The Building Conservation Directory 2021

PROFESS IONAL SERV I CES 1 29 C AT H E D R A L C O MM U N I C AT I O N S T H E B U I L D I N G C O N S E R VAT I O N D I R E C T O R Y 2 0 2 1 Understanding these terms, which are defined in Historic England’s guidance Statements of Significance* is crucial to correctly articulating the significance of the asset, including any contribution made through setting, and getting that contribution in perspective. The definition states that some significance will be derived through physical presence, but that setting also contributes to the value of its significance. With regards to setting, not all aspects of its setting will contribute to an asset’s significance. Rather, an area must contribute to the asset’s heritage interests (archaeological, architectural, artistic or historic) to do so. This is reflected in the NPPF’s definition of the ‘setting of a heritage asset’: The surroundings in which a heritage asset is experienced. Its extent is not fixed and may change as the asset and its surroundings evolve. Elements of a setting may make a positive or negative contribution to the significance of an asset, may affect the ability to appreciate that significance or may be neutral. ’ Where proposals are likely to affect the setting of a listed building (which is by far the most common type of designated heritage asset) there are two key considerations: Section 66 (1) of the 1990 Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act which requires that in considering whether to grant planning permission or permission in principle for development which affects a listed building or its setting, the local planning authority or, as the case may be, the Secretary of State shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses. The requirement of the NPPF to articulate if the significance of a heritage asset will experience harm, and if so, what level of harm. There is a miss-match of terminology here, with the Act concerning the desirability of preserving the setting , but the NPPF requiring an assessment of harm to significance , and the definitions given in the NPPF being clear that not all of a setting will contribute to the heritage significance of an asset. However, South Lakeland 1 is clear that preserving means ‘ doing no harm ’. Also, the two requirements were effectively brought together with the Mordue Court of Appeal Judgment of 20152, which states that: Paragraph 134 of the NPPF [now paragraph 196 of the latest version] appears as part of a fasciculus of paragraphs [each presenting a public benefit test], set out above, which lay down an approach which corresponds with the duty in section 66(1). Generally a decision maker who works through those paragraphs in accordance with their terms will have complied with the Section 66 (1) duty . This means that by carrying out the relevant public benefit test of the NPPF, balancing the harm to heritage significance against public benefits, you are fulfilling the requirements of the Act. It is therefore the articulation of any harm to significance through changes in setting that is key to a robust assessment of setting. With regards to other types of designated heritage asset, their setting has no statutory protection under the 1990 Act. A common Churches and other buildings can gain significance through local dominance within their setting Particular views, even if not designed, can mean certain areas of a wider setting can contribute to the significance of an asset (Both photos: Gail Stoten)