Planning matters blog | Lichfields

Planning matters

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

Levelling Up and Regeneration Act 2023: A Heritage Perspective
The Levelling Up and Regeneration Act 2023 (LURA) introduced a number of proposed changes to legislation that are relevant to the historic environment in England. Below we take a brief look at the proposals and what they may mean in practice. As we will see, the proposed changes are mainly to tidy up and rationalise heritage protection in England, particularly to ensure consistency with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and between different types of designated heritage assets, as well as following the Historic Environment (Wales) Act 2016. Except for one or two proposed changes, it will be business as usual for most people involved in the planning system and the historic environment day-to-day.
The main thing to bear in mind is that these changes may never come into force. If they do, the date/s for the amendments to the primary legislation (e.g. the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Act) 1990 (PLBCA)) have not yet been set. They will be brought into force by commencement regulations, and the amount of notice we will have beforehand is not known. So, for now, the below remain potential changes to heritage planning legislation in England. The following is intended as a summary of the key provisions and in reference to the planning system in England, so please refer to the LURA and primary legislation for all the proposals and the specific wording and keep your eyes peeled for their formal adoption into law.
 
Expanding the statutory duty to include other designated heritage assets
This is probably the key proposed change in terms of day-to-day planning applications. A proposed new s. 58B in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 sets out that in considering whether to grant planning permission, or permission in principle, that affects a “relevant asset” or its setting, a Local Planning Authority (LPA), or the Secretary of State, must have special regard to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the asset or its setting.
The relevant assets identified are Scheduled Monuments, Registered Parks and Gardens, Protected Wreck Sites and World Heritage Sites.
This would introduce a statutory duty to preserve or enhance these assets. Currently, they are covered by national and sometimes local planning policy, and the statutory duty only relates to listed buildings and conservation areas under the PLBCA. The NPPF already requires great weight to be given to the conservation of designated heritage assets in planning decisions, which all these assets are identified as in the NPPF. Whilst this proposed change will give greater weight and importance to these assets in planning decisions, the principle is already established and so they remain an important consideration for projects which may affect them. Registered Battlefields (also designated heritage assets) are not included in the proposed amendments.
 
Compensation for loss or damage caused by service of a building preservation notice
This is likely to have the most impact as it is a significant change. Building preservation notices (BPN) are served by LPAs (as well as Historic England in London) and mean a building will be assessed for listing by Historic England and treated as though it is listed for six months (or until a decision is made on its listing if sooner).
It is proposed to amend s.29 of the PLBCA to only relate to buildings in Wales. This would mean that those with an interest in a building which has a BPN served on it in England, would no longer be entitled to claim compensation from the LPA.
In addition, proposed amendments to s. 3 in the PLBCA include that an LPA must consult with Historic England before serving a building preservation notice, except where Historic England proposes to serve a BPN under this section.
If this is enacted it is likely to have the effect that more LPAs will apply for these notices, as the risk of compensation claims would be removed. The potential for the listing of buildings on a site should therefore be considered from the outset of a project as well as factoring in the potential of a BPN being issued.
Temporary stop notices for listed buildings in England
Proposed new sections 44AA, 44AB and 44AC of the PLBCA would provide for temporary stop notices in England where works are undertaken to a listed building without listed building consent and which would affect its special interest, or where the works are not in compliance with a condition of a listed building consent.
This would bring England in line with Wales where temporary stop notices are already provided for in legislation. Although unlikely to be a common occurrence, the introduction of these measures would be meaningful as they would give LPAs power to immediately stop works to a listed building whereas currently they have to apply to the High Court or a county court for an injunction or issue a listed building enforcement notice, with the latter more focused on addressing the unauthorised works that have taken place.
Temporary stop notices can be in force for up to 56 days. The LPA will not be able to issue another temporary stop notice for the same works unless they have taken other enforcement action since issuing the previous notice.
The new sections relate to the practical details of the notices, sets out that it is an offence to contravene a temporary stop notice and what the defence is against this, as well as compensation measures.
A number of sections of the PLBCA are proposed to be amended to make reference to the proposed new sections 44AA-AC.
 
Statutory duty extended to preserving or enhancing listed buildings
Sections 16 and 66 of the PLBCA are bread and butter when it comes to development affecting listed buildings. Therefore, the following amendments are of note but in practice are unlikely to have a significant effect.
Section 16 relates to decisions on listed building consent applications. Section 16(2) currently states (my emphasis) “In considering whether to grant listed building consent for any works the local planning authority or the Secretary of State shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.”
The proposed amendment states that in England, the reference to “preserving” is to be read as “preserving or enhancing”.
Section 66(1) relates to decisions on applications for planning permission for development that affects a listed building or its setting and also requires “…local planning authority or, as the case may be, the Secretary of State shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.” The proposed amendment is the same for s.16 in that reference to “preserving” is to be read as “preserving or enhancing”.
This would make the wording consistent with that of s. 72(1) of the Act which relates to the character or appearance of conservation areas, as well as the NPPF which includes both conserving and enhancing heritage assets. In practice, this amendment acknowledges that there can be enhancement, but it does not require it, so preserving a listed building’s special interest would still be sufficient.
 
Urgent works to preserve listed buildings
S.54 of the PLBCA is proposed to be amended so that urgent works can be undertaken to all parts of a listed building, even if in use.
Our in-house Heritage and Townscape Team can provide advice on the above as well as the full range of heritage planning support you may need. Even if the above proposed amendments are not enacted, it is still important, for example, to consider the potential listing of buildings on a development site. We have the experience and expertise to advise project teams on matters such as this to reduce risk to project programmes.
 

