Comment

The heritage hurdles for housing and strategic land – and how to clear them

Director, Heritage & Townscape, Kerrie Melrose advises on how to effectively navigate important heritage constraints that can impact delivery of new housing – including setting, non-designated heritage assets and spot-listing – to ensure hurdles are identified early and risks are minimised.

With the recent changes to the NPPF, many of our clients are either revisiting sites or searching for new sites to deliver the Government’s pledged 1.5 million homes. These may be sites where built heritage constraints have not yet been identified, or were considered several years ago, and in the intervening time, changes in policy, case law and guidance have evolved the way in which heritage assets are addressed within the planning system. 

If your site includes a listed building or other designated heritage asset, then it’s quite evident that heritage constraints will be a consideration. However, heritage matters aren’t always so obvious. With that in mind, here are my top three built heritage considerations to be aware of when appraising a site for residential development:^[1] 

1. Setting

Case law and Historic England guidance has now clearly established that the contribution made by setting to an asset’s significance and how it will be affected by development proposals, must be taken into account. This is not only in terms of visual aspects, but also how an asset is experienced and any historic functional and associative relationships. If a heritage assessment doesn’t robustly assess setting and only includes visual considerations, your planning application may be open to challenge. 

The new definition for grey belt land set out in the NPPF includes a requirement for sites to not strongly contribute to Green Belt Purpose D ‘to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns.’ This purpose straddles both heritage and landscape/townscape considerations. A historic town is not a heritage asset as defined by the NPPF, but a historic town is likely to include conservation areas, listed buildings and/or other assets. The updated Government Green Belt guidance^[2] provides a list of illustrative features to aid assessment of the contribution to Purpose D, which includes reference to visual, physical and experiential relationships that are also matters requiring consideration when promoting change in the setting of heritage assets. As such, consideration of both landscape and heritage setting issues may be required as part of a robust assessment of a site against this definition and criteria for grey belt land.  

2. Non-designated heritage assets 

Non-designated heritage assets are defined in the NPPF as buildings, monuments, sites, places, areas or landscapes identified by plan-making bodies as having a degree of heritage significance meriting consideration in planning decisions, but which do not meet the criteria for designated heritage assets.^[3] Local authorities are increasingly proactive in preparing lists of buildings of local architectural or historic value, but this doesn’t prevent additional assets being identified even during the determination of an application. 

Due to non-designated heritage assets being identified locally, the bar by which buildings are determined to have sufficient value to be treated as a heritage asset varies across the country. However, Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) is clear that only a minority have enough heritage significance to merit identification as non-designated heritage assets. Importantly, the NPPF clearly differentiates between designated and non-designated heritage assets and the proportionate way they should be addressed in the planning process. 

Identifying potential non-designated heritage assets at the appraisal stage and clearly and proportionately articulating their relative significance through pre-application engagement and within a Heritage Statement is important in de-risking site promotion activity and planning applications. 

3. Spot-listing

Anyone can, at any time, apply for a building or structure to be listed and we’re increasingly seeing individuals and organisations who oppose development of greenfield sites submitting spot-listing applications.^[4] The value of a building put forward for listing isn’t always evident and could relate to its historic associations or a technology used in its construction. 

Rebutting a listing or scheduling application is time-critical and requires an understanding of the process, as well as detailed research into the relevant building typology and robust assessment against the relevant criteria for listing.

Staying ahead of the hurdles

Understanding and addressing heritage constraints early can help avoid unexpected challenges, reduce risk and minimise delays, whilst also strengthening the planning case for new housing and strategic land. Whether it’s assessing the contribution made by setting, identifying non-designated heritage assets, or managing the risk of spot-listing, taking a proactive approach is key in ensuring informed development decisions. 

For advice on heritage constraints and risk, or to learn more about the breadth of our expertise, contact Kerrie Melrose or a member of our wider Heritage, Townscape and Landscape team below.

20 March 2025

[1] Whilst this piece focuses on residential development, these considerations would be relevant to most types of development and sites. 
[2] MHCLG  (2025) Green Belt: Advice on the role of the Green Belt in the planning system
[3] MHCLG (last updated 2019) Planning Practice Guidance: 039 Reference ID: 18a-039-20190723
[4] As well as applications for features of archaeological value to be scheduled (i.e. to become a scheduled monument)