The Building Conservation Directory 2021

PROFESS IONAL SERV I CES 1 31 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 setting, or allows an appreciation of its significance, changes in a way that adversely affects the heritage interests of the asset (archaeological, artistic, architectural or historic). It cannot be stressed enough that change does not necessarily mean harm. The setting of many assets is capable of accommodating change with no resultant harm to their heritage significance. Examples of harm include the loss of an element that contributes to the significance of the asset, be that a historically associated entity, a view, dominance, or tranquillity. Again, a checklist is provided in the Historic England guidance. A key consideration is the level of harm that would occur. It is not enough to merely identify that some harm would occur. There are clear requirements for it to be quantified. Firstly, the NPPF has different tests for different levels of harm – substantial harm and less than substantial. Case law (Nuon 5 ) is clear that substantial harm is a high test and that it would ‘ have such a serious impact on the significance of the asset that its significance was either vitiated altogether or very much reduced ’. Often setting is only a relatively small portion of the overall significance of an asset, and any one area of development will usually only remove a portion of this component in the asset’s significance, so instances where changes in setting cause a level of harm that might be assessed as substantial are infrequent. Considering that harm through setting (if there is harm) may be less than substantial, and that this is a wide spectrum stretching from the very lowest level of harm to just less than almost total loss of significance, quantifying where on the scale of less than substantial harm an impact may lie is essential. This is also a requirement of the current Planning Practice Guidance on the Historic Environment, which states at paragraph 18 that: Within each category of harm [substantial or less than substantial] (which category applies should be explicitly identified), the extent of the harm may vary and should be clearly articulated . In order to do this, three things must be established: • The proportion of the significance of the asset that derives from its physical presence and the proportion that derives from setting • The elements of the setting of the asset that contribute to its significance • Whether a proposed development would result in some loss of that significance which an asset derives from setting, and how this level of harm might best be articulated considering the whole significance of the asset. An example to illustrate this would be a listed 18th-century farmhouse that has adjacent barns and outbuildings, and sits within a historically associated landholding of several fields. A housing development is proposed within one field that is functionally associated and intervisible with the farmhouse. A basic (but not exhaustive) assessment of setting would be that the asset primarily derives its significance from its physical remains, but a lesser portion is derived from its setting including the associated outbuildings and some of the fields (perhaps those in the immediate vicinity that were historically associated and intervisible). As a field that was part of the landholding, the site may contribute to the heritage significance of the asset through historic illustrative interest, but if one field is only a small proportion of the land holding (itself one element of setting), this contribution might be minor. The development may result in a change of character of this element from agricultural land to residential, and this would comprise less than substantial harm at the low end of that spectrum to the heritage significance of the listed farmhouse. However, it should be stressed that every asset and development should be considered on a case by case basis, taking into account the baseline conditions that are unique to each asset. An interesting issue that comes up with regards to the assessment of setting in rural areas like this, is that of public access. Historic England’s guidance states that the contribution that setting makes to the significance of a heritage asset does not depend on there being public rights or an ability to experience that setting. However, it is only common sense to take into account public access within the landscape, with views from public rights of way being more likely to be commonly appreciated by the public. Indeed, changes to public access, use or amenity are listed as possible considerations for how development may affect the significance of an asset in Historic England’s guidance on setting. In conclusion, the assessment of the impact of a potential development on a heritage asset should not be an exhaustive attempt to link a site to an asset or a mechanical consideration of all aspects of a checklist. It should, however, provide a simple and clear narrative account of the overall significance of an asset, the main elements of its setting that contribute to its significance, the specific contribution of the site to significance, and the reduction in significance that would result. This should be quantified as substantial or less than substantial harm, showing where within the relevant category the harm described lies. Recommended Reading *All these documents are available online: National Planning Policy Framework , Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government, updated June 2019, www. gov.uk/government/publications/national- planning-policy-framework--2 Planning Practice Guidance: Historic Environment , Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government, updated July 2019, www.gov.uk/guidance/ conserving-and-enhancing-the-historic- environment Local Heritage Listing , Historic England Advice Note 7, 2016 Statement of Heritage Significance: Analysing Significance in Heritage Assets , Historic England Advice Note 12, 2019 The Setting of Heritage Assets: Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning Note 3 (Second Edition) Historic England, 2017 Footnotes 1 South Lakeland District Council Appellants v Secretary of State for the Environment and Another Respondents, House of Lords, [1992] 2 W.L.R. 204 [1992] 2 A.C. 141 2 Aidan Jones and Jane Margaret Mordue v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and South Northamptonshire Council [2015] EWCA Civ 1243 3 Catesby Estates Ltd v. Peter Steer and Historic England [2018] EWCA Civ 1697 4 Catesby Estates Ltd v. Peter Steer and Historic England [2018] EWCA Civ 1697 5 Bedford Borough Council v. Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Nuon UK Ltd, [2013] EWHC 2847 GAIL STOTEN MCIfA FSA is Executive Director (Heritage) at Pegasus Group (see page 27). A public footpath giving views to the church of St John the Baptist at Finchingfield, Essex: views from public rights of way are more likely to be commonly appreciated by the public. (Photo: Gail Stoten)

RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MzI0Mzk=