There is a lot going on with the planning system right now.
In December 2024, a revised National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF24) was published. Among its key changes, were a new method for calculating housing need and the headline-grabbing concept of the ‘Grey Belt.’
While the historic environment was not the intended focus of these updates, the wider planning balance is shifting, and the introduction of Grey Belt has placed a renewed emphasis on old questions, such as “what is a historic town?”
Then, on 27th February 2025, updates to the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG), provided guidance on matters relating to the Green Belt, addressing these questions, to an extent.
Now, as of the 11th March, the Planning and Infrastructure Bill has been published. The Bill introduces a number of measures intended to speed up the planning system and boost growth. The government wants planning departments to set their own planning fees, which could take us closer to the introduction of fees for Listed Building Consent.
A Written Ministerial Statement published on the same day announced that bodies such as the Gardens Trust and Theatres Trust could have their Statutory Consultee status removed.
There is a lot to grapple with. This blog explores what it all means for the historic environment, and the implications for applicants and decision-makers.
Chapter 16, Conserving the Historic Environment
Before delving into Grey Belt policy, it is worth noting that the heritage-related paragraphs in Chapter 16 of the NPPF remain unchanged. However, this does not mean the updates will have no impact on decisions involving heritage assets.
Chapter 16 sets out the framework for conserving and enhancing the historic environment, including the assessment of heritage significance, potential harm from development, and the balance between harm and public benefits. While the wording of Chapter 16 remains intact, changes elsewhere in the NPPF mean that greater weight may now be given to certain public benefits in specific scenarios.
For example, planning officers may place increased emphasis on:
-
Housing delivery in areas with a recognised shortfall;
-
Developments supporting a ‘modern economy’;
-
Projects enhancing the supply of renewable and low-carbon energy;
-
Making use of brownfield land; and
-
Development ‘securing well-designed places’.
This shift in weighting could influence decision-making in cases where harm to heritage assets must be balanced against public benefits. While ‘great weight’ must still be given to conserving heritage assets, in some cases, the increased emphasis on public benefits may tip the balance in favour of approval. As a result, some sites previously deemed unsuitable due to heritage constraints may now warrant reconsideration.
Grey Belt and Historic Towns
The most talked about aspect of NPPF24 is undoubtedly the Grey Belt. Previous blogs from Lichfields have explored this concept in detail (for more on this, see Lichfields’
blog from the 24
th January 2025). In summary, the Grey Belt allows development in less significant areas of the Green Belt, provided certain criteria are met.
Grey Belt includes land that ‘does not strongly contribute’ to Green Belt purposes (a), (b), or (d) as set out in Paragraph 143 of the NPPF.
The five purposes of the Green Belt and their specific wording remain unchanged in NPPF24, but because of the introduction of Grey belt and the way it is identified, purposes a, b and d have been given a newfound importance.
This blog focuses on Purpose d of the Green Belt i.e.:
“To preserve the setting and special character of historic towns.”
Historically, there has been little guidance
[i] on how this should be assessed. Neither the NPPF nor previous versions of the PPG provided clear definitions of what constitutes a ‘historic town’, or how to measure a site’s contribution to preserving a historic town’s setting and character.
What is a historic town?
The updated PPG attempts to address this, but only partially. It offers limited clarification on the definition of a historic town, stating:
“This purpose relates to historic towns, not villages. Where there are no historic towns in the plan area, it may not be necessary to provide detailed assessments against this purpose.”
While it is helpful that villages are explicitly excluded (a past point of contention), historic towns are not defined. Cities are not mentioned but are presumably included. There is also an implicit suggestion that not all plan areas will contain a historic town, implying that a selective approach should be applied - though no formal criteria are provided. This leaves applicants and decision-makers to debate what qualifies as a historic town.
In my view, the main reasonable questions to consider here would be:
-
Does it contain a significant number of surviving historic buildings, streets, and spaces?
-
Does the town have a distinct historic identity and special character?
-
Is the town famous or notable for its historic significance?
These questions do leave room for interpretation, and no doubt there will be some interesting appeal decisions that emerge in time.
