Election Day has arrived, and the Iceni Projects Alternative Manifesto promotes a change in the way planning decisions are made. Heritage is so often part of a planning decision, and its ubiquity could present a challenge to the planning promises of the main political parties. Is a step away from the traditional approach to heritage the answer?

Historic England (the successor body to English Heritage) recently revealed that almost everyone in England lives within a mile of a designated heritage asset. It follows that most sites and areas of land currently recognised as suitable for development are also near to a heritage asset. A large number of planning decisions cite the harm to setting of a heritage asset as a reason for refusal. Consequently, it is likely to be more difficult to find sites on which to develop – those that have no potential to harm the historic environment are like gold dust.

Not in my (historic) backyard

Whilst perusing the political manifestos over the last couple of weeks, the implications of the above have become apparent. Nearly every manifesto includes a promise to build, with the utilisation of  brownfield land the most politically palatable.   That inevitably means maximising development, often at high density, close to heritage assets.

Change is good

Well designed modern development can exist happily alongside or within the historic environment, so why is change perceived to  be controversial? One only has to look at the 2013 RIBA Stirling Prize winning Astley Castle renovation to see that there is joy to be found in the juxtaposition of old and new.

Judicial Review decisions of the past year have often found against development which may cause any harm to a heritage asset: “a finding of harm to a listed building or conservation area gives rise to a strong presumption against planning permission being granted” (Mr Justice Lindblom, Forge Field, 2014). Given that many developments are likely to have some impact on the historic environment, the building of 300,000 houses a year becomes even more challenging.

Let’s take our cue from the past

Historic places and spaces have evolved in a multitude of ways over the centuries.  Todays housing crisis would inevitably be more pronounced if the post-war authorities had turned their back on the mass-house building programme that followed due to its contemporary nature. It is worth pointing out that some of those developments are now listed in their own right, the brutalist concrete of the Barbican at Grade II* being perhaps the most pertinent example. These cases show that where there is some harm to heritage, the quality and longevity of, as well as the need for, any proposed scheme should be seen as a truly important benefit.

We need to be excited by contemporary design as well as antiquity, and we need to understand that heritage does not survive without people, and the needs of people adapt and change over time. With fantastic architecture and master-planning, there is no reason why new housing and infrastructure should not be built alongside our treasured historic places.

So fundamentally, it is the assumption that any change is harmful to heritage assets that must be challenged, and challenged robustly – otherwise projects like Astley Castle really will be consigned to history alongside ambitions for a step change in housing delivery.