Social dilemmas in built-heritage policy: The role of

1

Social dilemmas in built-heritage policy: The role of social considerations in decisions of planning inspectors Nir Mualam & Rachelle Alterman

We respect copyright and therefore this is a pre-print. The version of record of this manuscript has been published and is available in The Journal of Housing and the Built Environment (published online: 15 May 2018): https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10901-018-9610-9

To cite this article: Mualam, N. & Alterman, R. (2018). Social dilemmas in built-heritage policy: The role of social considerations in decisions of planning inspectors. The Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 33: 481499. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10901-018-9610-9.

2

Abstract This paper addresses an underrated aspect of historic preservation policy: the role played by social factors in conflicts over proposals to develop heritage properties. After reviewing existing literature, we develop a theoretical framework and apply it to heritage-related decisions made by planning inspectors in the English planning system. Specifically, the research focuses on planning appeals pertaining to development in conservation areas. We focus on conflicts in Greater London Area and analyze the content of 105 sampled case studies. The findings show that social considerations are present, to some extent, in almost half of the decisions, and that inspectors are often cognizant of the mixed social impacts of heritage protection policies. Thus, although heritage policy in England has been acknowledged for its physical and architectural emphasis, in fact, the analysis reveals that decision-makers also focus attention on the social implications of historic protection. This suggests a multi-dimensional perspective on heritage policy which does not relate to it as a consensual issue in planning. Indeed, in a large share of the surveyed conflicts the inspectors viewed historic preservation in a critical manner, emphasizing the social benefits attributed to demolitions and alterations rather than to preservation. In those cases, better and affordable housing was a key ingredient in the decision to allow modifications in historic properties. By studying the trajectories of heritage disputes, the paper points out the underlying dimensions of conflicts, and concludes that if policy-makers are to devise socially-inclusive heritage policy, they must first acknowledge its deep and often complex social implications.

Keywords: heritage, policy, historic preservation, conflict. “Walls rise and fall and now they're building tall in the city Brick England They build them up and then they knock ’em down to put up another Brick England.” [Jean-Michel Jarre & The Pet Shop Boys: “Brick England”].

3

1. Aim and scope Today, heritage protection is part and parcel of many urbanist agendas including smart growth, neourbanism, and urban regeneration (Pickard 2001). It is the intent behind politically active groups and NGOs (Osman 2011). Many architectural, design-related, economic, and legal reasons are given by those groups for why HP is necessary. However, arguments are also made by antagonists who consider heritage protection policies as overtly skewed against public interests and community needs (Dobby 1978). Historically, a foundational element in historic preservation (HP) was an urge to protect physical form, design, and architecture (Glendinning 2013; Couch 2016, p. 262). However, a more subtle (and less visible) aspect of historic protection is its social impetus (Aplin 2002, p. 30). While those who support HP policy argue that it is an important instrument in a socially progressive city, others view preservation policy as essentially socially regressive (Lowenthal 2002, p.18). Accordingly, HP has become a highly contentious issue in land-use planning facing heightened pressures to develop or preserve the historic fabric. To investigate these arguments, this paper focuses on a specific area: the social dimension of HP. It conceptualizes and analyzes the social tensions associated with decisions to protect or develop historic environments. Specifically we ask how can one make sense of the complex social issues that are intertwined in decisions about whether or not a particular building, or area, should be preserved? What weight do the regulators assign to a variety of societal considerations in heritage protection? The first part of the paper surveys existing knowledge, finding that despite extensive scholarship, the social aspects of heritage protection are inadequately conceptualized. The second part builds a conceptual framework for studying built-heritage conflicts in Greater London. The third section of the paper samples 105 disputes and analyzes their content. It reveals how decision-makers associate HP with both positive and negative social outcomes.

2. Socially “Regressive” or “Progressive” views of heritage policy Before delving into a review of the literature, one should give some attention to terminology and some variations in usage between British and American English. The term ‘preservation’ is often used in American English, while conservation is more typical of British English. Both denote a range of legal and public policy tools that enable the protection of built heritage by preventing its physical demolition or major alteration, and by maintaining, nurturing, or managing its physical or intangible qualities. The Department of Communities and Local Government in England (DCLG) defines conservation as “the process of maintaining and managing change to a heritage asset in a way that sustains and where

4

appropriate enhances its significance” (DCLG 2012, 51). This definition enables some degree of change, and it also moves away from a strict protective approach. At the same time, DCLG also acknowledged the socio-economic effects of heritage-protection measures. This approach is in comport with studies which have broadened their perspective to investigate the societal aspects of heritage policies. Two contending prisms can be identified. On one hand, a progressive view which argues that preservation can enhance social inclusion (Orbasli, 2008 p.35), invigorate identity and stability (Costonis, 1989 p. 80; Talen, 2005 p. 88), and stimulate bottom-up participation (Metrany, 2008 p. 37). On the other hand, HP has drawn considerable academic skepticism. Specifically, a critical (regressive) view contends that preservation is likely to entail many socio-regressive outcomes (Pendlebury et al. 2004, p. 12; Pendlebury 2009, p. 123). The regressive approach considers heritage protection as a policy which fails to provide an answer for diverse needs such as better housing and new infrastructure (Dobby, 1978). In addition, heritage policies have also come under attack for their incapacity to acknowledge the diversity of histories and multiplicity of socio-cultural needs (Gard’ner 2004). The critical viewpoints emanate from a broader perspective about planning as a power system which fails to provide goods and services, and is designed to lock out ‘others’ and favor the hegemonic, elitist, and political interests (Parkinson, Scott, and Redmond 2016). Accordingly critics believe that heritage policies result in ideological, social and economic control over space, class relations, and minorities (Sue & Teo 2009, p. 129-130; English 2007, p. 44). Despite the plethora of studies, it is still hard to disentangle the mixed social impact of heritage policies. A plausible reason for this is the difficulty of conducting assessments of long term impacts of concrete planning decisions (Bond et al. 2004; Vanclay 2003, p. 7-8). However, several exceptions can be identified in the literature, as both conceptual and empirical studies assess the social impacts of heritage policies. Larkham (1996) argues that the social impact of heritage policy is neither primarily regressive nor progressive. Rather, its implications for society are complex, with mixed positive and negative impacts. Likewise, Barthel (1996) points out the dual effect of heritage on society, as an identity-shaping policy which might also bring about destructive change in the social fabric (p. 149-154). In his classic book, Dobby (1978, p.23) highlights the mixed impact of heritage policies. Specifically, in the field of housing, Dobby proffers that on one hand “housing rehabilitation…is now…10 or 15 percent cheaper than redevelopment. Adaptation is nearly always quicker than redevelopment.” However, on the other hand he notes that “the preservation of buildings of inefficient design or of little economic use is considered to prevent the building of new housing…meanwhile because of conservation, many ordinary people must continue to work in cramped and unsuitable conditions.” (p. 27).

