A Comparative Study of Protection of Privately Owned Historic Buildings in the England and Iran Legal System; From Permission to Objection

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Ph.D. Student in Public Law at Islamic Azad University Science and Research Branch, Tehran, Iran

2 Assistant Professor of Public Law, Shahid Beheshti University Tehran, Iran

Abstract

In the UK, the immovable cultural heritage is divided into 5 categories: listed buildings, scheduled monuments, registered battlefields, registered parks & gardens, protected wreck sites. Iranian regulatory system despite the identification of the system of cataloging and division of cultural heritage into movable and immovable heritage, has not initiated cataloging immovable heritage. System of immovable heritage classification, not only specialized English heritage protection but also this act caused the establishment of numerous governmental and non-governmental public institutions and NGOs in the subject of cultural heritage protection. Moreover in the UK, the Historical England Institution which is a non-governmental public institution, publishes documents entitled "Protection Principles, Policies and Guidelines" that these principles have a high place in administrative procedures and must be observed by all Regulatory and decision-making institutions in the field of protection of the historical environment and also all relevant and interested individuals in the field of cultural heritage.
Protective statutes of historical buildings restrict the ownership of owners of these buildings. This article studies the legal system of protection of immovable cultural heritages in light of licensing in a comparative study of England, as a model, and Iran. It should be noted that English system of protection, which is constantly modified, has many guiding principles and documents, beside its effective administrative system. These principles have a higher position rather than positive statutes.
This article tries to answer to this question: 1. what are the main effects of process of licensing on ownership right of owners? To answer this question, these questions should be answered: what is the importance process of licensing? Which authority is responsible for it? Which principles guilds it? How it can be protested and according to which principles? This article tries to answer to these questions in a comparative study of England, as a model, and Iran in a descriptive-analytical way.
Legal system of protection of cultural heritages in England, by distinguishing between different kinds of immovable cultural heritages, regarded historical buildings as an example of immovable cultural heritages and has established a specific system to protect them.
 Empowerment of local authorities to decide on permissions, from one side, and recognition of protest to these decisions through reconsideration of case by central government in framework of administrative proceedings, from other side, are main characteristics of English model of protection of cultural heritages. But, In Iran, lack of detailed categorizing of cultural heritages has led to Non-specialized system of protection. Actually, Iranian laws have used the phrases of “monuments, buildings, places and immovable properties”, which are too general.
Some of advantages of English system of protection are “Decentralization” of licensing process, well ordered process of protest, specialized and valid reconsideration of decisions, and the importance of assessment of interests and principle of proportionality in balancing of interests of owners and cultural heritages. These characteristics have made this system of protection more efficient and defensible rather than Iranian one.

Keywords


  1. الف) فارسی

    • کتاب‏ها
    1. توحیدی، فائق (1381)، آشنایی با میراث فرهنگی، تهران: مدیریت آموزش.
    2. صمدی، یونس (1382)، میراث فرهنگی در حقوق داخلی و بین‏المللی، ج 1، تهران: سازمان میراث فرهنگی.
    3. هداوند، مهدی (1396)، حقوق اداری تطبیقی، ج 1: تهران: انتشارات سمت.

     

    • مقالات
    1. چراغچی، سوسن (1377)، «استانداردها، اصول و منشورهای بین‏المللی حفاظت، قوانین و فنون حمایت و حفاظت از آثار باستانی»، نشریۀ اثر، ش 31 و 32.
    2. عباسی، بیژن (1399)، «حقوق و تکالیف مالکان خصوصی آثار ثبت‏شده در فهرست آثار ملی»، پژوهش‏های نوین اداری، ش 4.
    3. محمودی، محمود؛ بیدرام، رسول؛ اصفهانی، هاجر (1393)، «ارزیابی اثربخشی مشوق‏های محرک حفاظت از خانه‏های باارزش تاریخی»، فصلنامۀ اقتصاد و مدیریت شهری، ش 6.

