2 Chester Street, London SW1X 7BB
Tel: 020 7259 5688 Fax: 020 7259 5590
E-mail: info@hha.org.uk
Response to the Draft National Planning Policy Framework
1.
The Historic Houses Association represents Britain’s historic houses, castles and gardens in
private ownership. There are 1,500 HHA properties throughout the UK of which about a third are
open to the public. The HHA estimates that approximately two-thirds of the built heritage is privately
owned and maintained. Between them HHA members represent, collectively, one of the greatest
‘ownerships’ of listed buildings in Britain: both I and II* properties as well as of Grade II properties,
many being ancillary buildings. The HHA welcomes 13 million visitors each year and one in five of all
HHA properties offers educational visits - there are more than 300,000 such visits annually.
2.
The beneficial effect that public visiting to these places has on the wider economy is estimated at
an additional £1.6 billion, from inbound tourists alone. Over 30,000 people are directly employed by
HHA members or are employed in businesses in their grounds.
3.
The costs of maintaining Britain’s private houses, castles and gardens are significant and
expenditure by private owners in looking after England’s historic environment is substantial. HHA
owners spend £140 million per year (HHA Survey, 2009), but the backlog of urgent repairs at HHA
member houses totals over £390 million, an increase of £130 million on the figure six years earlier.
Only a small fraction of the costs of major repairs to privately owned historic houses is funded by public
grant. Therefore, ensuring the economic viability of historic houses is of great importance.
Summary of Key Issues






The NPPF lacks key areas of detail on the historic environment and the special needs of the
historic environment need to be explicitly articulated
As a consequence of the NPPF’s brevity there is a greater need than normal for clear definitions
and a lack of ambiguity in the wording
Historic buildings should be regarded in planning terms as a key national as well as local asset,
which require consideration in a national context; the brevity of the historic environment
section is not beneficial as a consequence
Sustainable development is not adequately defined. A clear definition is needed which achieves a
balance between economic, environmental, social and cultural importance
This definition should explicitly enable the constructive conservation of historic buildings by
ensuring they can be used in ways which underpin their economic viability
Equally, the settings of listed buildings should be specifically protected against low quality or
intrusive development which would adversely affect their cultural, historic or economic value



Core historic environment planning principles on proportionality included in PPS 5 should be
retained
The impact of the Localism Bill on implementation of the NPPF does not appear to be properly
taken into account, particularly in respect of the effect of Neighbourhood Development Orders
Greater emphasis should be given to the national importance of the historic environment and
there should be a presumption in favour of its conservation and a recognition that its
conservation brings economic benefits itself
Background
4.
Britain’s historic houses are an important resource, benefiting the entire nation. 80% of
international visitors say that their principal reason for visiting Britain is connected to heritage and
culture. Historic houses provide character, distinctiveness and a sense of place and help create pride in
where people live. 87% of British people think that the historic environment plays an important part in
the cultural life of the country.
6.
In its responses to the consultation on Planning Policy Statement 5 on the historic environment
last year, the HHA made clear its preference for a fast, effective, transparent planning system which is
responsive to the needs of local communities, whilst recognising the national importance of heritage.
Guidance to planning authorities and local communities
7.
The NPPF does not provide adequate definition of key terms contained within it. The idea of
sustainable development, for example, is central to the Framework document. However, there is no
definition of it within the glossary or within the main body of the text. The tests for loss are vague,
because there is no attempt to define terms such as ‘substantial harm’, ‘viable’ or ‘medium term’ in the
glossary, or to suggest the scope for local authorities in defining these.
8.
The NPPF is intended to be concise, but there is a significant danger that the quest for brevity
will result in the omission of key guidance for local planning authorities, the Planning Inspectorate and
others. As a consequence, the Historic Environment section is extremely short and the Framework is
vague on subjects such as Conservations Areas. Paragraph 187 states that a ‘positive contribution’ to a
Conservation Area is a test in relation to loss, without ever attempting to define what might constitute
a ‘positive contribution’. The problem is that such phrases are open to wide interpretation without the
provision of adequate benchmarks.
9.
Given this, the Practice Guide, drawn up by English Heritage, will be of particular importance,
because it will offer more detailed guidance to local authorities and the Planning Inspectorate on the
historic environment, where the NPPF is too broad or too vague. The Practice Guide must, therefore,
be given a prominence, status and authority appropriate to its importance.
