‘CULTURAL HERITAGE THEORY AND PRACTICE:

ILLUSTRATING REAL WORLD

COMPLEXITIES USING THE CITY OF YORK AS A CASE STUDY.’

Examination number: Y6389485

Word Count: 10,924

Cover Image: Idealist image of historic York, emphasising the many heritage assets set within the city walls (Adshead 1948, 24)
 ‘CULTURAL HERITAGE THEORY AND PRACTICE:
ILLUSTRATING REAL WORLD
COMPLEXITIES USING THE CITY OF YORK AS A CASE STUDY.’
Abstract

This dissertation seeks to explore the complex relationship between cultural

heritage theory and practice, assessing the effectiveness of the acting bridge between the
two in the UK – English Heritage. Key themes which highlight theory transfer and its
barrier to frontline practitioners are drawn out from current literature, management
frameworks and case study of the City of York in order to allow for critical assessment
of whether the bridge between theory and practice is effective or lacking. The findings
of this thesis strongly suggest that the current construct of the UK heritage management
framework is unable to act effectively according to modern critical perspectives of
cultural heritage, and that, in order to remain relevant to society these shortcomings
must be addressed and acted upon at all levels to a provide meaningful future
framework for cultural heritage.

i
Contents

List of illustrations:..........................................................................................................iv
List of abbreviations:.........................................................................................................v
Acknowledgements:.........................................................................................................vi

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION: Can cultural heritage management theory be applied in practice?

Aim:...................................................................................................................................1
Objectives:.........................................................................................................................1
Methodology and chapter outline:.....................................................................................2
Research background:.......................................................................................................3
Summary:..........................................................................................................................4

CHAPTER 2
OVERVIEW: The on-going debate; current heritage literature

Preface:..............................................................................................................................5
Context:.............................................................................................................................5
Authorised Heritage Discourse and the revolt against convention:..................................6
Definitions of Heritage:.....................................................................................................7
Grounding the Heritage Phenomenon:..............................................................................9
Making room for our heritage:........................................................................................10
Fruitful experimentation; a critique of society:...............................................................11
Discussion:......................................................................................................................12
Summary:........................................................................................................................13

CHAPTER 3
DISCUSSION: The filtering effect; the impact of theory on practice

Preface:............................................................................................................................14
Context:...........................................................................................................................14
The evolution of value; the ‘filtering’ effect:..................................................................15
- International:.........................................................................................................15
- National:...............................................................................................................16
ii
 - Regional:...............................................................................................................18
Discussion/critique:.........................................................................................................19
Summary:........................................................................................................................21

CHAPTER 4
CASE STUDY: Evaluating the positives, negatives and gaps in York's cultural heritage
management

Preface:............................................................................................................................22
Traditional Approach to Heritage Management in York:...............................................23
A Significant Shift:..........................................................................................................23
Considering the Wider Issues:.........................................................................................24
Summary:........................................................................................................................27

CHAPTER 5
CONCLUDING ASSESSMENT: Research outcome; looking towards the future

Summary of findings:......................................................................................................28
Repair vs. rebuild:...........................................................................................................30
Bringing about the change:..............................................................................................31

iii
List of illustrations
Cover Image:

Idealist image of historic York, emphasising the many heritage assets set within the city walls
(Adshead 1948, 24)

Fig 2.1

Front cover of Schofield and Morrissey recent publication on Strait Street, Malta and its
heritage. Foreign servicemen clearly shown wandering around on shore leave amongst the bars
and other attractions (Schofield and Morrissey 2013)

Fig 4.11

Highlighting key views along York’s River Ouse looking towards York from the Northwest
(Purcell Miller Tritton 2012, 10)

Fig 4.12

“The Minster, rising majestically out of distinctively choppy roofscapes” (Cooke 2006, 7)

Fig 4.13

The York observation Wheel dominating the city sky line from afar over that of the Minster; the
paradox of protecting views through denying artificial viewing platforms of the City (authors
own image)

Fig 5.1

Table showing key themes from discussion. In blue are the observations of each theme broken
down depending on how they are perceived by the theoretical, bridging or practicing view
points (authors own image)

Fig 5.1

Diagram demonstrating the effect of the bridge between theory and practice relative to their
level at which is it engaged (authors own image)

iv
List of abbreviations
AHD Authorised Heritage Discourse

CDA Critical Discourse Analysis

CHM Cultural Heritage Management

CHS Critical Heritage Studies

EH English Heritage

GIS Global Information System

HLC Historic Landscape Characterisation

v
Acknowledgements
I would like to start by acknowledging the love and support given me by God, through Hannah,
my beautiful and amazing wife. Without whose patience and selflessness, none of this would have been
possible. That is not to say only this thesis, for it is realistically only 10,000 words, rather my entire being
at university, the grades I achieve, the confidence I have and the passion I hold is all down to her support
and all round loveliness. Thank you x

Also, I wish to thank my family: Mum, Dad, Andrew and Ros for being so interested and
supportive of this venture. Without whom I would not have been able to enter university and pursue this
intellectual challenge and career. I am always in your debt. Thank you.

I am indebted to Dr. John Schofield for his clear and patient guiding towards a research area
which encapsulates the intellectual challenge I sorely needed, the framework of knowledge on which I
could hang all of my many questions, and an area of expertise which I whole heartedly wish to contribute
to and enjoy as a career.

And finally, I have been most fortunate to meet Bob Sydes in the research for this thesis, and to
have benefited greatly from his clear insight into the workings and wider context of cultural heritage in
the UK and, most especially, York. I am gratefully for all the coffees shared and how he managed to
tackle all of my many questions so effortlessly. Similarly, for the many resources which he was able to
provide me and promptings to consider wider ideas and issues.

vi
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION:

Can cultural heritage management theory be applied in practice?

Aim:

The aim of this dissertation is to examine the bridge between theory and practice
in relation to cultural heritage and assessing, through critical study of each framework,
whether its current construct is effective or lacking. This will be focused by considering
whether cultural heritage management theory can be applied in practice.

Objectives:

In order to achieve the aim set out, the following objectives needed to be met:

 Firstly, it was necessary to review the impact of heritage studies (theory) on the
established framework of management (practice). This provides the overview of
current theoretical debate whilst also allowing discussion in light of the context of
the wider heritage management framework.

 Secondly, to evaluate the findings alongside real-world complexities using the city
of York as a case study. This ensures that the research tone is not merely conceptual,
but rather has focus and parameters addressing real-world issues. Importantly,
providing a practical demonstration of theory impacting upon practice.

 Thirdly, to assess previous key findings on how theory connects with practice. This
enables the dissertation to consider whether cultural heritage management theory
can or cannot be applied in practice. Further, there will be brief consideration of the
future development of theory and practice in the UK, drawing from present insight
and action.

1
Methodology and chapter outline:

In order to achieve the overall aim the objectives and structure of this thesis have
been designed to provide clear and logical flow, providing suitable context and building
awareness to the key themes throughout.

The thesis begins by providing an overview of the theoretical framework in chapter

2. This draws on recent heritage literature by prominent academics. The selection of
academic contribution provides a clear and concise overview of present key themes of
debate. The authors are based in either the UK or Australia, with direct connection to
and experience of the UK heritage management framework. All work has been from the
last 6 -7 years in order to remain up to date and relevant.

Chapter 3 continues discussion of the key themes within the context of wider
heritage management frameworks. It logically follows the filtering of heritage theory
from international, national and regional levels in practice and policy documentation.
The ultimate goal is to focus the reader’s attention into the case study and evaluation in
chapter 4.

In chapter 4 evaluation of heritage management in the City of York provides

application of these themes in case study. The use of town planning and heritage policy
documentation provides keen insight into the limitations imposed by the local
management framework and economic priorities. This chapter highlights real examples
of key issues which mirror issues raised throughout this thesis.

Chapter 5 brings the research to its completion with an assessment of important

findings. The key findings have been summarised and drawn into a critical conclusion,
in addition to consideration of future development.

In addition to independent study and evaluation, insight into the theoretical

framework and the heritage management of York has been sought from Dr. John
Schofield and Mr. Bob Sydes respectively. Dr. John Schofield is the director of the
Cultural Heritage Management MA programme at the University of York, and Mr. Bob
Sydes is the City of York Heritage Renaissance Office; both provide keen and up to
date comment on current debate and issues directly relevant to this dissertation.

2
 Interspersed throughout this thesis are analogous references to the bridge between
theory and practice. This is used in order to emphasise that there is a gap between
theory and practice in the UK, and in the concluding assessment, helps to paint a picture
of future development.

Research background:

Whilst this dissertation is focused on a snapshot of the debate found between

those involved in heritage studies and heritage management, it is wise to provide a brief
explanation of terms and the wider subject.

