A restructured chapter with a renewed emphasis on growth
Consistent with the overarching approach of the new NPPF, Chapter 20 has been comprehensively restructured and is arranged on a broadly ‘thematic’ basis, with a reinforced distinction between plan-making and decision-making. The most obvious change relates to tone, with greater emphasis on the positive role of heritage in delivering sustainable redevelopment and supporting growth. This includes confirmation that proposals with positive effects on the significance of heritage assets should be supported (Policies HE6, HE7, HE8 and HE9).
Alignment with legislation and established heritage practice
Through changes to policy wording, the expansion of footnote 2 and the addition of footnote 63, the NPPF is now more closely aligned with the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. For the first time, the revised NPPF expressly confirms that it does not displace the statutory obligations placed on decision-makers by this and other legislation.
We are pleased to see that the ‘conserve and enhance’ test did not materialise, as it would have represented a significantly different position from all policy frameworks that have gone before. Instead, Policy HE4(2) requires proposals to avoid or minimise harm to the significance of heritage assets, which is more aligned with Historic England best practice guidance.
A new approach to identifying and assessing harm
As proposed in the consultation draft, 'less than substantial harm' has been removed entirely as a policy test. The distinction in terms of levels of harm is now between total loss, substantial harm and (other) harm (HE5 and HE6). Updates to Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) will likely be required to allow for correct interpretation of these new distinctions.
Policy HE5 extends the information requirements for applications affecting heritage assets to include an assessment of the significance of assets affected, including any contribution made by their setting, and the potential effect of the proposal on their significance. The policy also requires applicants to identify whether the proposal is likely to: (a) have a positive effect; (b) have no effect on the significance of the asset; (c) result in harm to the significance of the heritage asset and the degree of harm to be identified; or (d) cause total loss of significance.
While this is a new requirement in NPPF policy terms, it is informed by PPG and largely formalises existing best practice for those preparing Heritage Statements. We welcome the inclusion in policy of the guidance within the PPG that it is the effect on significance rather than the scale of development that should be considered when assessing impacts.
Aligned with the changes to how harm is identified and articulated, Policy HE5 (1) confirms that it is possible (for the first time since the NPPF was published in 2012) to identify ‘substantial harm’ to the significance of non-designated heritage assets. Notwithstanding the insertion of the old paragraph 215 as the new Policy HE2(7), requiring a balanced judgement in those cases where there is harm to a non-designated heritage asset that is not substantial, and confirmation of the continued distinction in Policies HE4, HE6 and HE7 between how designated and non-designated heritage assets are treated in national planning policy, this change has the potential to elevate the weight to be placed on the conservation of the significance of non-designated heritage assets.
Grey belt and heritage considerations
The reference to the previous footnote 7 relating to the definition of land that may be defined as grey belt has been removed, alongside footnote 7 itself, with no equivalent replacement. As a result, case-making is no longer dependent on demonstrating an acceptable impact on the significance of designated heritage assets.
However, this remains a significant policy test through other NPPF policy (Chapter 20) and relevant statutory duties and may be considered as part of the purpose (d) analysis. We explore the relationship between heritage considerations, Green Belt policy and grey belt designations in our recent article.
Other notable changes
The Government response to the NPPF consultation notes that there was broad support for the proposed implementation of the provisions within the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act (‘LURA’) 2023 to extend the existing statutory duties beyond listed buildings and conservation areas to include other designated heritage assets and their settings.
The Government has confirmed that they will be proceeding with implementing the additional special regard duties, the unexpected ‘legacy’ of the stalled 2008 draft Heritage Protection Bill. In doing so, the Government acknowledges that there is a need to balance that broad support against concerns about proportionality, potential burdens on decision-makers and impacts on delivery through the creation of unnecessary delays or disproportionate evidential requirements.
Accordingly, the Government has committed to preparing associated guidance and ensuring implementation is proportionate and supports timely decision-making. Whether this balance can be achieved while maintaining wider policy commitments to delivering new homes, jobs and infrastructure at pace remains to be seen.
It is clear, however, that this will be the most far-reaching change in heritage practice and having confirmed their intentions, the Government will need to clearly articulate the timings for the timely and orderly introduction of the new statutory duties and associated guidance.
Alongside the release of the new NPPF, the Government confirmed that statutory consultee status will be removed for The Gardens Trust and Theatres Trust. In each case, the Government will introduce a notification requirement for planning applications involving development within registered parks and gardens and land containing a theatre. The Government states that this is a proportionate approach allowing the Trusts to be made aware of relevant applications, while removing the statutory requirement for formal consultation and response within a fixed timeframe.
Much of the effectiveness of future engagement with these groups will depend on the detailed wording of the notification requirements. While this change will not diminish the value of their expertise, it does put them on a different footing in relation to other national amenity societies that remain statutory consultees.
What does this mean in practice?
In overall terms, while there is much continuity between the old and new NPPF, there are important changes that will require a period of re-adjustment.
The abandonment of ‘less than substantial harm’, together with the introduction of new policy expectations regarding how impacts are identified and calibrated, is likely to have the most tangible impact in practice.
Those involved in managing heritage in the planning system will need to think carefully about how we articulate significance, how heritage impacts are assessed and conveyed, and how those impacts are positioned within the planning balance.
Notwithstanding these changes, the established principles of heritage practice, namely the central role of relevant expertise; a robust and proportionate understanding of heritage significance (in terms of ‘what matters and why’); and a credible assessment of the impacts on that significance, remain, reassuringly, the essential elements of proper decision-making.
For further information on heritage in the NPPF, please get in touch with Marc Timlin or Joe Raper.
21 August 2026