5

These conceptual viewpoints are supported by several empirical studies that evaluate the mixed social implications of HP. For example, Yung et al’s (2014) case-study research on renewal projects in Hong Kong found that heritage policy through adaptive re-use can be designed as either an inclusive or exclusive tool of regeneration. In similar vein, Dearborn and Stallmeyer (2010) analyzed heritage policy in Luang Prabang, Laos and found that HP had mixed social implications: positive effects such as solidifying the history of the state (p.92) alongside negative impacts such as removal of memory and meaning of place for local residents (p.97). In reviewing exiting literature we were eager to find an overarching thematic framework that could help us to identify the social aspects of heritage preservation and sort them out from the other, more overt, considerations. We did not find what we sought, but did locate a few useful publications that offer tools for evaluating the social problems associated with HP. For example, Yadollahi (2015, p. 176) devises a methodological approach for assessing the social sustainability of heritage policies. Likewise, Zhang et al. (2015, p.93) identify a set of social conflicts tied to the development of world-heritage landscapes. These conflicts include interference with local residents’ living and production activities due to increased tourism, conflicts associated with low participation rates, and even threats of instigating a regional or international war. Pendlebury et al. (2004) present a framework for evaluating the degree of progressiveness of heritage policies according to several categories such as access, multi-culturalism, social inclusion, and pluralism. These accounts, however, fall short of providing a comprehensive framework which encompasses the twopronged social impacts of heritage policy.

3. A conceptual framework In the absence of a ready-made conceptual framework for our research, we set out to create our own. Thus, we combed through existing literature, while trying to elicit the core issues that tie together heritage policy and society. The suggested framework pits together the two opposing views about heritage preservation and re-conceptualizes existing scholarly works. These matters are summarized in Table 1 which proposes eight dimensions by which the full spectrum of social debates over heritage protection can potentially be classified. Table 1 is not intended as a full review of the literature, owing to matters of scope. Nonetheless, it briefly summarizes the key arguments made by scholars on either the progressive or the regressive side of the debate. Overall, the conceptual analysis illustrates that there are two points of view addressing the question of heritage protection policy and its social impact. Most discussions are not and cannot be based on consensual perspectives. Conflicting point of views about heritage protection are not to be eliminated but rather recognized in decision-making processes. Following, the conceptual framework was employed in the

6

empirical stage of our research in order to identify the underlying considerations and points of view immersed within the decisions of planning inspectors. The Debate’s

The socially-supportive view

The socially skeptical view

Dimension

(HP is socially progressive)

(HP is social regressive)

Preservation policy prevents the loss of desirable memory (e.g. Silva, 2009; Lamberti, 2006; Clarke & Johnston, 2003; Mourato & Mazzanti, 2002, p.51).

Memory is manufactured (Whitehand & Gu, 2007 p.646647; LeVine 2004; Nevanlinna, 2001).

1.

Memory

It is unclear whether future generations would appreciate the preserved heritage resource (Peacock 1998). 2.

Communal influences

Preservation builds communities & reinforces community-ties (Rowntree & Conkey 1980, p.462; Mason, 2002 p.12; Barthel 1996, p.154).

Preservation advances the current social order\ habitus and exacerbates social conflicts (Hargrove, 2009, Madgin, 2008 p.210; Northrup, 2010 p.113).

3.

Effect on affordability

Preservation policy keeps affordable living and working environments (Parfect and Power 1997; Rypkema 2002; De Block 2015).

Preservation creates unaffordable places (Suddards, 1988 p.139) & gentrifies at the expense of local residents (e.g. Ashworth, 1997; Coskun & Yalcin, 2007; Yung et al. 2014).

4.

Quality of the existing stock of buildings

By retaining the old stock of buildings, HP creates a variety of social goods, for example retaining bigger homes, and ensuring cost-effective use of existing resources (Rypkema 2002; MacDonald & Cheong 2014; Joe 2015).

Heritage protection keeps a substandard stock of housing\buildings\neighborhoods (Dobby, 1978 p.27-30; Fein 1985; Parkin 2007).

5.

Exclusion \ Inclusion

Preservation policies can strengthen disadvantaged groups such as the lesbian-gay community, women, or ethnic minorities (Dubrow, 2003; Ruffins, 2003).

Heritage protection leads to social exclusion (Zhu 2015; Silverman & Ruggles, 2007; Evans, 2006; de-Haven Newsom 1971).

6.

Cultural influences

Preservation strengthens local, national or global culture (Jones & Evans, 2013; Hayden, 1995) and engenders additional positive impacts, includingbuilding cultural identities (Costonis, 1982; Ashworth & Howard, 1999, Clark, 2001), promoting pride (Rowntree & Conkey, 1980); propelling cultural regeneration (Cheyenne-Harvey, 2007); and embracing specific cultural groups (Stough, 2006 p.1048; Koziol, 2008).

Preservation promotes cultural homogeneity and suppresses certain cultures (Mattioli 2014; Lee 2003; Lupu and Tuttle, 2002).. It also encourages the commoditization of culture (Lowenthal 1998).