Heritage as a concept is closely related to that of inheritance (Schofield 2008,

18). It is often perceived as something gained from the past, with benefit for today and
the future. The term cultural heritage relates to inherited resources which perform in the
present to express shared culture, values and identities (Council of Europe 2005, 3;
Schofield 2008, 19; Trigger 2006, 260). Based on these definitions, it has been stated
that in order for heritage output to be meaningful it requires an open and honest input
(Smith and Waterton 2009a, 139). Therefore, frameworks for heritage management are
an important aspect of any society or community engaging with the wider public (Smith
2008, 62 - 71). This leads to the problem however of control through management;
heritage administrators criticised for not merely commenting upon, but creating heritage
(Holtorf 2008, 130 – 131). Therefore the significant divide is found: critical heritage
studies (CHS hereafter) seeking to produce meaningful theory for cultural heritage
management (CHM hereafter), and heritage administrators left to provide practical
management alongside the restrains of political and economic control.

The subject of bridging this gap between theory and practice is highly topical
and relevant for all concerned within the heritage sector at present. The academic
recommendations of heritage perception and worth seem not to marry well with the
language and priorities of heritage policy planners and practitioners (Wajdner 2012).
Therefore the deliberations given to both theory and practice are often considered
disconnected and sometimes irrelevant to each other (Greene & Moore 2010, 255). The
freedom to critically refine and debate definitions and significances is often inaccessible
for heritage practitioners (Wajdner 2012). Academics in CHS have conventionally

3
maintained conceptualised deliberations on the subject with few practical
methodologies which can be tested within the confines of current management
frameworks (Mason 2008, 99, 111, 118 & 120 -121).

There is a multitude of academic literature devoted to heritage studies, with the

discipline continuing to grow as it develops critical tools and interdisciplinary
connections (Carman and Sorensen 2009, 11- 12; Sorensen and Carman 2009, 3).
Further, it is recognised that, economically, socially and politically, there is dependence
on heritage management in the UK to be effective (Council of Europe 2009, 101 – 107;
Mason 2008 104 – 107; Schofield 2008, 20 – 22). The UK has a world-class legacy in
terms of tangible heritage which is a draw for tourism as well as international prestige
(English Heritage 2011a, 22). However there are now wider appreciations of what
constitutes contemporary cultural heritage, and as such, there are clear tensions between
the objectives of conserving the old whilst promoting the new (Council of Europe 2009,
107 – 108; Schofield 2008, 19). It is important therefore that the framework in which all
perceived forms of heritage are handled is effective and self-critical in order to be
relevant and future proof.

The City of York, internationally celebrated for its role in shaping CHM and its
collection of valuable heritage assets is a prime example for considering heritage
debates (City of York Council 2011, 4 – 6, 29; Simpson et al. 2010, 6). The basis of the
city’s economy relying substantially on tourism and its heritage features provides a
useful study for considering economic and social priorities whilst examining the
convergence of theory and practice in CHM (English Heritage 2011a, 4; Simpson et al.
2010, 6).

Summary:

In sum, this dissertation will consider the key themes from current debate within
cultural heritage theory, evaluating the current form of heritage management in the UK
and assessing alongside real world examples whether theory can be applied in practice
or whether there must first be a reconstruction of the bridge of discourse between the
two.

4
Chapter 2
OVERVIEW:

The on-going debate; current heritage literature

Preface:

The focus of this chapter is to review aspects of current heritage debate which have
relevance to the research questions of this thesis, namely: the definitions and universal
inferences of value, the issues surrounding the control of discourse, and scenarios of
public engagement. While being only a snapshot of the global debate, these
contributions highlight the current concern with the articulation and development of
heritage studies (theory) with heritage management policy (practice). Critical
consideration will be given then to the impact of theory on practice in order to compare
the perceived effect on policy guidelines in later chapters.

Context:

One of the main themes of debate follows the critique of heritage policy
development in recent history. There has been much written in the last few years on the
chronology and evolution of heritage management showing how the practice has
developed from antiquarian lobbyist movements to international conventions of
protection and conservation legislation (Carman 2012, 13 - 26; Harrison 2013, 68 - 72).
Further, into a more democratic discourse demonstrating contemporary relevancy, i.e.
the Faro Convention (Council of Europe 2005, 6). The shift of control from elite
educated individuals to a central governing body, and then subsequent distribution of
ownership to local professionals; it is with this in mind that the first of several
theoretical perspectives will be visited – redefining of heritage values.

5
Authorised Heritage Discourse and the revolt against convention:

Heritage scholars have long thought that the official definition of heritage is too
narrowly focused. This has prompted debate as to how heritage should be viewed and
public policy documentation amended so as to provide more flexibility of ownership
and identity. No stronger is this argued than by Laurajane Smith with her theory of
Authorised Heritage Discourse (2006). The Authorised Heritage Discourse (thereafter
AHD) was developed by Laurajane Smith and published in ‘Uses of Heritage’ in which
she puts forward the argument that there is no such thing as heritage (2006, 13). With
this bold statement she expounds that professionals and policy writers have dominated
the discourse of heritage definition, value and contribution due to their hegemony of
discussion and interpretation with relation to connections with the past, (Smith 2006, 29
– 34). Further, she argues that through this AHD – and the use of objects and material as
the only forms of heritage – value and worth is attributed to neutral objects so as to
instil social, religious and political controls over society (Smith 2006, 3, 90 – 91; Smith
and Waterton 2009a, 30; Smith & Waterton 2012, 156). Therefore rather than objects
having value in themselves, value is attributed to them by a dominating discourse which
confirms to a heritage audience that said object has value (Smith 2006, 29 – 32; Smith
and Waterton 2012, 156).

The argument follows that if heritage professionals and authorities did not exist,
then these objects would not be deemed valuable or of heritage statues to the majority of
society. This argument can be considered either as too simplistic or, conversely,
philosophically profound depending on the viewer’s perspective of heritage impact. Too
simplistic because the AHD argument refuses to acknowledge the evolutionary history
of heritage values, intellectually designed and embraced by heritage professionals. This
is evidenced through progressive and proactive publications such as the by the Council
of Europe in the Framework Convention on the Value of Cultural Heritage for Society,
as well as English Heritage’s guidelines on Conservation Principles. On the other hand
the argument looks beyond this international and national engagement in value
development by drawing on Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA hereafter) (Smith 2006,
13 & 15). This effectively demonstrates how self-sustaining authorised discourses are
equipped with built-in firewalls to safeguard from democratic control.

6
Definitions of Heritage:

With the statement that there is no such thing as heritage; Smith, along with Emma
Waterton, argues two trajectories of debate. Firstly that the current definition is too
narrow, and secondly that professionals should not be given any more say on heritage
than any other group. By retaining a definition of heritage as material objects and
tangible connections with the past, Smith and Waterton suggest that authorities are
withholding access to deeper and more critical discussion and negotiation (Smith and
Waterton 2012, 154). The logic follows that unless there is dialogue access to heritage is
unchallengeable (Smith and Waterton 2009a, 139 – 140). Smith and Waterton enhance
their argument by drawing from the perspective offered by CDA, that the types of
questions asked, focus of discourse and definitions used are self-sustaining and block
alternative discussion (Smith 2006, 13 & 15; Smith and Waterton 2012, 154 – 155). In
their 2010 publication ‘Constrained by Commonsense’ they argue that this self-
sustaining AHD creates a seducing model of heritage which delegitimizes other
perspectives, thereby constraining dialogue and silencing debates (Smith and Waterton
2012, 155). The second trajectory of debate seeks to dilute the implied overinflated
status and ownership of heritage experts and policy makers in order to redress the
balance of influence held and redirect heritage studies (Smith and Waterton 2009a, 11 –
13, 138 – 139). Whilst they argue that, due to AHD, heritage will remain unchallenged,
Smith and Waterton pose the question of deconstructing and recreating heritage in
which they would value heritage experts as simply an equally interested party in
heritage; with equal and valid views, but no more (Smith and Waterton 2009a, 11, 29 –
30). This move seeks to tackle the dominance over heritage as a whole and rebalance
the input and negotiating power of all interested parties.

Both of these concerns have been addressed however by the Council of Europe’s
Faro convention report 2005. As the Council of Europe’s ‘Heritage and Beyond’
commentary on the Faro convention points out, the values and awareness of heritage as
a critical study have evolved over the past 50yrs to the point where local control (away
from central) has provided a democratic (rather than autocratic) system of articulating
and engaging heritage – as opposed to an elite form, which by nature projects an
hierarchal expression of power (Council of Europe 2009, 15 – 18, 25 - 27). The
definitions of heritage under the Faro convention adopt a wide remit so as to be
inclusive and open. It is stated as:
7
 “ …[H]eritage is a group of resources inherited from the past which people identify,
independently of ownership, as a reflection and expression of their constantly
evolving values, beliefs, knowledge and traditions. It includes all aspects of the
environment resulting from the interaction between people and places through time”
(Council of Europe 2005, 3).

