Comparative study on protection and management of heritage assets in British and Spanish

cities
Daniel Barrera Fernández
Faculty of Tourism, University of Malaga, Malaga, Andalusia, Spain
barrera@uma.es
Paseo Salvador Rueda 19, 3 C. 29016 Malaga, Andalusia, Spain
Daniel Barrera Fernández is Architect and Researcher at the Faculty of Tourism in the University of
Malaga. He has recently presented his doctoral thesis, entitled “Schools of thoughts in the heritage
and tourist management of the historic city”, awarded summa cum laude. His research interests focus
on preservation and integration of built heritage, regeneration of run-down neighbourhoods, urban
tourism, city marketing, theming and gentrification. He is the director of the architecture firm Bunt
Arquitectura, based in Malaga, Spain (www.buntarquitectura.com).

Carlos Alberto Hiriart Pardo

Faculty of Architecture, Michoacan University of San Nicolas de Hidalgo, Morelia, Michoacan,
Mexico
charlyhiriart@hotmail.com
Faculty of Architecture, Torre de Posgrado, first floor. Francisco J. Múgica Avenue S/N, Ciudad
Universitaria, Colonia Felicitas del Río. 58060 Morelia, Michoacan, Mexico
Carlos Alberto Hiriart Pardo is Architect by the University of Guanajuato (1983). Master in Urban
Planning and Regional Development by Laval University of Quebec, Canada (1986). Doctor in
Architecture by the Michoacan University of San Nicolas de Hidalgo (2006), awarded summa cum
laude. Director of the Faculty of Architecture at that university (2007-2009). His research interests
focus on preservation and management of urban built heritage, cultural tourism, functionality of
World Heritage cities, integral management of historic centres and historic urban landscapes.

Abstract
The paper approaches the differences between the British and Spanish frameworks of heritage
protection at an urban level. The research has been focused on two medium size, multifunctional,
waterfront cities: Plymouth and Malaga.
The methodological approach is based at first on an approach to the functions of national and local
administrations related to heritage preservation. An introduction to the English and Andalusian
heritage-related legal frameworks is also made. Secondly, an analysis of the tools for protecting
historic urban areas is developed. In those areas listed assets, local lists and heritage at risk are
studied. Thirdly, urban plans and other urban management-related tools are compared. Finally, the
evolution of listing criteria and preservation of historic urban areas is studied.
Real application of national regulatory systems brings up concerns about the effectiveness of policy
delivery on granting heritage preservation and integration of heritage values in regeneration projects.
Keywords: heritage management, historic city, urban planning, preservation, public policies
Word Count: 7130

1
Introduction
International agreements on heritage preservation and management are applied throughout Europe.
However, significant differences exist between countries in aspects such as listing criteria, the role of
the public administration and the involvement of voluntary organisations. In this research, these
differences have been analysed at a local level in the United Kingdom and Spain. The first part
analyses the differences of the State models, when it is needed the research is focused on England in
the British case and Andalusia in the Spanish one. In the second part, research is focused on the
application of both models at a local level, selecting as study cases the cities of Plymouth and Malaga.
Approach to the framework of heritage protection and management in the United Kingdom and
England
To understand the current model of heritage management in the UK it is important to refer to the
changes that began to be introduced since the governments of Margaret Thatcher. These changes can
be summarized in the extension of public-private partnerships, privatization, deregulation and
reduction of public administration functions. For the "New Right" it was a priority to ensure the
effectiveness of the public sector in a context of rapid change. The public administration should give
up providing services directly and adopt a strategic role. In general, the result has been a changing
state of relations between levels of government and parallel administrations, thus increasing the
importance of negotiation between public and private actors (Stevenson, Airey & Miller 2008).
Focusing on built heritage, the initial pressure to preserve historic environments in response to
development plans led to a consensus on the fundamental place it should occupy in urban policies.
The new mentality incorporated a component of pragmatism in the concept of heritage, which should
give an answer to a wide range of objectives such as fostering the economy, encouraging urban
regeneration, enhancing the local environment, promoting social inclusion and reducing the carbon
footprint (Pendlebury & Strange 2011).
One of the most revolutionary changes introduced by the new mentality was the creation of a specific
lottery, the Heritage Lottery Fund. As a result, a culture of competition was established to qualify for
the funds. Another important change was the proliferation of regeneration and development agencies
formed by unelected staff capable of imposing decisions independently of the local authority (Willey
1998).
The new model also affected heritage management. Since its creation, English Heritage assumed the
new approach. The only way to demonstrate management efficacy was through comparing visitor
numbers. As a result, the distinction between heritage assets and cultural industries vanished.
Marketing and finance professionals entered heritage interpretation and public investment was
concentrated in a few unique goods. The main objective was to create the infrastructure to welcome a
larger number of visitors. As a result, between 1979 and 1988 there was an increase of 8% of visitors
to historic sites, while revenue rose 57%, due to an increase in the entrance price of 158% (Rodríguez
Temiño 1998).
In the UK, heritage is legally protected by each constituent country. Since England does not have its
own parliament, legislation is dictated by Westminster. National law is administered at the local level
(Ashworth & Howard 1999). Heritage management is currently regulated by the National Heritage
Protection Plan, approved in 2011 and promoted as "the business plan for the historic environment".
Its main objective is to improve the sector's ability to protect heritage. The plan is divided into eight
steps that integrate research, management and conservation. Action plans can be developed by
organisations, communities and individuals depending on their capabilities (English Heritage 2012).
Today, the Secretary of State is the competent authority for listing assets in England. According to the
Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, the process is managed by English
Heritage, which is also responsible for updating and disseminating the list. Anyone may propose the

