National Planning Policy Framework, Chapter 20: Conserving and enhancing the historic environment (HE1–10)
This is Chapter 20 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
Applies to England
The objective of the policies in this chapter of the National Planning Policy Framework is to conserve and enhance the historic environment. Heritage assets are an irreplaceable resource, and range from sites and buildings of local historic value to those of the highest significance, such as World Heritage Sites which are internationally recognised to be of Outstanding Universal Value. These assets should be conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance, so that they can be enjoyed for their contribution to the quality of life of existing and future generations[footnote 63].
Plan-making policies
HE1: Planning for the historic environment
1. To deliver a positive strategy for the conservation, enhancement and enjoyment of the historic environment, development plans should, at the most appropriate level:
a. Identify the heritage assets within the plan area, including those heritage assets at most risk through neglect, decay or other threats, set out the key issues facing them and identify where these assets can be used to support sustainable development;
b. Be informed by a proportionate heritage assessment;
c. Consider the wider social, cultural, economic and environmental benefits that conservation of the historic environment can bring;
d. Take opportunities, for example through site allocations, design guides, design codes and masterplans, to draw on the contribution which the historic environment can make to the character and quality of development, and its context; and
e. Be supported by a local heritage list to identify non-designated heritage assets that are important to the local community.
HE2: Conservation Areas and World Heritage Sites
1. To conserve the significance of conservation areas and World Heritage Sites, development plans should:
a. Identify opportunities for new development affecting these assets to enhance or better reveal their significance, alongside any measures needed to safeguard their importance and long-term future; and reflect these in policies for site allocations and/or accompanying design guides, design codes or masterplans; and
b. Include any locally-specific policies needed to conserve the significance and Outstanding Universal Value of World Heritage Sites (including any contribution made by their setting including any buffer zone). Those policies should encourage sustainable use and take into account relevant policies and objectives in World Heritage Site management plans.
2. Conservation areas should be reviewed periodically, and new or amended designations should be accompanied by an adopted appraisal and management plan. These documents should be aligned with the policies in the development plan. When considering a new or amended conservation area designation, local planning authorities should ensure that an area justifies such status because of its special architectural or historic interest, and that the concept of conservation is not devalued through the designation of areas that lack special interest.
HE3: Historic Environment Records
1. To support effective plan-making and decision-making, local planning authorities should maintain or have access to a Historic Environment Record. This should contain up-to-date evidence about the historic environment in their area and be used to:
a. Assess the significance of heritage assets and the contribution they make to their environment and inform the preparation of local lists;
b. Help identify where currently unidentified heritage assets, particularly sites of historic and archaeological interest, will be discovered in the future; and
c. Inform development plans, including scoping opportunities and constraints on land allocated for development, inform the preparation of local heritage lists and provide applicants and decision-makers with information to help assess the potential effects of proposed development on heritage assets.
2. Local planning authorities should make information about the historic environment, gathered as part of plan-making or development management activities, publicly accessible.
National decision-making policies
HE4: Securing the conservation of heritage assets
1. Heritage assets, as an irreplaceable resource, should be conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance. To achieve this, development proposals which would affect the significance of heritage assets, including any contribution made by their setting should:
a. Maintain or secure a use consistent with their conservation, taking into account the importance of maintaining the assets, the positive contribution they can make to sustainable communities including local economies, and the positive contribution they can make to local character and distinctiveness; and
b. Avoid (or if that is not possible, minimise) harm to the significance of heritage assets, and instead conserve this significance.
2. Any harm to, or loss of, the significance of a designated heritage asset (including from development within its setting) should have a clear and convincing justification in accordance with the policies in this chapter.
3. Where there is evidence of deliberate neglect of, or damage to, a heritage asset, the deteriorated state of the asset should not be taken into account in any decision relating to the asset.
