Heritage – A National Planning Policy Framework

Professional Associations

cropped-SAHANZ-logo-horiz-web-1
oeh-logo-black-png-no-bounding
download
logocor-e1407796393448
Australian-Institute-of-Architects_mono_pos-logo

In March 2012, the Department for Communities and Local Government (UK) produced a heritage policy framework for local councils to use when assessing heritage projects similar to our local DA submission in NSW, Australia. The policy framework is an excellent example of what could be adopted by local government in NSW as a balanced assessment process for all DAs involving cultural built heritage.pic 1

The guidelines are set out as follows;

  1. Local planning authorities should set out in their Local Plan a positive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment, including heritage assets most at risk through neglect, decay or other threats. In doing so, they should recognise that heritage assets are an irreplaceable resource and conserve them in a manner appropriate to their significance. In developing this strategy, local planning authorities should take into account:
  • the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation;
  • the wider social, cultural, economic and environmental benefits that conservation of the historic environment can bring;
  • the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness; and
  • opportunities to draw on the contribution made by the historic environment to the character of a place.
  1. When considering the designation of conservation areas, local planning authorities should ensure that an area justifies such status because of its special architectural or historic interest, and that the concept of conservation is not devalued through the designation of areas that lack special interest.
  1. In determining applications, local planning authorities should require an applicant to describe the significance of any heritage assets affected, including any contribution made by their setting. The level of detail should be proportionate to the assets’ importance and no more than is sufficient to understand the potential impact of the proposal on their significance. As a minimum, the relevant historic environment record should have been consulted and the heritage assets assessed using appropriate expertise where necessary. Where a site on which development is proposed includes or has the potential to include heritage assets with archaeological interest, local planning authorities should require developers to submit an appropriate desk-based assessment and, where necessary, a field evaluation.
  1. Local planning authorities should identify and assess the particular significance of any heritage asset that may be affected by a proposal (including by development affecting the setting of a heritage asset) taking account of the available evidence and any necessary expertise. They should take this assessment into account when considering the impact of a proposal on a heritage asset, to avoid or minimise conflict between the heritage asset’s conservation and any aspect of the proposal.
  1. Where there is evidence of deliberate neglect of or damage to a heritage asset the deteriorated state of the heritage asset should not be taken into account in any decision.

The principles and policies set out in this section apply to the heritage-related consent regimes for which local planning authorities are responsible under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, as well as to plan-making and decision-taking.

  1. In determining planning applications, local planning authorities should take account of:
  • the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation;
  • the positive contribution that conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable communities including their economic vitality; and
  • the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness.
  1. When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting. As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification. Substantial harm to or loss of a listed building, park or garden should be exceptional. Substantial harm to or loss of designated heritage assets of the highest significance, notably scheduled monuments, protected wreck sites, battlefields, parks and gardens, and World Heritage Sites, should be wholly exceptional.
  1. Where a proposed development will lead to substantial harm to or total loss of significance of a designated heritage asset, local planning authorities should refuse consent, unless it can be demonstrated that the substantial harm or loss is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss, or all of the following apply:
  • the nature of the heritage asset prevents all reasonable uses of the site;
  • no viable use of the heritage asset itself can be found in the medium term through appropriate marketing that will enable its conservation; and
  • conservation by grant-funding or some form of charitable or public ownership is demonstrably not possible; and
  • the harm or loss is outweighed by the benefit of bringing the site back into use.
  1. Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use.
  2. The effect of an application on the significance of a non-designated heritage asset should be taken into account in determining the application. In weighing applications that affect directly or indirectly non-designated heritage assets, a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset.
  3. Local planning authorities should not permit loss of the whole or part of a heritage asset without taking all reasonable steps to ensure the new development will proceed after the loss has occurred.
  4. Local planning authorities should look for opportunities for new development within Conservation Areas and World Heritage Sites and within the setting of heritage assets to enhance or better reveal their significance. Proposals that preserve those elements of the setting that make a positive contribution to or better reveal the significance of the asset should be treated favourably.
  5. Not all elements of a World Heritage Site or Conservation Area will necessarily contribute to its significance. Loss of a building (or other element) which makes a positive contribution to the significance of the Conservation Area or World Heritage Site should be treated either as substantial harm under paragraph 133 or less than substantial harm under paragraph 134, as appropriate, taking into account the relative significance of the element affected and its contribution to the significance of the Conservation Area or World Heritage Site as a whole.
  1. Non-designated heritage assets of archaeological interest that are demonstrably of equivalent significance to scheduled monuments, should be considered subject to the policies for designated heritage assets.
  1. Local planning authorities should assess whether the benefits of a proposal for enabling development, which would otherwise conflict with planning policies but which would secure the future conservation of a heritage asset, outweigh the disbenefits of departing from those policies.
  1. Local planning authorities should make information about the significance of the historic environment gathered as part of plan-making or development management publicly accessible. They should also require developers to record and advance understanding of the significance of any heritage assets to be lost (wholly or in part) in a manner proportionate to their importance and the impact, and to make this evidence (and any archive generated) publicly accessible.30 However, the ability to record evidence of our past should not be a factor in deciding whether such loss should be permitted.

As can be seen from the above policies, the National Planning Policy Framework insofar as heritage (Chapter 12) is concerned, always puts the importance of the heritage asset in front of any other concern. It reminds us that heritage buildings and structures are irreplaceable and therefore require extreme caution but not so cautious as to inhibit design excellence

Paul Rappoport – Heritage 21
20 April 2017

Reference: National Planning Policy Framework, Department for Communities and Local Government (UK) – March 2012.

Related Articles

article-1
The theory of cultural built heritage

How do we define cultural built heritage? What is culture and what is heritage? Where does the idea of conservation…

Read more
article-1
Character Enshrined as Heritage Overlays in LEPs

Christine Covington of Corrs, Chambers, Westgarth Lawyers writes (7 March 2018) about proposed new changes to the EP&A Act in…

Read more
article-1
New Approaches to Heritage Planning

Heritage can basically be anything and exist anywhere. It can also be personal and collective as well as local and…

Read more
article-1
Do you have what it takes to be a Heritage Consultant?

According to the 1993 ICOMOS Education & Training Guidelines - Article 5; conservation works should only be entrusted to persons…

Read more
Need help getting started?

Check out our guides.

article-1
Heritage – are we losing the battle?

Since the robust days of the 1970s and the 1980s during which NSW governments and councils committed wholeheartedly and enthusiastically…

Read more
article-1
Five things you need to know about cultural built heritage

Having worked in the heritage space for the better part of thirty years, I have come to rely upon five…

Read more
article-1
Incentivising Ownership of Heritage Buildings

In response to the recent enquiry by the government relating to the NSW Heritage Act, I made the following recommendation.…

Read more

526dad159320ae83e6a08364079da7b7a1b6ece0

Complete the form below to contact us today.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
By signing in you agree with the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy