Are We Finally Rebalancing Heritage and Sustainability?

Over the last few years I have written a number of articles exploring a question sitting increasingly at the heart of the heritage planning system: how should decision makers weigh the urgent need to improve the environmental performance of our existing building stock against the statutory duty to protect the special interest of listed buildings?

With Historic England’s and local authorities’ evolving guidance , and the use of tools such as Listed Building Consent orders by forward thinking authorities , I suggested that the planning system appeared to be moving gradually towards greater recognition of environmental and climate benefits when undertaking the heritage balance. The latest changes to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) suggest we may finally be getting closer to an answer, but has it delivered the radical approach offered by the NPPF Prospectus in 2022?

Recent reporting on a campaign led by the Duke of Westminster highlighted what many owners, consultants and conservation professionals have been saying for years: unless historic buildings can adapt to a changing climate, many will become increasingly difficult and expensive to occupy, maintain and ultimately conserve. He warned that that England’s 350,000 listed buildings could become “uninhabitable, unaffordable and ultimately redundant” unless the system was changed to let them be modernised.

The summer of 2026 has seen extreme heat across Europe, bringing yet more focus to the climate crisis. Concerns about overheating, energy costs, resilience and carbon reduction are no longer abstract policy issues for owners. They are real issues affecting the long-term viability and occupation of historic buildings.

The NPPF now identifies enabling energy efficiency and low carbon heating measures to be employed as ‘important’ public benefits when weighed against proposals that harm the significance of a designated heritage asset.

Reported as significant victory for the Duke, the wording of the new NPPF represents an explicit shift in identifying the weight to be accorded to retrofit proposals affecting listed buildings, and it’s being reported that this will make things much easier for owners of listed buildings.

In my view, this represents a continuation of a trajectory that has been emerging for some time and the revised NPPF is a welcome government recognition that sustainability benefits are genuine planning benefits. Applicants seeking energy-efficiency measures in listed buildings have often struggled to see such benefits reflected proportionately in decision making.

The NPPF demonstrates that building conservation and sustainability are entwined objectives. However, it would be wrong to view the latest NPPF changes as a fundamental rewriting of heritage policy and we need to see how the NPPF changes may begin to translate into practical change on the ground.

Listed buildings continue to benefit from a unique statutory status. Parliament has deliberately required decision makers to give considerable importance and weight to the conservation of designated heritage assets. That principle remains intact and rightly so. The new NPPF does not create a free pass for insensitive alterations, nor should it.

The more nuanced question is whether the changes will influence how that balance is struck in practice, particularly where proposals deliver meaningful environmental improvement. Ultimately, the most persuasive schemes will be those that deliver clear and measurable environmental benefits whilst respecting the long-term conservation of the building.

Exploring these issues over time, I have questioned whether national policy would move towards a more explicit recognition of environmental benefits in the heritage balance. The latest NPPF revisions suggest that it has. Whether the change proves transformative will depend on how local authorities, inspectors and ultimately the courts interpret and apply the new wording, and practice on the ground in day-to-day decision making.

For now, however, there are growing signs that the seesaw is beginning to move. Heritage considerations will continue to carry particular weight, as they should. But sustainability benefits are increasingly being recognised as a powerful public benefit in their own right. The question is no longer whether those benefits should be considered but rather how much weight they should carry. That represents a significant shift in itself.