Further, the definitions of heritage are widely accepted now as involving all forms; the
intangible as well as the tangible (Council of Europe 2009, 30). Smith and Waterton in
their 2009 essay ‘The Envy of the World: Intangible Heritage in the United Kingdom’
argue that whilst the uptake of tangible, intangible and natural heritage was becoming
more widely accepted at International convention level, AHD in the UK means it is
unlikely that formal recognition of this important and relevant definition of heritage will
be adopted within its legislation (Smith and Waterton 2009b, 289 & 295). In their
argument they provide evidence by way of interview dialogue dated from 2004/5
whereby EH representatives are noted to explicitly deny relevance of intangible heritage
within the UK (Smith and Waterton 2009b, 296 – 299). Thus it is suggestible that Smith
and Waterton consider the UK’s policy and stance on heritage matters to be the key
suspect in the barrier of wider definition and therefore expression of heritage and its
value. Smith and Waterton continue this theme of broadening definitions by proposing
heritage is better thought as being a set of processes; and that these processes relate to
issues of identity formation and community (Smith 2006, 44 – 45; Smith and Waterton
2009b, 293 – 294; Smith and Waterton 2012, 153). Arguably this provides a more
usable view of heritage and provides scope of more reflexive and mutable connections
between communities and past.

8
Grounding the Heritage Phenomenon:

It is clear that there are many conceptualised definitions of heritage, but what
frameworks are in place to regulate these definitions? John Carman and Marie Louise
Stig Sorensen argue that care needs to be taken not to bog-down the field of CHS with a
desire to ‘fix’ the problem of too narrow definitions (Carman and Sorensen 2009, 11 –
13). Carman and Sorensen in their 2009 publication ‘Heritage studies: methods and
approaches’ argue that fixation on identifying the ‘subject’ (definition of heritage)
within heritage studies is unhelpful and ultimately constrains analytical efforts (Carman
and Sorensen 2009, 11 – 13). They state that the constant debating for finding a single
definition will only result in a hopelessly vague compromise (Carman and Sorensen
2009, 12). Instead, it should be recognised that the heritage studies is still in its infancy
and therefore heritage should be seen as the contemporary phenomenon it is (Carman
and Sorensen 2009, 12). They argue that the focus of debate should be on theoretical
frameworks and, equally important, physical, practical and intellectual tools for the
discipline (Sorensen and Carman 2009, 4).

Carman and Sorensen theorise what should be included and considered in this
potential toolkit for heritage management, they consider 3 areas; text, people and
objects (Sorensen and Carman 2009, 5, 6 – 9). First they promote the development of
methodology to critically challenge heritage policy; agreeing on the basis of there being
an AHD which should be scrutinised and overcome (Sorensen and Carman 2009, 6).
Secondly they promote the use of new technologies and modes of social communication
for listening to and appreciating the views and expressions of people in relation to their
values and heritage (Sorensen and Carman 2009, 7 – 8). They agree on many points
with Smith and Waterton over the need to reach out of convenient listening platforms
and away from the comfort-zone of similarity to truly recognise legitimate, alternative
views which exist unheard (Smith and Waterton 2009a, 138 – 143). Thirdly, and
similarly to their previous point, they promote the outreach by all available means to
explore the views of others in what types of heritage connections exist; the tangible, the
intangible, all processes, practices and beliefs (Sorensen and Carman 2009, 8 – 9). They
advise that utilising public archaeology methods are ideal for inviting different
communities to have their say on what they value and relate to (Sorensen and Carman
2009, 8). Finally, Sorensen and Carman emphasis that both tangible and intangible
forms of heritage are important and should remain respected as such (Sorensen and
9
Carman 2009, 8- 9). However there is agreement towards the critical approach of
contemporary values as there is suspect value ascribed to heritage today which is far
removed from the original intentions of antiquarians of 100 years ago (Carman 2012,
13).

Making room for our heritage:

Publications by Rodney Harrison complement this call for care when approaching
the debate of definitions. His work argues that the debate of heritage definition should
be laid to rest until further theoretical framework issues are resolved (Harrison 2010;
Harrison 2012, 2 - 3; Harrison 2013, 4 – 7). Harrison argues that the focus should be
less about ‘what’ and more about ‘who’ (Harrison 2010, 1). In this, Harrison tries to
shift the emphasis by asking both positively and negatively who is being represented by
heritage; and alternatively who is neglected. Key to this is the seeming obsession with
heritage being solely positive; that those without should be given voice through the
positive medium of heritage (Council of Europe 2009, 107; Harrison 2010, 1; Harrison
2012, 3). However, this would require the unquestioned perspective that to have a
heritage was positive as it portrays truth. Harrison argues instead that heritage is not
about truthful presentation but rather it is about ‘deliverable political objectives—about
reinforcing social cohesion through the construction of myths of origin, identity and
moral example’ (Harrison 2010, 1). This is arguably an important question to tackle as
CHS gathers pace.

In addition to Harrison’s critical approach to society’s perspective on heritage he

develops the idea that there is a crisis in memory (Harrison 2012, 1 – 12; Harrison
2013, 3, 166 – 169). Firstly in his 2012 essay published in the International Journal of
Heritage Studies Harrison prompts his readers to consider how with an ever
increasingly broad definition of heritage, its exponential growth threatens to overwhelm
capacity to remember; thus rendering heritage ineffective and potentially worthless
(Harrison 2012, 2). He therefore argues that attention in heritage management must be
given to active forgetting as well as remembering; thus aiding heritages sustainability
and relevancy for the future (Harrison 2012, 2, Harrison 2013, 167). Secondly, in his
most recent book ‘Heritage: Critical Perspectives’ (2013) Harrison develops from the

10
concept of memory crisis by Terdiman (1993) a discussion - and brings its context up to
date by applying logic to the environment of late-modern technological and social
advancements (Harrison 2013, 3 & 167). Whereas societies around the globe are
confronted with a memory crisis at times of social, economical and political
evolutionary change, e.g. the industrial revolution from 1760-1820’s, the 21st century
faces the quickened pace of social, economic and political interaction through access to
the internet (Harrison 2013, 3). This new environment in which heritage is played out,
i.e. the internet, has further fertilised the modern crisis in memory and heritage
identification by providing a platform for multi-forum dialogue and sub-identity
relationships of cultural heritage. This discussion is arguably under-theorised but is key
to understanding the ubiquitous nature of modern heritage discourse. While Harrison
touches on important themes of this discussion, it is void of practical study and
development of a suitable toolkit for its investigation. However Schofield seeks to
tackle this critique of many academic publications in CHS by engaging with
controversial perceptions of heritage in western society.

Fruitful experimentation; a critique of society:

By pushing the boundaries of who, what and why when it comes to studying cultural
heritage Schofield prompts important questions of why heritage is essential for both
enriching and critiquing society (Schofield 2010, 325 – 327). Two examples
demonstrate this very well, and can be seen in his studies of homeless communities and
back-alley landscapes. Schofield’s emphasis is on the relevance of archaeological
heritage studies in the contemporary, seeking to demonstrate through engaging people
and landscape the benefits of giving complete ownership of heritage to all in society,
regardless of conventional biases (Schofield 2010, 325 – 326). In working with
homeless communities, with the assistance of Rachel Kiddey, Schofield argues that the
benefit of heritage to society comes when the harder, less comfortable identities are
engaged with; when difficult stories are heard and allowed to provide valuable critique
on contemporary society (Schofield 2010, 326; Schofield, Kiddey & Lashua 2012, 298
– 299). Similarly with Strait Street, Valletta, Malta, Schofield engages with an
embarrassing identity of perceived shamefulness, i.e. prostitution, dancehalls, bars, etc.
frequented by foreign servicemen (fig 2.1) (Schofield, Kiddey & Lashua 2012, 304 –
11
308). While having effectively been
hidden from the outside world, the
occupants and those who relate to this
area are suppressed by an authorised
religious value system which places
stigma on connections of memory to its
past (Schofield, Kiddey & Lashua 2012,
304; Schofield and Morrissey 2013).
Thus Schofield provides contribution to
the debate on defining whose heritage by
arguing it belongs to all of society
(Schofield, Kiddey & Lashua 2012, 308
& 316). He further deals with the
theoretical study of engaging with
communities to empower their ownership
of their heritage in a critical and sensitive
Fig. 2.1 Front cover of Schofield and Morrissey recent
way. However his approach is practical publication on Strait Street, Malta and its heritage. Foreign
servicemen clearly shown wandering around on shore leave
and able to be demonstrated by amongst the bars and other attractions (Schofield and
Morrissey 2013)
progressive examples which tackle the
authorised discourse of heritage and gives control over to interest groups. Whilst it is
reasonable to attribute control and expression to those who relate to a landscape in
question, Schofield’s work is yet to discuss the full implications of conflicting
landscapes and control thereof. Further, whilst it is accepted that the work conducted is
partially experimental it is concerning that the engagement with contemporary heritages
potentially promotes the emphasis of personal memories over wider collective heritages;
which when considering the crisis of memory discussed above might embed a
irreversibly damaging perspective.