Assessing a Site’s Contribution
The PPG updates are more detailed regarding the second issue - how to assess whether a site contributes to preserving a historic town’s setting and special character. The guidance provides a classification framework:
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
Contribution
|
|
Illustrative Features
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
Strong
|
|
Assessment areas that contribute strongly are likely be free of existing development and to include all of the following features:
This could be (but is not limited to) as a result of being within, adjacent to, or of significant visual importance to the historic aspects of the town |
|
| |
Moderate
|
|
Assessment areas that perform moderately are likely to form part of the setting and/or contribute to the special character of a historic town but include one or more features that weaken their contribution to this purpose, such as (but not limited to):
-
being separated to some extent from historic aspects of the town by existing development or topography
-
containing existing development
-
not having an important visual, physical, or experiential relationship to historic aspects of the town
|
|
| |
Weak or None
|
|
Assessment areas that make no or only a weak contribution are likely to include those that:
-
do not form part of the setting of a historic town
-
have no visual, physical, or experiential connection to the historic aspects of the town
|
|
In reality, the key question is often going to be whether a site meets the ‘strong’ contribution threshold, as Grey Belt applies only to land that does not ‘strongly’ contribute to Purpose (d). The distinction between moderate, weak, and nil contributions is largely irrelevant for Grey Belt classification.
The key consideration is whether the site makes a “considerable contribution to the special character of a historic town.” The guidance provides examples, such as sites that are within, adjacent to, or of significant visual importance to a town’s historic aspects. However, what constitutes ‘historic aspects’ remains undefined. Presumably, this includes historic cores and areas with clear heritage significance, which may correlate with Conservation areas - but this should not be seen as a binary test.
In summary, the key questions are:
-
Is the site within the vicinity of a 'historic town'
-
What are the 'historic aspects' of the town?
-
Is the site within, adjacent to, or ‘of significant visual importance’ to these historic aspects?
Are there any other reasons that the site makes a (considerable) contribution to the town’s special character?
Given the lack of clear guidance, many English towns could be considered historic, at least in their origins. However, in most cases, the historic aspects of the town will have been surrounded by post-war development, providing separation from the Green Belt.
Rather than debating definitions, a more effective approach may be to demonstrate that a site lacks a strong relationship with the remaining historic aspects of a town.
This will likely remain a contentious issue in planning appeals.
Grey Belt and Archaeology - Footnotes 7 & 75
The consultation draft of NPPF24 raised concerns about how Grey Belt policies would interact with heritage assets, particularly below-ground archaeology.
Footnote 7 sets out a variety of exceptions to Grey Belt. It references designated heritage assets, while Footnote 75 extends protections to non-designated heritage assets of demonstrably equivalent significance to scheduled monuments. Such assets are rarely identified, but their discovery cannot be ruled out, particularly in areas of high archaeological potential.
The consultation draft raised two key issues. First, it was unclear whether the presence of a listed building on a site automatically prevented the entire site from being classified as Grey Belt. Secondly, a site initially identified as Grey Belt could lose this classification if previously unknown heritage assets were discovered below ground.
However, the revised Grey Belt definition clarifies that land is not automatically excluded from Grey Belt classification simply because it contains a Footnote 7 asset.
To qualify as Grey Belt, a site must either:
- Not fall within a Footnote 7 asset or area, or
- Where it does, the application of Footnote 7 policies must not provide a strong reason for refusal.
If heritage constraints provide a strong reason for refusal, then it matters little whether the site is classified as Grey Belt.
Design codes, beauty, and mansard roofs...
NPPF24 also made a number of tweaks related to design. For the most part these represent a reversal of the changes introduced by the previous government, in the December 2023 updates to the NPPF.
The December 2023 NPPF added a number of references to 'beauty' and 'beautiful', including within the title of Chapter 12, which deals with design. This was problematic because 'beauty' is something of a subjective concept, and in my view an inappropriate 'bar' to set for all types of development. Instead, we should be thinking about well-designed schemes that are fitting for their purpose and appropriate for their context.
NPPF24 has largely reversed these changes, toning down the emphasis on 'beauty' and bringing us back to a more appropriate and objective policy framework for considering design.
This should not be interpreted as a slackening of the broader requirement to ensure good quality design. In fact, paragraph 11 (d) (ii) which relates to the presumption in favour of sustainable development, has been updated to have "particular regard" to "securing well-designed places" (among other things), reinforcing the importance of good quality placemaking.
Otherwise, the paragraphs on design remain largely unchanged, though paragraph 138 has been updated to state that the National Model Design Code is “the primary basis for the preparation and use of local design codes”, removing the preference in the 2023 version NPPF for the preparation of local design codes being the primary means for assessing and improving design of development.
The 2023 version of the NPPF had also introduced detailed guidance for upward extensions of buildings involving mansard roofs. NPPF24 has simplified Paragraph 125(e), continuing support, but removing what many saw as a disproportionate emphasis on one particular type of development’.
