Historic Environment

Designated heritage assets
A heritage asset is defined as ‘a building, monument, site, place, area or landscape identified as having a degree of significance meriting consideration in planning decisions, because of its heritage interest’ (NPPF, Annex 2). Some heritage assets are given protection by being designated as listed buildings, scheduled monuments, registered parks and gardens, protected wreck sites, registered battlefields or as conservation areas. Each of these has its own form of protection, but the great majority of designated heritage assets are either listed buildings or scheduled monuments, so only these are discussed here.

The importance of setting
Both listed buildings and scheduled monuments have their own specific legislation. This legislation mainly controls what happens either to the asset itself or to associated assets and not what happens around them. Discussion about proposals on greenfield sites commonly revolve around the impact on the setting of a designated heritage asset, rather than on any direct impact on the assets themselves. Impacts on setting are controlled through the planning system, principally by the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) in section 16, and by whatever local policies might also apply.

Setting is defined in the NPPF as:
‘The surroundings in which a heritage asset is experienced. Its extent is not fixed and may change as the asset and its surroundings evolve.’

Setting can, in theory, extend to any distance and does not need to be purely a visual thing. It is crucial to remember that the setting itself is not protected. It’s the impact on the asset itself from whatever happens in the setting that is the consideration. For example, an ancient burial mound on a hill may have been sited to be seen from a distance, and that relationship with the wider landscape would be something one might want to preserve. The impact on that wider landscape itself by a development might be harmful, but that would be a landscape consideration, not a heritage one. However, the impact on the relationship of the monument with the landscape would be a heritage consideration. Why? Because it might detract from the ability to appreciate why that particular site was chosen. It is also important to remember that a development in the setting of an asset is not necessarily harmful; it could even be beneficial. Advice on determining the impact on heritage assets through proposals in their setting is given by Historic England (to view, click here).

Harm: substantial or less than substantial?
The NPPF distinguishes substantial harm from ‘less than’ substantial harm, and the latter phrase is a bit unhelpful for people not familiar with it. The bar for substantial harm is in fact very high, so most discussion tends to be about where on the scale of less than substantial harm any harm falls. To be clear: “less than” substantial harm does not mean “insignificant” harm. And, in any case, it is always worth bearing in mind that the NPPF states that ‘great weight’ should be given to the conservation of all designated assets (para 199). This is quite a strong statement and a number of appeals have been decided on the basis of the level of harm to designated historic assets. Historic England lists some significant appeals (to view the list, click here).

Non-designated heritage assets
The impact on a non-designated heritage asset should be ‘taken into account’, but evidently the weight given to the importance of its preservation will be less (NPPF, para 203). But footnote 68 of the NPPF needs to considered, particularly with respect to any archaeological remains which might be of ‘national importance’, a level of importance which would allow them to be scheduled even if they are not. If they are of equivalent significance to scheduled monuments, they should be treated as if they are scheduled monuments in planning decisions. The criteria for national importance can be viewed here.

Applicants are required to describe the significance of heritage assets that might be affected by their proposals, usually in the form of a heritage statement. In proposals requiring EIAs, that assessment will be fairly detailed often with long lists of all assets affected.