2
inclusion of an asset by simply filling out a form online (The National Heritage List for England
2013). Heritage categories are Listed Buildings, Scheduled Ancient Monuments, Registered Parks and
Gardens, Historic Battlefields, Protected Historic Wreck Sites and World Heritage Sites. Apart from
the cited categories, other ones protect historic areas and open spaces: Conservation Areas, National
Parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, Heritage Coasts and Ancient Woodland.
Assets that are in danger are included in the Heritage at Risk Register, managed by English Heritage.
In 2013 there were 1,146 Listed Buildings at risk (2.9% of total), the lowest figure since 1999. There
were also 3,265 Scheduled Ancient Monuments (16.5% of total), 100 Registered Parks and Gardens
(6.2% of total), six Registered Battlefields (14% of total), four Protected Wreck Sites (8.7% of total),
6.2% of all Conservation Areas and one World Heritage Site: Liverpool Maritime Mercantile City, due
to an insensitive urban project (English Heritage 2012).
As it has been mentioned, the introduction of a specific lottery brought a step change to the financial
support of heritage conservation initiatives. This model is currently regulated by the Heritage Lottery
Fund Strategic Framework 2013-2018. The new strategy maintains specific programs for parks,
natural landscapes, townscapes and places of worship. The current strategy includes a new program of
grants to entrepreneurs involved in heritage conservation. Another line of grants has been established
for private owners to facilitate public access. The training program has also been expanded (English
Heritage 2013b). However, the lottery has its negative aspects. One is the concentration of investment
in some regions, notably in London, Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and the North East, and in
urban areas at the expense of rural areas (Gripaios, Bishop & Brand 2010).
Conservation Areas are the category of protection for historic neighbourhoods in England. They were
introduced by the Civic Amenities Act 1967. It was a tool to face the disaster resulting from the
application of the Town and Country Planning Act 1947, which allowed the renovation of historic
areas without considering their built heritage beyond Listed Buildings (Smith 2009). In particular,
slum clearance policies during the 1960s and 1970s resulted in the destruction of entire historic
neighbourhoods (Meethan 1996). Other pressures came from the Buchanan Report of 1963, which
was the basis for opening urban roads through the heart of the cities. These actions produced a strong
opposition and the emergence of an influential conservation movement.
Nowadays, 83% of the Conservation Areas suffer from insensitive replacement of windows and doors.
60% have poorly maintained roads and pavements. 36% suffer from traffic problems. In 34% there
are insensitive alterations of façades, roofs and chimneys. In 31% there has been an inadequate
expansion of buildings. 23% are affected by the negative impact of street ads. 18% have poorly
preserved green spaces (English Heritage 2013a).
In the UK, heritage conservation is closely related to the planning legislation since the adoption of the
Town and Country Planning Act 1947. Dean (1994) highlights the discretional nature of the British
system, its high degree of participation and the possibility of appeal against local authorities planning
decisions.
Nowadays the main national rules affecting English Conservation Areas are the Planning (Listed
Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and the National Planning Policy Framework 2012. One
of the most important changes introduced by the new laws is the integration of heritage in the
definition of sustainable development. Heritage conservation is put before any other planning need
when negative impacts outweigh the benefits. This implies that impact assessments are a fundamental
part of the planning process.
The planning process has been affected recently by the profound changes brought by the Localism Act
2011. It gives communities the power to issue orders of development or construction in certain areas
and award their own building permits without needing to apply for municipal permits. Currently,
organisations like Civic Voice, English Heritage and Heritage Alliance are advising communities to
implement new rights for the protection and enhancement of heritage.

3
Buffer zones are not formally defined in England. The impact of each urban project on its
surroundings is considered when asking for construction permit. Thus, buffer zones are defined as the
areas in which the experience of heritage is perceived, covering the past and present relations of the
assets with their surroundings (Department of Communities and Local Government 2012).
According to the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, Conservation Areas
are declared by Local Planning Authorities. The Secretary of State may also declare Conservation
Areas, usually when an area of national interest has not been declared by the relevant local authority.
The main managing tools in Conservation Areas are the Appraisals and Management Plans. These
documents provide a thorough understanding of the special historic and architectural interest of the
area, not only based on physical aspects but also on its meaning for residents. These plans also
recognise not listed assets, relying on neighbours’ knowledge. When a plan is modified, proposals are
discussed in open sessions. English Heritage (2013a) considers that Conservation Areas having
Appraisals and Management Plans are twice more likely to improve in the following three years than
those not having these tools.
Apart from Appraisals and Management Plans, there are other tools to manage Conservation Areas.
Many local authorities collect lists of local heritage that are not limited to the boundaries of
Conservation Areas. Permits cannot be granted to demolish Listed Buildings, Scheduled Ancient
Monuments and places of worship. The demolition of Listed Buildings is overseen by the Royal
Commission on the Historical Monuments of England. In an emergency, the local authority may issue
a protective order on any building in which their values are threatened, in these cases the Secretary of
State has six months to list the building or not.
Other very useful tools are Article 4 Directions, regulated in the Town and Country Planning (General
Permitted Development) Order 1995. Such orders are issued on a given area and serve to require
permit for works that normally do not need it. Their goal is to preserve architectural elements of
quality (Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995). English Heritage
(2013a) considers that Conservation Areas using Article 4 Directions are twice more likely to improve
in the following three years than those not using them.
Finally, attention must be given to the role of voluntary organisations. It is estimated that about
470,000 people voluntarily participated in activities related to heritage conservation in 2012, 1.2% of
the adult population. VisitBritain estimates that around two thirds of the staff at visitable heritage
assets are volunteers (Davies 2010). In particular, the National Trust has doubled its number of
volunteers between 2002 and 2012 and it currently has more than 66,000 volunteers and 3.7 million
members. The annual event where more volunteers are involved are the Heritage Open Days, in its
2011 edition 39,000 people collaborated. Heritage related volunteers deal with diverse functions such
as fundraising, events, advice, conservation, restoration, guide services and administrative tasks.
English Heritage itself became enormously popular and in 2012 it recorded 830 volunteers, mostly in
their own properties, and more than one million members (English Heritage 2012).
Apart from large organisations there are at least 107 entities involved in heritage tasks nationwide
(Heritage Link 2006), such as the Victorian Society, Georgian Group, Ancient Monuments Society,
Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings, Twentieth Century Society, Civic Voice, Campaign to
Protect Rural England and Diocesan Advisory Committee. Apart from them, there are thousands of
local groups.
In English law, public participation has occupied traditionally a prominent role in urban planning.
When Conservation Areas were created by the Civic Amenities Act 1967, local authorities did not
have expert staff so that the central government ordered the creation of Conservation Area Advisory
Committees made up of renowned professionals and citizen groups. This collaborative model has
been updated with each revision of the legislation. In 1988 the Secretary of State allowed public
participation in listing after war assets, something that previously was reserved for a small group of

4
experts in architecture, creating a precedent since then. The British Citizens Charter of 1991 extended
the fields of participation. Its principles were integrated into the planning system, which seeks citizen
participation in all phases of the process since then, including the preparation of Local Plans (Bouazza
Ariño 2009). The document Protecting Our Heritage 1996 meant a new step, ordering local authorities
to consult citizens and stakeholders before designating Conservation Areas. Since then, English
Heritage considers "vital" that the vision of the professionals is moderated by the opinion and
concerns of the rest of society (Townshend & Pendlebury 1999).
Citizen organisations bring their deep knowledge of local heritage and their proximity to the
community in the planning process. In addition, they report insensitive operations in Conservation
Areas. Voluntary groups are consulted in a wide range of topics, such as applications for works
affecting Listed Buildings, local plans, Conservation Area Appraisals and Management Plans, creation
and review of Conservation Areas boundaries and construction permits within Conservation Areas.
According to English Heritage (2012b), civic organisations also have a valuable role as "anchor
institutions" since their civic, cultural and intellectual character make neighbourhoods resilient. These
institutions are not transferable and they are long term assets that can attract wealth and talent to areas
needing economic regeneration.
Approach to the framework of heritage protection and management in Spain and Andalusia
In Spain, heritage value beyond isolated monuments was first recognised in the Royal Decree-Law
Concerning the National Archaeological-Artistic Treasure of 1926. It included built areas and scenic
and archaeological sites. During the Second Republic, the Act of the 13th of May 1933 stated that
urban ensembles should be included in the Monuments List to preserve them from destruction or
harmful reforms. The 1933 Act was replaced by the Spanish Historic Heritage Act 1985 and in 1991
Andalusia approved its own Heritage Act. After a period of overlap of both laws, competencies of
Autonomous Communities were clarified by the Constitutional Court in 1991.
According to Castillo Ruiz (1995), one of the most interesting aspects of the Andalusian Heritage Act
1/1991 was the solid incorporation of the principles of integrated conservation. The articulation of the
law on the concept of cultural assets is indicative of this adoption. Other notable developments were
the use of urban planning as a tool to act on architectural heritage and the creation of the Andalusian
Heritage List, treated below.
With the Andalusian Heritage Act 1/1991, Andalusia became able to declare General Interest Assets
(equivalent to Listed Buildings), except on those sites affected by public services managed by the
State. Historic Ensembles (equivalent to Conservation Areas) were recognised as a heritage category.
They could include natural assets and the landscape, following the considerations of the Charter of
Krakow.
The Andalusian Heritage Act 1/1991 was replaced by the Act 14/2007, which is currently in force.
This law consolidates the Andalusian Heritage List as the main tool of knowledge and management of
protected assets in Andalusia. The listing procedure is initiated ex officio by the Andalusian Culture
Ministry. Two categories of assets are distinguished: General Interest Assets and General Listing
Assets. Their main difference is that the first ones include specific instructions for preservation when
necessary. General Interest Assets are classified into Monuments, Historic Areas, Historic Gardens,
Historic Places, Archaeological Sites, Places of Ethnologic Interest, Places of Industrial Interest and
Heritage Areas.
In Andalusia, the relationship between heritage and town planning is primarily regulated by the
Heritage Act 14/2007 and the Urban Planning Act 7/2002. The Heritage Act establishes the need to
develop Special Plans for each Historic Ensemble. These plans must be accompanied by a list of
individual elements, both buildings and open spaces, stating the level of protection and maximum
intervention allowed. These plans should be written once for the whole area, however, they can be

