{"id":23594,"date":"2019-08-13T16:14:37","date_gmt":"2019-08-13T15:14:37","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/ihbconline.co.uk\/newsachive\/?p=23594"},"modified":"2019-08-12T18:11:04","modified_gmt":"2019-08-12T17:11:04","slug":"ihbc-welcomes-hes-update-on-post-nppf-revision-heritage-guidance-and-adds-some-further-thoughts","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/?p=23594","title":{"rendered":"IHBC welcomes HE\u2019s update on post-NPPF revision heritage guidance \u2013 and adds some further thoughts\u2026"},"content":{"rendered":"<h3><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"alignright size-medium wp-image-19700\" src=\"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/07\/NPPF_Revised_270718-209x300.png\" alt=\"publication cover\" width=\"209\" height=\"300\" \/>The IHBC has warmly welcomed the new <a href=\"https:\/\/historicengland.org.uk\/content\/docs\/planning\/ppg-historic-environment-he-briefing\/\">Historic England (HE) briefing on the government\u2019s post-NPPF revision guidance<\/a> on built and historic environment and conservation planning, while adding some further points also worthy of note.<\/h3>\n<p><!--more--><\/p>\n<p>IHBC Policy Chair Roy Lewis said: \u2018As noted previously, it is helpful that the terminology in the government\u2019s revised guidance reflects the words used in the statute and in the NPPF, and this is captured in Historic England\u2019s useful briefing.\u2019<\/p>\n<p>\u2018There are also some other points that may be of particular note, for example in future redrafts:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>The section headed \u2018What is meant by the conservation and enhancement of the historic environment?\u2019 doesn\u2019t actually provide any guidance as to what is meant by \u2018enhancement\u2019. There is however a reference to recording, which doesn\u2019t seem entirely relevant in this section.<\/li>\n<li>The new section headed \u2018When is securing a heritage asset\u2019s optimum viable use appropriate in planning terms?\u2019 states:<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><em>\u2018Area-based\u2019 designated heritage assets such as World Heritage Sites and conservation areas will not themselves have a single use &#8230; Therefore, securing the optimum viable use of the area-based asset as a whole is not a relevant consideration in assessing the public benefits of development proposals affecting such heritage assets\u2019.<\/em><\/p>\n<p>However, the section makes no reference to registered parks and gardens, which are capable of a single use and are capable of having an optimum viable use.\u00a0 This is an unfortunate omission which will probably lead to further confusion and disagreement.<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Under the heading \u2018How can the possibility of harm to conservation areas be assessed?\u2019, consideration has to be given to the relative significance of any part of a conservation area affected by a proposed change to the contribution of that part to the significance of the conservation area as a whole. This works against large urban conservation areas, such as those that embrace whole historic towns and works in favour of small ones.\u00a0 The guidance implies that LPAs with extensive CAs should consider re-designating them as multiple CAs made up like a jigsaw puzzle.\u00a0 The impact of any harmful development proposal on the smaller designated segment would then be likely to be far higher in relation to the designated area as a whole.\u00a0 Such disaggregation would of course be ridiculous.\u00a0 The sensible approach would be to have a policy that actually works in relation to conservation areas, whether large or small (as recommended by <a href=\"https:\/\/www.ihbc.org.uk\/consultations\/docs\/PDF\/NPPFconsultation.pdf\">IHBC in its consultation response on the revised NPPF<\/a>).<br \/>\n<hr \/>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>HE writes:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>The Government published an updated <em>Historic Environment <\/em>section of the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) on 23 July to reflect the changes made to the <em>National Planning Policy Framework <\/em>(NPPF) since the 2012 edition.<\/li>\n<li>A large number of other sections of the PPG have also been updated, but this briefing focuses on the main changes made in the Historic Environment section (previously <em>Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment<\/em>), structured by PPG section\u2026.<\/li>\n<li>The majority of the PPG text is unchanged.<\/li>\n<li>The more significant changes include:\n<ul>\n<li>Clarity regarding the definition of heritage assets (they are now clearly classified as either designated or non-designated, which provides greater certainty as to the NPPF policy to be applied), and how they are identified (the ways in which non-designated heritage assets can be identified now specifically include neighbourhood plans and neighbourhood planning bodies).<\/li>\n<li>Greater discussion of the nature of harm, including clarity regarding total loss, how harm should be articulated, and more information on assessing potential harm to conservation areas.<\/li>\n<li>Additional text on the assessment by applicants of significance and the impact of proposals on that significance.<\/li>\n<li>Reinstatement of the definitions of the \u2018four interests\u2019 (originally set out in <em>Planning Policy Statement 5 <\/em>(2010).<\/li>\n<li>Clarification of the \u2018where appropriate\u2019 provision in the NPPF, in relation to optimum viable use.<\/li>\n<li>Clarity regarding the status of World Heritage Site buffer zones as part of setting, and the related consultation requirements.<\/li>\n<li>Wherever there is discussion of particular types of designated heritage asset, the coverage has been extended to cover all such asset types.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li>There has also been some reordering, there are fewer uses of \u2018should\u2019, and references are now generally made throughout to the \u2018development plan\u2019 rather than \u2018local plans\u2019, and to \u2018plans\u2019 or \u2018plan-making bodies\u2019 rather than \u2018local authorities\u2019&#8230;<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>See <a href=\"https:\/\/historicengland.org.uk\/content\/docs\/planning\/ppg-historic-environment-he-briefing\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">HE\u2019s briefing<\/a><\/p>\n<p>Read the full <a href=\"https:\/\/www.gov.uk\/guidance\/conserving-and-enhancing-the-historic-environment\">government guidance<\/a><\/p>\n<p>See the previous version of the <a href=\"https:\/\/webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk\/20190607161354\/https:\/www.gov.uk\/guidance\/conserving-and-enhancing-the-historic-environment\">guidance<\/a><\/p>\n<p>For more on the NPPF revision see the IHBC\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/?p=19699\">NewsBlogs<\/a><\/p>\n<p>See the IHBC\u2019s joint <a href=\"https:\/\/ihbconline.co.uk\/toolbox\/docs\/Conservation%20Professional%20Practice%20Principles_A5%20FINAL%20May%202017.pdf\"><em>Conservation Professional<\/em>\u00a0<em>Practice Principles<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n<p>See more background to the IHBC\u2019s joint <a href=\"https:\/\/ihbconline.co.uk\/toolbox\/docs\/Conservation%20Professional%20Practice%20Principles_A5%20FINAL%20May%202017.pdf\"><em>Conservation ProfessionalPractice Principles<\/em><\/a> on the <a href=\"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/?p=19699\">IHBC NewsBlogs<\/a><\/p>\n<p>To see the practitioners\u2019 context to the <a href=\"https:\/\/ihbconline.co.uk\/toolbox\/docs\/Conservation%20Professional%20Practice%20Principles_A5%20FINAL%20May%202017.pdf\"><em>Conservation Professional<\/em>\u00a0<em>Practice Principles<\/em><\/a> follow the links to our \u2018<em>Recognised standards and guidelines<\/em>\u2019 on the\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/ihbconline.co.uk\/toolbox\/standards.html\">IHBC\u2019s Toolbox<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The IHBC has warmly welcomed the new Historic England (HE) briefing on the government\u2019s post-NPPF revision guidance on built and historic environment and conservation planning, while adding some further points also worthy of note.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-23594","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-ihbc-newsblog"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23594","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=23594"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23594\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":23595,"href":"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23594\/revisions\/23595"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=23594"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=23594"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=23594"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}