7.

Image

Preservation allows image improvements (Ashworth 1997; Nevanlinna 2001; Hadaway 2014; Wu & Li 2014).

Image & preservation are reinforced by professional and political elite (Dobby, 1978; Waterton & Smith 2010).

8.

Diversity

Preservation allows diversification of structures, communities and activities (Madgin 2008; Cossons 2009).

HP policy might eliminate diversity altogether e.g. diversity of cultures, populations and architectural styles (Talen 2008; Lawton 2008; Northrup 2010).

Table 1: Conceptual framework for evaluating the social impact of heritage policy

7

4. Context and Methodology: planning appeals in London The paper focuses on heritage conflicts in a specific geographical and institutional setting: planning appeals in London. This arena facilitates an examination of conflicts in a highly volatile and contested environment. 4.1 Geographical settings: England and its heritage protection policies The British system is especially suited for the examination of social conflicts in heritage, because it affords a great level of discretion to decision-makers in the planning process (Booth 1996). In such a system, the decision to modify or demolish a historic building is given ad-hoc, which therefore makes it interesting to examine the variety of considerations employed by decision-makers. In England, heritage protection, like other land-use planning matters, is administered by top-down national legislation (Ratcliffe et al. 2009). Localities work within a centralized statutory framework of policy guidelines on planning (National Planning Policy Framework), but within that, they are largely authorized to approve their own local plans and policies. England was chosen as a setting also because while conservation control in the UK, like that of many countries, focuses on external appearance of built-heritage (Greed 1996: 167), in the last few decades, local and national policies have made some progress in recognizing the social impact of HP. In 2010 the English Government framed its disposition toward heritage assets including built heritage. This is set out in The Government’s Statement on the Historic Environment for England 2010, which states that: "the value of the historic environment is recognized by all who have the power to shape it; that Government gives it proper recognition and that it is managed intelligently and in a way that fully realises its contribution to the economic, social and cultural life of the nation". Similar provisions are included in the National Planning Policy Framework (DCLG 2012) which emphasizes the need to tie heritage preservation to “wider social, cultural, economic and environmental benefits that conservation of the historic environment can bring” (p. 30). The empirical stage of this paper focuses on heritage disputes that originate from Conservation Areas in Greater London. We chose this arena because during the past few decades, conservation areas proliferated and have become a key vessel for achieving local and national heritage goals (Cullingworth and Nadin 2006). By the mid-1990s there were approximately 6000 Conservation Areas (Delafons 1997; Greed 1996, p. 167) and in 2009 there were approximately 8000 Conservation Areas, reflecting a 33% increase in 15 years (Sanz-Salla 2009, p. 134). Conservation areas function as ‘markers of historical quality’ where certain limitations to development apply (Hewitson 2008). Planning authorities use their discretionary powers to

8

supervise works carried out in conservation areas. In the main, they are instructed by law to ensure that properties within conservation areas fit their surrounding (Harwood 2012) and that development does not harm the overall character of the historic area and the setting of buildings (Thomas 1997). While heritage protection measures are in place, policies in England also dictate that social aspects must be factored-in. At first glance, the statutory measures in England require that special attention be paid to the desirability of enhancing the character or appearance of the conservation area. The point of departure here is a presumption in favor of preserving existing structures within conservation areas unless other considerations justify alterations or demolitions (DCLG 2012, paragraph 133). These considerations may include socio-economic merits of any alternative proposal for the site (Payne 1992). These prescriptions might cause an inherent tension between physical protection and wider, societal, goals. On this account, the underlying question is what weight is given to social considerations when heritage conflicts emerge? 4.2 Institutional settings: Planning appeals as an arena for inquiry We found that heritage appeals, discussed before appeal tribunals, could be a potential source for learning about the social aspects of heritage policies. Appeals are defining moments that accentuate real-life debates (Punter and Bell 2000, p. 277). Planning appeals are where city-planners, developers, and residents settle their controversies -when feeling aggrieved by a planning decision pertaining to heritage properties. Moreover, planning appeals are where conflicts are faced in force by an independent body which balances competing interests (Mualam 2014). Appeals may be lodged by owners and developers against the decision of the local planning authority, to allow – or not to allow- changes in the historic fabric (Stubbs 2000). The decision often draws on design and architectural considerations. However, existing policies instruct planning inspectors to consider other material considerations including the socio-economic impact of the proposed development (DCLG 2012, 6). In those cases, the prominent debate is between preservation and change, between keeping the original and allowing modifications in the historic environment. As third party rights of appeal are not granted in England, except in unique types of inquiries (Telling & Duxbury 1999, p. 391; Purdue & Popham 2002), neighbors and other interested persons cannot file appeals or initiate appeal proceedings although inspectors may still consider their pleas. This leaves the stage primarily to developers and landowners who file appeals when their proposal to develop gets rejected (in whole or in part) by the local planning authorities. This axis of ‘developer versus planning authority’ sharpens different positions. Thus, the institutional framework of planning appeals becomes instrumental for studying different viewpoints about heritage-protection policies.

9

4.3 Methodology We conducted a thorough survey of heritage appeals decided by planning inspectors in England. First, for each local planning authority we identified heritage-related appeals delivered by planning inspectors. Second, we focused on London appeals for our empirical analysis. We used the Planning Portal webpage and database1 to find heritage appeals. The survey explored heritage appeals in 382 townships and planning bodies in England. These localities comprise of county councils, national park authorities, borough councils, London boroughs, district councils, and city councils. The search overhauled a total of 4475 appeals decided by planning inspectors in a five year period (2006-2010). Out of these, 1047 appeals (23%) were appeals pertaining to development in London’s boroughs (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Heritage appeals inside and outside Greater London (out of 4475 appeals decided in 2006-2010).