Overall, the change to Chapter 12 are minor, and simply represent a reversal the 2023 changes, which were not well-received the development sector.
Fees for Listed Building Consent
When the consultation draft NPPF was published by the Government in July 2024, an accompanying consultation was undertaken on a broad range of matters, including potential application fee increases. As part of this, the question was posed as to whether application fees should be introduced for Listed Building Consent (LBC) or works to trees affected by a Tree Preservation Order (TPO).
The consultation sought views on whether a fee should be charged, indicating this could be "to cover the full cost, or a small flat administration fee."
This is divisive issue, as articulated by the consultation document:
“…Fees are not charged for these applications, principally for the reason that owners cannot opt out of these designations and such designations confer burdens with regard to preservation and maintenance that are in the public interest. However, each of these applications incurs costs to local planning authorities. They often require additional publicity, and consideration by technical experts such as heritage and conservation or tree officers. This cost burden is felt most strongly in local planning authorities with a high proportion of these applications.”
Whilst many Local Planning Authorities were supportive, both Historic England (HE) and the Institute of Historic Building Conservation (IHBC) opposed the move.
The IHBC stated in their consultation response:
“Owners already carry a significant burden on behalf of the nation while the introduction of fees for LBCs would, in presenting a financial disincentive to making applications and engaging with the LPA, risk the increased incidence of unauthorised works”
Whilst Historic England concluded that:
“On balance, we consider that listed building consent should remain a free service for several reasons, including to avoid disincentivising applications coming forward.”
Now, the government’s long-awaited Planning and Infrastructure Bill would allow local authorities to set their own planning application fees up to the level of cost recovery, but any resulting income would be ring-fenced for spending on development management. It is not yet clear whether this will apply to LBC applications, but in the context of earlier consultations, it could certainly be a step in that direction.
This may be welcome news for Local Planning Authorities, and could improve performance in the longer term if funds are properly ring-fenced. Although, improvements in performance could take a long-time to manifest.
Clearly, if full costs are charged for LBC applications, it could impact the viability of schemes - particularly where works to listed buildings are already financially marginal.
If a flat administrative fee was to be charged, this is unlikely to impact on major commercial developments. However, it may dissuade householders and others seeking consent for minor works from engaging with the planning system.
The rolling back of Statutory Consultees
Under new plans announced alongside the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, organisations such as Sport England, Theatres Trust and The Gardens Trust would no longer be required to input on planning decisions. The Government intends to consult on reducing the number of Statutory Consultees, and the list to be removed could grow.
The Ministerial Statement stated that “The list of statutory consultees has also grown haphazardly over time and now includes over 25 organisations”, and goes on to highlight that “In the past three years over 300 applications were forced to be escalated for consideration by the Secretary of State because of disagreements from consultees.”
The intention is to review the scope of all statutory consultees, to reduce the type and number of applications on which they must be consulted. The Government wants to make “much better use of standing guidance in place of case-by-case responses”.
This would not prevent organisations from responding to planning applications, but means they would no longer be formally consulted, and a reduced weight would be attached to any comments raised.
This does have the potential to speed up decision making, but will no doubt attract pushback from the organisations involved.
Concluding Remarks
The introduction of Grey Belt in NPPF24, along with clarifications in the PPG, mark a notable shift in planning policy. While the fundamental approach to managing the historic environment remains unchanged, the emphasis on certain public benefits may influence decision-making where heritage assets are concerned.
Grey Belt’s relationship with Purpose (d) of Green Belt policy has placed a renewed focus on historic towns and their settings, though the lack of a clear definition leaves room for interpretation. In most cases however, a site will not perform 'strongly' against purpose d.
Meanwhile the publication version of NPPF24 has resolved the previous uncertainties around how the heritage assets referenced in 7 and 75 would relate to the Grey Belt.
The changes regarding design are largely a reversal of previous changes, representing a return to objectivity. Good design remains a key priority of the Framework.
It remains to be seen whether fees will be introduced for listed building applications, and if these will be based on full costs or administrative charges.
Consultations will be undertaken to determine to what extent the role of Statutory Consultees is rolled back, and which ones are to be removed from the list entirely.
As planning and heritage practitioners navigate these changes, ongoing decisions and future legislative changes will shape how they are applied in practice, and the true effects will become clear over time.
Footnote
[i]The 2015 Planning Advisory Service Guidance, ‘Planning on the Doorstep: The Big Issues – Green Belt’ simply stated:“This purpose is generally accepted as relating to very few settlements in practice. In most towns there already are more recent developments between the historic core, and the countryside between the edge of the town.”