Discussion:

This chapter has sought to highlight the key themes of debate within the theoretical
framework for CHS in the 21st century. As such it demonstrates that critical and positive
evaluation of heritage is helping to enhance understanding of what is valuable and how
relevant heritage is to today’s world and the future tomorrow. It is worth noting

12
however, unless there is a further maturing of this academic work in relation to
articulation, there will be difficulty in universal application and appreciation of cultural-
heritage values in a context of town planners and regional policy writers.

Despite the cynical views of a self-sustaining AHD, implementation of theory at an

international convention level is clearly a reality; this will be considered in more depth
in later chapters, especially in relation to the Faro convention. Yet the question of
whether complete and effective change of policy documentation and authorised
frameworks for heritage management can eventuate is perhaps not so much about
willingness to change, but rather of an ability to change (Smith 2006, 299). The filtering
of theoretical ideas of theory to front line heritage practitioners must pass through the
selection process of democratic scrutiny at each political level (Harrison 2013, 227 –
231). Therefore the front line heritage work in York, for example, must work within the
parameters of internationally, nationally and authorised definitions of heritage which
have been born in relation to detached perceptions of value and meaning.

Summary:

As has been seen, the themes of debate as to the definition of heritage through CHS
seek to progress and challenge any barrier between society and heritage. Adoption of
broad and inclusive definitions to describe what constitutes heritage and expression
thereof can be seen as ultimately beneficial to supporting values and identity within
modern society.

13
Chapter 3
DISCUSSION:

The filtering effect; the impact of theory on practice

Preface:

The focus of this chapter is to consider the impact of CHM theory on practice,
especially how this manifests itself at each authoritative level through policy. This will
be achieved by considering the rise in awareness of heritage matters at international
level and how through different organisations guidelines and principles are articulated
to those practitioners on the front line of CHM. Whilst this is a complex system world-
wide, and far from consistent across the globe, the focus for this discussion will centre
on the UK and later on the city of York.

Context:

The present framework for CHM in the UK revolves around public policy
guidelines given by the QUANGO English Heritage (EH hereafter) (English Heritage
2013a; Smith and Waterton 2012, 160; Smith and Waterton 2009b, 291). Operating on a
national level, EH also proactively engages with local situations via its regional
offices/teams (English Heritage 2013b). Thus, due to its connection with authority of
discourse (as an executive agency of the Government Department for Culture, Media
and Sport) and sole presence as such it is widely consider the bridging body between
CHM theory and practice within the UK.

There are various alternative trusts and organisations which contribute to the
guidance in heritage conservation, at different levels, namely; National Trust; Council
for British Archaeology; Directorate of Culture and Cultural and Natural Heritage,
Council of Europe; and UNESCO. Each provide guidance and expertise in the

14
awareness and protection of heritage, yet none are as widely consulted by the UK
government for final management/legislative policy publication as EH.

The evolution of value; the ‘filtering’ effect:

As has been alluded to in the previous chapter, the filtering of theory to grass roots
heritage practice must pass through democratic scrutiny at all political levels. In order to
follow this filtering of theory, it is wise to consider the different levels at which theory
impacts upon practice. Each stage will be discussed so as to demonstrate the effect and
outcome of this development.

- International:

At an international level the Directorate of Culture and Cultural and Natural

Heritage within the Council of Europe, produced The Framework Convention on the
Value of Cultural Heritage for Society (“The Faro Convention”). This saw the
assimilation of many progressive practices within cultural heritage theory and
management in order to provide a reflection on the benefits, meanings, and values of
heritage within Europe (Council of Europe 2009, 8). This convention promotes the
modern articulation and awareness of heritage values so as to generate healthy discourse
and engagement between communities (Council of Europe 2005, 6). The emphasis is on
the appreciation of the plurality of value and meaning in terms of heritage (Council of
Europe 2009, 7 – 8). Whilst this framework is not yet in force in the UK, the earlier
Florence Convention framework - the European Landscape Convention – is (English
Heritage 2013c). The Florence Convention paved the way for a people-centred focus to
wider heritage, and in so doing provoked an enhanced awareness to inclusivity and
more critical definitions (Council of Europe 2000, 2). The Faro convention helped
evolve this framework along with definitions, e.g. the definition for cultural heritage as
detailed above (chapter 2). Further, as EH state on their website when discussing the
Faro Convention:

“Faro… reinforces the links between cultural heritage, quality of life, identity and
the right to participate in cultural life. It identifies the important role played by
trans-national heritage communities in the context of this definition of the common
heritage of Europe, but it also identifies a shared responsibility towards this
common heritage” (English Heritage 2013c).
15
 Unfortunately, whilst the convention is undoubtedly progressive and influential, the
text has not yet been put into use within the UK. It is possible that this process has been
slowed considerably by the shelving of many policy and legislation pieces in light of the
2008 recession and the conservative government placing a hold on all white paper
legislation as a result, upon their election in 2010. This was certainly the case with the
Heritage Protection for the 21st Century white paper which was effectively binned in
2010 due to its slow completion process.

The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation

(“UNESCO”), and the World Heritage Convention (“WHC”) with which it is associated
has however been actively engaged with by the UK government - through the United
Kingdom National Commission for UNESCO (“UKNC”). As a commission there is
clear agreement with the values and principle aims and objectives of UNESCO, namely:
protecting, preserving and promoting culture and cultural diversity (UNESCO 2013).
They relate to both tangible and intangible; progressing the call to give all natural and
cultural heritage a function in the life of communities and being an International
advocate for the role of cultural heritage in development (UNESCO 2013). However,
again, the UK government has not ratified the progressive conventions proposed, i.e. the
2003 convention on safeguarding of the intangible cultural heritage (Smith and
Waterton 2009, 289). This is in keeping with the critique of the UK’s perception of
heritage and its value.

- National:

Exactly why the UK government does not widely acknowledge this, arguably,
commonly accepted definition of heritage is one which needs addressing. As has
previously been mentioned, the explicit denial of relevancy by EH in regards to
intangible heritage suggests that the barrier to accepting this broader definition of
heritage is one of perception, e.g. Smith’s argument as detailed above that the UK’s
perception of heritage being a ‘thing’ rather than a set of processes – chapter 2. Whilst
piecemeal studies have been conducted so as to investigate reasons for this, e.g.
Stefano’s 2009 essay ‘Safeguarding Intangible Heritage: five key obstacles facing
museums of the North East of England,’ there is yet to be articulated a comprehensive
evaluation of the UK’s stance on this matter (either directly or indirectly). When
considering this lack of statement it is wise to consult the definitions given for heritage
by EH on their website; of which there are two:

16
 1.) “All inherited resources which people value for reasons beyond mere utility.”

– Conservation Principles, English Heritage, 2008 (English Heritage 2013d)

2.) “Heritage is a broad concept and includes the natural as well as the cultural
environment. It encompasses landscape, historic places, sites and built
environments, as well as bio-diversity, collections, past and continuing cultural
practices, knowledge and living experiences. It records and expresses the long
processes of historic development, forming the essence of diverse national,
regional, indigenous and local identities and is an integral part of modern life. It
is a dynamic reference point and positive instrument for growth and change. The
particular heritage and collective memory of each locality or community is
irreplaceable and an important foundation for development, both now and into
the future.”

– International Cultural Tourism Charter, ICOMOS, 1999 (English Heritage

2013d)

Interestingly the first given is very noncommittal in terms of practical meaning, and, if
anything, hints more to objects of heritage through its use of the words resources and
utility. The second is far more engaging and despite being from over a decade ago
articulates a few of the modern themes in relation to wider heritage definition. However
it is taken from a third party source and is not a prime source definition of EH’s own
view. The EH definition to cultural heritage is equally as evasive as the first definition
above:

3.) “Inherited assets which people identify and value as a reflection and expression
of their evolving knowledge, beliefs and traditions, and of their understanding of
the beliefs and traditions of others.”
– Conservation Principles, English Heritage, 2008 (English Heritage 2013e)

Again, this definition confirms the EH perception of heritage being a tangible asset
rather than being a set of processes. It can be argued as simply that EH holds to a set of
17
statutory duties to which it is bound through governmental representation, and that due
to the present definition on heritage constituting that which is tangible, this precludes
EH from having a direct interest in the engagement (and therefore acknowledgement) of
intangible heritage. However the question of how a practical policy guideline can be
produced relating to the protection of an intangible ‘process’ creates an unattainable
paradox, thus simply barring EH from considering the matter further. This again raises
the question as to whether it is some much an AHD that is unwilling to change, or rather
one which in its current form and context is unable to change.

- Regional:

At regional level the work by EH is far more focused and hands-on. This is
partly due to its nature of being locally based and concerned with direct issues, but also
because EH carries out an advisory role within local boundaries in-line with the
National Planning Policy Framework promoting sustainable development (English
Heritage 2013f). The shift of financial delegation between national and regional levels
can be seen through the annual Heritage Counts detailing the budgetary allocation for
projects, initiatives, and policy application (English Heritage 2013g; Heritage Counts
2013).

