By Gail Stoten, Head of Heritage at Pegasus Group
Heritage policy remained remarkably unchanged for over a decade before the new National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Updating assessments following iterations of the NPPF mainly related to changing paragraph numbers. However, the new NPPF has brought some notable changes in wording with regards to heritage assessments, specifically for:
- Defining and applying substantial harm,
- Treatment of important archaeological remains,
- Recognition of the benefits of bringing Listed buildings back into use,
- Proposals for energy efficient changes.
However, I would question whether some of the new phrasing will result in material change to how heritage assets are considered in policy tests.
The end of ‘less than substantial harm’ (Policy HE5.2C)
One of the more striking changes is the removal of the phrase ‘less than substantial harm.’ Policy HE5.2C requires heritage assessments to articulate whether proposals would result in a positive effect, no effect, harm (including substantial harm), or a total loss of significance of heritage assets. But how much does this really change?
Whilst the policy provides a definition of substantial harm (‘…where the development proposal would seriously affect a key element of the asset’s significance’), this is not materially different to the description of what is given in Paragraph 018 of the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) on the Historic Environment (unchanged since 2019). It states that:
“In general terms, substantial harm is a high test, so it may not arise in many cases. For example, in determining whether works to a listed building constitute substantial harm, an important consideration would be whether the adverse impact seriously affects a key element of its special architectural or historic interest. It is the degree of harm to the asset’s significance rather than the scale of the development that is to be assessed. The harm may arise from works to the asset or from development within its setting.”
Whilst the NPPF refers to significance rather than special architectural and historic interest, the example in the PPG text concerns Listed buildings and references significance in the next sentence. The PPG and the revised NPPF are compatible, and I would question whether the phrasing in the new NPPF is a material change.
Furthermore, the actual impact of this change when we apply the policy tests should be considered. In reality, the division remains between substantial harm and total loss, and harm which is not substantial, with different policy tests for the former at Policy HE6.5 and latter at Policy HE6.4. For harm which is not substantial, the policy test remains a public benefits test. For substantial harm and total loss, development should be refused unless strict tests are met. There is nothing in the policy tests to suggest that the bar of substantial harm has been materially lowered.
This absence of a real change to what substantial harm means is also reflected in consultation responses and appeal cases: following the August NPPF revision, there have been remarkably few allegations of substantial harm to designated heritage assets.
Where there is material change is that the substantial harm threshold now applies to non-designated heritage assets. This will occur in many more cases, such as through the removal of large parts of archaeological remains and buildings of lesser interest.
Footnote 64
Another notable change in the NPPF is the wording of Footnote 64 on the treatment of non-designated assets under policy tests that may be considered to have significance equivalent to a Scheduled Monument.
“Non-designated assets of archaeological interest that a decision maker considers to be of equivalent significance to a scheduled monument should be considered subject to the policies for designated heritage assets.”
Previously, the wording of this Footnote (Footnote 75 in the 2024 NPPF) made it clear that non-designated archaeological assets had to be of demonstrably equivalent significance to Scheduled Monuments before decision makers could apply policies relating to designated assets.
In the new NPPF, Footnote 64 removes the requirement that non-designated archaeological assets be of demonstrably equivalent significance. Instead, it leaves the decision maker to decide whether a non-designated asset of archaeological interest is of equivalent significance to a scheduled monument, and therefore subject to policies for designated assets.
However, any decisions must be taken on the basis of robust reasoning and a sound evidence base. It remains to be seen if more archaeological remains will be considered as if designated through this mechanism. It may be, however, that we see more local decision makers becoming uncomfortable with making such a judgment, which may lead to more applications to Historic England’s Designation Team and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) to arbitrate on the matter.
Policy HE6.4 uplifting listed buildings
One change that is likely to materially affect how proposals are considered in the planning balance is the wording of HE6.4. It clearly articulates that proposals bringing vacant or underused Listed buildings back into use, or those delivering greater energy efficiency, will be given significant weight as public benefits.
“Important public benefits can include securing the long-term reuse of a vacant or underused listed building, and enabling energy efficiency and low carbon heating measures to be employed.”
I sincerely hope the clear articulation of the strong benefits of reuse will result in more new uses for important buildings before they suffer irreversible damage from lack of investment, including the elements or fire.
This new phrasing should help facilitate installation of heat pumps, solar panels, and extra glazing. This in turn will encourage (or rather avoid the discouraging of) investment in designated buildings.
Conclusion
I question whether there has been a material shift in how substantial harm is defined, and I would argue there should be no change in when important archaeological remains are considered designated. However, the NPPF does include material change that paints a more positive picture of aspirations to bring important vacant buildings back into use and provide energy efficient measures to help tackle climate change.
Our heritage experts at Pegasus Group continue to advise clients across the UK. If you would like to discuss how these policy changes may affect your development, please contact our team.
