Comment

All change for heritage in the NPPF…or is it?

For the first time since the NPPF was issued in 2012, December 2025’s draft proposes substantive changes to heritage policies that go beyond the usual paragraph renumbering. While much of existing NPPF policy has been retained and reused in some form, there are important additions and changes in emphasis.

Below, Marc Timlin, Head of Heritage, Townscape and Landscape, reflects on the greater emphasis given to the positive role of heritage in sustainable redevelopment, and summarises how the proposed changes could affect built heritage in the  English planning system. 

Consistent with the overarching approach of the draft NPPF, the heritage chapter (20) has been comprehensively restructured and is arranged on a broadly ‘thematic’ basis. The changes are not merely cosmetic, however, and there is a reinforced distinction between plan-making and decision-making. 

The revised approach to decision-making also reflects the wider shift towards a more ‘rules-based’ approach to planning policy - seemingly in efforts to provide additional clarity on their implementation and weight – aligned with the wider aspirations for the Government’s commitment to deliver faster and better economic growth. The most obvious change relates to tone, with greater emphasis on the positive role of heritage in delivering sustainable redevelopment to support growth. This includes confirmation that proposals with positive effects on the significance of heritage assets should be approved (Policies HE6, HE7, HE8 & HE9).

There are also a range of important amendments and refinements to key policies relating to decision-making. There are summarised below: 

• The information requirements for applications have been extended beyond the current expectations for assessments of significance, with a new requirement for applicants to include assessments of the impacts of proposals on the significance of heritage assets. For the first time, policy requires that assessment includes consideration of whether there would (a) be a positive effect; (b) have no effect on the significance of the asset; or (c) result in harm to the significance of the heritage asset and the degree of that harm identified, with guidance on what is meant by each of those terms (HE5). While this is a new requirement in NPPF policy terms, it is informed by the PPG and largely catches up and validates existing best practice for those preparing Heritage Statements.
   
• In that context, it is important that policy HE5 also makes provision for decision makers to act as ‘arbiters’ of the quality and robustness of impact assessments, albeit there is no indication of what should happen if there is a difference in position between applicant and decision-makers and who’s view should take precedence. Will this result in applications being refused on the basis of perceived inadequacies in the ‘accuracy’ of Heritage Statements? How will it be determined whether conflicts over the conclusions of assessments relate to ‘accuracy’ rather than simply being a difference in professional opinions? It seems likely that the status quo will be maintained where such differences in professional position are resolved via an Inspector at appeal, with this change emphasising the ongoing importance of the role of expertise and credibility in case-making.
   
• Less than substantial harm has been removed entirely. The proposed distinction, in terms of levels of harm, is now proposed to be between total loss, substantial harm and (other) harm (HE5 and HE6). While decision-makers and those involved in case-making are likely to welcome the removal of ‘less than substantial harm’ for the sake of more straightforward assessment, will there be any real change in how we assess and calibrate harm, given there are retained distinctions between levels of harm? It is also unclear why ‘total loss of significance’ has been included as a separate category to substantial harm; the total demolition of a listed building, for instance, would normally equate to substantial harm as a matter of principle, and is to be treated in the same way for the purposes of the draft policy (HE6). The role of the PPG in correctly interpreting this new policy will be critical. 
   
• HE5 also provides guidance on what is likely to constitute substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset: it would occur where the development proposal would seriously affect a key element of the asset’s significance; or cause the total loss of the significance of the heritage asset. That clarity is welcome, but the application of this policy is where there is scope for conflict, particularly in the absence of the current clear position in the PPG that substantial harm is a high test, so it may not arise in many cases. The application of this policy will require a clear understanding of (i) the significance and setting of the affected heritage assets and (ii) the impacts of proposals on that significance requiring expert judgement and analysis.
   
• Drawing on guidance previously located in the PPG, there is helpful confirmation that it is the effect on an asset’s significance rather than the scale of the development, which should be considered in assessing impacts on significance (HE5).
   
• The well-established, and readily understood ‘planning balance’, where harm to the significance of designated heritage assets is weighed against public benefits is retained, including the specific tests that are engaged in cases where substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset occurs. There is welcome clarity on the scope of public benefits, including the removal of reference to securing the ‘optimum viable use’ of a heritage asset. Draft policy specifically notes that securing the long-term re-use of a vacant or underused listed building and enabling energy efficiency/low carbon heating measures are 'important public benefits' (HE6). It is not clear whether ‘important public benefits’ are to be given greater weight than other public benefits, albeit at face value that is what is being indicated in the draft policy. 
   