The form in which this hands-on engagement takes reflects the type of threat and
historic value held by the local subject. For example in the City of York the regional
team proactively became involved both strategically and financially in order to enhance
the maintenance and conservation of York as an important and historic international
asset. This can be seen through the push for the ‘Heritage Topic’ paper and the
‘Statement of Ambition’ relating to York’s worth and articulation of significance, as
well as the funding of the ‘conservation area appraisal’ and the employment of a city
‘heritage champion’ – Mr. Bob Sydes – in 2010 (English Heritage 2010).

Whilst EH provide guidelines, funding and strategic direction for local projects
and conservation, in terms of management of projects, it is the local council’s
prerogative to lead discussion and strategy of heritage matters. At this local level with
the local authorities of city council, the level of expertise, budgetary allocation and
involvement strategy can often be criticised as being subject to a ‘postcode lottery.’
Whereas the City of York is considered as being highly significant and prioritised in
terms of heritage management and intervention, other localities less ‘historic’ can
arguably be at risk of being forgotten. It is through the commonsensical perception of
18
what constitutes heritage that sustains this imbalance of significances around the UK at
local level (Smith and Waterton 2012, 155). However, whilst there are clear critiques of
national and regional involvement of EH in the heritage management in the UK, there
are also highly professional management frameworks which result.

One such thorough framework, a direct relation to the European Landscape

Convention, is the EH Historic Landscape Characterisation project (“HLC”) (English
Heritage 2013h). Simply this is a tool used by EH as a means of ’tracing the imprint of
history’ (English Heritage 2013i). It is a practical campaign to piece together across the
country multiple forms of data in order to build up a base of knowledge which will
affect future development, study and protection of the country’s heritage (English
Heritage 2013i). In terms of close relation to the principles of the Florence convention,
there are overlapping ideas of heritage definition expanding beyond the conventional
restriction of merely being ‘stuff’ (Fairclough 2008, 298 – 299). This suggestible
consideration to alternative forms of heritage is still yet to be worked out in more action
and clarity. However, through the evolution of the HLC programme and more recent
critical local projects of characterisation, the potential for future filtering of theory into
practice directly to local level is arguably a resounding positive.

Discussion/critique:

As has been seen, through instruments such as the faro convention, the
assimilation and action based on progressive theoretical developments in CHS has
provided platform for the articulation of important advancements in heritage legislation
and international policy guidelines. Awareness and support for such developments at an
international level provides a prime opportunity for further review and critique, thus
strengthening theory intellectually, legally and cross-culturally. As has been detailed by
Noel Fojut in their review of the origins of the faro convention, the many shifting
perspectives of what heritage is and how it is valued, etc. helps for the emergence of
new appreciations and a greater awareness (and therefore the requirement of stipulating
this) for the good of human culture and communities (Council of Europe 2009, 13 – 21).
However whilst at this international level the awareness and discussion can influence
the practices and policies of nations, it has no ultimate control – as can be seen in the

19
current situation with the UK. The UK has played a leading role in the conservation and
management of heritage on a global stage over the past 100yrs and more (Carman 2012,
26; York Civic Trust 2013a). It therefore has a central framework for dealing with
heritage matters and the current form is that of EH. However, the construct and rigidity
of which this form has developed over time has created a powerful force by which can
overrule and disallow new perspectives which are not held to by itself. This is an
argument which has been touched upon by Smith and Waterton, and is again entirely
relevant and topical. With the focus of heritage shifting away from solely tangible and
incorporating the intangible, what role will EH have to play in this new environment, as,
in what ways can a fluid and intangible heritage be protected? The understanding of this
form of heritage is still in its early stages, therefore, whilst appreciated as being highly
relevant and significant, the aims of policy work and legislation seems yet still removed
from practical reality.

If EH was to alter its remit in order to allow for this uptake of responsibility
towards intangible forms of heritage, difficulties would arise as to how, in a democratic
society, this change should be lead and in what way new forms of heritage might be
understood, etc. Whilst the UKs government is elected by the citizens, this plays no role
in the election of who leads the management of the countries heritage. Rather, EH is an
external organisation from the government, and is entirely unaffected by the views of
the nation. Further, its interpretation of government legislation is not only unreflective
but it has a key role in the creation of heritage related policy and legislation guidelines.
EH is a QUANGO and therefore is primarily run on tax payers money; the axiom ‘if it
isn’t broken, don’t fix it’ is ever more relevant in this situation when considering change
which would require an injection of public funds. Whilst EH can be accused as not
adapting and engaging with important forms of national heritage, it cannot as easily be
accused of not fulfilling its current remit effectively.

Considering the political drive towards change, it is worth noting the important
aspects which make up the matter of theory-into-practice. Firstly, the inner critical
subject matter of ‘what’ heritage is, i.e. the definition. Secondly, the outer framework
with which comes from the inner theoretical subject matter, i.e. the drive for deeper
awareness, democratic processes relating to heritage management and the handing over
of control to those directly affected by the heritage. This second part has tended to
become a political win-win ticket (Smith and Waterton 2009a, 11 – 13). Whilst the
move toward localising heritage management is a clear step forward for communities
20
and individuals to gain control over their heritage connections, it is also a very
inexpensive price for authorities to sacrifice. This is due to the fashionable nature of
regionalism within governments; handing over responsibility without completely
handing over final authority (Council of Europe 2009). Unless there is threatening
content within the subject being localised, the authorities and leaders of heritage
management in fact hand over no control at all. Legislation and official definitions (and
with it protection rights) are centrally controlled through EH within the UK regardless
how delegation and engagement with local projects are portrayed. Ultimately funding
and engagement is selective based upon commonly held perceptions on a limited range
of heritage forms.

Whilst it is fair to say that even in the local context EH and local authorities seek
to engage with an ever increasingly diverse range of communities, with the focus of
such heritage connections being selected based on the underlying definition of heritage
as being tangible, the representation of alternative heritage identities is dependant solely
upon unsupported groups. So in order to readdress the underlying theme of this chapter
discussion, the perceived barrier of filtering theory into practice is the construct of
heritage management within the UK, the QUANGO EH.

Summary:

There is arguably great potential in the work carried out in academia through
CHS in relation to CHM; much of which is drawn upon by international organisations
and publicised through subsequent conventions. However due to the limiting nature of
heritage management in the UK (EH) the employment of new forms and ideas is
unlikely and arguably impossible due to many factors. As has been seen, the restrictions
of public policy and legislation created and based upon sound but outdated intellectual
appreciation of heritage has led to an otiose and brittle authority of heritage discourse.
With this conclusion it is the focus of this thesis to consider how, if possible,
improvements and challenges can be made within the practical management of cultural
heritage within the City of York.

21
Chapter 4
CASE STUDY:

Evaluating the positives, negatives, and gaps in York’s cultural heritage

management

Preface:

“All towns are unique; only a few are special. York is special, not for one
reason, but for a multitude. The inner city is world famous; outside the city
walls, York is distinctive. The city as a whole is a mirror of British history and
architecture. It is a special community whose evolution is exceptionally well-
recorded. It is a city whose future wealth is likely to be built successfully on
these assets. As a special place, York needs special care…” (Cookes 2006, 5)

It is appropriate to begin this chapter with the above quote for several reasons.
Firstly they are the words of the influential and passionate patron of York’s heritage –
Sir Ron Cooke (former Chairman of the York Civic Trust) – on occasion on him
publishing literature on why York is so special in 2006. Secondly it marks an important
transition in York heritage awareness, between old and new modes of thinking. Thirdly,
the quote conveys directly many of the core themes which take the focus of this case
study.

In order to provide the third area of focus in this thesis, considering what the
practical application of theory on practice looks like, this chapter will consider the case
study of York. In doing so there will be a brief exploration of what the City of York’s
heritage management strategy looks like and what real world issues it faces. This is vital
before any evaluation of what might be done better to enhance the effective application
of theory in the world of practice can take place.

22
Traditional Approach to Heritage Management in York:

First, then, a whistle-stop tour of York’s heritage management up till late. The
city of York is well covered in literature as being an area of worldwide special historic
interest. York’s heritage has always been directly defined by its collection of material-
culture; above and below ground (City of York Council 2009, p 2; City of York Council
2011, 4 & 29). It is understood that it is the plurality of these assets which make the city
special (Cookes 2006, 6 – 7). Thus the condition (quality), number (quantity) and layout
of these assets is the prime concern of the city council as well as local, regional and
national heritage interest groups. As such the conservation and management of these
assets are given high priority compared with other similar sized towns; conservation, so
as to protect the city’s heritage - status and the assets perceived value as providing such
- and management, so that the heritage assets have a place in the future of York and are
not an undue-burden (Adshead 1948, 24; Baxter LLP 2011, 3 & 4; Cooke 2006, 1 & 23;
English Heritage 2010, 2). This appreciation for the plurality and special character of
York has been gained over the decades through consultation and study; examples of
these ranging from the second world war up to the present day are: Adshead, Minter and
Needham (1948) ‘York: a plan for progress and preservation’, Pace (1962) ‘The York
Aesthetic’, Lord Esher (1969) ‘York – a Study in Conservation’, Ove Arup (1991)
’York Development and Archaeology Study’, Cooke (2006) ‘Why is York so Special?’,
Cooke (2009) ‘Downtown York: a Practical Manifesto’, Baxter LLP (2011)
‘Conservation Area Appraisal’, and the City of York (2011) ‘Heritage Topic Paper’.

