- Email: [email protected]
Heritage management plans and integrated coastal management
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Marine Policy 31 (2007) 607–610 www.elsevier.com/locate/marpol
Heritage management plans and integrated coastal management Tim Goodheada,, Zeynep Aygenb a
Faculty of Technology, University of Portsmouth, Portland Building, Portland Street, Portsmouth PO18 8SW, UK School of Environmental Design and Management, University of Portsmouth, Portland Building, Portland Street, Portsmouth PO18 8SW, UK
b
Abstract This paper examines at the origins of coastal zone management and planning in England and from that, how integrated coastal zone management techniques were developed. The lack of heritage management planning in coastal plans in England is discussed and put into context of ‘integrated heritage zone management’ approaches. Having looked at these two systems, examples of good practice are discussed. The concept of spatial planning is also discussed and the opportunities that this might offer for integrating coastal and heritage planning in the Solent are considered. r 2007 Published by Elsevier Ltd. Keywords: Integrated coastal zone management; Integrated heritage management; Spatial planning; Solent
1. Introduction The management of the coast in the Solent area of Southern England can be traced back thousands of years. For example, the development of ports in the Solent area can be traced to Roman times and before that there is evidence of Iron Age settlements in Langstone Harbour where, through simple wood and stake technology, attempts were made to manage and control natural physical processes. Such early ‘management plans’ for coastal areas were generally concerned with defence against infringement by the sea, or adaptation to the coastline to form saltings or fisheries. Whilst these plans were never presented in a conventional sense, archaeological evidence from coastal settlements does imply that protection from coastal physical processes had been considered. The coastal resource is now subjected to many complex managementplanning techniques involved with reducing potential and actual conflict between commercial, recreational and environmental interests. The pressures on the coastal resource from the land and sea are fundamentally different in modern times, largely as a result of their high levels of interdependence. Despite this, management systems operCorresponding author. Tel.: +44 023 9284 2939.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (T. Goodhead), [email protected] (Z. Aygen). 0308-597X/$ - see front matter r 2007 Published by Elsevier Ltd. doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2007.03.005
ating on the landward side of the coast tend to relate to development planning whilst management techniques used on the seaward side tend to be resource specific, with few formal links between the two systems. The organisational and administrative structure in the coastal zone of England and Wales is extremely complex with many different institutions involved. Some order was put into the system, almost by default, with the introduction of Town and Country Planning legislation in 1947, however, the system remains complex due to a cascade of management plans covering the mainland to 200 miles offshore designed to protect a wide variety of resource use and legal interests. Over the last 20 years the UK coastline has seen the development of numerous types of management plans to aid the effective management of estuary, harbour and open coast (these should not be confused with coastal defence focused shoreline management plans that have different objectives). The origin of these plans lie in countryside management where, in the late 1970s and early 1980s, the Countryside Commission awarded grants for the production of management plans to reduce the conflict between agriculture, recreation and conservation. These plans were non-statutory and formed the basis of local partnerships for the management of land normally under the ownership of more than one landowner. The concept and development of estuary management plans was promoted by
ARTICLE IN PRESS 608
T. Goodhead, Z. Aygen / Marine Policy 31 (2007) 607–610
English Nature through the ‘Coordinators Guide to Estuary Management Plans’ as part of the ‘Estuaries initiative’ [1]. Governmental support for this type of approach resulted from the publication of a House of Commons Select Committee Report into Coastal Zone Protection and Planning in 1992, which recommended the production of voluntarily introduced non-statutory plans rather than direct central government control in coastal management [2]. In terms of built heritage, these plans rarely go into any detail, the origins of coastal management planning perhaps reflecting early sponsorship by institutions with a strong interest in the natural environment. These fragmented plans sometimes hide what was once an integrated system. This can be illustrated historically by the development of British Dockyards across the world. These dockyards were constructed mainly in the 17th and 18th century by order of the British Admiralty to service large fleets of warships. At their centre, a network of drydocks provided the ability to maintain hulls and covered slipways provided a facility to build ships in the dry and protect ships from the effects of fresh water that could promote decay in timbers. The British fleet relied on this international network of dockyards. Nationally, there was also a network of dockyards, with Portsmouth, Plymouth and Chatham perhaps being the best known. In these dockyards, a network of facilities existed from ship construction, mast making, sail making, rope making, victualling (provision of food and drink), ordinance and medical facilities. Dockyards we often protected by fortifications that as enemy firepower increased, became larger, stronger and further out from the dockyards to form a ring of protection. In terms of contemporary conservation and interpretation, this integrated story is rarely told. This may be due to the historical progression in saving heritage artefacts. Different individual trusts have been formed, with passionate groups of people becoming dedicated to saving a particular relic. Once these trusts have formed their loyalty tends to be with the individual artefact rather than the broader environment that it used to exist in. An example of this in the Solent area is the preservation of HMS Victory in Portsmouth, which perhaps owes its continued existence to the persistence of the Society of Nautical Research in the early 20th century. Over the last 50 years Portsmouth has experienced an explosion in museums, trusts and charities all with individual aims and objectives but without one integrated coherent heritage management plan. Plans do, however, exist in a similar fashion to coastal management plans. Individual trusts have plans such as those for the Mary Rose and HMS Warrior. A broader plan exists for Portsmouth Historic Dockyard and above this is a plan for Portsmouth Harbour, although this does not really address the issues of heritage and conservation in any detail. International integrated plans for heritage management do exist, with those associated with the designation of World Heritage by UNESCO, being the most well known.
The United Kingdom ratified the World Heritage Convention in 1984 and submitted its First Tentative List in 1986, which led to the inscription of sites like Stonehenge and the Tower of London as World Heritage Sites. In October 1997 the tentative list was reviewed, which led to the inclusion of some coastal sites in the nomination procedure. The result was that certain coastal sites have been included in the new tentative list, such as the Dorset and East Devon Coast, Dockyards like Chatham Naval Dockyard in Kent, and waterfront sites like the Liverpool Commercial Centre and Waterfront [3]. Below World Heritage status, which in itself does not offer specific heritage protection measures (and as such is more of a prestige instrument), heritage in England is protected through the town and country planning system. This responsibility overlaps to a certain extent with that of English Heritage, which has responsibility for ‘national heritage’ and the ability to schedule (provide central government protection for) ancient monuments. English Heritage works with local authorities that have responsibility for listing buildings against a priority scale. In contrast, landscape heritage might be regarded as a responsibility of the Countryside Agency, which is involved with the development, and management of Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and National Parks. The power of these organisations has in the last 10 years been enhanced by their ability to influence or support lottery funding. The UK National Lottery has provided a significant amount of funding for heritage but the allocation of these funds is influenced by advice from central government departments. At site level, individual heritage management plans are common. They are often very similar to estuary management plans in their nature in that rural sites with sensitive heritage often require a plan that takes into account the surrounding landscape and the conflicts within it. The management of individual sites is in itself a complex issue, as private individuals or charities and trusts, such as the National Trust, may own many sites. The Fife coast in Scotland provides a good example for such complexity. The historic towns along the coastline stretching from Aberdour to St. Andrews were in decline during the 1950s; many of their buildings may become derelict. They were given a fresh life between the 1960s and the 1970s, with an initiative called ‘Little Houses Improvement Scheme’ which revived small ports like Dysart and St. Monans to a great extent. In the case of Dysart, for example, it was ‘predominantly interwoven with the needs of the burgh’ [12]. Although it was a great success in its own right, it was not linked with a coastal management plan [4]. The management of heritage in England has developed in parallel to developments in coastal management although there are some differences such as designated protected wreck sites, war graves and other selective protective policies. The system in England relates to ‘town and country planning’ regulation above low watermark. Seaward of low water mark, a sectoral system exists for the protection of resources, in which heritage management is included.
