FAME (the Federation of Archaeological Managers and Employers) is the trade association for commercial archaeology companies operating in the UK and Ireland, and we regularly respond to calls for consultation. We have recently done so for the Draft National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) consulation which you can find below:
Chapter 20 Conserving and enhancing the historic environment
Overview
This new structure is welcomed as providing a clearer framework in which planning decisions can be made and referenced. The proposed revisions have retained the essential mechanisms for protection of the historic environment as part of sustainable development. It has rearranged many text sections from the previous version and amended others, so that they now fit within 11 clearly labelled policies, grouped into two main sections: plan-making and decision-making.
It is supported by three appendices for implementation, glossary and information requirements. There are some discrepancies between the content and terminology of these with the main text.
Detailed comments
HE2.2 Conservation areas – the draft document requires new or amended designations to “be accompanied by an adopted appraisal and management plan” but this paragraph needs to explicitly include “existing” (as well as new or amended) conservation areas to have appraisals and management plans. There are local authorities that have never implemented their original duty to undertake and provide conservation area appraisals and management plans which then leads to a lack of clarity as to why a designation was made, what special architectural and historic interest it contains to justify that designation, and how it should be conserved (cross refer to Policy HE9.1b which makes the assumption that these exist).
HE4.1 Heritage assets – subsection a) requires development proposals to “maintain assets” and in subsection b) to “preserve significance”. The terminology would be better to apply “conserve” to assets, and possibly to significance. Maintain suggests an ongoing programme, and preserve is a term that was removed from earlier planning frameworks (PPS and NPPF) and replaced by conserve. The duty to “preserve” listed buildings and their settings in the 1990 Act has been an area of contention at public inquiries due to its definition of retaining the original state and thus not allowing any change.
HE5.4 Accuracy of effect – the assessment process for deciding on the heritage significance of an asset is a subjective area of professional opinion, but this clause would allow decision-makers who may not be qualified or experienced, to make an arbitrary choice over how accurate an assessment might be. The wording needs to be changed or the clause removed.
HE5.5 Desk-Based Assessment – “employed” is very poor terminology. Previous iteration of the NPPF was much clearer and should be reinstated “local planning authorities should require developers to submit an appropriate desk-based assessment and, where necessary, a field evaluation” so that clarity is restored as to who has the responsibility for this action.
HE6.1 Substantial weight – footnote 74 needs to expand or cross-reference so that detail of the statutory tests are explicit. The wording in the footnote is convoluted
HE6.3 Energy efficiency – we welcome the reference to low carbon heating and energy efficiency measures as an explicit public benefit for a listed building
HE6.5 Footnote 75 – the first sentence lacks logic. If the SoS for DCMS has rejected an application to schedule or list an heritage asset, it is self-evident that that asset has not fulfilled the criteria and therefore is not of national importance. It is very confusing and legally contentious to include this sentence.
HE8.1 WHS – paragraph c) last sentence needs explanation as a footnote or change of wording as it refers to assessment of “natural environment” data. What does this mean in regard to the historic environment which the policy is seeking to protect?
HE9.1 Conservation areas – paragraph b) requires developers to use the special architectural and historic interest used to justify designation as a conservation area when designing a scheme. But this cannot be achieved if the local planning authority has not undertaken a conservation area appraisal or management plan, and some have not despite the legal requirement to do so (see comments on Policy HE2.2 above).
HE10.1 Archaeological remains – incorrect wording needs to be changed from “…. Identify the design of the development proposal…” to “…. Inform the design of the development proposal”. Should this policy be cross-referenced to HE5.5 which also requires a desk-based assessment and a field evaluation?
HE10.2 Preservation – the wording has reverted to “preservation in situ wherever feasible” which was changed between PPS and the NPPF to “conservation”, and it is always feasible to keep the archaeological assets ——- this sentence lacks the balancing statement about public benefit so should be cross-referenced to Policy HE7.2, so that the loss of archaeological assets can be justified if the public benefits from that loss, and then the second sentence sets out how mitigation for that loss can be managed.
Annex B: Glossary
No definition of a desk-based assessment or a heritage impact assessment is offered, but the Policies section employs the first, and Annex C: Information requirements employs the second without any explanation of the difference between them.
Annex C: Information requirements
“Policy theme: Heritage
National Policy HE5: Assess effects on heritage assets
Information requirement: Heritage impact assessment”
This appears to be inconsistent because Policy HE5.5 actually requires a desk-based assessment and neither the heritage impact assessment or the desk-based assessment are included in the glossary to explain the terminology. Our understanding is that heritage impact assessment is needed earlier in the planning process, for pre-application consultation and to validate an application, with a focus on designated heritage assets and their settings (therefore applicable for Policy HE5.1 – 4), whereas a desk-based assessment is generally later in the planning process to assist with determination of an application and its focus is on buried archaeological remains. The new framework would be advised to clarify this potential confusion.
