Bescherming van stads- en dorpsgezichten. Van beeld naar inhoud

The instrument ‘village and urban conservation area’ has a history dating back to approximately 1900. In the first half of the twentieth century, for instance, protective regulations in the field of urban planning were already in effect on a municipal level and in the circles of the (Royal) Netherlands Archaeological Association (NOB) an initiative had already been taken for a Bill in which a vague provision in this field was included. It was not until 1961 that the village and urban conservation area was laid down in the first Monuments and Historic Buildings Act. The authority of designation as a village or urban conservation area then became the responsibility of the Government, but it had to be put into effect by the municipality concerned in so-called (protective) zoning plans. In practice, the demarcation of the area to be protected was often problematic and caused dilemmas about whether or not to include a certain area. In 1988 a new, still effective Monuments and Historic Buildings Act followed. The village and urban conservation area, so far considered ‘visual’ by many people, was also given structural and functional cultural-historical dimensions by this Act. The explanatory remarks on the designations have acquired a more profound character from around 1980 onwards and since that date they have also been accompanied by maps which could provide the initial impetus to ‘conservation through development’ instead of ‘conservation through maintaining the image’. Under both Acts a total of approximately 430 village and urban conservation areas have now been designated and some dozens more are yet to follow. However, the instrument, now 50 years’ old, is under discussion at the moment, because there is a preference for planning protection by the principal Dutch ministries involved, i.e. Education, Culture and Science (OCW), Economics, Agriculture and Innovation (ELI) and Infrastructure and Environment (IM). This may imply that the current designation programme will end and that the status of previously designated village and urban conservation areas will get undermined by backdoor methods. This might have the consequence that an established and accepted instrument is going to perish along with a concept that has not even taken shape adequately. Especially when further content is given to such a new concept – but under the flag of the village and urban conservation area – a meaningful symbiosis might take place