The presumption in favour of sustainable development
10.
If there is to be a presumption in favour of sustainable development then there should be a very
clear definition of what this means. A broadly acceptable definition of sustainable development should
be formally adopted in the text. At the very least, the Bruntland definition of sustainable development,
that is, development in the present that does not compromise the future, should be included in the
glossary.
11.
The HHA suggests the following definition: ‘sustainable development is development which,
when completed, can be seen to have been compatible with the natural and historic environment in
which it is situated; with the people who use it or benefit from it; and which contributes not only to the
local economy but also to the costs of its future maintenance’.
12.
Not only is there no clear definition in the NPPF of sustainable development which recognises
environmental limits, but there is no benchmark for determining when a development is unsustainable.
This lack of definition is liable to lead to inconsistent implementation, uncertainty and litigation.
13.
The issue of sustainable development is of particular importance to the historic environment,
because historic buildings frequently depend upon their capacity to evolve and adapt in order to ensure
their economic viability and thus their conservation. The conservation and management of the nation’s
historic environment is extremely expensive and it is imperative that historic buildings are allowed to
develop in a sustainable way, because of the costs involved in their upkeep.
14.
However, other forms of development which might be considered sustainable may adversely
affect the settings of historic buildings and threaten their cultural, historic or economic value. The HHA
shares the serious concern that the strong bias in favour of granting permission may, on occasion, result
in decisions being made without adequate consideration being given to the historic environment.
15.
It is important that small-scale and well designed development is encouraged in rural areas and
that this should be undertaken in a strategic way to avoid damaging, piecemeal development.
The Historic Environment
16.
Historic houses are of unique importance to the national life and the economic health of the
UK and as such they need special protection. The National Planning Policy Framework should
provide explicit protection for such an important national asset.
17.
While paragraph 183 goes some way towards this, there is too little within the Framework as a
whole which states a clear presumption in favour of conservation. It is essential that the language is
more robust in paragraphs 184, 185 and 190, for example, to support such a presumption and to
minimise the number of appeals. The text is likely to be subject to wide legal dispute, leading to future
decisions being shaped by case law at best, and at worst highly unpredictable.
18.
While much of the presumption in favour of sustainable growth appears to be predicated on the
need for regeneration and economic growth, there is no mention in the NPPF of the unique
contribution that the historic environment can and does make to economic regeneration. The historic
environment is at the heart of British tourism which is the fifth largest industry in the UK, providing 2
million jobs. Many historic houses are the key players in their local economies, particularly in rural areas
where employment opportunities are limited. Indeed the beneficial effect that public visiting to historic
places, from inbound tourists alone, has on the wider economy is estimated at £1.6 billion, a factor
which the text of the NPPF should take into account.
19.
It has been explicitly acknowledged in past planning policy guidance, including PPG
15 and 16 and PPS 5, that the best way to conserve a historic building is to help ensure an
economically viable use for it. At present, the section on the historic environment does
not articulate this idea adequately. The preservation of Britain’s historic environment is
more than a local issue; it of great national significance, so it is important that sensitive,
sympathetic development which helps secure our built heritage is specifically enabled by
the NPPF.
20.
Of equal importance are the settings of our historic houses, which would lack the
magnetic appeal that they have for domestic and foreign visitors if the environment within
which each is set should be damaged by low-quality development. There should therefore,
be a clear presumption in the NPPF against development which adversely affects the
setting of a listed building and it must be explicit in the Framework that key elements such
as housing targets (paragraph 108) must not be used to adversely affect the historic
environment.
Core planning principles
21.
The key core planning principles which protect the historic environment were stated in both
PPG 15 and 16 and in PPS 5.
22.
While there are core planning principles which are appropriately expressed within the NPPF,
they are not always fully articulated. Within the historic environment section, for example, the core
principle of significance is referred to on a number of occasions, but without fully emphasising its central
importance. Once again, this may be remedied by giving appropriate status to the Practice Guide, which
provides clearer guidance on the principle of significance. However, the section of the NPPF which
deals with the historic environment is insufficient in relation to other related principles.
23.
