With the consultation on the redrafting of the NPPF issued just before last Christmas the government stated its aims for the redraft was to tackle the country’s housing crisis and to support growth all by speeding up the planning process and decision making by ‘bringing a laser like focus to delivery’ by providing better clarity. But does this rewrite of the historic environment chapter help to achieve those goals?

Plan-making policies 

As with other parts of the NPPF, the historic environment chapter is now clearly divided between plan-making policies and decision-making policies which is welcome amendment. Of particular note under HE1(d) local plans should ‘be supported by a local list to identify non-designated heritage assets…’ 

This is broadly welcomed as hopefully this will assist in bringing clarity to where and what is a non-designated heritage asset (NDHA). This in turn will hopefully assist with the later decision-making policy on NDHA (HE7). 

However, how many local authorities have an up-to-date local list or a list at all? My feeling is that the already stretched conservation services will struggle to fulfil this requirement and funding will need to come forward to get this resolved. Another issue, and sadly one from past experience, is that it will be important to ensure the integrity of how and what buildings are included on the list, and the local list is not used to try and block development which is already entered the planning process. 

Just ‘Harm’ and Substantial Harm defined 

Most commentary on Chapter 20 has been on the shortening of the term ‘less than substantial harm’ to just ‘harm’. This is a simplification of terminology than anything else and one that has been pushed for in consultee quarters for some time. But the biggest change is at HE5 (2c) with the inclusion of a definition of substantial harm which is set out as occurring ‘where the development proposal would seriously affect a key element of the asset’s significance’.

The result of this definition is that it lowers the bar to substantial harm from that previously defined in case law as being where the significance of a heritage asset is ‘very much, if not all, of the significance was drained away…. that its significance was either vitiated altogether or very much reduced’. This resulted in making substantial harm a very high test indeed. So now the test for substantial harm comes back to what are the key elements of an asset’s significance, and notably just a single element of significance needs to be affected (to a serious extent) to cause substantial harm. 

As the NPPF Glossary currently stands, the definition of an asset’s significance is derived from its heritage interests, whether archaeological, architectural, artistic or historic. Presumably the heritage interests stated here are the ‘elements’ that are stated in the policy. However as the NPPF Glossary states ‘Significance derives not only from a heritage asset’s physical presence, but also from its setting.’

So setting is a key element of an asset’s significance as well? I think so. Does this mean will we start to see much more assessments of substantial harm to an asset due to development in its setting when previously this would have been ‘less than substantial’ harm? Will this potentially mean we will start to see new development not being permitted?   

Positive effects but what about to preserve?

Following on from the previous point, the degree of harm must still be required to be expressed as a scale of harm and we will have to await what any supporting planning guidance says about this. 

At HE6 (1) the potential effects on designated heritage are listed as being either ‘positive, harm, substantial harm or total loss’. What has happened to neutral effect, no effect or to preserve? In the push to emphasise positive effects of development on the historic environment the legal desire to preserve seems to have dropped out. I think HE6 (2) should include provision for development proposals to be approved which preserve (no effect/ no harm) an asset and not only those that have a positive effect. This would ensure consistency with HE5 (2) and to link the NPPF back to the primary legislation of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act (1990), and hopefully speeding up the planning process. 

Public Benefits versus Harm

Important public benefits are now listed out at HE6 (3) which can be weighted against harm to designated heritage assets. These include securing the long-term re-use of a vacant or underused listed building, and enabling energy efficiency and low carbon heating measures to be employed. The need for ‘optimum viable use’ at paragraph 216 has been dropped and this may help to see the re-use of currently unloved designated heritage assets brought forward which is welcomed. In contrast, substantial harm may be harder to justify as in the list of requirements under HE6 (4) for this higher test now proposes that no ‘suitable’ (rather than viable) use for the heritage asset found in the medium term through marketing that would enable its conservation can be found. However I would be recommending to my clients to avoid substantial harm or total loss to a designated heritage asset, but it is interesting to see the fallback position being stated. 

Arbitration of Heritage Assessments

Clause 4 of HE5 requires ‘Decision makers should be satisfied that this assessment accurately reflects the effects on heritage assets caused by the proposals.’ It is noted that no other discipline within the NPPF requires this sort of arbitration of assessment. This clause does nothing to advance the aim of, or adding any value to, streamlining the planning process. 

This could clearly prove problematic where a robust and proportionate Heritage Impact Assessment reaches conclusions that differ from an officer’s judgement. Will we end up in a situation where the heritage consultant and conservation officer both agree there is harm but at different scales resulting in a heritage impact assessment not fulfilling HE5 requirement? If so, I feel this clause will only end up in more planning delays as yet more decisions end up at planning appeal. 

Non-designated Heritage Assets 

The perennial problem of non-designated heritage assets (NDHA) within the planning regime appears to remain and may even get worse. At first glance this appears to be a slight reworking of paragraph 216. The subtle changes to wording which could have big effects on planning success and has elevated the importance of NDHA with the policy test now comparable to the assessment involving designated heritage assets. 

Previously the effect on NDHA was simply to be taken into account within the wider planning balance. The revised policy now requires harm to non-designated assets to be outweighed by the benefits of the proposal. Notably, this refers to “benefits”, rather than “public benefits”, although in practice the distinction may be limited. This now introduces a standalone balancing exercise test. There is a risk this could influence the outcome of planning applications where NDHA are within sites and are wished to be demolished. 

This issue comes back to the first point raised about local lists and the often lack of certainty of where, what and how something becomes a NDHA. Frustratingly for developers and planners they first appear on a site during the planning process or something is suddenly claimed to have historic interest but is not justified as to why to has enough historic interest to be considered a NDHA, which adds extra time and cost to a project. 

Archaeological Assets

The draft NPPF now includes a section on archaeological remains (HE10). This appears to cement the need for archaeological investigation to identify (inform?) the design of development proposals, amongst other things, implying that this will become more part of upfront costs for developments that are not guaranteed. 

The policy continues that archaeological assets should be preserved in situ wherever feasible. The presence of an archaeological asset shouldn’t necessarily require the need for preservation and its protection on site and a requirement such as this must be related to its actual significance; just as PPG16 used to set out all those years ago, the presumption should be to preserve in situ ‘nationally important archaeology’ not everything. 

Final thoughts

The draft NPPF tries to present itself as trying to be positive for development, with emphasis on positive benefits and positive effects which are encouraged to be approved, along with the re-use of existing buildings. From a pure heritage perspective that might be laudable, but it seems to potentially make it more difficult for new development to come forward. The drive and emphasis is on the re-use of existing buildings over new construction, which will require more justification. Also the time and expense arguing over NDHA is only going to get worse in the absence of clearer definitions and without the support for local lists. 

Whilst trying to shoot for the goal of laser like delivery this redraft may end up being more of an own goal. HAPRO Ltd will look with interest to the final version of the revised NPPF and will provide further comment over the coming  months.  

9 March 2026