We found certain advantages to focusing on a sample of London appeals. London is advantageous in several ways. First, it is a metropolitan area which includes prominent historic sites. Second, Greater London's population comprises 15% of England's population, and 23% of the total number of heritagerelated appeals. Because of their large number, we realized that we could not analyze the entire population of appeals. Thus, we sampled 10% of London appeals (namely, 105 appeals in 33 boroughs in Greater London) using a random sampling technique. We analyzed the content of each appeal using the conceptual framework we had developed (Table 1). The decision of the inspector was read carefully with the intention of finding the underlying socially-oriented justifications employed by the inspector with respect to the proposed development. We inquired whether the

1

http://www.pcs.planningportal.gov.uk/pcsportal/casesearch.asp (accessed 10 December 2015).

10

inspector employs a favorable (progressive) or a skeptical (regressive) standpoint pertaining to heritage policy. The goal of this methodology is to map social justifications and critiques pertaining to heritage policies, by using both quantitative and qualitative analysis of appeal decisions. There are, however, some limitations as we analyze arguments employed by the inspector as decision-maker and the information we have is limited to the text of the Inspector decision. 5. Findings The analysis began by mapping the type of proposed works discussed by the Inspector.

Figure 2. A breakdown of the type of works discussed by Inspectors.

The above numbers are not mutually exclusive and a single appeal may reflect a planning application which involves a few types of works (for example, a change of height and a change of use). The majority of appeals involves external alterations to historic properties (60% of appeals) or newly built buildings in historic areas (43% of appeal). Overall, the statistics show that the major factors that generate conflicts and subsequently appeals involve proposals to demolish, partially demolish, change the exterior, or height of the historic property. In the second step, we analyzed the content of appeal decisions in order to identify disputes in which social factors are deliberated by the inspector (Figure 3). The findings show that although 52% of case studies do not directly refer to the social aspects of heritage-related development a relatively large share of appeals in Greater London (48% of sampled appeals) include deliberation on social aspects. This group of appeals illuminate either regressive or progressive impacts of heritage preservation or both.

Appeal Type

11

Appeal decisions without social deliberation

52%

16% 25%

Appeal decisions inclusive of social deliberation

7% 0%

10%

20%

30%

Decisions emphasizing both regressive and progressive implications

40%

50%

60%

Share of appeals (N=105)

Decisions emphasizing the regressive implications of heritage policy Decisions emphasizing the progressive implications of heritage policy

Figure 3: Analysis of the social dimension of heritage disputes as discussed by inspectors (categories are mutually exclusive).

Figure 3 also highlights the weight of each type of discussion (either skeptical or supportive of heritage preservation). Out of the 48% of appeals, inclusive of social deliberation on heritage, the majority of appeals present a rather skeptical approach, with 25% of decisions mentioning the potentially socio-regressive impact of heritage preservation, and only 7% of appeals discussing the merits of that policy. Another interesting figure relates to ‘mixed appeals’: 16% of appeals include a mixed discussion, where the inspectors emphasize both the regressive and progressive implications of heritage policy. Mixed appeals represent instances where the developer’s proposal to develop or alter existing historic property may produce both socially positive and negative outcomes. This category adds to the former two, and thus the total share of decisions emphasizing the regressive impact of heritage reaches 41% while the total share of appeals that relate to a positive effect of heritage policy amounts to 23%. Notably, the mixed discussions about the implications of policy show an acknowledgment by inspectors that development proposals in conservation areas can impact the social fabric in complex ways, both positive and negative. With this comes a realization that it is hard to view heritage policy in monochrome. Next, we categorized the arguments employed in appeal decisions. The analysis provides further evidence about the regressive-progressive cleavage in heritage policy and also shed light on the centrality of housing in this debate (Figure 4).

12

Figure 4: Social considerations taken by the Planning Inspector (categories are not mutually exclusive).

Figure 4 unravels the insides of appeal-deliberations in Greater London. Based on the conceptual framework we identified appeal decisions inclusive of a variety of arguments pertaining to heritage. Figure 4 also shows arguments that were identified in the literature but are starkly absent from any mention in appeal decisions. Still, the analysis calls attention to a variety of justifications as well as critiques are employed by planning officers with respect to built heritage. Most of these justifications relate directly to affordability and the quality of housing. The following section briefly explores how these discussions materialize in select appeal decisions. Out of 105 sampled appeals we chose to focus on case-illustrations that best illuminate positive and negative views, from a social standpoint. When compared with critical viewpoints, favorable viewpoints are not frequently employed by inspectors. The most common argument, however, (in 10% of appeals) considers heritage protection as important for securing the public interest in affordable housing. In those appeals proposals to develop are often bracketed as harmful to the housing stock. Other arguments in favor of preservation are less frequent: 5% of appeal decisions relate to heritage protection as preventing loss of memory and 6% view heritage protection of the

13

old stock of housing as providing a set of different social goods, such as promoting residential living quality or a mix of housing. A typical example is Euro-Mid Investments vs the City of Westminster Council [2007] where the developer proposed to partially demolish a heritage building located in a conservation area. The proposal was for greater bulk and smaller apartments. Because of the unique properties of the older building on the one hand, and the unsympathetic qualities of the newly proposed structure on the other, the inspector refused to approve the development, noting that: “I do not doubt that people may be willing to live in such accommodation, but one important function of the planning system is to aim to provide opportunities for people to live in well designed, decent homes of high quality” (paragraph 18). As a conclusion, the inspector resolved that the minimal size of the proposed units would not be “functional in a practical way” (Ibid) and therefore concluded that the existing historic building should remain in place. With housing in mind, inspectors also tie together heritage protection to a mix of housing types. An example is Ayten Emin vs. the Council of the London Borough of Southwark [2006] where the appellant proposed a conversion of a maisonette into two self-contained flats as well as partial demolition of a listed historic building. The local planning authority rejected the proposal and the planning inspector concurred. The inspector mentioned the importance of retaining the existing structure and minimizing harm to the original layout of the historic property. The inspector also mentioned the importance of keeping the structure in its current state so that to help the city council manage a mix of housing types: "…The unit may, as suggested by the appellant, presently be in multiple occupation. However, its permanent subdivision as proposed would mean that it could not in the future be occupied by a single family…if I were to allow this appeal it would adversely affect the Council's ability to manage the mix of housing types in the future." Appeal decisions also highlight other social advantages of keeping historic resources, such as building community ties and accommodating specific groups by preventing alterations (3% of our sample). In this regard, an illuminating case is Greathall Ltd. vs. the Council of the London Borough of Croydon [2007] where the inspector notes the importance of keeping an old historic garage which provides valuable training and work experience for young people. Likewise in Empyrean Developments LTD vs. the London Borough of Tower Hamlets, the inspector refused a permit to demolish a historic pub, after receiving evidence about the desire of local community members to retain the building as a viable community facility. Nonetheless, based on discussions about proposed developments in conservation areas, we found that more often, inspectors employ a critical viewpoint about strict heritage protection, thereby emphasizing its

