Diseño y Estructura de la base de datos para el Sistema de Control de Inventarios de Comercio Exterior usando AppModeler

This section outlines the regulatory and policy framework for the protection and management of heritage buildings in Australia and Victoria, including renovation.

81 3.4.1 National context

Australia is a signatory to several international conventions and

recommendations that provide the context for the Australian regulatory

framework and policies for managing the built heritage. (Pearson and Sullivan, 1995). The Australian Government’s central piece of environmental legislation is the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cwth).

Responsibility for heritage protection and management is organised according to thresholds for differing levels of cultural significance—national, state and territory, or local. Whilst the Australian Government is responsible for

environment and heritage of national and world significance, responsibility for matters of state and local significance are assigned to the appropriate level of government. Different systems of decision making occur across the three levels of government and across local governments (Productivity Commission, 2006). Responsibility for heritage is organised according to thresholds for differing levels of cultural heritage significance – national, State or local.

3.4.2 Policy framework for renovation

Within the State of Victoria, the context for this study, heritage protection and management is divided between the two levels of government. The principal legislative instruments for protection of heritage buildings are the Heritage Act 1995, and the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Cwth). The Planning and Environment Act 1987 provides the statutory framework for integrating controls in land use, development planning and environment protection, and also

conserving buildings of cultural heritage significance. The Building Act 1993 also influences conservation and management of buildings by virtue of building codes and standards, since the adoption of a uniform national approach through the Building Code of Australia (Australian Building Codes Board, 2013).

82

Victoria was the first state to introduce legislation for the protection of heritage buildings in Australia in 1975 (Davison et al., 1998). Since that time, all State and Territory governments have adopted legislation for the protection of historic heritage places (Davison et al., 1991), and conservation of built

heritage has become a cornerstone of mainstream planning, at state and local (municipal) level. The number of protected places on statutory lists in Australia is estimated to be in the region of 160,000 (Productivity Commission, 2006), however, the absence of comprehensive data on heritage places (State of the Environment Committee, 2011) means that this is likely to be an

underestimate. Within the State of Victoria alone, the number of individual historic heritage places currently registered as being of State significance is 2,262 and the number of properties subject to heritage controls at local

government level is estimated to be 160,000 (Chris Benham and Geoff Austin, Heritage Victoria, pers comm. December 2011). Buildings of local heritage significance, which form the vast majority of heritage places, are covered by the Heritage Overlay provisions in Clause 43.01 within all Victorian Planning Schemes (Department of Transport Planning and Local Infrastructure, 2013a).

Planning controls generally apply to changes to the exterior only. A planning permit is required from the local council for works that would alter the

appearance, including: demolition or partial demolition of a building; externally alterations; construction or works to a heritage building. In some instances, internal alteration controls may also apply (Department of Transport Planning and Local Infrastructure, 2010). Works or alterations to a registered heritage place that affect the cultural heritage significance require a heritage permit (Heritage Council of Victoria et al., 2007).

The Burra Charter (Marquis-Kyle and Walker, 2004) provides the philosophical framework for conservation of cultural built heritage. The values-centred

approach developed in the Burra Charter underlies the theory and practice of conservation in Australia, and has been adopted in Victoria. Although the notion of value itself has undergone a series of transformations, as noted previously, value remains at the very centre of heritage conservation practice

83

(Clark, 2006; Jokilehto, 1999: 18). Understanding the heritage significance and values of a place is the basis for making decisions about its management (Mason, 2002 Mason, 2002). The Burra Charter recognises that all places and their components change over time at varying rates, requiring intervention.

The overarching philosophy is that the least amount of change is better, as change, in whatever form, is undesirable where it reduces cultural

significance. The Charter discusses adaptation, (Article 21), which may be related to use as well as to modifications to the material aspects, or new

services resulting from a new use. Adaptation is the most commonly employed form of conservation action according to Rowney (2004), and invariably

involves alterations to the fabric. Both the significance of use as well as fabric are recognised by the Burra Charter. In the articles relating to adaptation and new uses, Articles 7.2 and 21.2 both refer to adaptation and minimal change to the fabric which could be interpreted as the fabric being significant, and that new uses associated with adaptation should respect this significance. Articles 7.1 and 23 refer to the cultural significance of use, and in the case of Article 23 the use may be continued, modified or reinstated. Such actions, it is stated, may even constitute preferred forms of conservation. The accompanying explanatory note to Article 23 elaborates: ‘these may require changes to significant fabric but they should be minimised. In some cases, continuing a significant use or practice may involve substantial new work’ [authors’

emphasis]. This could be interpreted either as a recognition of the use being more significant than the fabric, or a caution that, given the significance of the fabric, continuing the use no matter how significant, may result in

unacceptable changes. There is some ambiguity in the Burra Charter over which should take priority—whether fabric or use. In addressing changes to built heritage, fabric or use, the Charter makes reference to compatible use, defined as ‘a use which respects the cultural significance of a place’ (Article 1.11) and which ‘involves no, or minimal, impact on cultural significance’. The inference here is that continuing existing uses that involve changes to

significance are unacceptable. The use and adaptation of protected buildings in the light of the needs of contemporary life is encouraged—but with due regard to heritage significance. Rodwell (2007) argues that this involves

84

making best use, including enhancement and conservative development.

However, there can be tension between heritage values and functional requirements, as noted by a recent roundtable discussion exploring the conflicts between places of historic significance that are also home, which determined that cultural significance can increase or decrease depending on society’s more pressing needs and aspirations (International Institute for the Conservation of Historic and Artistic Works (IIC), 2010). In discussing the tension between functional requirements and fabric, Muñoz Viñas uses a pertinent example of installing modern services into a historic building:

‘if a modern air-conditioning system is installed during its restoration, [but] this can require the alteration of some original parts of the building – or the

installation of insulated pipes might be visible in some places. Under these circumstances, the building’s usefulness as historical evidence (its ability to function as historical evidence, its historical value, its historical meaning) is decreased, although its usefulness as convenient housing (its ability to function as convenient housing, its functional meaning, its functional value) are improved.’ (2005: 181)

Thus some functions or values are increased, often at the expense of decreasing others, and illustrating the dilemma in reconciling conflicting demands in renovation.

The next section outlines the emerging issues relating to renovation of heritage dwellings to improve environmental performance.