Communities and Local Government CommitteeWritten evidence from English Heritage
English Heritage is the Government’s statutory adviser on all matters relating to the historic environment in England. We are a non-departmental public body established under the National Heritage Act 1983 to help protect England’s historic environment and promote awareness, understanding and enjoyment of it. We also advise Government on the designation of nationally significant historic places, advise local planning authorities on how to manage historic places through the planning system and have worked closely over recent years with DCLG and DCMS on the updating of national planning policy for the historic environment.
English Heritage has had detailed discussions with DCLG and DCMS during the development of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), and these have been extremely useful in guiding the text towards achieving the aim of the same level of protection for the historic environment as is set out in existing policy (Planning Policy Statement 5: Planning for the Historic Environment or PPS5). That aim is not yet achieved in the draft NPPF as it stands.
We have a number of concerns with the drafting of the NPPF and have raised these with DCLG and DCMS. Cumulatively they are important to heritage protection in this country, but we are confident that most, if not all, can be resolved through discussion on the premise that heritage protection levels are to remain intact. Of these, there are three major concerns we wish to raise here, which if unresolved we believe will lead to a serious reduction in current levels of protection.
1. English Heritage is very concerned at how one matches the precautionary approach to handling non-renewable resources, such as heritage assets, as set out in the Historic Environment section with the permissiveness of one element of the definition of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Paragraph 14 requires local authorities to grant permission “unless the adverse impacts of allowing development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits” (our emphasis). It is not clear how a decision-maker would resolve this presumption with the key historic environment policies in paragraphs 183 and 184: “considerable weight should be given to [designated heritage asset] conservation”; “any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification”; and “substantial harm.....should be wholly exceptional.”
Under the historic environment policies public benefits have to demonstrably outweigh the harm, whereas under paragraph 14 the harm has to “significantly and demonstrably” outweigh the benefits. This internal conflict needs resolution. It is a particular concern for less than substantial harm for which there is no explicit policy (see comments below in our second point). If the requirement was to give permission unless the benefits are outweighed by the harm then this would not be in logical conflict with the policies in the heritage and other sections. Adding in “significantly and demonstrably” means that the harm might outweigh the benefits, but permission should still be given, notwithstanding the precautionary approach that has been taken to heritage protection for decades, as embodied in the historic environment section.
Changes to paragraph 14 obviously have implications well beyond heritage conservation. If changing the wording in the way suggested is undesirable for other reasons, then we suggest the heritage policies are made an express exception to the “significantly and demonstrably outweighed” requirement. If the drafting is not changed, there would be a raft of decisions that under PPS5 would favour conservation and that under the NPPF would favour harmful development. As such the protection of the historic environment would be substantially reduced across all types of heritage asset.
2. There is no policy to help decision-makers deal with proposals where there is moderate or minor harm to designated heritage assets. The majority of heritage asset consent applications (scheduled monument, listed building, conservation area consents) fall into this category. English Heritage believes this will make it harder for local authorities to make balanced decisions. It may result in local authorities being more inclined to test a wider range of proposals against the “substantial harm” policy in paragraph 184. This will not be in the best interests of owners, local authorities and the heritage assets themselves. We are also concerned that the absence of a policy suggests that minor harm does not need justifying.
Without it there would be a perception that the policy approach has changed, but in a way that is unclear as no policy replaces it. It is very likely to be generally perceived as now of less importance and more a matter for local discretion alone. This would amount to an effective reduction in protection for nationally important heritage buildings and sites. The loss of the policy on how one handles alterations to achieve the optimum viable use of the asset (also in HE9.4) is equally regrettable, in our view, as it leaves the historic environment section without this commendable objective. PPS5 is strong on the need to find viable uses of most heritage assets in the interests of their conservation.
Examples of the implications of not having policy to cover what is in PPS5 HE9.4 include extensions to listed buildings. Each extension may cause only minor harm, but the cumulative effect of a series of applications for minor extensions could end up with the interest of the building being hidden or even lost. Some minor extensions can seriously harm the appearance of a building by upsetting symmetry. On the other hand the sometimes minor extensions to provide modern services or make the building accessible though causing some harm can be justified on the grounds of maintaining the building in viable use.
This issue could be addressed by including the policy in PPS5 HE9.4 at the end of paragraph 184 of the NPPF.
3. We believe that the NPPF fails to address a potential threat to nationally important but undesignated archaeology posed by the Neighbourhood Development Orders (NDOs) proposed in the Localism Bill. Whilst the heritage section of the policy still offers these sites protection in planning decisions, and the NPPF does have to be taken into account in deciding an NDO, the NPPF is not effective to protect these sites from the effect of an NDO as it stands. These are nationally or internationally important sites that could be scheduled and would have to be scheduled as monuments if they were not protected by the planning system.
The reasons why the policies within the heritage section would be insufficient to protect them are twofold:
A.
B.
We believe that an amendment in paragraph 65 (Neighbourhood Development and Community Right to Build Order) that simply puts physical impacts through NDOs beyond question would resolve this issue. This could be done by adding a sentence to the effect that permission should not be granted for development that would directly affect non-designated heritage assets of archaeological interest equivalent in importance to scheduled monuments.
If the threat (perceived or real) is not removed, Government is likely to come under serious pressure to schedule sites currently adequately protected through the planning system. Scheduling is an expensive and time-consuming process. It has been avoided for the estimated 80,000 non-scheduled but nationally important archaeological sites because of the costs to the owner and the taxpayer. If one of these sites is at risk because the protection from the planning system is to be removed, the Secretary of State at DCMS may not have discretion not to schedule. A consequence could be to put pressure on DCMS to schedule more of these 80,000 currently unscheduled sites on a reactive basis, creating further unnecessary work and then management post-scheduling.