14

regressive impact on the social fabric. In fact inspectors utilize more social arguments 'against' heritage protection. Cumulatively, in 41% of sampled appeals, inspectors note the social disadvantages of heritage protection. This number stands in stark contrast to the number of appeals where 'pro' arguments are employed (23% of appeals). When the veil is lifted, the findings demonstrate that most critiques about heritage, as identified in the literature, are starkly absent in appeal decisions. Critiques that emphasize the regressive implications of heritage such as its elitist inclination, or the havoc it brings upon community identity, are not mentioned in appeal deliberations. Instead, the most-common argument against heritage protection, is that strict protection sometimes results in keeping a substandard stock of housing (15% of decisions). The second most common argument in heritage appeals contends that heritage protection creates unaffordable environments (9% of decisions). One outcome of this approach is that inspectors often argue that demolitions and alterations to historic properties can promote important social goals. Specifically, demolition or alteration are regarded as providing social benefits such as: affordable housing (Bernard Construction LTD vs. the London Borough of Tower Hamlets [2007]); increased sense of security (Handley vs. the London Borough of Barnet [2007]); protection against vandalism (Jas Hare vs. the London Borough of Newham [2009]); and solidifying national consciousness (Her Majesty's Courts Service vs. the City of Westminster Council [2008]). In other words, appeal decisions consist of instances where the planning inspector highlights the social ‘counterfactual’ of preservation, namely the social goods that would accrue if demolitions or alterations are carried out. These findings highlight the importance of flexible approaches to HP which allow alterations and changes in the existing historic fabric. The analysis of London appeals also suggest that, besides heritage protection, there is a variety of competing societal needs that could be better-served by alterations and demolitions. A typical example of this category of arguments can be found in Mr Dudley Sessford vs the Council of the London Borough of Merton [2010]. The appeal involved a proposal for partial demolition of a listed building situated within a Conservation Area. The local planning authority rejected the proposal due to the unique qualities of the historic building. The Inspector, on the other hand, regarded the proposed alterations as vital from a social point of view, contending that "the proposed extensions and alterations would assist in meeting the needs of the elderly in an area where there is considerable demand for the type of accommodation proposed" (paragraph 4).

15

Thus, in Dudley Sessford, the Inspector concluded that HP can be carried out while taking into account the needs of diverse social groups. Strict preservation, on the other hand, may militate against important social goals, such as providing homes for the elderly. This blends well with current trends in the English heritage system that take into account the traditions of ethnic communities and the needs of people with disabilities (Hudson & James 2007:258). 6

Discussion

Heritage, appeals, and social conflicts Overall, the conflicts over development proposals in London’s conservation areas demonstrate the intangible effects of preservation policy, namely its societal trajectories. The mention of the social dimension of heritage policy is quite frequent (48% of appeal decisions) and the intensity of the social debate concerning preservation policy can easily be discerned by looking at the regressive and progressive arguments pertaining to heritage policy. Following the analysis of appeal deliberations, it becomes evident that some arguments, so frequently present in heritage literature, are not utilized by decision-makers to construct their argument. As an example, inspectors rarely point to meritorious impacts of heritage such as ‘community identity’ or ‘image improvements’. Likewise, a variety of critiques about heritage are absent, with few categories utilized in heritage appeals to justify deviation from strict heritage policy. This issue indicates that professional deliberations on heritage and development do not draw on a larger knowledge-base pertaining to the social implications of heritage policy. This disconnect can be undone if future decision-makers choose to tap knowledge produced by planning scholarship. As for their content, a large share of decisions inclusive of social deliberation consider development in conservation areas as potentially having a negative social impact. Another group of appeals contain mixed argumentation, a findings which suggests that decision-makers are well-aware of the often complex outcomes of keeping the old. Most decisions that stress the social merits of heritage protection do so with reference to the importance of retaining an old stock of housing in order to maintain a diverse set of social benefits, including spacious housing units, or – in some cases- more affordable housing. Overall, however, the favorable-progressive view on preservation emerges as fragile, with fewer appeal decisions adopting a favorable stance towards heritage protection, compared with a much larger group of appeal decisions that highlight its potentially negative implications.

