In this blog we explore a number of changes in policy that are intended to regularise the treatment of heritage assets and to support sustainable development.

A refined approach to harm

One of the most welcome changes is a more positive approach to heritage, with clear guidance that the potential effects of development might be positive, negative, or neutral.

Developments which have a positive effect on heritage assets are supported and “should be approved”. The term ‘less than substantial’ has been removed and replaced by ‘harm’, although with the term ‘substantial’ harm still in use, the concept of ‘less than substantial harm’ is retained implicitly. A definition of ‘substantial’ harm has been included, which is consistent with the text in the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG). However, further clarity would be welcomed, as the PPG’s current position of substantial harm being a high test has not been included.

Furthermore, the importance of accurately articulating the impact of development proposals is strengthened with the clarification that decision-makers should be satisfied that the assessment is accurate. There are also helpful reminders (currently found in PPG) that it is the effect on an asset’s significance – rather than the scale of development – which should be considered.

Greater clarity on ‘degrees’ of harm would be helpful, perhaps in a revised PPG. The robust and careful assessment of heritage assets and proposals will be more important than ever.

Elsewhere, the ill-defined concept of ‘optimum viable use’ has been removed and instead there is the clear argument that public benefits which might outweigh potential harm could include the re-use of vacant listed buildings and enabling energy efficiency measures. The explicit identification of energy efficiency measures as a public benefit is a welcome addition to the chapter, though it is not clear whether this benefit will be given more weight in decision-making over other public benefits.

Distinct decision-making processes for separate assets

The draft NPPF also provides separate policies for decision-making for different heritage asset types including: designated heritage assets, non-designated heritage assets, World Heritage Sites, conservation areas, and archaeological assets.

There are some new nuances in these areas. For example, instead of requiring a ‘balanced judgement’, harm to non-designated heritage assets must now be outweighed by benefits – although the draft document does not state that these must be public benefits.

Setting

Though setting is mentioned in relation to all heritage assets in the introductory policies, the draft policy on conservation areas does not make reference to ‘setting’. This better reflects Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 which does not mention setting in relation to conservation areas.

Empowering local planning

Outside of the historic environment chapter, there are changes which might impact heritage. Policy DM3 dictates that statutory consultees should only be consulted where necessary and that decisions should not normally be delayed past their statutory deadline to secure advice from consultees. These changes should empower local planning authorities to make quicker decisions.

While there are elements of the draft NPPF that would benefit from clarification, the proposed changes to heritage policy are coherent and provide a much stronger support for sustainable development that impacts heritage assets.

Further information

Contact Trystan Lever