5
made partially if authorized by the Ministry. Plans affecting Historic Ensembles must include
determinations concerning the maintenance of the territorial and urban structure of the environment.
They must also identify discordant elements and propose solutions in this regard. Once Special Plans
are approved, local authorities can apply for the power to issue construction permits, except in
Monuments, Historic Gardens and Archaeological Sites.
The Heritage Act 14/2007 states that urban renewal and demolitions, even partial, must be
exceptional. Alignments and urban structure must also be kept. These determinations follow the
principles of the Charter of Washington. Likewise, new constructions are allowed, but they are
required to be sensitive to their environment.
Meanwhile, the Urban Planning Act 7/2002 includes among its purposes conservation and
rehabilitation of existing buildings and protection of the landscape and the historic, urban,
architectural and cultural heritage. Among the urban plans recognised by this law are General Plans,
Special Plans and Lists. General Plans cover the entire municipality and its contents must be
developed according to the relevance of its urban, architectural, historic, cultural and natural heritage.
Special Plans may have very different purposes, among them are preservation, protection and
improvement of the urban environment and the built heritage. Lists complement determinations
relating to the conservation, protection and improvement of urban heritage.
In relation to buffer zones, the Heritage Act 14/2007 defines them as those buildings and spaces
whose alteration could affect the values of the designated asset, its contemplation, appreciation or
study. They can be formed by adjacent and non-adjacent buildings and spaces.
In recent years, management of urban heritage has shown serious limitations to ensure preservation
both in Spain as in Andalusia in particular. Fernández Salinas (2005) recognises that practices such as
façadism, volumetric increase, mimetic repetition of architectural models of the past, insensitive
interventions and inappropriate actions in public space are current in a country where even the cities
included in the World Heritage List are affected by these processes.
Agudo Torrico and Fernández de Paz (2001) cite as reasons of this situation the remarkable imbalance
in favour of private interests in the application of protective measures, limited public resources, poor
staffing at responsible institutions, noncompliance of the legislation and the enormous pressure of the
speculative market, often with the tolerance of political authorities, especially at the local level. The
still limited involvement of society in the recognition and protection of heritage must be added to the
inability and unwillingness of the authorities.
According to Castillo Ruiz (2004), recent urban regeneration strategies funded by European programs
have contributed to this state of deterioration and loss, due to fragmentation and isolation of
initiatives, lack of controls to assess the quality of cultural projects and limited participation of the
local population.
In the case of tourist cities, one of the fundamental problems is the reliance upon mass tourism. As a
result, ethnologic heritage not reporting economic benefit is disregarded and with it the artisans
workshops, popular housing types and traditional activities.

Current framework of heritage protection in Plymouth’s historic city

Plymouth’s Conservation Areas form a system of unconnected pieces. The reason can be found in the
particular urban history of the city. On one hand, current Plymouth was originated from three
settlements that grew separately until 1914. On the other hand, the city was severely damaged in the
Second World War. Postwar reconstruction contributed to sweep away large parts and especially the
City Centre was completely replaced by the Plan for Plymouth, designed by Patrick Abercrombie and
James Paton Watson.