CONTINUE READING

Consultation on Historic England’s updated tall buildings advice
Tall buildings have become an increasingly common and sometimes contentious feature of the planning system. They can successfully fulfil a number of roles such as contributing to housing provision, improving townscape and acting as landmarks. Their contentiousness can arise from their effect on heritage assets and this is a common consideration in planning applications. Since Historic England’s advice on tall buildings was last updated more than four years ago in 2015, it is not surprising that the opportunity is being taken to review this as there have been changes to policy and the nature, location and number of applications for tall buildings.
As noted in the draft advice, tall buildings are not a new feature and the definition of tall is relative; St Paul’s Cathedral was the tallest building in London for hundreds of years and the Eiffel Tower and Empire State Building were both at one time the tallest buildings in the world. St Paul’s Cathedral is now a key consideration of views management guidance and protection in London and so tall buildings, old and new, form part of our historic and built environment legacy. This is reflected in the statutory protection of key tall buildings through listing; examples include the Grade II* listed Trellick Tower and Grade II listed BT Tower in London and Grade II listed Rotunda in Birmingham.
Historic England’s website states the updated advice will be issued in the summer and so it will shortly become a material consideration in many applications for tall buildings and Historic England (HE) officers will inevitably use it as a guide when giving pre-application advice or responding to planning applications and local plan submissions as part of HE’s role. The consultation therefore gives an insight to HE’s approach in assessing tall building proposals and policies, subject to finalisation, and the advice will guide heritage professionals and decision makers throughout England.
The following are some key points to be aware of in the draft updated advice and our commentary on where it could go further.

1. Case studies of historic cities

Probably one of the most noticeable developments in tall building proposals in recent years is that they are no longer the preserve of London.
Rightly so, the draft advice recognises this and makes reference to examples outside of the capital. However, the key case studies in addition to London are Oxford, Cambridge and York. Although these are key historic cities, they are not representative of the variety of historic areas and buildings across the country. Practical case studies of successful examples of tall buildings would have been helpful.

2. Expansion of the scope of what constitutes a tall building?

The reinforced assertion in the draft advice that whether or not a building is considered tall and the threshold for this depends on the local context, is welcome and allows for clarification and definition in local plans and policies.
However, the same section of the consultation refers to “a building in a hill-top location, or on the crest of a ridge of higher ground, may gain prominence and an appearance of height.” This suggests the advice relates not only to tall buildings but those in high or prominent locations. This particular advice note does not seem the appropriate place for such buildings; Historic England already has guidance on the effects of development on the setting of heritage assets and such buildings would be appropriately considered through the methodology this promotes. There are unique considerations and effects that tall buildings bring, that those in prominent or high locations do not; the two should be distinguished.

3. Increased emphasis on the importance of design, context and of a plan-led approach

This reflects the increased focus on these areas in national guidance. A plan-led approach and definition of tall building zones, which consider the effects on heritage assets, provide greater clarity to decision-makers, developers and residents and can help ensure sensitive development in the historic environment. However, as these issues, such as the components of good design, are dealt with at length in other guidance, they could be cross-referred in the advice rather than considered in detail.
HE’s recommendation that there should be criteria to assess speculative proposals in places where tall building development is likely, but there is a lack of allocations or areas identified for tall buildings, seems pragmatic.

4. The role of technology

The draft advice refers to the increasing range of technical tools that can assist all stakeholders in assessing tall building proposals, such as 3D models. Until fairly recently this type of analysis was mainly requested by councils in central London but now is an increasingly common request elsewhere.
Advice on when such tools are likely to be required would be helpful, to be proportionate to the scheme and potential effects. The draft currently makes a blanket suggestion for the use of 3D models, virtual reality headsets and Accurate Visual Representations, but these will not be necessary in all tall building cases; a ‘tall’ building in some contexts will be relatively low and can be understood from application drawings, photographs and technical analysis. This could be better framed in the guidance as ‘where available/ appropriate’.
Which leads on to…

5. A missed opportunity to emphasise proportionality in assessment and approach

The consultation makes reference to proportionality but this could be emphasised further. HE’s advice on assessing effects on the setting of heritage assets has a helpful reference to the importance of scoping to minimise the need to assess very large numbers of heritage assets, including for tall building proposals; reinforcement of this approach would be particularly helpful in this advice note.
Tall building assessments clearly have the potential to cover a wide area and repetitive and unnecessary assessment is not in anyone’s interest. A well-considered scoping exercise with the local authority can ensure that assessments are targeted and focused on where the important effects are likely to take place, aiding informed decision-making.  This also relates to the level and amount of supporting information which is required to accompany applications, particularly when the number of technical tools is increasing.

Summary

Overall, the draft advice should be seen as an evolution of Historic England’s position. There are still opportunities for the advice note to provide more specific and practical advice, particularly in the section on assessing proposals, to ensure the sector has a proportionate and comparable approach. The space dedicated to checklists for applications and design considerations, which are covered in numerous other places such as policy and validation requirements, would be better spent on targeted historic environment advice that can be used as a practical guide by all those involved in the design and assessment of tall buildings.
The increased focus on the role of development plans in relation to tall buildings – notably with regard to a strong evidence base - indicates that Historic England recognises that tall buildings are here to stay, and that the response needs to be led at a local level to ensure tall buildings can make a positive contribution to the built and historic environment. The combination of a plan-led approach, focus on design and proportionate and informed assessment supported by the most recent technology where necessary, should result in just this.

CONTINUE READING