4. Proposals for enabling development, which would otherwise conflict with other policies in this Framework and/or those in the development plan, but which would secure the future conservation of a heritage asset, should be considered on the basis of whether the conservation benefits outweigh the disbenefits of departing from the policies concerned.
HE5: Assessing effects on heritage assets
1. Development proposals affecting heritage assets should be accompanied by an assessment of the significance of the assets affected (including any contribution made by their setting) and of the potential effect of the proposal on their significance. The level of detail should be proportionate to the assets’ importance and no more than is necessary to understand the potential effect of the proposal on their significance. The relevant historic environment record should be referred to in making this assessment, and appropriate expertise employed where necessary.
2. Assessments of the potential effects of development proposals on the significance of heritage assets (including through effects on their setting) should identify whether proposals would be likely to:
a. Have a positive effect, which is where the significance of a heritage asset would be enhanced, or better revealed; or
b. Have no effect on the significance of a heritage asset; or
c. Result in harm to the significance of a heritage asset, either from work affecting the asset itself or from development within its setting. The degree of harm should be identified: substantial harm would occur where the development proposal would seriously affect a key element of the asset’s significance; or
d. Cause the total loss of the significance of a heritage asset.
3. In making this assessment it is the effect on a heritage asset’s significance rather than the scale of the development which should be considered.
4. Decision-makers should be satisfied that assessments accurately reflect the effects on heritage assets caused by development proposals.
5. Where a development proposal involves, or has the potential to involve, a heritage asset with archaeological interest, an appropriate desk-based assessment should be undertaken and, where necessary, a field evaluation. These should be used to help understand the asset’s significance and the potential effect of the proposal on this, which should inform the design, mitigation and implementation of the development.
HE6: Proposals affecting designated heritage assets
1. When considering the potential effect of a development proposal on the significance of a designated heritage asset, substantial weight should be given to the asset’s conservation (and the more important the asset, the greater the weight should be). This is irrespective of whether any potential effect amounts to a positive effect, harm, substantial harm, or total loss of its significance.
2. Development proposals which would have a positive effect on a designated heritage asset should be supported.
3. Any harm to a designated heritage asset will be a matter of considerable importance and weight, which should be dealt with in accordance with paragraphs 4 to 6 of this policy.
4. Where a development proposal would harm the significance of a designated heritage asset the effect on the asset and its significance should be weighed against any public benefits resulting from the proposal. 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.
5. Where a development proposal would cause substantial harm to, or the total loss of, the significance of a designated heritage asset, consent should be refused unless it can be demonstrated that the harm is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh the harm or loss, or if all of the following apply:
a. The nature of the heritage asset would otherwise prevent all reasonable uses of the site;
b. No suitable use for the heritage asset itself can be found in the medium term through appropriate marketing that will enable its conservation;
c. Conservation by grant-funding or some form of not for profit, charitable or public ownership is not possible; and
d. The harm or loss is outweighed by the benefit of bringing the asset back into use.
6. Within this context, development which would cause substantial harm to, or the total loss of, the significance of grade II listed buildings, or grade II registered parks or gardens, should be exceptional; while development which would cause substantial harm to, or the total loss of, assets of the highest significance, notably scheduled monuments, protected wreck sites, registered battlefields, grade I and II* listed buildings, grade I and II* registered parks and gardens, and World Heritage Sites, should be wholly exceptional[footnote 64].
HE7: Decisions on non-designated heritage assets
1. Development proposals which would have a positive effect on a non-designated heritage asset should be supported.
2. Where a development proposal would harm the significance of a non-designated heritage asset, this should be weighed against the benefits of the proposal and a balanced judgement made, having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the non-designated heritage asset.
3. Where a development proposal would cause substantial harm to, or the total loss of, the significance of a non-designated heritage asset, it should only be supported where the harm or loss is outweighed by the benefits of the proposal, having regard to the scale of the harm or loss and the significance of the non-designated heritage asset.