16

Most of these critiques relate to the issues of affordability and quality of housing. In particular, they focus on how lenient heritage protection approaches, or even demolitions, can provide better and affordable housing opportunities. These findings suggest that when faced with conflict, decision-makers do not fully accept the presumption in favor of physical protection, and are willing to consider the social benefits of alterations\demolitions. Although this is not a direct critique on heritage policy, the consideration of alternative modes of action suggests that inspectors do not take preservation at face value, but rather look at its long-term social ‘cost’. These cases are not necessarily against heritage policy per se, but in them we find a realistic approach which calls to re-assess the social impact of strict heritage protection. This realization de facto militates against more conservative approaches which call to protect the old fabric while downplaying the socially regressive aspects of conservation. In the context of proposals to develop in historic environments, the rationalization processes in heritage appeals suggest that decision-makers cannot equate all values and public interests. In fact, decisions on how to carry out heritage protection in the face of developmental pressures require inspectors to straddle and order a variety of interests in heritage. Moreover, despite the government’s prominent urban design agenda and an inclination towards heritage protection (Jones and Evans 2013, p. 151), the findings demonstrate that inspectors do not automatically buy-in to those issues and perform a site-specific and case-sensitive evaluation of what needs to be done. Methodological observations: Studying the social aspects of heritage conflicts The set of London appeals demonstrates that the conceptual framework we develop in this paper is applicable for assessing policies and real-life debates over preservation of heritage. We found that it is possible to operationalize the social aspect of heritage policy, and to compile a new framework which delineates its regressive and progressive implications. This framework can serve as an overarching platform for analytical inspection of policy statements, planning decisions, and existing conflicts. It can enable empirical inquiry, enrich current preservation knowledge, and concretize diverging views about preservation. Obviously, this framework is exploratory and can be refined in future research, by using additional scholarly contributions and new evidence with respect to heritage policy. Being context-sensitive, it is plausible that other localities in the UK, and around the globe, employ a different set of social justifications when discussing heritage disputes. In this regard, a number of factors may influence the way in which heritage policy is justified (or critiqued) in other places including, institutional configuration, statutory measures, the location and importance of the site, management issues (Shepherd and Yu 2013, p. 67), as well as the existence of minorities. These factors could potentially determine the direction of heritage disputes, and the kind of social assessment carried out by decision-makers. In other

17

words, contextual factors can affect the deliberation of social issues pegged to heritage, and also the types of arguments (or justifications) used by planning officers to determine the course of proposed development. Conclusion Social considerations are a source of much concern to those involved in applying heritage policies (Hall 2014, p. 138; Hobson 2004, p. 266) yet existing research does not clearly state the weight of social considerations in heritage conflicts. Thus, the paper contributes to existing scholarship by exploring and mapping existing conflicts and by accentuating the social challenges associated with built heritage. The paper’s contribution is twofold: first, it helps conceptualize existing gaps in the perception of heritage policy; it creates a platform for future assessment of policy and conflicts, and illustrates that it is possible to build a conceptual framework to help theorize what heritage does. Different views of heritage policy illustrate the existence of a ‘progressive-regressive’ gap in heritage policy, a gap which emanates from a wide array of values and beliefs about the society we live in and the role which heritage should assume. Second, the paper provides empirical data on the actual presence and weight of social considerations in real-life heritage disputes. Notably, the sampled appeals from London represent a bulk of hundreds of similar appeals being dealt with in the UK. As for London, social issues are closely tied to heritage disputes and are frequently discussed by decision-makers. A skeptical approach of heritage protection is often adopted although overall the findings illustrate the complexity of heritage preservation by referring to a mix of arguments that either justify or lambast heritage protection. If policymakers intend to alleviate preservation conflicts, a better understanding of the two sides of heritage policy is needed. The two opposing prisms provide interesting vantage points on heritage policy and its impact on the community’s needs and aspirations. By acknowledging the different social effects of heritage protection, conservationists can better prepare themselves for scrutiny or avoid scrutiny altogether by devising better plans and policies. Preservation can become an inclusive or, at least, a well-aware policy tool. Through continued studies of the ‘progressive-regressive’ gap in heritage preservation, it is also possible to search for new instruments and policies that could bridge this gap. Notably, anti-preservation voices, focusing on its societal repercussions, are not restricted to Western, often developed, countries. The ‘arguments map’ we compiled is part of a larger, global, debate. In an era when heritage policies are increasingly scrutinized and social groups are more aware of their “rights to the city” (Chomsky and Barsamian 2013; Harvey 2012) planners and regulators should be more cognizant of the social dimensions of historic-preservation decisions. Reliance on largely-architectural discourse is no longer tenable, and is likely to be challenged politically or legally.

18

In this vein, the wide-ranging scholarly accounts discussing the social repercussions of heritage policies appear in North America, Europe, the Far East, the Middle East, and in cross-national research. The universality of these societal challenges implies an overarching quandary which confronts preservation policy today. These social challenges have to be refined, mitigated or at least acknowledged, or else- recurring conflicts might overburden the heritage bandwagon. References Aplin, G. (2002). Heritage: Identification, conservation, and management. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ashworth G.J. (1997). Conservation as preservation or as heritage: Two paradigms and two answers. Built Environment, 23(2), 92-102. Ashworth G., & Howard P. (Eds.). (1999). European heritage planning and management. Exeter: Intellect. Barthel, D. (1996). Historic preservation: Collective memory and historical identity. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Bond, A., Langstaff, L., Baxter, R., Wallentinus, H.G., Kofoed, J., Lisitzin, K., and Lundstrom, S. (2004). Dealing with the cultural heritage aspect of environmental impact assessment in Europe. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 22(1), 37-45. Cheyenne-Harvey, D. (2007). (Re)Creating culture through tourism: Black heritage sites in New Jersey. In M. K. Smith (Ed.), Tourism, culture & regeneration (pp. 59- 68). Cambridge, MA: Cabi Publishing. Chomsky, Noam, and David Barsamian. 2013. Power systems: Conversations on global democratic uprisings and the new challenges to U.S. empire. New York: Metropolitan Books. Clark, K. (2001). From regulation to participation: Cultural heritage, sustainable development and citizenship. In Forward planning: The function of cultural heritage in a changing Europe (pp.103-110). Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Clarke, A., & Johnston, C. (2003). Time, memory, place and land: Social meaning and heritage conservation in Australia (Paper presented at ICOMOS 14th general assembly and scientific symposium, Zimbabwe 2003). Coskun, N., & Yalcin, S. (June, 2007). Gentrification in a globalizing world, case study: Istanbul (Paper presented at the international conference on sustainable urban areas. Rotterdam, the Netherlands, 25-28 June, 2007).

