The government presents this as a consolidation exercise intended to improve clarity, but the drafting goes further than reordering. It raises the bar in places, introduces new presumptions, and tightens how harm must be justified.
The new chapter 20 (replacing the previous Chapter 16) separates plan-making policies (HE1 to HE3) from decision-making policies (HE4 to HE11). HE1 to HE3 largely reflect existing local planning authority responsibilities, with an added requirement that plan-making is informed by a specific heritage assessment, and explicitly including the provision of local lists to identify non designated heritage assets.
The more material changes sit within the decision-making policies, where wording changes alter the practical tests that applicants will need to satisfy.
A new baseline: “a minimal level of harm is implicitly acceptable with justification”
One of the most significant drafting shifts appears in Policy HE4 which states that harm above a minimum level requires a “convincing justification”. The wording implies a sharper distinction between minimal harm and anything more, with a higher evidential threshold once impacts move beyond a low level.
“Harm” and “total loss” (and a more explicit categorisation)
The draft removes the specific label “less than substantial harm” from Policy HE6, although a two-tier approach remains in effect through the way impacts are now described and assessed.
Policy HE5 requires heritage assessments to categorise effects as:
• Positive effect
• No effect
• Result in harm
• Cause total loss
Under HE6, “harm” (which in practice would often align with what was previously treated as less than substantial harm) is to be weighed against public benefits. A higher threshold remains for severe impacts, with “total loss” treated distinctly, and refusal expected unless wholly exceptional circumstances apply.
Standardisation that matters: “substantial weight”
Policy HE6 changes the terminology applied to designated heritage assets. The preservation of designated heritage assets is no longer to be given “great weight”, but “substantial weight”.
Even if intended as standardised language, “substantial” is presented as the highest tier of weight available. Practically, this reinforces that heritage remains a significant constraint in decision-making. At the same time, the wider draft Framework uses “substantial” for other policy priorities, which means the relative balancing exercise will depend heavily on how competing benefits that are offered “substantial” weight can be evidenced and applied to individual cases.
The “optimum viable use” pivot
The draft removes the specific phrase “optimum viable use”. Instead, HE6 focuses on weighing harm against “important public benefits”.
The policy also explicitly identifies “enabling energy efficiency” and “securing the long-term use of a vacant building” as examples of important public benefits. This provides a clearer policy hook for proposals focused on retrofit and re-use, including situations where the most sustainable long-term outcome may not align with what would previously have been argued as the “optimum” commercial use.
Non-designated heritage assets: a harder line?
Policy HE7 appears to tighten the approach to non-designated heritage assets (NDHAs). The draft introduces a clearer presumption against harm, stating that harm should only be supported where it is “outweighed by the benefits” of the proposal, although it is not stated that these must be public benefits
Compared with a more open-textured “balanced judgement” approach, this drafting could reduce decision-maker discretion and push NDHAs closer towards a designated-asset style balance, regardless of their formal status.
What this means in practice
This is not a total rewrite of heritage policy, but it is a more formulaic framework. The combined effect of (1) a clearer requirement for “convincing justification” above minimal harm, (2) a more explicit categorisation of effects, and (3) a firmer presumption against NDHA harm, points towards a regime that is stricter on process and justification.
At the same time, the express identification of energy efficiency and securing long-term use as important public benefits strengthens the policy basis for proposals that modernise and bring buildings back into use, particularly where those outcomes can be robustly evidenced and tied to significance-led design.
