Planning matters

Our award winning blog gives a fresh perspective on the latest trends in planning and development.

Heritage in the North East: can it be the solution rather than a problem?
Historic buildings and sites are often seen as a burden, with high levels of risk and financial liability attached. But, in the North East, could they create opportunities and solutions, rather than problems? Lichfields recently completed a pioneering study for Historic England looking at the economic, environmental and social returns offered by historic sites in London which have been declared as ‘at risk’. The study found that investing in such heritage assets can result in numerous benefits which go far beyond just the conservation of historic fabric, such as successful place making and regeneration, job creation, the enhancement of social facilities and vastly altered local perceptions. The development industry in the North East is focussed on delivering the homes we need to address the housing crisis, creating jobs and promoting economic growth. But the economic context in which we are working is quite different from that of our colleagues in London. Is it possible for us to be able to use heritage assets in the same way, to realise wider economic and social benefits, and with heritage as the catalyst rather than the goal? Is it a different picture? Historic England compiles a register of designated heritage assets which are ‘at risk’ on an annual basis. Nationally, it includes scheduled monuments, listed buildings at Grades I and II*, places of worship listed at any grade, registered parks and gardens, registered battlefields, protected wreck sites and conservation areas. In London, the list is more extensive as it also covers Grade II listed buildings. The graph below compares the types of heritage assets on the register in London and the North East. Most of the ‘at risk’ heritage assets in London (67%) are Grade II listed buildings, a figure which is to be expected given that 90% of listed buildings (both nationally and in London) have this grade. In the North East, scheduled monuments represent 58% of all ‘at risk’ assets, by far the majority; this category includes cairns, the remains of settlements, mining legacy features and rock art. These are features where the solution to their heritage-related needs is unlikely to be in the form of the new uses and occupation like other types of buildings and structures. Figure 1 Proportion of assets on Heritage at Risk Register in each category Source: Historic England with Lichfields analysis Closer similarities between London and the North East appear when Grade II listed buildings and scheduled monuments are omitted from both areas (see the graph below), while just focusing on assets in urban areas in the North East also shows a similar picture of Heritage at Risk to London. Figure 2 Proportion of assets on Heritage at Risk Register in each category shown Source: Historic England with Lichfields analysis This data shows that, given the parallels that can be drawn between the London and North East heritage at risk registers, there is potential for some of the benefits identified within the London report to be similarly achieved in the North East. It also raises the question of whether Grade II listed buildings should be included on registers outside London, given the number which are probably at risk. Perhaps when considering how best to use heritage as a catalyst for economic growth, development and regeneration, a looser definition of ‘at risk’ should be applied, not just focussing just on those assets included on the Historic England register but any heritage asset - designated or undesignated - which could fall within the definition of ‘at risk’ and which, with investment, could deliver wider benefits. Opportunities for the development industry The map below shows a correlation between assets on the North East Heritage at Risk Register and deprivation in urban areas. The picture in more rural areas, such as Northumberland and Durham, is less clear. There may be several reasons for this pattern, including that output areas are larger in size and, as a result, areas of high and low deprivation may be averaged out. Also, most assets ‘at risk’ in rural areas are scheduled monuments which are generally at risk not because of lack of investment but due to other threats, such as agricultural practices. What is clear though is that particularly in urban areas in the North East, there is great potential for the regeneration and wider social benefits recognised in the London report to be achieved. Some of the best opportunities for regeneration and wider social benefits may occur either when grant funding is available to close the viability gap between costs and the end value or financial return or, perhaps more importantly, when other benefits of investment, such as delivering economic, social or environmental improvements in line with ambitions for particular areas, can be prioritised over initial financial returns. For assets in public sector ownership, the requirement that land should not be disposed of for less than ‘best consideration’ is potentially a complicating factor and could result in missed opportunities if proposals for reuse and associated development are not explained well in relation to their consistency with planning policy, the asset’s current state of repair and its future existence and other potential non-financial and wider regeneration benefits and positive impacts. Discussions with key individuals in the development and heritage sectors in the North East has also highlighted that to secure private investment, and perhaps reduce the need for grant funding which itself can be off-putting to developers, there is also a need for more to be done to ‘de-risk’ a heritage asset by providing greater certainty to future investors about the features which are most important and where there may, or may not, be scope for change. There is a clear role here for Historic England’s Enhanced Listing service, and/ or a detailed development brief, supported by a heritage assessment, to understand the special interest and development potential of the asset. There are also potentially important roles for cross-funding and enabling development, which could help meet wider development needs and, through Section 106 contributions, support the conservation of heritage assets which would otherwise not receive investment without grant support. In such cases, heritage at risk may open up new sites for development which would have otherwise not been policy-compliant. The historic environment in the North East, and in particular Heritage at Risk, presents an undervalued and underused opportunity to stimulate economic growth and help meet development needs, while also delivering wider social and environmental benefits. Future work The London Heritage at Risk study has identified a number of benefits of investing in Heritage at Risk and there is good reason to think that, despite the differences between London and the North East, the findings will hold true for other urban areas. A number of potential solutions and opportunities presented by Heritage at Risk in the North East have been identified within this blog; a better understanding of the opportunities presented by investment in these heritage assets is of course still required, especially due to the different economic contexts and disparities between land values and investment returns in the regions compared with London. But the importance of the wider social and environmental benefits arising from such investment should not be understated or underestimated when compared with economic outputs which are easier to quantify. A tool to assess, quantify and share these would clearly be of huge benefit. Watch this space…!

