Following the publication of the new National Planning Policy Framework, Jon Millhouse, Director and Heritage Lead at Planning & Design Practice, shares his initial thoughts on what the revised heritage policies could mean for development affecting historic buildings and places.
While much of the heritage section will feel familiar, the updated framework appears to bring greater clarity to areas that have often been difficult to navigate in practice. In particular, it helps to address some of the ambiguity around assessing harm and weighing that harm against wider public benefits.
One of the most notable points is the more explicit recognition that public benefits can include the long-term reuse of vacant or underused listed buildings, as well as measures that improve energy efficiency and support low-carbon heating. For many projects, that could be an important shift in how heritage impact is considered alongside sustainability, viability and the practical future of older buildings.
As Jon explains, the key issue is not whether heritage protection remains important — it clearly does — but whether the planning balance now gives decision-makers a clearer route to support sensitive, constructive change where genuine public benefits are delivered.
“The changes may not amount to a wholesale rewrite, but they do provide useful clarification. Where proposals affect a heritage asset, the impact on significance still needs to be carefully assessed. However, greater weight can now be given to the public benefits of a scheme, including bringing buildings back into long-term use and enabling energy efficiency or low-carbon improvements.”
The separation of designated and non-designated heritage assets is also helpful. Too often, older buildings can be treated as though they carry the same policy weight as listed buildings, even where they are clearly capable of sensitive adaptation. A clearer distinction should support a more proportionate approach — one that recognises significance, but also allows buildings to evolve and remain useful.
For owners, developers and consultants, the message is clear: robust heritage assessment remains essential, but there may now be more room to demonstrate how well-designed proposals can conserve significance while also delivering wider public benefits. In practice, that could make the difference between heritage being seen as a barrier to change and heritage being part of a positive, sustainable future.