ARTICLE IN PRESS T. Goodhead, Z. Aygen / Marine Policy 31 (2007) 607–610
2. Heritage management in the Solent The role of the coastal management plan has generally been concerned with a coordinated effort to manage a coastal area with regard to set objectives; in many cases these have largely been concerned with conservation, recreation and environment. The funding of these plans has varied from region to region but statutory authorities appear to have had a central role in coordinating and establishing them. Management plans are normally considered to be site specific but when the site is as large and complex as the Solent, the plan takes on the responsibility for developing a regional strategy. This is particularly relevant when the site overlaps a number of local strategic town and country plans, as the plan would then effectively bind together a number of development plans. Although regional development frameworks have recently been put into place, very few true regional strategies have been produced. Due to the complexity of the Solent, developing one management framework would be an immense challenge. Some may argue that this is not necessary, but in the case of heritage, particularly when dealing with a large number of sites that used to be an integrated whole, it might be regarded as essential. Surprisingly, the issue of heritage management has rarely been addressed in recent in coastal planning, either at the management plan level or in the regional strategies. This would appear to be a major omission. Developments in coastal planning techniques through the 1980s and 1990s very much pointed towards developing Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) frameworks [5–8]. Projects sponsored by the EC investigated specific sites and used them as test beds for developing ICZM concepts. ICZM was not without its critics, so a number of sites were chosen across Europe in order to develop the technique. The sites chosen in the UK mainly exhibited issues of possible environmental conflict with recreation and industry. The preservation of heritage or culture did not feature significantly. A criticism of these early projects is that ICZM was bound to show a positive value, as that is why they were chosen in the first place. However, a great deal was learned and this led, in the late 1990s, to the emergence of spatial planning in marine areas as a new direction for the management of the coastal and exclusive economic zones. The spatial planning concept offers an interesting challenge for heritage. Whilst designed perhaps with ecosystems and pollution control in mind, spatial planning is a concept that can be exported to heritage management. Using Royal Dockyards as an example of a type of coastal heritage site present in many Commonwealth countries (with similar heritage existing in other European countries that used to have an empire), a spatial approach to heritage perhaps could be considered. For example, British Dockyards formed a web of supporting facilities across the globe; similarly foreign powers also developed a parallel web of supporting facilities. Sometimes these facilities, from opposing navies, squared up to each other
609
as illustrated by the navies of Britain and France. For instance, at the same time as Portsmouth dockyard grew and became heavily defended during the mid-Victorian era, France was expanding and developing the port of Cherbourg. It was the equivalent of the 1950s cold war, albeit 100 years before. Looking at Portsmouth and its heritage only tells half the story, to put it into context Cherbourg and similar cities must also be examined. Unfortunately, developments in ICZM rarely acknowledge heritage issues to any significant extent. ICZM has developed as a way of linking two existing regulatory systems, one for land and one for marine with the natural environment often being the catalyst for its development. As the development of ICZM moves towards spatial planning, it is an appropriate time to think of building in some of the issues that tend to have their own management-planning structures, including heritage, recreation and security. However, some institutions are on their way to fill the gap left by ICZM. The National Trust Coastal and Marine Issues Group adopted in 2005, a National Trust Coastal Policy to introduce ‘a long-term and strategic approach to the coastal zone’ [9] in which the decision-making process will be based on the principles and practices of ICZM. The National Trust Document states, ‘coastal management decisions often impact beyond their immediate location and cannot be made in isolation. The Trust will work with other managers, organizations and communitiesyto ensure a shared understanding is achieved of the reasons for the Trust’s policies and practices at all levels’ [9]. In terms of management planning in the Solent, one geographical area stands out as a beacon of good practice, and that is Chichester Harbour. The reason why it has been so successful is perhaps because in the early 1970s a management structure was created and established by an act of parliament. This has been complimented by the designation of the area as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, which gives it a clear spatial zone. Funded by Heritage Lottery awards, it has recently developed its ‘Rhythms of the Tide’ initiative. This enables heritage management across the Harbour to be developed within its existing management plan structure. Some of the projects are highly imaginative with the restoration of an historic oyster boat being funded alongside a boat building apprenticeship to try to preserve traditional skills within the ‘spatial zone’. The difficulty for the harbour is that many of the traditional skills associated with maintaining wooden boats are dying out. These skills are vital in order to service specific craft such as the XOD wooden racing craft that are raced competitively within the harbour. The restoration of the Oyster Smack is serving two separate needs, firstly restoring a classic craft and associated heritage and secondly through its restoration rebuilding the skills base within the harbour. This spatial heritage approach could be adopted on a far greater scale as spatial plans for much larger zones are created. This has the potential to create some winners and some losers with respect to management decisions. Whilst for the admirer of historic Royal Dockyards it might be
