If a Heritage Statement is required as part of your development, it is important to note that this document must be policy compliant. That is, ensuring that the contents of this report address the criteria laid out in the National Planning Policy Framework for determining planning applications affecting heritage assets. Read more about what the requirements actually are, and why many planning applications risk obtaining a refusal simply because sufficient information was not provided.
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
The NPPF (2023) outlines the requirements for conserving and enhancing the historic environment record in Chapter 16. Of utmost importance is paragraph 200 which states the following:
'In determining applications, local planning authorities should require an applicant to describe the significance of any heritage assets affected, including any contribution made by their setting. The level of detail should be proportionate to the assets’ importance and no more than is sufficient to understand the potential impact of the proposal on their significance. As a minimum the relevant historic environment record should have been consulted and the heritage assets assessed using appropriate expertise where necessary. Where a site on which development is proposed includes, or has the potential to include, heritage assets with archaeological interest, local planning authorities should require developers to submit an appropriate desk-based assessment and, where necessary, a field evaluation.'
Historic Environment Record
According to paragraph 200 of the NPPF (2023), developers must ensure that they consult the Historic Environment Record where heritage assets are considered to have the potential to be affected by development proposals. The HER is a database maintained by local planning authorities comprising records of historic sites and monuments within that geographical area. Each regional local authority maintains their own independent databases. It is a requirement that these records be held and maintained by these local authorities (NPPF 2023, 198). This is to enable:
The assessment of heritage significance in a given area
Predictions of the likelihood that unidentified heritage assets or archaeological features may exist within a given area
Should this research not be undertaken and submitted within the supporting information for the planning application, Paragraph 200 of the NPPF would form grounds for refusal of the application, which may be cited in the decision notice. Whilst this information comes at an additional cost charged by the local authority, and bears an expected wait time usually between 24 hours and four weeks, skipping out on this essential step can cause considerable grief later down the line. For the best chance at planning success, this database should be consulted during the design stage of the project to ensure the proposed development respects or remains sensitive to existing features plotted by the database within the local area - some of which may fall directly within your proposed development site.
Heritage Statements - Assessing Significance
Statements of significance must also be provided - and not just for the heritage asset within the development site, but for any of those in the vicinity which have the potential to be impacted as a result of the proposed development. Although this seems like a daunting task, it is important to note that this policy recognises that the level of detail should remain proportionate to the asset's importance, and the degree of anticipated impact. This is where appointing a suitably-qualified expert, such as an archaeologist and / or heritage consultant, is often required. Section 11 of Historic England's guidelines similarly state that, where significance is not immediately obvious, appropriate expertise is required in the production of statements of heritage significance.
Following the publication of the Conservation Principles, Policies and Guidance in 2008, many Heritage Statements consider significance in terms of this framework outlined by English Heritage, known as heritage 'values'. However, it is also important to assess heritage significance according to the definition outlined in the NPPF (2023):
'The value of a heritage asset to this and future generations because of its heritage interest. The interest may be archaeological, architectural, artistic or historic. Significance derives not only from a heritage asset’s physical presence, but also from its setting.'
Assessing Impacts
The NPPF also dictates the requirements for the necessary planning balances to achieve sustainable development where harm is identified to designated heritage assets as a result of a proposal. It is important to note that this does not apply to non-desginated heritage assets. A specific terminology is therefore applied to nationally-designated heritage assets alone, although no definition is currently provided for these three tiers of harm, which have been outlined below:
Any level of harm (ie. negligible, minor)
Less than substantial harm
Substantial harm
Whilst your heritage consultant can provide their opinion on the degree of harm incurred as a result of the proposed development, the final decision lies with the local council. As such, it is important that your heritage consultant provides an accurate, well-justified argument regarding the level of harm incurred as a result of the proposed scheme. This is especially in order to encourage them to agree with the conclusions outlined within the report to ensure a thorough understanding of the design rationale, including any positive impacts which have been undertaken to offset other instances of harm. The consequence of inadequate heritage statements can lead to them being dismissed by the Case Officer, should the conclusions reached in the report be considered disproportionate to the significance of the asset and the anticipated level of harm.
Members of the Chartered Institute of Archaeologists (CIfA) also have a professional duty to deliver a specific standard of work to ensure sufficient representations of a building's significance, and any impact to this significance as a result of the proposed works. This is why some local councils have begun requesting that MCIfA accredited heritage professionals oversee or sign off on such planning reports.
Should the applicant disagree with the decision issued by the Case Officer, they have the right to appeal the decision. This can include instances where the degree of harm is not considered to have been proportionally assessed by the Conservation Officer and / or the Case Officer, such as where the advice provided in the delegated report contradicts consultation comments provided by Statutory Consultees.
Response to Harm
The different types of harm incurred to designated heritage assets merit specific actions from the developer according to the NPPF, which have been outlined below:
Any Level of Harm
Any level of harm requires a justification for the development, including a description of proposed interventions to offset any potential impacts to the significance of designated heritage assets.
'Any harm to, or loss of, the significance of a designated heritage asset (from its alteration or destruction, or from development within its setting), should require clear and convincing justification.'
NPPF 2023, 206
Less Than Substantial Harm
Instances of less than substantial harm require the presentation of public benefits which will be weighed against the harm to the heritage asset by the case officer with the aim of achieving an overall planning balance. Where enough information has been supplied by the developer, successful heritage statements may mention this public benefit in order to explain how less than substantial harm has been offset.
'Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal including, where appropriate, securing its optimum viable use.'
NPPF 2023, 208
Substantial Harm
Any occurance of substantial harm must meet a list of specific criteria, or demonstrate that the aforementioned harm is necessary to achieve public benefits which outweigh the degree of harm inflicted upon the heritage asset.
'Where a proposed development will lead to substantial harm to (or total loss of significance of) a designated heritage asset, local planning authorities should refuse consent, unless it can be demonstrated that the substantial harm or total loss is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss, or all of the following apply: a) the nature of the heritage asset prevents all reasonable uses of the site; and b) no viable use of the heritage asset itself can be found in the medium term through appropriate marketing that will enable its conservation; and c) conservation by grant-funding or some form of not for profit, charitable or public ownership is demonstrably not possible; and d) the harm or loss is outweighed by the benefit of bringing the site back into use.'
NPPF 2023, 207
Local Policy
Development proposals must also comply with local policies, which differ from region to region. This is especially where non-designated heritage assets are concerned. For instance, whilst there is limited guidance for non-designated heritage assets within national planning policy, local policies may mention specific locally-designated sites by name, including examples development which would be considered inappropriate by virtue of an asset's local value. As such, Heritage Impact Assessments must assess the impact of a proposal based on these policies. Our team has worked on a variety of sites which, although they were not situated within conservation areas and were not subject to listed building protection, required a number of heritage planning documents to achieve planning consent - including a Heritage Impact Assessment, Written Scheme of Investigation, Historic Building Recording, Archaeological Watching Brief and Archaeological Evaluation.
In the rise of Heritage Statements which do not consult the HER or include adequate assessments of heritage significance, the role of Heritage Consultants is becoming increasingly recognised. Blue Willow Heritage make concerted efforts to ensure that all of our heritage planning documents remain policy compliant. Contact us today to become one step closer to obtaining planning success!
Comments