CONTINUE READING

Draft NPPF: heritage policy is conserved…

Draft NPPF: heritage policy is conserved…

Heather Marshall 12 Mar 2018
The draft revision of the NPPF largely conserves current NPPF heritage policy. There is some tinkering at the edges, with text moved around and new headings added. The one or two more significant revisions are discussed here. The proposed para. 189 (currently within para. 132) includes additional text confirming that when considering the impact of development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation ‘irrespective of the degree of potential harm to its significance’. This is to bring the NPPF in line with statute and case law on listed buildings and conservation areas. Sections 66 and 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 require ‘special regard’ and ‘special attention’ to be paid to the desirability of preserving listed buildings and preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of conservation areas. This law does not refer to harm or to varying levels of harm, which the NPPF does. Therefore draft para. 189 requires that any harm, even if it is ‘less than substantial’ (currently para. 134, revised and now proposed at para. 192), should be given ‘great weight ’ in the decision-making process. This approach has been reinforced by numerous court judgments, the two earliest examples of which being Barnwell Manor Wind Energy Ltd. and (on the application of the Forge Field Society) from 2014. The insertion of this new text will not introduce any changes for heritage practitioners who have been working on this basis for a number of years now. Proposed para. 192 deals with less than substantial harm to heritage assets and, as currently, requires harm to designated heritage assets to be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. There is no longer the requirement of ‘securing its optimum viable use’. This is presumably to remove the uncertainty around what is ‘optimum viable use’, which to an owner may be the most lucrative development but to a decision-maker may be the least harmful to the asset. The draft NPPF also clarifies, at footnote 7, that with regard to the presumption in favour of sustainable development (paragraph 11), it is only policies relating to designated heritage assets that provide ‘a strong reason for restricting […] development’ (plan-making) or ‘a clear reason for refusing the development proposed’ (decision-taking), i.e. not non-designated heritage assets (except for non-designated heritage assets of archaeological interest, which are demonstrably of equivalent significance to scheduled monuments). The current NPPF leaves some room for interpretation around a similar aspect of the presumption (at footnote 9, relating to paragraph 14), by suggesting that policies including those for designated heritage assets are just examples. The draft NPPF usefully provides a clear, closed list which only references designated heritage assets. One obvious error within the draft NPPF is the incorrect cross-referencing in para. 197 to the draft paragraphs that deal with ‘substantial’ and ‘less than substantial’ harm (which should be paras 191 and 192 respectively). This aptly highlights the confusion that arises when policies are updated and previously learnt paragraph numbers need to be re-learned! The Annex 2 Glossary deletes the definition of ‘historic environment’ (possibly the current definition is too broad?) and for ‘significance (for heritage policy)’, it includes reference to the ‘Statement of Outstanding Universal Value’ for World Heritage Sites. This draft NPPF revision could have - but has not - taken the opportunity to address a number of issues that we encounter when applying current NPPF polices, such as: defining ‘substantial’ harm (albeit national planning practice guidance attempts to do so); acknowledging that there is a significant range within ‘less than substantial’ harm from very minor harm to just below the threshold of ‘substantial’; and addressing the implications of schemes which involve both harmful and beneficial effects – can a weighting exercise be carried out to establish the overall harm, or otherwise, to a designated heritage asset? The draft NPPF remains silent on these points, which unless amended in the final publication due before the summer, means it will continue to be up to practitioners to grapple with these ongoing issues. We would recommend that thought is given to incorporating these points. It is to be hoped that the final drafting will both conserve and enhance the NPPF policy guidance for heritage assets. See our other blogs in this series: National Planning Policy Framework review: what to expect? Draft revised National Planning Policy Framework: a change in narrative NPPF consultation proposals – what could they mean for town centres? NPPF consultations – what could they mean for designers? Draft NPPF: implications for aviation? Draft NPPF: business as usual? Draft NPPF: more emphasis on healthy and safe communities Lichfields will publish further analysis of the consultation on the draft revised NPPF and its implications. Click here to subscribe for updates.

CONTINUE READING