HE8: World Heritage Sites
1. To secure the long-term future of World Heritage Sites[footnote 65] and support the conservation of their significance and Outstanding Universal Value, development proposals that affect a World Heritage Site should:
a. Be designed in a way which pays particular regard to the significance and Outstanding Universal Value of the World Heritage Site (including any contribution made by its setting including any buffer zone);
b. Retain and conserve buildings and other features which make a positive contribution to the significance and Outstanding Universal Value of the World Heritage Site where possible;
c. Have regard to the World Heritage Site management plan; and
d. Be supported by an assessment of the impact, including any potential cumulative impact, on the significance and attributes of Outstanding Universal Value of the World Heritage Site. This should be informed by appropriate information such as visual impact assessments and natural environment, archaeological or historical data.
2. Not all elements of a World Heritage Site will necessarily contribute to its significance or Outstanding Universal Value. Where a development proposal would result in the loss of a building or other element which contributes to the significance or Outstanding Universal Value of a World Heritage Site, the assessment of impact should take into account the significance and the contribution made to Outstanding Universal Value by the element affected and its contribution to the significance of the World Heritage Site as a whole, and the effects of this considered in accordance with policies HE5 and HE6.
3. Proposals that conserve those elements of a World Heritage Site or its setting, including any buffer zone, that make a positive contribution to it or which better reveal its significance, should be supported.
HE9: Conservation areas
1. Development proposals within or affecting the significance of conservation areas should:
a. Retain and conserve buildings and other features which make a positive contribution to the character or appearance of the conservation area where possible; and
b. Consider the area’s special architectural or historic interest (as identified as part of the designation of the conservation area) in the design of development.
2. Not all elements of a conservation area will necessarily contribute to its significance. Where a development proposal would result in the loss of a building or other element which contributes to the character or appearance of a conservation area that is desirable to conserve, the assessment of impact should take into account the relative significance of the element affected and its contribution to the significance of the conservation area as a whole, and the effects of this considered in accordance with policies HE5 and HE6.
3. Proposals which conserve those elements of a conservation area that make a positive contribution to the area (or which better reveal its significance) should be supported.
HE10: Loss or removal of heritage assets
1. Where a development proposal would result in the loss of the whole or part of a heritage asset (whether designated or not):
a. The development should not be approved without all reasonable steps being taken to ensure that the new development will proceed after the loss has occurred, including through the use of planning conditions and planning obligations to secure the development against the loss of the asset; and
b. The applicant should record and advance understanding of the significance of the asset to be lost in a manner proportionate to its importance and the potential impact upon it; and should make this evidence (and any archive generated) publicly accessible by depositing it in the relevant Historic Environment Record, and any archives with a local museum or other public depository. The ability to record evidence of our past should not be a decisive factor in deciding whether such loss should be approved.
2. Heritage assets with archaeological interest should be preserved in situ where feasible. Where an asset cannot be preserved or managed on-site, appropriate provision should be made for the investigation, understanding, recording, dissemination and archiving of that asset, which should be undertaken by suitably-qualified individuals or organisations.
3. Development proposals to remove or alter a historic statue, plaque, memorial or monument (whether listed or not), should retain the feature in situ where possible (and, where appropriate, be supported by an explanation of their historic and social context).
This is Chapter 20 of the National Planning Policy Framework
Continue to Annex A: Implementation.
Return to the National Planning Policy Framework homepage.
Footnotes
63. The policies set out in this chapter also relate, as applicable, to the heritage-related consent regimes for which local planning authorities are responsible under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. ↩
64. Non-designated heritage assets of archaeological interest that a decision-maker considers to be equivalent significance to scheduled monuments should be considered subject to the policies for designated heritage assets. ↩
65. Any development affecting World Heritage Sites should be assessed against this policy. It should be noted that some World Heritage Sites are inscribed by UNESCO to be of natural significance rather than cultural significance; and in some cases they are inscribed for both their natural and cultural significance. ↩