Heritage policy doesn’t block development – weak professional judgement does

Dr James Weir argues that more planning officers with the ‘confidence to apply the planning balance pragmatically’ are necessary if hold-ups related to heritage concerns are to be avoided

When the government criticises “heritage blockers” for slowing down its “build, baby, build” agenda, it echoes a frustration familiar to many developers and their advisers. Pre-application discussions are often slow and unclear. Planning officers and committees appear hesitant when dealing with heritage matters. Applications drag on or stall altogether.

But can this really be resolved through policy changes alone? Much attention has focused on the loss of specialist historic environment expertise within local planning authorities. Historic England data shows there are now fewer than 800 full-time equivalent heritage specialists working across English councils, with just over 500 in conservation roles.

This reflects a long-term decline: since the mid-2000s, conservation and archaeology staffing levels have fallen by around a third. Historic England also reports that individual officers are handling increasing caseloads, even as the government moves to reduce consultation requirements. This shortage of capacity is real—but it does not fully explain why decision-making remains so cautious even where expertise is still present.

The problem, I would argue, has two interconnected causes.

First, planning officers often lack confidence in applying the planning balance pragmatically. Heritage objections are treated as barriers to be overcome rather than weighed critically against other material considerations, even when those objections are weakly supported by policy. That is not how the planning system is intended to operate.

Second, the quality of heritage consultee input itself can be an issue. Where advice is driven more by a protectionist mindset than by objective, policy-led analysis, increasing the volume of consultation will not improve outcomes or speed. In my experience—particularly on major schemes—public-sector heritage bodies are more likely to overstate heritage concerns than applicants are to underplay them. Too often, ideology overrides measured assessment.

A well-functioning system depends on experienced professionals, inside and outside planning authorities, being able to articulate clearly and confidently where the balance lies, using rational and defensible reasoning. In a dysfunctional system, fear of change takes precedence. Heritage becomes a stand-in for uncertainty: officers delay decisions, committees react defensively, and the quality of reasoning deteriorates.

What happens next?

Planning reform alone will not solve this. Changes to the NPPF, revised consultation thresholds, or adjustments to statutory consultees will not, by themselves, alter how heritage advice is framed or how it is received.

The solution is not simply to increase the number of heritage specialists in local authorities—doing so may even reinforce existing problems. Instead, priority should be given to training case officers to understand and apply the planning balance with confidence; to challenge consultee views where they diverge significantly from robust professional evidence; and to present reasoned, non-deferential advice to committees.

Equally important is fostering a less rarefied culture among heritage specialists themselves. Guidance and training from professional bodies and Historic England should emphasise facilitating well-managed change, rather than defaulting to resistance.

How developers should respond

Treating heritage as a late-stage regulatory obstacle is a mistake. In reality, it requires careful assessment and even more careful argument. The most effective schemes are already adapting in five key ways:

1. Addressing heritage early
   Early, scheme-shaping heritage analysis helps define a clear strategy, builds officer confidence, and reduces delays.

2. Focusing on significance
   Clear, accessible assessments rooted in impacts on defined aspects of significance—including setting—provide a strong foundation for advocacy.

3. Engaging proactive consultants
   In the current climate, consultants must act not just as report writers but as informed advocates who can robustly challenge unreasonable positions.

4. Strengthening the planning balance through public benefits
   Emphasising heritage benefits, not just mitigating harm, places schemes on firmer, defensible ground.

5. Designing for appeal resilience
   Resilience comes not from conceding every point, but from ensuring assessments are objective, proportionate, and well evidenced.

A final reframing

Developers who understand this dynamic and adapt accordingly will progress more quickly, regardless of national policy reform. When approached strategically and with confidence, the tools to counter resistance and secure consent are already available.