Paragraph 183 correctly suggests that ‘the more important the asset, the greater the weight
[attached to its conservation] should be’. However, it is important that there should be a clear
statement that the level of evidence required in support of an application should be
proportionate to the significance of the property concerned, such as that in PPS 5: ‘the
level of detail should be proportionate to the importance of the heritage asset and no
more than is sufficient to understand the potential impact of the proposal on the
significance of the heritage asset’.
24.
It is also regrettable that the presumption in favour of conservation is not unambiguously
articulated, although paragraph 183 does state that ‘when considering the impact of a proposed
development on a designated heritage asset, considerable importance and weight should
be given to its conservation’. This phrase should be expanded and repeated to help ensure
a clear presumption in favour of conservation.
25.
Another core principle in respect of the historic environment, which is articulated
within PPS 5, is that ‘wherever possible historic assets are put to an appropriate and viable
use’. Once again, this needs to be stated explicitly in the historic environment section of
the NPPF.
An integrated approach to planning-related policy
26.
Given the timing of the NPPF and the simultaneous passage of the Localism Bill, there is concern
about the magnitude of change to the planning system and as a consequence, the capacity of local
authorities to manage every aspect of it adequately.
27.
Indeed, paragraph 14 of the Framework might be interpreted to the effect that the presumption
in favour of sustainable development supersedes various elements of the Localism Bill, such as
Neighbourhood Plans. Equally, the NPPF does not make it clear whether Neighbourhood Development
Orders would override a local authority’s right to remove an Article 4 Direction in, for example,
Conservation Areas. As a consequence, the potential for uncertainty and inconsistent decision-making
at local level, particularly in the period after the introduction of the Framework, is considerable.
28.
At the very least, the NPPF should not come into force until adequate transitional arrangements
have been made and these should provide special protection for key national assets such as the historic
environment.
29.
The NPPF should be part of an integrated approach to the management of change in the historic
environment. The HHA agrees with the Heritage Alliance that a clearly stated, holistic, integrated
relationship between planning policy and across departments is essential, but is not yet embodied in the
NPPF as it stands.
Cross-border co-operation and planning
30.
The key issue, as stated above, is the effect in practice of the NPPF in the context of the
provisions of the Localism Bill. The NPPF will be insufficient if the Localism Bill results in amendments
to the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and abolishes the normal statutory
duties of local authorities, when drawing up NDOs, to take into account the preservation, enhancement
and settings of listed buildings and Conservation Areas. Thereby, an NDO could effectively abolish
heritage protection in an area, and the fact that it is doing so would not have to be taken into
account when it was being drafted and adopted.
31.
The positive intentions of the NPPF may be lost if ‘larger-than-local strategic planning’ is
undermined by the Localism Bill. While, under the terms of the Localism Bill, a draft NDO must be
examined by an Independent Examiner, who must decide that it is ‘appropriate with regard to national
policy’ to make the NDO, this safeguard seems inadequate. The Independent Examiner must be given
sufficient powers to protect historic buildings, which are one of this country’s most important assets.
Nor should Neighbourhood Plans be permitted to supersede the provisions of a Local Plan, particularly
in relation to issues of more than local significance, such as the historic environment.
Climate Change
32.
The NPPF should explicitly acknowledge that the historic environment makes an essential
contribution towards combating climate change and there is an inherent environmental value in
conservation compared with new build. As the economist Donovan Rypkema has said, ‘100% of
heritage conservation advances the cause of the environment…the loss of historic buildings is the polar
opposite of sustainable development; once they are gone they cannot possibly be available to meet the
needs of future generations’.
Precedent and evidence base
33.
Where the policies contained within the NPPF are based upon previous planning guidance, such
as PPG 15 and 16 and PPS 5, they may be considered part of an evolution based upon tried and tested
planning practice. This is another reason for ensuring that, as far as possible, that the beneficial policies
within PPS 5 are incorporated within the NPPF.
34.
However, in certain key areas, there is an absence of hard evidence. In particular, the effect on
strategic planning policies incorporated in the NPPF remains uncertain and little or no evidence is
provided in relation to this. A similar observation may be made about the presumption in favour of
‘sustainable development’, which is of central significance, but is not even adequately defined within the
Framework document.
Historic Houses Association
14 October 2011
john.brazier@hha.org.uk