A Significant Shift:

However whist there has been a substantial number of studies carried out aiming
to better understand York’s special character, it can be argued that up till now there has
been very little effective appreciation of exactly what is significant about York
(Wajdner 2012 & 2013). This effective inertia of understanding, and with it poor
evidence base for protection and management, resulted in EH proactively becoming
involved in 2010 in light of the stumbling production of a Local Development Plan
(LDF hereafter) (Wajdner 2012; English Heritage 2010, 3). EH based a lot of their
initiative on their previously published (2008) Conservation Principles, Policies and

23
Guidance documentation which called for the vital understanding of the significance of
places – in relation to the historic environment (English Heritage 2008, 21).

With EH’s regional involvement, practically assisting - with funds - the

completion of evidence studies of York’s significance and, further, the appointment of a
Heritage Champion along with driving for better general conservation staffing levels,
there was created a new momentum for fostering effective heritage management in
York (English Heritage 2010, 3 – 4).

Ultimately it is the recognised requirement of York’s heritage assets to promote the

growth, sustainability and status of York as an ambitious city (Simpson et al. 2010, 6,
11 – 13, 26 - 29). Therefore EH prioritise this in their involvement (English Heritage
2008, 60; English Heritage 2010, 2). Thus, by making York’s heritage relevant by
result, this acts to safeguard it in budget and strategy for the city; as opposed to
compartmentalising heritage safeguarding from economic growth aspirations – creating
tension/conflict. However, focusing entirely upon the material-assets of heritage has
throughout this thesis been argued as being short-sighted and outdated. Wider and more
critical definitions of heritage are more readily acknowledged now, and as such, are also
engaged with in terms of future heritage management strategy of York. Whilst it has
been seen (in chapter 3) that EH at national level does not act upon the intangible forms
of heritage in UK legislation and policy, at regional level there are suggestions within
future-orientated conservation framework principles and strategy reviews that some
awareness of these areas of heritage is of importance (English Heritage 2008, 7, 19 –
24; English Heritage 2011b, 2 -3).

Considering the Wider Issues:

It is argued therefore that EH’s involvement is a positive thing, in that they

provided much needed direction and expertise. Further, the implemented framework for
heritage management is theoretically grounded and tested – utilising many principles
and tools such as the 2008 Conservation Principles, Policies and Guidelines, as well as
Historic Landscape Characterisation. These all provide piecemeal suggestions to the
inclusion of and engagement with social values, which, despite being undefined and
unsupported at national level does promote the importance of intangible aspects of

24
heritage. Therefore the involvement and expertise of regional EH has helped to put
heritage management in York on a more focused and modern trajectory, in line with
wider and more critical awareness’s towards social values. This is not to say, however,
that there are no issues with which to address.

Academically there are doubts as to the virtues of methodologies such as

Landscape Characterisation. This tool has indeed many academic advocates due to it
influencing administrators and developers on important landscape and heritage matters
in a universal and consistent manner. The project manages to provide an official
platform (GIS) for articulating the multiple layers of York’s complex historical
landscape for safeguarding and promoting of heritage assets (Stamper and Austin 2007,
vii; Williamson 2007, 65). Further, it is designed to be value-neutral in order for all
characteristics of the landscape to be recognised and valued equally without imposed
disciplinary biases (Herring 2007, 17). However, this methodology arguably serves only
to tick-off-the-list the need to recognise social values and alternative perceptions as per
the European Landscape Convention (Finch 2007, 50).

In fact HLC could be accused of being a facade by the established heritage

authorities to continue with set agendas of material-culture values whilst merely
nodding towards – yet disregarding – the call for wider acknowledged forms of value.
This relates strongly to discussion of AHD from chapter 2 of this thesis. Less explicitly
are the arguments by Dr Jonathan Finch of the University of York on the subject when
he writes: “Characterisation programmes are ill-equipped to recognise cultural
processes that have shaped the landscape through the short and medium term and, as a
result, we risk losing local landscape character and diversity” (Finch 2007, 50). Further
in the same article Finch points to how tensions also exist as to the apparent value-free
stance which the methodology proposes to employ; rather that it instils prioritise and
established agendas (Finch 2007, 51 & 61). Similarly Williamson argues in the same
vain that the very form in which HLC takes restricts individual and intangible
perceptions of landscapes from being represented, thereby eliminating its universal and
unbiased objectivity (Williamson 2007, 67 – 71).
Whilst these arguments are often perceived as conceptual and progressive in
theoretical critique, other issues are far more immediate in their focus and more
practically articulated. The York Civic Trust tackles such issues in its role to defend
‘York’s heritage and articulate a vision for its future development’ (York Civic Trust

25
Fig 4.1 From top left to bottom right: 1.) Highlighting key views along York’s River Ouse looking towards York
from the Northwest (Purcell Miller Tritton 2012, 10). 2.) “The Minster, rising majestically out of distinctively choppy
roofscapes” (Cooke 2006, 7). 3.) The York observation Wheel dominating the city sky line from afar over that of the
Minster; the paradox of protecting views through denying artificial viewing platforms of the City (authors own
image).

2013b). The York Civic Trust is an independent, membership organisation which

lobbies and collaborates with the local council and other organisations for the protection
and enhancement of York as a city of heritage and culture (York Civic Trust 2013b).
One of the Trust’s current focuses is the on-going issues of preserving the ‘Views of
York’ (York Civic Trust 2013c). It is recognised that York’s special character is not
only in the unique collection of material-culture, but also in the important ambiance
which is created and sustained by the views which adorn the wider landscape,
townscape and roofscape (fig 4.1) (Cooke 2009, 2; Grenville 2013; English Heritage
2008, 1; York Civic Trust 2013c). EH have recognised the importance of views in
determining significance in the historic environment; this has been made clear in their
publication of ‘Seeing History in the View’ and more locally in their statement of
ambition for the city of York (2011, 3; 2008, 1, 11 - 12). However, as is pointed out in
the York Civic Trust chairman’s comments of January 2013, there have been no
concrete plans for the considered and focused vision of future development in the city
for over 50 years (Yorkshire Post 2013). Whilst during the production of the LDF there
were commissioned evidence base documents such as New City Beautiful which
heavily emphasised the value of city aesthetics for the growth of York, nonetheless the
LDF was subsequently cancelled (Simpson et al. 2010, 174). Therefore formal
documentation arguing for the preservation of views – long and short distance – is again
lacking. This tension produced through these conflicts is of interest as it is a clear
demonstration of intangible heritage values (views) being fought out in a very tangible
arena of architectural disguise.
26
 These battles relating to the views of York are articulated by the York Civic
Trust in borrowed terminology. That is to say, whilst it has been seen in the
Conservation Principles that in order to fully appreciate the significance of a place, there
must be deeper and wider appreciation of what contributes through identities and values
in that space (English Heritage 2008, 21). If this is true, then to merely be referred to as
important or special – as has conventionally been the case in York related literature – is
not enough. Unfortunately, due to the lack of consideration given to intangible values in
heritage management in planning policy the York Civic Trust, and other conservation
organisations like it, must utilise bland, uncritical and un-emotive (dare it be said
‘architectural’) language with which to communicate. This shows how detached still the
realm of heritage management theory is from the consciences of city planning
committees and in heritage management practice.

Summary:

As this chapter has shown, the City of York provides a unique and extensive
platform for exploring heritage management theory and practice both in the past and in
the present. The basis of the city’s economy relays substantially on tourism and its
heritage assets, thus it lends itself well to the consideration of city conservation in
addition to growth aspirations economically. It being of nationally and international
significance in terms of heritage resources, the convergence of theory and practice is of
heightened sensitivity and consequence.

This chapter has only begun to scratch the surface of what issues, tensions and
conflicts are found in the complex world of heritage management. However it has
suggested that from the academic perspective of idealist theorising, progressive and
critical concepts of heritage meaning and value development are not immediately
accessible to front line workers in heritage management. Often this is not for lack of
ability or of physical access to literature, rather it is due to there being a lack of practical
appreciation in theoretical literature for real world restrictions within the context of UK
heritage policy and economic prioritises. In addition, where theory has penetrated to
front-line practice, it has been forced to adopt a compromised and diluted form in order
to disguise itself amongst the droids of authorised bureaucratic conformity.