ARTICLE IN PRESS 610
T. Goodhead, Z. Aygen / Marine Policy 31 (2007) 607–610
beneficial to conserve them all, the reality is that these facilities only have a future if a sustainable use can be found for them. A spatial plan might identify historic structures that are to be conserved but also identify historic structures that might be adapted for alternative uses. Some difficult decisions might have to be made but this would stop heritage facilities competing for public funding and perhaps instead, choosing to work together for their common good. The recent Department of Culture Media and Sport (2004) consultation document ‘Protecting our Marine Historic Environment Making the System Work Better’ does at last indicate that government departments are considering a spatial approach [3]. A comparison on European scale displays different coastal management approaches, in which some countries are more conscious of the integration of heritage than others. For instance in France, the National Coastal Conservatory (CNL) was involved as early as 1975 in the rehabilitation of the naval dockyard at Rochfort. As a consequence of this early comprehensive heritage management approach, the history of the town, and its heritage, were considered by the landscape architect Bernard Lassus in the later phases of the project [10]. There are concerns at European level about the lack of recognition of heritage in ICZM. The recently issued Europa Nostra Bergen Declaration highlighted in particular that ‘the interests of conservation of coastal cultural heritage should be further integrated into the programme implementation’ of ICZM [11]. The Declaration welcomes the establishment of the European Landscape Convention, which draws particular attention to heritage management issues with regard to specific features of coastal and maritime landscapes, however, it expresses regret that many European countries have not yet signed or ratified the Convention. Considering that ICZM has developed without the integration of heritage management and with many European countries refusing to integrate the European Landscape Convention’s provisions into their policies, the issues linked to the integration of heritage management and coastal management seem to be European wide. The Solent Forum, a non-executive group, founded to consider and provide strategic advice on matters relating to the Solent in Southern England, may provide a model for introducing a broader approach to the inclusion of heritage issues within the field of ICZM. Whilst not a management organisation itself, the Forum provides regular advice to practicing managers in the coastal zone. It produced the Strategic Guidance for the Solent [8] to promote ICZM in the region and despite its non-executive power, it might be regarded as the start of spatial planning for the Solent area. Its policies/advice include [8]:
to continue to protect historic and archaeological sites from development; to give increased protection to archaeological sites underwater;
to improve the information base; to recognise the importance of maritime archaeology within coastal defense policies; to take a strategic approach to the protection and uses of historic building and sites; to promote widespread support for archaeological conservation.
The difficulty that areas like the Solent have regarding heritage and coastal management is often that far from a lack of planning, there are too many plans, produced by too many agencies. By providing a framework through non-statutory advice rather than through executive power, the Forum could potentially provide a framework for integrated regional and spatial plans very quickly. 3. Conclusion In conclusion, spatial planning could form the mechanism to embed heritage management planning into the concept of Integrated Coastal Zone Management. In terms of the Solent, this is an area that warrants more research, largely due to the diversity of organisations and complex issues involved. Links between heritage in the Solent need to be tracked alongside heritage in other regions, with key issues including dockyards, shipyards, fortifications, cultural heritage and traditional skills. Once tracked, an integrated spatial plan needs to be developed to consider the possible preservation, conservation or restoration of heritage resources in the context of their interrelationships but also in the context of other coastal management issues. References [1] English Nature. Coordinators guide to estuary management plans. Peterborough: English Nature; 1993. [2] Department of Environment. Coastal zone protection and planning. London: HMSO; 1992. [3] Department of Culture, Media and Sport. Protecting our marine historic environment: making the system work better. London: HMSO; 2004. [4] Michael M. Man made the town. London: The Bodley Head; 1997. [5] Department of Environment/Welsh Office. Development below low water mark. London: HMSO; 1993. [6] Department of the Environment. Coastal zone management: towards best practice. London: HMSO; 1996. [7] European Commission. Better management of coastal resources. Brussels: European Commission; 1997. [8] Solent Forum. Strategic guidance for the solent. Winchester: Solent Forum; 1997. [9] National Trust. National trust coastal policy. Available: /www.nationaltrust.org.uk/coastline/savecoastal_policy_2005.pdfS. Accessed 15.07.05. [10] Coussy B. Rochefort France. In: Pickard R, editor. Management of historic centres. New York: Spon Press; 2001. p. 79–92. [11] Europa Nostra. Coastline press release. The Hague: European Commission; 14 June 2005. [12] Watters D, Glendinning M. Little houses—the national trust for Scotland’s improvement scheme for small historic homes. Edinburgh: RCAHMS and the National Trust for Scotland; 2006. p. 167.