19

Cossons, N. (August, 2009). Prospects, perceptions and the public (Paper presented at the plenary session of TICCIH conference. Freiberg, Germany 31 August 2009). Costonis, J.J. (1982). Law and aesthetics: A critique and a reformulation of the dilemmas. Michigan Law Review, 80 (3), 355-461. Costonis, J. J. (1989). Icons and aliens: Law, aesthetics and environmental change. Urbana and Chicago, IL: University of Illinois. Cullingworth, B., & Nadin, V. (2006). Town and country planning in the UK. London: Routledge. DCLG 2012. National Planning Policy Framework, March 2012. London: Department of Communities and Local Government. Dearborn, L.M., & Stallmeyer, J.C. (2010). Inconvenient heritage: Erasure and global tourism in Luang Prabang. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press. De Block, E. A. (2015). Historic preservation and affordable housing in Rhode Island: A policy analysis. MSc dissertation, Roger Williams University. De Haven Newsom, M. (1971). Blacks and historic preservation. Law and Contemporary Problems, 36, 423431. Delafons, J. (1997). Sustainable conservation. Built Environment, 23(2), 111-120. Dobby, A. (1978). Conservation and Planning. London: Hutchinson & Co. Dubrow, G. L. (2003). Blazing trails with pink triangles and rainbow flags: Improving the preservation and interpretation of gay and lesbian heritage. In G. L. Dubrow & J. B. Goodman (Eds.), Restoring women's history through preservation (pp.281 – 302). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. English, P. (2007). Ancient monuments of national importance: Symbols of whose past?. In H. Lim & A. Bottomley (Eds.), Feminist perspectives on land law (pp.43-64). New York: Routledge-Cavendish. Evans, G. (2006). Retaining Wilmington: The role of class, heritage and memory in historic preservation. Master of Art dissertation, University of North Carolina. Fein, D. B. (1985). Historic districts: Preserving city neighborhoods for the privileged. New York University Law Review, 60 (April 1985), 64-103.

20

Gard’ner, J.M. (2004). Heritage protection and social inclusion: A case study from the Bangladeshi community of East London. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 10(1), 75-92. Glendinning, M. (2013). The conservation movement: A history of architectural preservation. London: Routledge. Greed, C. (1996). Introducing town planning. Harlow: Longman. Hadaway P. (2014). Re-imagining Titanic, Re-imagining Belfast. In W.J.V.Neill, M. Murray, & B. Grist (Eds.), Relaunching Titanic: Memory and marketing in the new Belfast (pp. 55-62). New York: Routledge. Hall P. (2014). Good cities, better lives: How Europe discovered the lost art of urbanism. London: Routledge. Hargrove, M. D. (2009). Mapping the "social field of whiteness": White racism as habitus in the city where history lives. Transforming Anthropology, 17, 93-104. Harvey, D. (2012). Rebel cities: From the right to the city to the urban revolution. London: Verso Books. Harwood, R. (2012). Historic environment law: Planning, listed buildings, monuments, conservation areas and objects. Pentre Moel: The institute of art and law. Hayden, D. (1995). The power of place: Urban landscapes as public history. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Hewitson, N. (2008). The Heritage Protection Bill: The effect on the current systems, Journal of Planning Law, 7, 930-938. Hidalgo, E.B. (2012). Argentina’s former secret detention centres: Between demolition, modification, and preservation. Journal of Material Culture, 17(2), 191-206. Hobson, E. (2004). Conservation and planning: Changing values in policy and practice. London: SPON Press. Joe, M. (2015). Adaptive reuse and rehabilitation: Connecting historic preservation and affordable housing developments in Seattle, Washington. Master’s dissertation, University of Washington. Jones, P. & Evans, J. (2013). Urban Regeneration in the UK (2d Edition). Los Angeles: Sage. Koziol, C. (2008). Historic Preservation ideology: A critical mapping of contemporary heritage policy discourse. Preservation Education and Research, 1(2008), 41-50.

21

Lamberti, A. (October, 2006). Preserving the recent and the most recent memories of Tel Aviv (Paper presented at the ESF (European Science Foundation) LiU conference “cities and media: cultural perspectives on urban identities in a mediatized world”, Vadstena 25–29 October 2006. Larkham, P. J. (1996). Conservation and the city. London: Routledge. Lawton, P. (2008). Evaluating the role of urban public space in Dublin's evolution as an entrepreneurial city. Progress in Irish Urban Studies, 4, 1-12. Lee, A. (2003). The social and ethnic dimensions of historic preservation. In R. E. Stipe (Ed.), A richer heritage: Historic preservation in the twenty first century (pp. 385-404). Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press. Lowenthal D. (1998). The heritage crusade and the spoils of history. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lowenthal, D. (2002). Assessing values in conservation planning: Methodological issues and choices. In E. Avrami, R. Mason, & de la Torre, M. (Eds.), Values and Heritage Preservation, the Getty Conservation Institute (L.A) report (pp. 18-25). Los Angeles, CA: The J. Paul Getty Trust. Lupu, I. C., & Tuttle, R. W. (2002). Historic preservation grants to houses of worship: A case study in the survival of separationism. Boston College Law Review, 43(5), 1139-1166. LeVine, M. (2004) Re-imagining the “White City”. City, 8(2), 221-228. MacDonald, S. & Cheong, C. (2014). The Role of Public-Private Partnerships and the Third Sector in Conserving Heritage Buildings, Sites, and Historic Urban Areas. Los Angeles: The Getty Conservation Institute. Madgin, R. M. (2008). Urban renaissance: The meaning, management and manipulation of place, 19452002. PhD Dissertation, University of Leicester, UK. Mason, R. (2002). Assessing values in conservation planning: Methodological issues and choices. In M. de la Torre (Ed.), Assessing the values of cultural heritage, the Getty Conservation Institute (L.A) report (pp. 530). Los Angeles, CA: The J. Paul Getty Trust. Mattioli, F. (2014). Unchanging boundaries: The reconstruction of Skopje and the politics of heritage.” International Journal of Heritage Studies, 20(6), 599–615.