6
Since 1967, there have been two waves of Conservation Areas designations. The first one was
between 1967 and 1977, when the Barbican, Durnford Street (it belongs nowadays to Stonehouse
Peninsula), The Hoe, Millfields and Wyndham Square (it is now part of North Stonehouse) were
designated. The Barbican and Durnford Street were also extended in the same period.
The second wave took place between 1995 and 2009, when Emma Place (now part of Stonehouse
Peninsula), North Road West (now included in North Stonehouse), Adelaide Street, Union Street,
Ebrington Street and Devonport were designated. In this period, Wyndham Square, The Hoe and
Devonport were also extended. Durnford Street and Emma Place were joined in the Stonehouse
Peninsula Conservation Area, which was extended as well. Wyndham Square and North Road West
were amalgamated in the North Stonehouse Conservation Area, which was extended too.

1. Devonport 5. Adelaide St 8. The Barbican

2. Stonehouse Peninsula 6. Union St 9. Ebrington St
3. Millfields 7. The Hoe 10. City Centre (proposed)
4. North Stonehouse
Fig. 1. Designated and proposed Conservation Areas in central Plymouth. Source: the authors.

Regarding the buildings and structures having a heritage value within the Conservation Areas, only
those with the highest statutory protection have been taken into account in this research.

7
Fig. 2. Assets with statutory protection in Stonehouse Peninsula Conservation Area. Source: the
authors.

Apart from the national list, Plymouth City Council has been compiling local lists for several
purposes, such as buildings of townscape merit and buildings making a positive contribution to the
area, considered in each Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan. There used to be a Local
List within the Local Plan, but it was only ever a material consideration. Once that expired and the
Council started to use the Local Development Framework, the Local List was out-of-date because a
number of buildings had already been listed, scheduled or demolished. With the introduction of
Planning Policy Statement 5, the need for a Local List diminished and it gave way to a Historic
Environment Record. The new record included the former local Sites and Monuments Record
compiled in 2003, which contains archaeological data for the entire city, and the Urban
Archaeological Database compiled in 1998, which contains detailed archaeological information of the
Barbican area. At the time of writing this paper, it was being upgraded to turn it into an accessible
database of the historic environment of the city, compiling English Heritage designated assets, aerial
photographs, historic maps, reports, surveys and bibliographical information (Plymouth City Council
2012). The new Plymouth Plan 2015 is expected to include a new Local List with community-valued
assets (Plymouth City Council 2013).
The Council maintains a Buildings at Risk Register with guidance set by English Heritage. The
survey was first carried out in 1992 and revised in 1998 and 2005. The 2005 list was divided into four
levels of risk: level 1 (extreme risk), level 2 (grave risk), level 3 (at risk) and level 4 (vulnerable)
(Plymouth City Council 2012). It includes listed or scheduled buildings as well as buildings
considered of townscape merit. The register seeks to promote the retention and reuse of buildings and
structures identified as of historic or architectural merit falling in disrepair. These neglected buildings
have a particularly negative effect on the quality of Conservation Areas. The register is a useful tool to
focus attention on the problem and define its scale and needs for funds. For instance, the 1998
Plymouth Buildings at Risk Register was instrumental in providing the justification for a Heritage
Lottery Fund “Townscape Heritage Initiative” scheme.
The register does not exercise a statutory control but a long term negotiation between the Council and
owners to maximise opportunities for improving and managing buildings. It establishes a presumption
to retainment, a formal and considered justification for the removal of buildings is required. In case of
demolition, every attempt is made to retain the quality materials and reuse them where appropriate in
the new development proposals as they come forward (Millbay Docks 2012).

8
Not only does Plymouth have a rich built heritage, but it also offers a number of remarkable landscape
and natural spaces, some of which are part of Conservation Areas. In central Plymouth there are the
following Sites of Special Scientific Interest: Plymouth Sound shores and cliffs, Devil’s Point
(Stonehouse Peninsula), Richmond Walk and Mount Wise (Devonport). Plymouth Sound has also
status of Special Area of Conservation and European Marine Site. Finally, there are two County
Wildlife Sites: Plymouth Hoe & Madeira Road and Devil’s Point - Eastern King Point (Joint Nature
Conservation Committee 2012).
The outstanding surrounding landscapes determine the existence of strong links between the city and
the country, and motivate several preservation policies especially strong in the waterfront, regarding
heights, form, size and safeguard of views and panoramas.
To sum up, there 327 statutory listed assets in central Plymouth. There have been three main waves of
designation, the first one was in the period 1951-1955 (14%), the second and largest one was in 1971-
1975 (44%) and the third one was in 1996-2000 (28%).

Fig. 3. Assets with statutory protection by five-year period. Source: the authors.