Marine Policy 31 (2007) 607–610 www.elsevier.com/locate/marpol
Heritage management plans and integrated coastal management Tim Goodheada,, Zeynep Aygenb a
Faculty of Technology, University of Portsmouth, Portland Building, Portland Street, Portsmouth PO18 8SW, UK School of Environmental Design and Management, University of Portsmouth, Portland Building, Portland Street, Portsmouth PO18 8SW, UK
b
Abstract This paper examines at the origins of coastal zone management and planning in England and from that, how integrated coastal zone management techniques were developed. The lack of heritage management planning in coastal plans in England is discussed and put into context of ‘integrated heritage zone management’ approaches. Having looked at these two systems, examples of good practice are discussed. The concept of spatial planning is also discussed and the opportunities that this might offer for integrating coastal and heritage planning in the Solent are considered. r 2007 Published by Elsevier Ltd. Keywords: Integrated coastal zone management; Integrated heritage management; Spatial planning; Solent
1. Introduction The management of the coast in the Solent area of Southern England can be traced back thousands of years. For example, the development of ports in the Solent area can be traced to Roman times and before that there is evidence of Iron Age settlements in Langstone Harbour where, through simple wood and stake technology, attempts were made to manage and control natural physical processes. Such early ‘management plans’ for coastal areas were generally concerned with defence against infringement by the sea, or adaptation to the coastline to form saltings or fisheries. Whilst these plans were never presented in a conventional sense, archaeological evidence from coastal settlements does imply that protection from coastal physical processes had been considered. The coastal resource is now subjected to many complex managementplanning techniques involved with reducing potential and actual conflict between commercial, recreational and environmental interests. The pressures on the coastal resource from the land and sea are fundamentally different in modern times, largely as a result of their high levels of interdependence. Despite this, management systems operCorresponding author. Tel.: +44 023 9284 2939.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (T. Goodhead), [email protected] (Z. Aygen). 0308-597X/$ - see front matter r 2007 Published by Elsevier Ltd. doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2007.03.005
ating on the landward side of the coast tend to relate to development planning whilst management techniques used on the seaward side tend to be resource specific, with few formal links between the two systems. The organisational and administrative structure in the coastal zone of England and Wales is extremely complex with many different institutions involved. Some order was put into the system, almost by default, with the introduction of Town and Country Planning legislation in 1947, however, the system remains complex due to a cascade of management plans covering the mainland to 200 miles offshore designed to protect a wide variety of resource use and legal interests. Over the last 20 years the UK coastline has seen the development of numerous types of management plans to aid the effective management of estuary, harbour and open coast (these should not be confused with coastal defence focused shoreline management plans that have different objectives). The origin of these plans lie in countryside management where, in the late 1970s and early 1980s, the Countryside Commission awarded grants for the production of management plans to reduce the conflict between agriculture, recreation and conservation. These plans were non-statutory and formed the basis of local partnerships for the management of land normally under the ownership of more than one landowner. The concept and development of estuary management plans was promoted by
ARTICLE IN PRESS 608
T. Goodhead, Z. Aygen / Marine Policy 31 (2007) 607–610
English Nature through the ‘Coordinators Guide to Estuary Management Plans’ as part of the ‘Estuaries initiative’ [1]. Governmental support for this type of approach resulted from the publication of a House of Commons Select Committee Report into Coastal Zone Protection and Planning in 1992, which recommended the production of voluntarily introduced non-statutory plans rather than direct central government control in coastal management [2]. In terms of built heritage, these plans rarely go into any detail, the origins of coastal management planning perhaps reflecting early sponsorship by institutions with a strong interest in the natural environment. These fragmented plans sometimes hide what was once an integrated system. This can be illustrated historically by the development of British Dockyards across the world. These dockyards were constructed mainly in the 17th and 18th century by order of the British Admiralty to service large fleets of warships. At their centre, a network of drydocks provided the ability to maintain hulls and covered slipways provided a facility to build ships in the dry and protect ships from the effects of fresh water that could promote decay in timbers. The British fleet relied on this international network of dockyards. Nationally, there was also a network of dockyards, with Portsmouth, Plymouth and Chatham perhaps being the best known. In these dockyards, a network of facilities existed from ship construction, mast making, sail making, rope making, victualling (provision of food and drink), ordinance and medical facilities. Dockyards we often protected by fortifications that as enemy firepower increased, became larger, stronger and further out from the dockyards to form a ring of protection. In terms of contemporary conservation and interpretation, this integrated story is rarely told. This may be due to the historical progression in saving heritage artefacts. Different individual trusts have been formed, with passionate groups of people becoming dedicated to saving a particular relic. Once these trusts have formed their loyalty tends to be with the individual artefact rather than the broader environment that it used to exist in. An example of this in the Solent area is the preservation of HMS Victory in Portsmouth, which perhaps owes its continued existence to the persistence of the Society of Nautical Research in the early 20th century. Over the last 50 years Portsmouth has experienced an explosion in museums, trusts and charities all with individual aims and objectives but without one integrated coherent heritage management plan. Plans do, however, exist in a similar fashion to coastal management plans. Individual trusts have plans such as those for the Mary Rose and HMS Warrior. A broader plan exists for Portsmouth Historic Dockyard and above this is a plan for Portsmouth Harbour, although this does not really address the issues of heritage and conservation in any detail. International integrated plans for heritage management do exist, with those associated with the designation of World Heritage by UNESCO, being the most well known.
