B.2009,‘JudgementandvalidationintheBurraCharterprocess:introducingfeedbackinassessingtheculturalsignificanceofheritagesites/City and Time vol. 4,no.2,pp.47-53.

Endnotes

1 TheCityofBallarat’sHULprogramrollouthasincorporatedlinkagestoworkbytheUNGCCP.

2 AspecialissueofHistoric Environment(Volume18,no.1,2004)outlinesthishistoryindetail.ItcanbeviewedontheAustraliaICOMOSwebsite.

3 TheformerEnvironmentProtectionandHeritageMinisterialCouncilagreedthatalljurisdictionswouldstandardisethecriteria;however,thisdecisionhasnotbeenfullyimplemented.

the hul and the australian burra charter - some

Documents