27
Chapter 5
CONCLUDING ASSESSMENT:

Research outcome; looking towards the future

Summary of findings:

The focus of this thesis has been to consider the following question: can CHM
theory be applied in practice? In doing so there has been a logical progression
throughout: firstly considering the current framework of theoretical thought in recent
literature, secondly considering the context in which heritage management policy and
guidelines are played out in the UK, and thirdly, illustrating real world complexities of
heritage management using the City of York as a case study. During which, key themes
of definition, control, perception and articulation have risen above others (fig 5.1). This
has provided more complexity to the question of ‘can’ and has replaced the emphasis on
whether heritage management is able or willing to change.

Key Themes: THEORY BRIDGE PRACTICE

- Definition Broad & Critical Selective Restricted

- Control Negative Natural Practical

- Perception Conceptual Political Limited & Dictated

Academic &
- Articulation Authoritative Vague & Disguised
Inconsistent

It is not the ultimate aim of this research to provide a definitive answer to this
question, rather it is a stepping stone on the intellectual journey to growing the reader’s
(and the writer’s) awareness to the many complexities involved in CHS and CHM.
28
 However as this thesis has shown and argued, the application of theory into practice via
the bridge of EH in the UK is not effective for modern and critical perspectives of
heritage.

Whilst theory has filtered into the consciences of international commissions and
been promoted through world-wide conventions, it has not been adopted at a national
level by the UK or EH. Further, despite this, an active awareness to progressive and
critical theory has been demonstrated as being present at local level, albeit unsupported
by the wider management framework. Therefore it is suggested that whilst critical
approaches to heritage are observed in practice, this is despite restrictions imposed by
the authoritative bridge between the theory and practice.

This thesis has argued that the bridge between theory and practice is not
effective (fig 5.2); it is wise therefore to end this conclusion by briefly addressing a
second question in response to this finding. In doing so the emphasis changes from
whether the bridge is effective, to whether the bridge can change in order to carry out
the required role.

Theory Practice

International Convention

National Policy & Legislation

Local Guidance

Communities
?

Fig 5.2 Diagram demonstrating the effect of the bridge between theory and practice relative to the level at which it is
engaged (authors own image).

Repair vs. rebuild:

29
 As an engineer assesses the structural condition of a bridge, so this thesis
assesses whether repair or reconstruction is necessary for bridging the divide between
theory and practice. The current role held by EH is to protect the tangible cultural
heritage resources and to guide their management. In this there are practical and
intelligently designed frameworks in place. In addition, the proactive engagement by
regional teams boasts of successful interactions with and on behalf of community
groups, promoting and conserving valuable cultural heritage resources. To ignore this
simple truth and to treat as insignificant would be to throw the baby out with the bath
water.

It is however recognised that there are equally important and significant heritage
values and identities which need addressing and acknowledging; in light of modern and
critical theory. Whilst the authoritative framework of heritage management means that
only legitimate forms and conforming perspectives are promoted at present, there is a
clear willingness within EH to broaden and challenge official definitions. By nature the
construct is self-supporting and empowering, however it is ultimately controlled by
intellectual and critically minded academics; therefore there is a willingness to see
progressive evolution running parallel with a maturing of CHS.

The above argument only considers the willingness to change, as though given
time alterations could be effectively made. It is suggested in this thesis however that it is
not about an unwillingness to change, rather, that the current construct of bridge is
unable to change. Thus calling for the deconstruction and rebuilding of a new bridge
between theory and practice.

This can be argued through the observance of two lines of logic. Firstly that on a
practical level, protection of intangible forms of heritage, and further through defining
heritage as a set of processes is simply impossible until further development of the
theoretical framework and its articulation. As has been suggested throughout, practical
manifestations of management for the protection of intangible heritage is still in
development as it is, as yet, too conceptual and lacking depth of awareness to real world
issues. Secondly that to incorporate both tangible and intangible forms of heritage, their
values and meanings, is an unattainable paradox. Both forms of heritage call for
contrasting appreciations of value and form, both deny the other, therefore meaning they
can neither be managed side-by-side or amalgamated into one framework. Critical
perspectives of intangible cultural heritage cannot be held consistently or legitimately

30
whilst also providing equal value attribution to traditional perspectives of tangible
cultural heritage. These simple rationales bar EH from adopting both into the one
framework. Thus demonstrating that the current construct of bridging theory and
practice in relation to CHM is unable to change or adapt at the present time.

This, therefore, either calls for the complete deconstruction and rebuilding of the
UK’s bridge between CHM theory and practice or the patient wait for the eventual
evolution of the long term, with critical and reflective self-scrutiny. The latter of these
is by far the more likely and, as has been argued, there are the rumblings of change on
the horizon. This has been seen in documentation with suggestions of social values
being vital to understanding the significance of both a material and a perceived
landscape (English Heritage 2008, 21; Bradley, Buchli, Fairclough, Hicks, Miller and
Schofield 2004, 1). The landscape characterisation project has been a clear expression
of this critical awareness straining to broaden the remit of national heritage
involvement. In line with the given analogy the building up of this awareness is similar
to the gathering up of new building materials. Once there is enough gathered, with the
maturing also of CHS there could be the construction of an entirely new form of bridge,
new by design befitting the projected requirements of heritage traffic. It requires
however the recognition of new tools, matured foundation materials and a critical,
future orientated design team.

Bringing about change:

Finally, in light of the findings presented and argued in this final assessment and
conclusion, it is appropriate to consider the immediately up to date mindset of academic
professionals and intellectuals holding key roles in this ongoing and important debate.

It is recognised that change is needed, and that simply allowing alternative

perspectives to be slowly amalgamated is not an option, for the reasons given. It is
further recognised that change is effectuated through the short, medium and long term.
As has already been suggested, these timely processes of changing the intellectual
landscape of the heritage sector are required for appropriately and critically shifting the
dominate mindset for the future. In the long and medium terms there is the work to

31
educate and equip upcoming heritage professionals with the intellectual tools necessary
to bring about this change; directing through enlightened awareness to the arguments for
tangible and intangible heritage (Schofield 2013). This long term outlook is nothing
new, rather it has been an ongoing (as the term suggests) for decades. Much like as a
ship takes great distance to change direction, so too does an organisation such as EH
take time (sometimes generations) to see a significant change. However short term
action can and does also offer much effect. This could be through the appointing of
academics to positions within heritage organisations whereby they can fit into this
debate and provide suitable insight for policy makers and practitioners (Schofield
2013). An example of this type of appointment can be seen in EH’s recruitment of Dr.
Joe Flatman, a former lecturer at the Institute of Archaeology, University College
London, with wide ranging research interests but significantly critical insight into
theory and modern perspectives. Also in the short term, but regardless of timeframe, it
is deemed important and positive to provide ongoing critique at all levels as to the
situations which exist in the present. This includes recognising the short comings, the
areas in need of improvement and clearly articulating this (Schofield 2013). Thus this
provides clear action for future change, whilst also critically drawing direction for
change from what was before. It is important to recognise these strengths and
weaknesses through research at all levels, with this thesis being no exception.

It is through initiatives from within English Heritage, led by these long and short
term changes, such as the Heritage Intelligence Team which demonstrate that significant
change is happening. Slowly maybe, and with small, yet significant steps forwards, the
determination to empower a modern bridge with mature theory for the future is growing
and clearly rallying as future professionals are trained for the work ahead: promoting
meaningful connection with societies ever relevant cultural heritage.

32
Bibliography

33
Adshead, S D, Minter, C J and Needham, C W C (1948) York: a plan for progress and
preservation. York: Ben Johnson Ltd.

Alan Baxter and Associates LLP (2011) York Central Historic Core: conservation area
appraisal. London: Alan Baxter and Associates LLP.

Bradley, A, Buchli, V, Fairclough, G, Hicks, D, Miller, J and Schofield, J (2004)

Change and Creation: historic landscape characterisation 1950 – 2000. London:
English Heritage.

Carman, J (2012) ‘Towards and International Comparative History of Archaeological

Heritage Management’ in R Skeates, C McDavid and J Carman (eds) The Oxford
Handbook of Public Archaeology, 13 – 35. New York: Oxford University Press.

Carman, J and Sorensen, M L S (2009) ‘Heritage Studies: an outline’ in M L S

Sorensen and J Carman (eds) Heritage Studies: methods and approaches, 11 – 28.
Abingdon and New York: Routledge.

City of York Council (2009) Learning & Culture Overview & Scrutiny Committee -
Draft City of York Council Heritage Strategy, Annex A. City of York Council Meeting
01/10/2009 minutes [online] Available at:
http://democracy.york.gov.uk/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=32549&ISATT=1#search=
%22heritage%22 [Accessed on 21 March 2013].

City of York Council (2011) Local Development Framework: heritage topic paper.
London: The Stationary Office.

Cooke, R (2006) Why is York Special? York: York Civic Trust.

Cooke, R (2009) Downtown York: a practical manifesto. Unpublished.