The United Kingdom ratified the World Heritage Convention in 1984 and submitted its First Tentative List in 1986, which led to the inscription of sites like Stonehenge and the Tower of London as World Heritage Sites. In October 1997 the tentative list was reviewed, which led to the inclusion of some coastal sites in the nomination procedure. The result was that certain coastal sites have been included in the new tentative list, such as the Dorset and East Devon Coast, Dockyards like Chatham Naval Dockyard in Kent, and waterfront sites like the Liverpool Commercial Centre and Waterfront [3]. Below World Heritage status, which in itself does not offer specific heritage protection measures (and as such is more of a prestige instrument), heritage in England is protected through the town and country planning system. This responsibility overlaps to a certain extent with that of English Heritage, which has responsibility for ‘national heritage’ and the ability to schedule (provide central government protection for) ancient monuments. English Heritage works with local authorities that have responsibility for listing buildings against a priority scale. In contrast, landscape heritage might be regarded as a responsibility of the Countryside Agency, which is involved with the development, and management of Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and National Parks. The power of these organisations has in the last 10 years been enhanced by their ability to influence or support lottery funding. The UK National Lottery has provided a significant amount of funding for heritage but the allocation of these funds is influenced by advice from central government departments. At site level, individual heritage management plans are common. They are often very similar to estuary management plans in their nature in that rural sites with sensitive heritage often require a plan that takes into account the surrounding landscape and the conflicts within it. The management of individual sites is in itself a complex issue, as private individuals or charities and trusts, such as the National Trust, may own many sites. The Fife coast in Scotland provides a good example for such complexity. The historic towns along the coastline stretching from Aberdour to St. Andrews were in decline during the 1950s; many of their buildings may become derelict. They were given a fresh life between the 1960s and the 1970s, with an initiative called ‘Little Houses Improvement Scheme’ which revived small ports like Dysart and St. Monans to a great extent. In the case of Dysart, for example, it was ‘predominantly interwoven with the needs of the burgh’ [12]. Although it was a great success in its own right, it was not linked with a coastal management plan [4]. The management of heritage in England has developed in parallel to developments in coastal management although there are some differences such as designated protected wreck sites, war graves and other selective protective policies. The system in England relates to ‘town and country planning’ regulation above low watermark. Seaward of low water mark, a sectoral system exists for the protection of resources, in which heritage management is included.