Most of the assets are listed grade II (80%), 11% are listed grade II* and 6% are listed grade I. Apart
from them, 2% are scheduled monuments and 1% are registered parks and gardens.
The Barbican hosts 32% of the assets, followed by the Hoe and Stonehouse Peninsula, both with 22%
of the assets. Far below are Devonport (7%), Millfields (6%), North Stonehouse (4%), Adelaide Street
and City Centre (3% each), Ebrington Street (1%) and Union Street with only one listed building.
The 2005 local Buidings at Risk Register considered that there were 412 buildings or structures at
risk. Of these, 124 were statutory listed (5 grade I, 15 grade II* and 104 grade II), 20 were scheduled
monuments and the remaining 266 were buildings or structures considered to be of townscape merit
(Plymouth City Council 2007). Half of the assets at risk were in the Barbican and the Hoe (25%

9
each), followed by Devonport and Adelaide Street (16% each), Stonehouse Peninsula (9%), North
Stonehouse (5%), and Union Street and Millfields (2% each).
Current framework of heritage protection in Malaga’s historic city
In the city there is only one Historic Ensemble, declared in 2012. According to the Spanish Heritage
Act, the Historic Ensemble initiated in 1985 should have been the basis of a Special Plan to protect
and manage heritage. Instead several planning figures were adopted, the most representative is the
PEPRI-CH (Special Plan of Protection and Inner Reform of the Historic Centre, after its initials in
Spanish), which covers much of the area included in the Historic Ensemble of 1985. Currently there is
a part of the Historic Ensemble belonging to the PEPRI-CH, another part belonging to the Historic
Ensemble but not to the PEPRI-CH and a third zone which is not part of the Historic Ensemble but
belongs to the PEPRI-CH. In addition, partial instruments were approved in other historic districts not
included in the protection figure.
The main changes between the Historic Ensemble declared in 2012 and the initiated one in 1985 are
the exclusion of the port and the Guadalmedina river, the inclusion of some neighborhoods north of
the old walled city and slight modifications around Mount Gibralfaro and La Caleta.

Fig. 4. Historic Ensembles in 1985 (blue) and 2012 (red). Source: the authors.

The port is affected by the State’s public services. As it has been explained, the Andalusian Ministry
of Culture does not have the power to protect it. This is probably the reason why it has been excluded
in the modification of 2012. Similarly, the new definition excludes Guadalmedina River and the west
bank, where the historic neighborhoods of Trinidad and Perchel are located. All these areas still show
significant heritage values, especially the historic urban layout. In fact, it is not possible to understand
the urban evolution of Malaga without its port, its river and its two river banks. The declaration of the
Historic Ensemble made a reference to the importance of these elements but, nevertheless, they were
finally not included.
From the different categories of General Interest Assets, in central Malaga it is possible to find
Monuments, Historic Sites and the Historic Ensemble. General Interest Assets are generally
associated to a buffer zone. However, these buffer zones do not guarantee a higher control on
interventions in practice, reaching to situations where almost all historic buildings have gone, as in the

10
case of the buffer zone of Meson de la Victoria. That neighborhood was knocked down to build an
underground car park.
At the local level, the PEPRI-CH and other Special Plans have their own lists of protected assets. The
City Council also manages a local list with buildings not covered by Special Plans (Malaga City
Council 2011). Local lists provide two types of protection: integral and architectural, the latter only
protects specific components.
Lists and municipal regulations have not ensured an effective protection of listed buildings for
decades. There are numerous cases of buildings that have been abandoned, in ruins, reduced to
façades or converted into empty plots. This situation affects buildings of every type of protection. An
example of this is the old palace of Solesio, with integral protection, from which only the façade
remains.
In relation to public spaces, the City Council has a list of protected gardens. The PEPRI-CH also
protects relevant streets, squares and gardens. Archaeological remains are protected by the Local List
of Archaeological Protection. Moreover, in the bay of Malaga are the archaeological site of the wreck
Gneisenau and the Underwater Archaeological Area of Malaga.
Murals have received particular attention in recent years and they have been included in local lists.
There is an inventory of properties where the existence of murals and ornamental façades has been
confirmed, or are likely to contain them (Malaga City Council 2011). Furthermore, some trees are
protected by local lists. Specific trees have been given integral protection.
There is no comprehensive monitoring of heritage at risk at Andalusian or local level. Only in relation
to empty plots and definitely ruined buildings, the City Council states that "the legal declaration of
ruin of a building will be accompanied by its inclusion in the Municipal Register of Empty Plots and
Dilapidated Buildings, having the owner one year to make the relevant works of restoration or
rehabilitation" (Malaga City Council 2011). After one year, the property is in situation of forced sale
or execution by substitution, permitting the expropriation by the Council. However, these measures
have had little implementation and there is still much to do to stop heritage loss.
To sum up, in central Malaga there are 45 assets included in the Andalusian Heritage List. There have
been three listing waves, the first between 1931 and 1940 (9%), the second between 1976 and 1985
(20%) and the third between 1991 and 2013 (60%). In the period 2006-2010 up to 10 buildings were
listed (22%), this period coincided with the development of cultural tourism in the city and the bid to
be declared European Capital of Culture 2016.

Fig. 5. Assets with statutory protection by five-year period. Source: the authors.

