{"id":46067,"date":"2026-03-20T16:12:00","date_gmt":"2026-03-20T16:12:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/?p=46067"},"modified":"2026-03-20T16:10:34","modified_gmt":"2026-03-20T16:10:34","slug":"ihbc-responds-to-consultation-on-englands-national-planning-policy-framework","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/?p=46067","title":{"rendered":"IHBC responds to consultation on England\u2019s National Planning Policy Framework"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

The IHBC has submitted its response to the consultation on England\u2019s \u2018National Planning Policy Framework: proposed reforms and other changes to the planning system.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

Roy Lewis, IHBC Policy Secretary said: \u2018The consultation draft of the NPPF is significantly different to recent iterations.  Some of the changes, such as distinct policies for plan-making and decision-making, the replacement of the \u2018tilted balance\u2019 with more nuanced policies, and the re-introduction of the purposes of the planning system are welcome,\u2019 said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2018However, we are extremely concerned about some of the proposed changes in terminology.  The deletion of \u2018great weight\u2019 from conservation policy and its replacement with \u2018substantial weight\u2019 together with the introduction of \u2018substantial weight\u2019 for a raft of public benefits would seem to nullify the \u2018special regard\u2019 required by statutory duties in relation to listed buildings and conservation areas.  Whilst the abandonment of the unhelpful term \u2018less than substantial harm\u2019 is welcome, the unnecessary difficulty of distinguishing \u2018substantial harm\u2019 from \u2018harm\u2019 remains.\u2019<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2018Finally, we are disappointed that the policies remain predicated on avoiding harm and on controlling development in high growth areas and do not put greater emphasis on the enhancement of historic places or the encouragement of appropriate development where local economies are stagnant.\u2019<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2018Responding to the consultation IHBC also makes the observation on the several policies to increase housing density (densification) that \u2018Local character and distinctiveness is very important and densification can be at odds with the traditional character and distinctive grain of historic areas.  The reuse of existing buildings can help increase density but other forms of development can damage historic character and loose urban green space.  Increased density can overwhelm infrastructure, education and social services.  High-quality design and expert advice is necessary with schemes to increase density to ensure new developments are compatible with the historic environment.\u2019<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2018The IHBC points out that many of the policies in the NPPF require investment in local authority resources if they are to be successfully achieved.  It is important to ensure there are enough Local Authority staff with appropriate training and skills both to deal with the heritage proposals as well as with the other decision making and plan making requirements.\u2019<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Consultations Panel<\/p>\n\n\n\n

 The IHBC constantly monitors Government Departments and other national and regional organisations for relevant proposed changes to legislation, policy and guidance. The Consultations Panel formulates responses to these documents on behalf of the IHBC.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

See the IHBC Response HERE<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

For current relevant consultations that the IHBC is aware of and for past consultation responses.<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

NB: The IHBC may not necessarily comment on all these consultations, but we are glad to hear opinions on them from both members and non-members.<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The IHBC has submitted its response to the consultation on England\u2019s \u2018National Planning Policy Framework: proposed reforms and other changes to the planning system.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":6,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[18,92,703,16],"class_list":["post-46067","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-ihbc-newsblog","tag-conservation","tag-consultation","tag-nppf","tag-planning"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/46067","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\/6"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=46067"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/46067\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":46068,"href":"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/46067\/revisions\/46068"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=46067"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=46067"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=46067"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}