ARTICLE IN PRESS T. Goodhead, Z. Aygen / Marine Policy 31 (2007) 607–610
2. Heritage management in the Solent The role of the coastal management plan has generally been concerned with a coordinated effort to manage a coastal area with regard to set objectives; in many cases these have largely been concerned with conservation, recreation and environment. The funding of these plans has varied from region to region but statutory authorities appear to have had a central role in coordinating and establishing them. Management plans are normally considered to be site specific but when the site is as large and complex as the Solent, the plan takes on the responsibility for developing a regional strategy. This is particularly relevant when the site overlaps a number of local strategic town and country plans, as the plan would then effectively bind together a number of development plans. Although regional development frameworks have recently been put into place, very few true regional strategies have been produced. Due to the complexity of the Solent, developing one management framework would be an immense challenge. Some may argue that this is not necessary, but in the case of heritage, particularly when dealing with a large number of sites that used to be an integrated whole, it might be regarded as essential. Surprisingly, the issue of heritage management has rarely been addressed in recent in coastal planning, either at the management plan level or in the regional strategies. This would appear to be a major omission. Developments in coastal planning techniques through the 1980s and 1990s very much pointed towards developing Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) frameworks [5–8]. Projects sponsored by the EC investigated specific sites and used them as test beds for developing ICZM concepts. ICZM was not without its critics, so a number of sites were chosen across Europe in order to develop the technique. The sites chosen in the UK mainly exhibited issues of possible environmental conflict with recreation and industry. The preservation of heritage or culture did not feature significantly. A criticism of these early projects is that ICZM was bound to show a positive value, as that is why they were chosen in the first place. However, a great deal was learned and this led, in the late 1990s, to the emergence of spatial planning in marine areas as a new direction for the management of the coastal and exclusive economic zones. The spatial planning concept offers an interesting challenge for heritage. Whilst designed perhaps with ecosystems and pollution control in mind, spatial planning is a concept that can be exported to heritage management. Using Royal Dockyards as an example of a type of coastal heritage site present in many Commonwealth countries (with similar heritage existing in other European countries that used to have an empire), a spatial approach to heritage perhaps could be considered. For example, British Dockyards formed a web of supporting facilities across the globe; similarly foreign powers also developed a parallel web of supporting facilities. Sometimes these facilities, from opposing navies, squared up to each other
609
as illustrated by the navies of Britain and France. For instance, at the same time as Portsmouth dockyard grew and became heavily defended during the mid-Victorian era, France was expanding and developing the port of Cherbourg. It was the equivalent of the 1950s cold war, albeit 100 years before. Looking at Portsmouth and its heritage only tells half the story, to put it into context Cherbourg and similar cities must also be examined. Unfortunately, developments in ICZM rarely acknowledge heritage issues to any significant extent. ICZM has developed as a way of linking two existing regulatory systems, one for land and one for marine with the natural environment often being the catalyst for its development. As the development of ICZM moves towards spatial planning, it is an appropriate time to think of building in some of the issues that tend to have their own management-planning structures, including heritage, recreation and security. However, some institutions are on their way to fill the gap left by ICZM. The National Trust Coastal and Marine Issues Group adopted in 2005, a National Trust Coastal Policy to introduce ‘a long-term and strategic approach to the coastal zone’ [9] in which the decision-making process will be based on the principles and practices of ICZM. The National Trust Document states, ‘coastal management decisions often impact beyond their immediate location and cannot be made in isolation. The Trust will work with other managers, organizations and communitiesyto ensure a shared understanding is achieved of the reasons for the Trust’s policies and practices at all levels’ [9]. In terms of management planning in the Solent, one geographical area stands out as a beacon of good practice, and that is Chichester Harbour. The reason why it has been so successful is perhaps because in the early 1970s a management structure was created and established by an act of parliament. This has been complimented by the designation of the area as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, which gives it a clear spatial zone. Funded by Heritage Lottery awards, it has recently developed its ‘Rhythms of the Tide’ initiative. This enables heritage management across the Harbour to be developed within its existing management plan structure. Some of the projects are highly imaginative with the restoration of an historic oyster boat being funded alongside a boat building apprenticeship to try to preserve traditional skills within the ‘spatial zone’. The difficulty for the harbour is that many of the traditional skills associated with maintaining wooden boats are dying out. These skills are vital in order to service specific craft such as the XOD wooden racing craft that are raced competitively within the harbour. The restoration of the Oyster Smack is serving two separate needs, firstly restoring a classic craft and associated heritage and secondly through its restoration rebuilding the skills base within the harbour. This spatial heritage approach could be adopted on a far greater scale as spatial plans for much larger zones are created. This has the potential to create some winners and some losers with respect to management decisions. Whilst for the admirer of historic Royal Dockyards it might be