11
Most buildings have been listed as Monuments (67%). 24% of properties have been listed as General
Listing Assets.
In the delimitation of the Historic Ensemble and the distribution of listed assets it is possible to see an
east-west distinction, which is also related to economic status and urban quality. The eastern sector
has a higher number of listed buildings and is partially included in the Historic Ensemble. The
western sector is excluded from the Historic Ensemble and has a lower number of protected assets. In
this sector, the urban structure and entire blocks have vanished in recent years. This situation shows
an interest in protecting heritage with artistic or aesthetic values rather than historic, still disregarding
that bourgeois villas, workers neighborhoods, factory premises and infrastructures are inseparable
parts to understand the evolution of the city.
Discussion
Public-private partnerships, deregulation and restriction of functions of the administration prevail in
the British model of heritage preservation. As a result, negotiation plays a key role. In the listing
process, a remarkable feature is the facility for anyone to propose the inclusion of an element, and the
consideration of a wide variety of heritage assets, including elements of the urban landscape. The
listing process is not restricted by aspects such as ownership or the presence of certain
administrations, thus including state assets, military sites, ports, etc. In the listing process there is a
concern about the representation of different social groups. In addition, there is a control of listed
elements at risk.
An interesting aspect is the use of the concept of “built environment”, “historic environment” or just
“environment”, in all kinds of policies. It focuses on the context in which citizens live and leads to a
concern about having a quality urban landscape that integrates both the past, represented by the built
heritage, the present and the future, represented by contemporary architecture and attractive urban
spaces. Another widespread concept is “enhancement”, it has a broader perspective than concepts
such as rehabilitation or conservation and it pursues an active integration of heritage as a protagonist
of the neighbourhood’s character. A third innovative concept is precisely that of “character”, which
implies a concern about the features that make the neighbourhood special and cannot be reduced to a
list of physical elements.
The initial conservation movement has led to a certain consensus about the need to integrate heritage
preservation with other policies. The distinction between cultural and natural heritage is not as marked
as in other countries, as it shows that Conservation Areas are classified as figures for protecting
historic areas and open spaces, along with figures for protecting natural environments and the
landscape. This integration can also be observed in the philosophy of the National Trust and other
non-profit groups, and in the typology of the Country House, which incorporates both kinds of
heritage.
Relevant features in the relationship between heritage protection and urban planning are the process
of public information and social participation when reviewing plans, and the discretional nature of the
process of granting construction permit. It does not mean that any intervention is permitted, it is just
that the weight of custom and precedent makes detailed regulation unnecessary. Finally, citizens
involvement in heritage-related matters is deeply rooted and the role of conservation groups is
recognised by laws. In some cases these groups are the owners of the properties.
Andalusian legislation gives a key role to the relationship between heritage conservation and urban
planning. Local authorities can assume much of the powers to grant construction permits, once a
Special Plan including heritage policies is approved by law.
In the Spanish model, buffer zones are formally defined. Listing is restricted to a limited group of
assets. In order to consider an asset for listing, typology is the main criterion and social representation
is not relevant. There are limits for listing assets belonging to the state, such as military sites, ports

12
and railway infrastructures. In Andalusia, decisions affecting heritage preservation are characterized
by a very limited public information and participation, if we compare it with the English model. As a
result, interventions damaging the built heritage are common. The role of non-profit organisations are
mainly limited to dissemination and denouncing neglect of heritage assets.
In the case of Plymouth's Conservation Areas, both cultural and natural heritage are protected,
especially in the waterfront. Since the first list was developed in 1918, they have followed different
criteria in terms of scope, classification and statutory character. Since English Heritage created the
National Heritage List for England, there is a continuity in listing criteria.
In the case of Malaga, the only one Historic Ensemble covers the same area as Plymouth’s nine
Conservation Areas. The current delimitation excluded the port and the river, which are key pieces for
understanding the city’s urban history. The later modification was conducted with a lack of public
debate, which contrasts with what happens in Plymouth, where there has been a long discussion about
the positive and negative effects of designating a new Conservation Area in the City Centre.
The period with the most intense listing activity in Malaga was between 2006 and 2010, coinciding
with a significant effort to estimulate cultural tourism and to be selected European Capital of Culture.
Since the first list was developed in 1971, they have followed cumulative criteria in terms of scope
and classification.
General Interest Assets have a buffer zone in most cases, although in practice they do not guarantee a
greater control of interventions. There is no coincidence between the area delimitated as Historic
Ensemble, the buffer zones and the Special Plans including heritage policies. Heritage assets with the
highest level of statutory protection are still monumental buildings and upper-class housing
typologies. These heritage assets are also the best preserved and the ones which have suffered the
lowest degree of loss and alterations affecting negatively their character.
In general terms, most of the buildings having the highest grade of local protection in Malaga, would
be equivalent to being listed grade 2 in Plymouth, a national recognition. There is only a parallelism
up to a certain extent in buildings of townscape merit, in both cities these assets are locally listed. Due
to the lack of observance of the regulations and interpretations favouring heritage loss in Malaga, it is
possible to observe that, in practice, a building listed grade II in Plymouth has a similar level of
controls and requirements as a building classified as a monument in Malaga.
References
Agudo Torrico, J. and Fernández de Paz, E. 2001. “Viejos y nuevos retos para el patrimonio cultural
de Andalucía”. In: J. Hurtado Sánchez and E. Fernández de Paz, eds. La cultura andaluza en el umbral
del siglo XXI. Sevilla: Ayuntamiento.
Ashworth, GJ. and Howard, P. 1999. European heritage planning and management. Exeter and
Portland: Intellect Books.
Bouazza Ariño, O. 2009. La planificación territorial en Gran Bretaña. Especial referencia al sector
turístico. Cizur Menor: Editorial Aranzadi, Thomson Reuters.
Castillo Ruiz, J. 1995. “La Ley de Patrimonio Histórico de Andalucía como instrumento de tutela”.
Revista PH, Vol. 13, p. 30-35.
Castillo Ruiz, J. 2004. “Los fundamentos de la protección: el efecto desintegrador producido por la
consideración del patrimonio histórico como factor de desarrollo”. Revista Patrimonio Cultural y
Derecho, Vol. 8, p. 11-36.
Davies, K. 2010. “Heritage volunteering: going the extra mile”. English Heritage. Conservation
Bulletin, Vol. 64, p. 39-41.