22

Metrany, K. (2008). The "listed asset" and its surroundings: The case of the old city center of Tel Aviv. Phd Dissertation, Bar Ilan University, Israel (In Hebrew). Mourato, S., & Mazzanti, M. (2002). Economic valuation of cultural heritage: Evidence and prospects. In M. de la Torre (Ed.), Assessing the values of cultural heritage, the Getty Conservation Institute (L.A) report (pp. 51- 76). Los Angeles: The J. Paul Getty Trust. Mualam, N. (2014). Where planning meets the law: The rise of appeal tribunals for deciding land-use disputes. Journal of Planning Literature, 29(4), 370-385. Nevanlinna, A. K. (2001). Classified urban spaces: Who owns the history of Helsinki south port. In S. Gunn, & R.J. Morris (Eds.), Identities in space: Contested terrains in the Western city since 1850 (pp.19- 38). Burlington: Ashgate Publishing Company. Northrup, J. L. (2010). Constructing whiteness: Voices from the gentrified old West End. Master of Art dissertation, the University of Toledo, Ohio. Orbasli, A. (2008). Architectural conservation: Principles and practice. Oxford: Blackwell. Osman, S. (2011). The invention of Brownstone Brooklyn: Gentrification and the search for authenticity in postwar New York. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Parfect, M., & Power, G. (1997). Planning for urban quality: Urban design in towns and cities. London: Routledge. Parkinson, Arthur, Mark Scott, and Declan Redmond (2016). Competing discourses of built heritage: Lay values in Irish conservation planning. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 22(3), 261–73. Payne, S. (1992). Too ‘conservative’ a solution? The conservation area test. The Modern Law Review, 55 (September 1992), 726-732. Peacock, A. (1998). Subsidization and promotion of the arts. In H. Giersch (Ed.), Merits and Limits of Markets (pp. 185-208). Berlin: Springer. Pendlebury, J., Townshend, T., & Gilroy, R. (2004). The conservation of English cultural built heritage: A force of social inclusion? International Journal of Heritage Studies, 10(1), 11-31. Pendlebury, J. (2009). Conservation in the age of Consensus. Abingdon: Routledge. Pickard, R. (2001). Policy and Law in Heritage Conservation. London: SPON.

23

Punter, J., & Bell, A. (2000). Design appeals in England in the 1990s: An aggregate analysis. Urban Studies, 37(2), 275-299. Purdue, M., & Popham, J. (2002). Third Party Rights of Appeal. A research report for the Council for the Protection of Rural England. Ratcliffe, J. M., & Keeping, M. (2009). Urban Planning and Real Estate Development. London: Routledge. Rowntree, L. B. & Conkey, M. W. (1980). Symbolism and the cultural landscape. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 70(4), 459-474. Ruffins, F. D. (2003). Four African American women on the national landscape. In G. L. Dubrow & J. B. Goodman (Eds.), Restoring women's history through preservation (pp. 58- 66). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press. Rydin, Y. (1993). The British planning system: An introduction. London: Macmillan. Rypkema, D. (2002). Historic preservation and affordable housing. A Paper for the National Trust for Historic Preservation. Retrieved December 17, 2016 from http://www.placeeconomics.com/pub/placeeconomicspub2003b.pdf Sanz Salla, C. O. (2009). The protection of historic properties: A comparative study of administrative policies. Southhampton: WIT Press. Shepherd, R.J., & Yu, L. (2013). Heritage Management, Tourism, and Governance in China: Managing the Past to Serve the Present. New York: Springer. Silverman, H., & Ruggles, D. F. (2007). Cultural heritage and human rights. In H. Silverman, & D.F. Ruggles (Eds.), Cultural heritage and human rights (pp. 3-29). New York: Springer Press. Stough, P. (2006). Historic preservation in Southeast Asia: The role of public-private partnerships. Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, 39, 1013-1050. Stubbs, M. (2000). Informality and the planning appeal by hearing method: An appraisal of user satisfaction. Town Planning Review, 71(3), 245-267. Suddards, R. W. (1998). Listed buildings. London: Sweet & Maxwell. Sue, X., & Teo, P. (2009). The Politics of Heritage Tourism in China: A View from Lijiang. Abingdon: Routledge.

24

Talen, E. (2005). New urbanism & American planning: The conflict of cultures. New York: Routledge. Talen, E. (2008). Design for diversity: Exploring socially mixed neighborhoods. Amsterdam: Architectural Press. Telling, A., & Duxbury R. (1999). Planning Law and Procedure. London: Butterworths. Thomas, K. (1997). Development Control: Principles and Practice. London: Routledge. Vanclay, F. (2003). Conceptual and methodological advances in social impact assessment. In H.A. Becker, & Vanclay, F. (Eds.), The international handbook of social impact assessment: Conceptual and methodological advances (pp. 1-12). Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar. Waterton, E. & Smith, L. (2010). The recognition and misrecognition of community heritage. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 16(1-2), 4-15. Whitehand, J.W.R. & Gu, K. (2007). Urban conservation in China: Historical development, current practice and morphological approach. Town Planning Review, 78(5), 643-670. Wu, H.C., & Li, T. (2014). A study of experiential quality, perceived value, heritage image, experiential satisfaction, and behavioral intentions for heritage tourists. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, doi:10.1177/1096348014525638 (first published December 28, 2014). Yadollahi, S. (2015). A reflection on methodological approaches in assessing and implementing social sustainability in historic public spaces. In M.T. Albert (Ed.), Perceptions of sustainability in heritage studies (pp. 159-172). Berlin: de Gruyter. Yung, E.H.K., Langston C., & Chan E. H.W. (2014). Adaptive reuse of traditional Chinese shophouses in government-led urban renewal projects in Hong-Kong. Cities 39, 87-98. Zhang, X., Zhou, L., Wu, Y., Skitmore, M., & Deng, Z. (2015). Resolving the conflicts of sustainable world heritage landscapes in cities: Fully open or limited access to visitors? Habitat International 46 (2015), 91100. Zhu, Y. (2015). Cultural effects of authenticity: contested heritage practices in China. International Journal of Heritage Studies 21(6), 594-608.