ARTICLE IN PRESS 610
T. Goodhead, Z. Aygen / Marine Policy 31 (2007) 607–610
beneficial to conserve them all, the reality is that these facilities only have a future if a sustainable use can be found for them. A spatial plan might identify historic structures that are to be conserved but also identify historic structures that might be adapted for alternative uses. Some difficult decisions might have to be made but this would stop heritage facilities competing for public funding and perhaps instead, choosing to work together for their common good. The recent Department of Culture Media and Sport (2004) consultation document ‘Protecting our Marine Historic Environment Making the System Work Better’ does at last indicate that government departments are considering a spatial approach [3]. A comparison on European scale displays different coastal management approaches, in which some countries are more conscious of the integration of heritage than others. For instance in France, the National Coastal Conservatory (CNL) was involved as early as 1975 in the rehabilitation of the naval dockyard at Rochfort. As a consequence of this early comprehensive heritage management approach, the history of the town, and its heritage, were considered by the landscape architect Bernard Lassus in the later phases of the project [10]. There are concerns at European level about the lack of recognition of heritage in ICZM. The recently issued Europa Nostra Bergen Declaration highlighted in particular that ‘the interests of conservation of coastal cultural heritage should be further integrated into the programme implementation’ of ICZM [11]. The Declaration welcomes the establishment of the European Landscape Convention, which draws particular attention to heritage management issues with regard to specific features of coastal and maritime landscapes, however, it expresses regret that many European countries have not yet signed or ratified the Convention. Considering that ICZM has developed without the integration of heritage management and with many European countries refusing to integrate the European Landscape Convention’s provisions into their policies, the issues linked to the integration of heritage management and coastal management seem to be European wide. The Solent Forum, a non-executive group, founded to consider and provide strategic advice on matters relating to the Solent in Southern England, may provide a model for introducing a broader approach to the inclusion of heritage issues within the field of ICZM. Whilst not a management organisation itself, the Forum provides regular advice to practicing managers in the coastal zone. It produced the Strategic Guidance for the Solent [8] to promote ICZM in the region and despite its non-executive power, it might be regarded as the start of spatial planning for the Solent area. Its policies/advice include [8]:
to continue to protect historic and archaeological sites from development; to give increased protection to archaeological sites underwater;
to improve the information base; to recognise the importance of maritime archaeology within coastal defense policies; to take a strategic approach to the protection and uses of historic building and sites; to promote widespread support for archaeological conservation.
The difficulty that areas like the Solent have regarding heritage and coastal management is often that far from a lack of planning, there are too many plans, produced by too many agencies. By providing a framework through non-statutory advice rather than through executive power, the Forum could potentially provide a framework for integrated regional and spatial plans very quickly. 3. Conclusion In conclusion, spatial planning could form the mechanism to embed heritage management planning into the concept of Integrated Coastal Zone Management. In terms of the Solent, this is an area that warrants more research, largely due to the diversity of organisations and complex issues involved. Links between heritage in the Solent need to be tracked alongside heritage in other regions, with key issues including dockyards, shipyards, fortifications, cultural heritage and traditional skills. Once tracked, an integrated spatial plan needs to be developed to consider the possible preservation, conservation or restoration of heritage resources in the context of their interrelationships but also in the context of other coastal management issues. References [1] English Nature. Coordinators guide to estuary management plans. Peterborough: English Nature; 1993. [2] Department of Environment. Coastal zone protection and planning. London: HMSO; 1992. [3] Department of Culture, Media and Sport. Protecting our marine historic environment: making the system work better. London: HMSO; 2004. [4] Michael M. Man made the town. London: The Bodley Head; 1997. [5] Department of Environment/Welsh Office. Development below low water mark. London: HMSO; 1993. [6] Department of the Environment. Coastal zone management: towards best practice. London: HMSO; 1996. [7] European Commission. Better management of coastal resources. Brussels: European Commission; 1997. [8] Solent Forum. Strategic guidance for the solent. Winchester: Solent Forum; 1997. [9] National Trust. National trust coastal policy. Available: /www.nationaltrust.org.uk/coastline/savecoastal_policy_2005.pdfS. Accessed 15.07.05. [10] Coussy B. Rochefort France. In: Pickard R, editor. Management of historic centres. New York: Spon Press; 2001. p. 79–92. [11] Europa Nostra. Coastline press release. The Hague: European Commission; 14 June 2005. [12] Watters D, Glendinning M. Little houses—the national trust for Scotland’s improvement scheme for small historic homes. Edinburgh: RCAHMS and the National Trust for Scotland; 2006. p. 167.