13
Dean, J. 1994. “Planeamiento urbano en Gran Bretaña el punto de vista de un profesional”. In: JL. De
las Rivas and GF. Muzio. Planeamiento urbano en la Europa Comunitaria: Bélgica, Italia, Gran
Bretaña, Francia, Portugal y España. Valladolid: Secretariado de Publicaciones de la Universidad de
Valladolid.
Department for Communities and Local Government. 2010. Planning Policy Statement 5: planning
for the historic environment. London: The Stationery Office.
Department of Communities and Local Government. 2012. National Planning Policy Framework.
Annex 2: Glossary.
English Heritage. 2012. Heritage Counts 2012, England. Tenth Anniversary Edition.
English Heritage. 2013. Heritage at Risk. Conservation Areas.
English Heritage. 2013. Heritage Counts 2013, England.
Fernández Salinas, V. 2005. “De la protección a la legitimación social del patrimonio urbano en
España”. Scripta Nova. Revista Electrónica de Geografía y Ciencias Sociales, Vol. 9, no 194.
Gripaios, P., Bishop, P. and Brand, S. 2010. “A lottery within a lottery? An examination of the
distribution of lottery funds in England”. Applied Economics, Vol. 42, p. 63-71.
Heritage Link. 2006. Making consultation matter. A survey of voluntary sector experience of local
authority consultation on land-use planning.
Joint Nature Conservation Committee, 2012. Available from: <http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-4>. [29
August 2012].
Malaga City Council. 2011. Plan General de Ordenación Urbanística de Málaga. Aprobación
definitiva. Catálogo de edificaciones protegidas.
Meethan, K. 1996. “Place, image and power: Brighton as a resort”. In: T. Selwyn, eds. The tourist
image. Myths and myth making in tourism. Chichester: Wiley.
Millbay Docks, 2012. Available from:
<http://www.plymouth.gov.uk/de/ms25_millbay_docks_proposed_demolitions.pdf>. [29 August
2012].
Pendlebury, J, and Strange, I. 2011. “Urban conservation and the shaping of the English city”. Town
Planning Review, Vol. 82, no 4, p. 361-392.
Plymouth City Council. 2007. Local Development Framework, Core Strategy.
Plymouth City Council, 2012. Available from:
<http://www.plymouth.gov.uk/homepage/creativityandculture/heritageandhistory/historicenvironment
.htm>. [29 August 2012].
Plymouth City Council. 2013. The Plymouth Plan. The future of heritage and the historic
environment. Document for consultation.
Rodríguez Temiño, I. 1998. “La tutela del patrimonio histórico de la modernidad a la
posmodernidad”. PH Boletín, Vol. 23, p. 84-96.
Smith, C. 2009. “Conservation Areas: early history and urban design versus significance”. English
Heritage. Conservation Bulletin, Vol. 2009, no 62, p. 3-5.
Stevenson, N., Airey, D. and Miller, G. 2008. “Tourism policy making: the policymakers’
perspectives”. Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 35, no 3, p. 732-750.

14
The National Heritage List for England - Frequently Asked Questions, 2013. Available from:
http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/content/imported-docs/f-j/heritage-list-faqs.pdf. [14 September
2013].
Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995. Directions restricting
permitted development.
Townshend, T. and Pendlebury, J. 1999. “Public participation in the conservation of historic areas:
Case-studies from north-east England”. Journal of Urban Design, Vol. 4, no 3, p. 313-331.
Willey, D. 1998. “Two tales of one city: alternative accounts for leisure and tourism in urban renewal
in Plymouth, England, UK”. World Leisure & Recreation, Vol. 40, no 2, p. 22-29.

15