     

    • قوانین و مقررات
    1. قانون اساسنامۀ سازمان میراث فرهنگی کشور، مصوب 1/2/۱۳۶۷ مجلس شورای اسلامی.
    2. قانون ثبت آثار ملی مصوب 1352.
    3. قانون حمایت از مرمت و احیای بافت‏های فرهنگی و تاریخی مصوب 2/4/1398.
    • قانون راجع به حفظ آثار ملی مصوب 1309.
    • نظام‏نامۀ اجرایی قانون راجع به حفظ آثار ملی مصوب 1311.
    • آیین‏نامۀ راهکارهای اجرایی‏ حوزه‏های بخشی قانون برنامۀ سوم توسعه مصوب 21/10/1379.
    • دستورالعمل نحوۀ مشارکت و تعامل نهادهای مردمی با قوۀ قضائیه مصوب رئیس قوۀ قضائیه، اسفند 1398.
    • قانون تعزیرات اسلامی مصوب 1375.
    • سند واحد حفاظت از بافت‏های تاریخی‏ـ فرهنگی و رویکردهای کلی حفاظت و احیای محدوده‏های تاریخی، مصوب شورای عالی شهرسازی و معماری ایران در تاریخ 10/3/1396.
    • آرای قضایی
    1. دادنامۀ شمارۀ 9909970902805352 به تاریخ 9/10/1399 صادره از شعبۀ دهم دیوان عدالت اداری ایران.
    • دادنامۀ شمارۀ 9909970904001278 به تاریخ 14/05/1399 صادره از شعبۀ دوم دیوان عدالت اداری ایران.

     

    ب) انگلیسی

    • Book
    1. Blake, J. (2015), International cultural heritage law. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

     

    • Articles
    1. Doe, N. (2014), “Law and Religious Cultural Heritage in Europe”: Springer International Publishing Switzerland.
    2. Fei Chen, Carol Ludwig & Oliver Sykes (2020), “Heritage Conservation through Planning: A Comparison of Policies and Principles in England and China”, Planning Practice Research.
    3. Frank G, Matero (1993), “The Conservation of Immovable Cultural Property: Ethical and Practical Dilemas”, Journal of the American Institute for Conservation, 134.
    4. Jureniene, V., & Radzevicius, M. (2014). ” Models of Cultural Heritage”.
    5. Salvaguardia Dei Beni Culturali Nel Diritto Hodder, I. (2010), “Cultural heritage rights: From Ownership and Descent to Justice and Well-being”, Anthropological Quarterly, 83(4).
    6. Spiridon, P., & Sandu, I. (2009), “Conservation of Cultural Heritage: From Participation to Collaboration”. ENCATC Journal of Cultural Management and Policy, 5(1).
    7. Ziegler, Katja (2007), “Cultural Heritage and Human Rights”, in Giuffrè Milano (ed.), Alberico Gentili: La.

     

    • Acts and Regulations
    1. Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act of 1979.
    2. The Protection of Wrecks Act 1973.
    3. Historic England, Conservation Principles, Policies and Guidance for the Sustainable Management of the Historic Environment, England Heritage.
    4. Arrangements for handling heritage applications Direction 2015 National Social Amenity.
    5. Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015.
    6. Managing Cultural World Heritage, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, Paris, 2013.
    7. Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.
    8. Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
    9. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Communities and Local Government (Nick Boles), House of Commons, 26th October 2012.

     

    • Internet
    1. https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/about-the-list.
    2. https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/what-is-designation/
    3. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/9/section/1
    4. https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/about-the-list.
    5. https://unece.org/DAM/env/pp/compliance/C201161/Communication/Planning_ListedBuildings_ConservationAreas_Regs1990.pdf
    6. https://historicengland.org.uk/advice/hpg/hprdefinitions/#cat_L_word_Definition:%20Listed%20Building%20Consent:%20LBC
    7. https://historicengland.org.uk/content/docs/legal/appeal-decision-the-hayloft-haldon-road-pdf/
    8. https://historicengland.org.uk/content/docs/legal/appeal-decision-nook-end-sowerby-bridge-pdf/