Related to this issue is the need for those engaged in all neighbourhood planning to know if within their area there are heritage assets designated or not. We believe there should be a requirement that all Neighbourhood Plans and Orders need to demonstrate at independent examination that they have consulted their local historic environment record and have taken advice on the implications of the sites within their area. This is no more than is required of local authority planners or those submitting a planning or heritage consent application.
Committee Questions
1. Does the NPPF give sufficient guidance to local planning authorities, the Planning Inspectorate and others, including investors and developers, while at the same time giving local communities sufficient power over planning decisions?
We believe there are a number of areas where local planning authorities would benefit from clarification and further guidance as to making balanced judgements between the various sections of the NPPF.
For example we are concerned at how one matches the precautionary approach to handling non-renewable resources, such as heritage assets, as set out in the Historic Environment section, with the permissiveness of one element of the definition of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Paragraph 14 requires local authorities to grant permission “unless the adverse impacts of allowing development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits” (our emphasis). It is not clear how a decision-maker would resolve this presumption with the historic environment key phrases in paragraphs 183 and 184: “considerable weight should be given to [designated heritage asset] conservation”; “any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification”; and “substantial harm.....should be wholly exceptional.” This internal conflict needs resolution. It is a particular concern for less than substantial harm for which there is no explicit policy.
If the drafting is not changed, there would be a raft of decisions that under the existing Planning Policy Statement 5: Planning for the Historic Environment (PPS5) would favour conservation and that under the NPPF would favour harmful development and without any justification being required. As such the protection of the historic environment would be substantially reduced across all types of heritage asset.
Similarly, there are a number of other areas where we believe that the NPPF should take the opportunity to stress both the non-renewable and finite nature of the historic environment. There are a number of policy areas within the NPPF (for example housing, design and sustainable communities) where reference to the historic environment would usefully enhance the context within which local planning authorities have to reach decisions.
2. Is the definition of “sustainable development” contained in the document appropriate; and is the presumption in favour of sustainable development a balanced and workable approach?
While we support the section of the NPPF dealing with sustainable development which includes reference to the Brundtland definition, we are concerned by the qualifications to the presumption in favour of sustainable development, as set out in the answer to the first question and at the beginning of this submission. The definition of sustainable development results in inconsistent advice on what weight is given to the benefits of development as set out in paragraph 14 and the conservation of the environment as set out in paragraphs 183 and 184. Unless this is resolved satisfactorily there is a risk that heritage protection may be reduced.
The success of the sustainable development objectives of the NPPF will depend largely on the quality and consistency of decision making that it encourages. We believe that reusing heritage assets represents an effective use of finite resources, avoids the waste involved in demolition and replacement of existing buildings and makes a significant contribution to the achievement of other sustainable development objectives as well as being sustainable development objective itself. We believe the NPPF could go further in stressing the contribution the historic environment makes to overall sustainability.
3. Are the “core planning principles” clearly and appropriately expressed?
We welcome the fifth bullet point of paragraph 19 on the principles which emphasises the importance of protecting and enhancing the natural and historic environment. However, it is not clear how potential conflict between these principles should be resolved.
4. Is the relationship between the NPPF and other national statements of planning-related policy sufficiently clear? Does the NPPF serve to integrate national planning policy across Government Departments?
We consider that the relationship between the NPPF and the National Policy Statements to be clear, and that it would not come into any conflict with the role of the historic environment in planning policy. However, it should be noted that until it is clear which of the existing Planning Circulars (for example that on protection World Heritage Sites DCLG 07/09) are to be retained and how they will relate to the NPPF, a final view on this issue cannot be taken.
5. Does the NPPF, together with the “duty to cooperate”, provide a sufficient basis for larger than local strategic planning?
We have concerns that the “duty to cooperate” will not prove to be an effective planning regime with regard to development that has implications across local authority boundaries.
The Regional Spatial Strategies (RSS) contained policies that helped protect the historic environment. An example of this is the Yorkshire & the Humber RSS policy for a Green Belt around York. The Green Belt encompasses parts of six local planning authorities. York is one of a handful of settlements in England which has a Green Belt whose primary purpose is to preserve the setting and special character of a historic town. Of those settlements, however, York is unique insofar as it is the only one whose precise Green Belt boundaries have yet to be formally defined in an adopted Development Plan (other than for certain parts of its outer boundary which lie within neighbouring authorities). The statutory basis for the Green Belt is set out in the RSS. The abolition of the RSS for Yorkshire and the Humber effectively removes the statutory basis for defining a Green Belt around York, its general extent and, significantly, its primary purpose. Relying purely on a “duty to co-operate” to define a Green Belt could result in significant harm to the historic character of this important City.
6. Are the policies contained in the NPPF sufficiently evidence-based?
We welcome the proposal in the NPPF that in terms of the evidence base for preparing local plans, local planning authorities should have (and put to use) up to date evidence about their local historic environment and should ensure they have access to a historic environment record. We also endorse paragraph 178 requiring local authorities to set out a strategy for the historic environment, including identifying and dealing with heritage at risk or loss through neglect or decay.
Where we have concerns is the new area of planning, Neighbourhood Planning as introduced by the Localism Bill, and insofar as it is covered by the NPPF (paragraphs 49-52). In trying to reduce the burdens on neighbourhoods groups producing plans or orders, there is no requirement for them to look at the historic environment records for their site/area and then take advice on the limitations that a heritage asset identified within the area might have on what development they can achieve. We are seeking amendments to the NPPF to bring in this minimal requirement, as a way of ensuring that the present level of protection of the historic environment under the planning system is maintained.
September 2011