Council of Europe (2000) European Landscape Convention, CETS No.: 176.

Council of Europe (2005) Council of Europe Framework Convention on the Value of

Cultural Heritage for Society, CETS No.: 199.

Council of Europe (2009) Heritage and Beyond. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.

English Heritage (2008) Conservation Principles, Policies and Guidelines. Swindon:

English Heritage.

34
English Heritage (2010) Draft Statement of Ambition: Historic Environment Objectives
for the City of York. York: English Heritage.

English Heritage (2011a) Heritage Counts England: the state of England’s historic
environment. London: English Heritage.

English Heritage (2011b) Seeing History in the View: a method for assessing heritage
significance within views. London: English Heritage.

English Heritage (2013a) Who we are [Online] English Heritage, UK. Available at:
http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/about/who-we-are/ [Accessed on 25 March 2013].

English Heritage (2013b) Local Advice [Online] English Heritage, UK. Available at:
http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/about/working-locally/ [Accessed on 25 March
2013].

English Heritage (2013c) European Landscape Convention [Online] English Heritage,

UK. Available at: http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/profession/advice/advice-by-
topic/landscape-and-areas/european-landscape-convention/ [Accessed on 18 March
2013].

English Heritage (2013d) Definition: Heritage [Online] English Heritage, UK.

Available at: http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/professional/advice/hpg/hpr-
definitions/h/536272/ [Accessed on 18 March 2013].

English Heritage (2013e) Definition: Cultural Heritage [Online] English Heritage, UK.
Available at: http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/professional/advice/hpg/hpr-
definitions/c/534826/ [Accessed on 18 March 2013].

English Heritage (2013f) National Planning Policy Framework [Online] English

Heritage, UK. Available at: http://www.english-
heritage.org.uk/professional/advice/government-planning-policy/national-planning-
policy-framework/ [Accessed on 18 March 2013].

English Heritage (2013g) Heritage Counts [Online] English Heritage, UK. Available at:
http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/professional/research/social-and-economic-
research/heritage-counts/ [Accessed on 18 March 2013].

35
English Heritage (2013h) Historic Landscape Character [Online] English Heritage,
UK. Available at: http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/professional/research/landscapes-
and-areas/characterisation/historic-landscape-character/ [Accessed on 18 March 2013].

English Heritage (2013i) Characterisation [Online] English Heritage, UK. Available at:
http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/professional/research/landscapes-and-
areas/characterisation/ [Accessed on 18 March 2013].

Esher, L G (1969) York – a study in conservation. London: Ministry of Housing and

Local Government, HMSO.

Fairclough, G (2008) ‘New Heritage, an Introductory Essay – People, Landscape and

Change’ in G Fairclough, R Harrison, J Jameson Jnr. and J Schofield (eds) The
Heritage Reader, 297 – 312 London: Routledge.

Finch, J (2007) ‘Wider Famed Countries: Historic Landscape Characterisation in the

Midland Shires’ Landscapes 8 (2) 50 – 63.

Green, K and Moore, T (2010) Archaeology: an introduction (5th edn) London and New
York: Routledge.

Grenville, J (2013) History of York Civic Trust: understanding the City of York by Dr.
Jane Grenville [Online] York Civic Trust, UK. Available at:
http://www.yorkcivictrust.co.uk/?idno=772 [Accessed on 25 March 2013].

Harrison, R (ed) (2010) Understanding the Politics of Heritage. Manchester University

Press in Association with the Open University. Manchester: Manchester University
Press.

Harrison, R (2012) ‘Forgetting to Remember, Remembering to Forget: late modern

heritage practices, sustainability and the ‘crisis’ of accumulation of the past’
International Journal of Heritage Studies iFirst article 1 – 17.

Harrison, R (2013) Heritage: critical approaches. London and New York: Routledge.

Heritage Counts (2013) Home page [Online] English Heritage, UK. Available at:
http://hc.english-heritage.org.uk/ [Accessed on 18 March 2013].

Herring, P (2007) ‘Historic Landscape Characterisation in an Ever-Changing Cornwall’

Landscapes 8 (2) 15 – 27.

36
Holtorf, C J (2008) ‘Is the Past a Non-renewable Resource?’ in G Fairclough, R
Harrison, J Jameson Jnr. and J Schofield (eds) The Heritage Reader, 125 – 133. London
Routledge.

Mason, R. (2008) ‘Assessing Values in Conservation Planning: methodological issues

and choices’ in G Fairclough, R Harrison, J Jameson Jnr. and J Schofield (eds) The
Heritage Reader, 99 – 124. London Routledge.

Ove Arup and Partners (1991) York Development and Archaeology Study. In association
with University of York Department of Archaeology, City of York Council and English
Heritage. York: English Heritage.

Pace, G (1962) The York Aesthetic. York: York Civic Trust.

Purcell Miller Tritton LLP (2012) The Guildhall, York Options Appraisal. York: Purcell
Miller Tritton LLP.

Schofield, J (2008) ‘Heritage Management, Theory and Practice’ in G Fairclough, R

Harrison, J Jameson Jnr. and J Schofield (eds) The Heritage Reader, 15 – 30. London
Routledge.

Schofield, J (2010) ‘Archaeology and Contemporary Society: introduction’ World

Archaeology 3 (42) 325 – 327.

Schofield, J (2013) Email to B. Wajdner Re. BA Dissertation. 11 April 2013.

Schofield, J and Morrissey, E (2013) Strait Street – Malta’s red-light district revealed.
Valletta: Midsea Books Ltd.

Schofield, J, Kiddey, R and Lashua, B (2012) ‘People and Landscapes’ in R Skeates, C

McDavid and J Carman (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Public Archaeology, 296 – 318.
New York: Oxford University Press.

Simpson, A J, Chapman, D and Adams, S E (2010) York New City Beautiful – Toward
an Economic Vision. York: English Heritage.

Smith, L (2006) Uses of Heritage. Abingdon and New York: Routledge.

Smith, L (2008) ‘Towards a Theoretical Framework for Archaeological Heritage

Management’ in G Fairclough, R Harrison, J Jameson Jnr. and J Schofield (eds) The
Heritage Reader, 62 – 74. London Routledge.
37
Smith, L and Waterton, E (2009a) Heritage, Communities and Archaeology.
Chippenham: Duckworth.

Smith, L and Waterton, E (2009b) ‘The Envy of the World?: intangible heritage in
England’ in L Smith and N Akagawa (eds) Intangible Heritage, 289 – 302. London:
Routledge.

Smith, L and Waterton, E (2012) ‘Constrained by Commonsense: the authorised

heritage discourse in contemporary debates’ in R Skeates, C McDavid and J Carman
(eds) The Oxford Handbook of Public Archaeology, 153 – 171. New York: Oxford
University Press.

Sorensen, M L S and Carman, J (2009) ‘Making the means transparent: reasons and
reflections’ in M L S Sorensen and J Carman (eds) Heritage Studies: methods and
approaches, 3 – 10. Abingdon and New York: Routledge.

Stamper, P and Austin, D (2007) ‘Editorial’ Landscapes 8 (2) vii – ix.

Stefano, M L (2009) ‘Safeguarding Intangible Heritage: five key obstacles facing

museums of the North East of England’ International Journal of Intangible Heritage 4
(7) 111 – 124.

Terdiman, R (1993) Present Past: modernity and the memory crisis. New York: Cornell
University Press.

Trigger, B G (2006) A History of Thought. (2nd edn) New York: Cambridge University
Press.

UNESCO (2013) United Kingdom National Commission for UNESCO – Culture

[Online] Available at: http://www.unesco.org.uk/culture [Accessed on 19 March 2013].

Wajdner, B H (2012) Personal Interview. External Supervisory meeting for BA

dissertation. At City of York Council, with B. Sydes, 9 November 2012.

Wajdner, B H (2013) Personal Interview. External Supervisory meeting for BA

dissertation. At City of York Council, with B. Sydes, 27 February 2013.

Williamson, T (2007) ‘Historic Landscape Characterisation: some queries’ Landscapes

8 (2) 64 – 71.

38
York Civic Trust (2013a) The York Knowledge: planning and conservation [Online]
York Civic Trust, UK. Available at: http://www.yorkcivictrust.co.uk/?idno=811%29
[Accessed on 25 March 2013].

York Civic Trust (2013b) About: message from the chairman [Online] York Civic
Trust, UK. Available at: http://www.yorkcivictrust.co.uk/?idno=694 [Accessed on 25
March 2013].

York Civic Trust (2013c) Media Centre: favourite views of York [Online] York Civic
Trust, UK. Available at: http://www.yorkcivictrust.co.uk/?idno=799 [Accessed on 25
March 2013].

Yorkshire Post (2013) Historic York ‘needs clear vision’ for the future [Online]
Yorkshire Post, UK. Available at: http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/around-
yorkshire/local-stories/historic-york-needs-clear-vision-for-the-future-1-5313472
[Accessed on 25 March 2013].

39