• Through a carefully worded footnote, the draft NPPF seeks to align the weight to be given to the conservation of a designated heritage asset’s significance in policy terms (‘substantial weight’ in HE6 rather than the existing ‘great weight’) with the weight to be attached to the relevant statutory tests, so as to discharge the duties, which require considerable importance and weight to be given to harm to the relevant designated assets. This change in terminology relates more to ensuring consistency through the NPPF as much as aligning policy and legislation and, in practice, it won’t change the weight to be given to the desirability of protecting the significance of heritage assets, There is no reference to the relevant statutory provision in that footnote, which likely relate to wider considerations signalled in the accompanying notes regarding prospects of bringing into force the ‘dormant’ provisions in the Levelling up and Regeneration Act – are the Government ‘keeping their powder dry’ and future proofing the draft NPPF in the event of future legislative changes?
   
• Policy HE7 strengthens the tests for consideration of harm to the significance of non-designated heritage assets. The policy brings the general approach for assessing harm to non-designated heritage assets in line with designated heritage assets, with the introduction of the planning balance and the weighing of heritage harm against public benefits, perhaps reflecting a move towards strengthening of protection of non-designated heritage assets in decision-making. It will be important that impacts on the significance of non-designated heritage assets remain proportionate to their importance and maintain the existing (correct) distinction between designated and non-designated heritage assets in policy and guidance (noting that Historic England are consulting on an update to their Advice Note 7 ‘Local Listing Guidance’).
   
• There is specific identification of policies relating to World Heritage Sites (HE2 and HE8) and Conservation Areas (HE2 and HE9) both in plan-making and decision-making. The emphasis on World Heritage Sites reflects a long awaited restatement of policy to bring English policy in broad alignment with wider international obligations, given their great importance and different approach within the legal/planning process, being mindful of the increased recent scrutiny of high-profile proposals affecting World Heritage Sites in England by ICOMOS. Interestingly, HE8 is to be applied to all World Heritage Sites, whether they are inscribed by UNESCO to be of natural or cultural significance (or both). That emphasis on the importance of World Heritage Sites, and their management through the planning system, is further reflected by the extension of heritage significance in Annex 2 to include 'For World Heritage Sites, the cultural value described within each site’s Statement of Outstanding Universal Value forms part of its significance.' That approach does, however, retain the unhelpful ambiguity between OUV and heritage significance as used in the English planning system; when launched, Historic England’s long-awaited Advice Note may help resolve that ambiguity in the application of national policy.
   
• In terms of the wider interface between heritage and other policies in the NPPF, the reference to the existing Footnote 7 (proposed, reduced footnote 23), in terms of the definition of what may comprise grey belt in Annex 2, has been removed, along with the added layer of unhelpful complication. The expectation is seemingly that the acceptability of impacts on the significance of designated heritage assets of a grey belt scheme are to be determined on their own merits in the usual way, and not act as a ’gateway’ to whether a land comprises grey belt for the purposes of national planning policy. 

What about the LURA?

In a curious turn for a consultation on draft national planning policy, the Government is also seeking views on the merits of implementing the provisions within the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 to extend the existing statutory duties beyond listed buildings and conservation areas to include other designated heritage assets and their settings: World Heritage Sites, registered parks and gardens, protected wrecks and scheduled monuments. It will be difficult to reconcile those increased statutory provisions – and the substantial weight to be applied to them vis HE6 – with the Government’s clearly articulated pro-growth agenda. Such a change is surely setting the scene for future conflict.

What does this all mean for built heritage?

If the revised NPPF is taken forward in a form aligned with the consultation draft, there will be a period of re-adjustment for those involved in managing change in the historic environment. Given that the proposed amendments are the first substantive change to national heritage policy for over a decade, the PPG has an important role in providing clarity on the Government’s intentions for its application and will need to be comprehensively revised, alongside Historic England’s best practice guidance.  

Irrespective of the intentions behind the draft NPPF, and the scope for further clarity on its implementation in the PPG, the extent of revision raises the spectre of significant legal challenges to decision-making, which has largely subsided following the flurry of post-Barnwell court cases and the mature understanding of the correct interpretation and application of legislation and policy. Surely, this will impact the pace of growth the Government is committed to; slowing instead of accelerating? 

Notwithstanding the extent of proposed amendments, the established key principles of heritage practice – the central role of relevant expertise; a robust and proportionate understanding of heritage significance (in terms of ‘what matters and why’); and credible assessment of the impacts on that significance – will remain an essential element of proper decision-making.

For more information on what the proposed NPPF changes could mean for built heritage please contact Marc Timlin. 

6 January 2025