Publication

Policy 3 should be redrafted to make it consistent with the terms of national policy and re-introduce the test of necessity required by paragraph 195 of the NPPF.


Bullet point 2 might simply read:

“avoiding harm to designated and non-designated heritage assets and historic character”.

If the Policy wishes to continue to highlight the potential benefit of new development within this historic built environment, then the text could add:

“ Developments which will cause harm to heritage assets and historic character will be refused unless it can be demonstrated that this is necessary in order to achieve other essential and substantial public benefits that could not be achieved by other means, and those benefits will outweigh the harm”.

In one specific respect, Policy 3 fails to be consistent with national policy (as expressed in the current National Planning Policy Framework) and the Plan is unsound to that degree.

The clear requirement of the NPPF is that developments which will cause substantial harm to a designated heritage asset should be refused, unless it can be demonstrated that this is “necessary to achieve other substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm” (paragraph 195). In effect, the potential harm has to be necessary, that is to say unavoidable, before the merits of any substantial public benefits can kick in and this policy test can be passed.

The current wording selected for Policy 3 turns this presumption on its head. Now, the claimed existence of “overriding benefits” can be used to trump the duty of “avoiding harm”. The ‘necessity’ rule in the NPPF is no more. A simple reading of the proposed policy suggests that the prospect of an “overriding benefit” could be used legitimately to justify a heritage harm or loss, whether that harm or loss was actually avoidable or not.