Development Intent
Planning AtlasCity Of LondonHE1
PolicyPoliticalCommitteeOfficersAgents & developersViabilityMapAppeals
City Of London · Local Plan · Policy

HE1 — Managing Change to the Historic Environment.

How City Of London actually applies HE1: who leans on it, where it bites hardest, and how often it's invoked. The policy text is the rule; this is the behaviour.

HE1 is a published City Of London planning policy. This page records where it appears in the council's published planning decisions.

Cited under: City Of London Local Plan (adopted)

City Of London · HE1
Where HE1 is quoted — by ward
Fewer ~0
More citations ~1
Showing
re-scopes the headline figures and the trend
3
times cited
in parsed decision notices
2 appeals
appeal survival
1 dismissed · 1 allowed at appeal — too few to rate
3 of 8
officer reach
38% of officers recorded in this period
Cheap
top hotspot ward
1 citations
What this policy is about

Policy HE1 requires development proposals to preserve and enhance heritage assets and their settings. It applies to heritage assets, conservation areas, and historic parks. The council will resist harm to these assets unless public benefits outweigh the harm.

Plain-English summary of the adopted policy text below. The full text is the rule; this is the gist.

The policy — as adopted

Managing Change to the Historic Environment

Development proposals that affect heritage assets or their settings should be supported by a Statement of Heritage Significance and a Heritage Impact Assessment. It should be ensured any impacts of the proposals on the significance of heritage assets or their settings have been fully assessed and understood. The level of detail should be proportionate to the assets’ importance and no more than is sufficient to understand the potential impact of the proposal on their significance. Proposals should meet the following criteria: 1. Development should preserve and where possible enhance and better reveal the special architectural or historic interest and the significance of heritage assets and their settings; 2. There will be a presumption against heritage harm and development causing harm to, or total loss of, the significance of designated heritage assets will be refused unless it is clearly demonstrated that the heritage and/or wider public benefits outweigh that harm or loss. Applicants should clearly demonstrate that all reasonable efforts have been made to sustain the existing use, find new appropriate uses, or mitigate the extent of the harm to the significance of the asset; and whether the works proposed are the minimum required to secure the long-term use of the asset; 3. Change of use to heritage assets should be consistent with their long-term conservation and should help to retain and enhance the asset, particularly those which have been identified at risk; City Plan 2040 | Shaping the Future City gs 4. Development should not cause the loss of routes and spaces that contribute to the character and historic interest of the City. The reinstatement of historic routes and the creation of new routes will be sought; 5. Where proposals would result in harm to, or the loss of, a nondesignated heritage asset, the City Corporation will have regard to the scale of any harm or loss, the significance of the heritage asset and the wider public benefits proposed; 6. Development in conservation areas should preserve, and where possible, enhance and better reveal the character, appearance and significance of the conservation area and its setting. The buildings and features that contribute to the character, appearance, setting or significance of a conservation area should be conserved and opportunities to enhance conservation areas should be considered; 7. Development should preserve, and where possible, enhance and better reveal the significance, character and appearance of the City’s registered historic parks, gardens and open spaces and should protect their settings and views from and towards these spaces; 8. Development in the defined immediate setting of Bevis Marks Synagogue and The Monument should preserve, and where possible, enhance the elements of setting that contribute to the significance of these heritage assets; and, 9. Development should encourage the appreciation of the City’s historic roofscapes and should not impact the setting of an asset from highlevel locations. Heritage & Tall building Reason for the policy 11.2.0 The City of London’s historic environment is of one its greatest assets. The special character that the City derives in large part is from the concentration and significance of its heritage assets, many of which are nationally and internationally renowned. Given their immense contribution to the character, economy and quality of life of the City, it is important that change to the historic environment is sensitively and carefully managed in ways appropriate to its significance and that makes it an integral part of the surrounding context. 11.2.1 The City Corporation has identified ‘immediate setting’ areas around the Monument and Bevis Marks Synagogue, both of which are Grade I listed heritage assets in the City and require special consideration and protection, given their outstanding architectural and historic significance and, for these particular buildings, the critical contribution of elements of setting to that significance. How the policy works 11.2.2 Applicants should provide a clear and comprehensive understanding of the heritage significance of a building including any contribution made by their setting. The level of detail should be proportionate to the nature and scale of the proposed development. This may require detailed archival research to understand the historical evolution of the building in order to inform the proposals as well as the impact of the development on the heritage asset. City Plan 2040 | Shaping the Future City gs Heritage & Tall building 11.2.3 National policy applies different tests to development proposals that would result in substantial harm to (or total loss of) the significance of a designated heritage asset and proposals that would cause less than substantial harm. Where the harm is less than substantial, it should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal including, where appropriate, securing its optimum viable use. National policy indicates that great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation and the more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. This is irrespective of whether any potential harm amounts to substantial harm, total loss or less than substantial harm to its significance. 11.2.4 Where a development proposal would affect a non-designated heritage asset, national policy requires a balanced judgement to be made having regard to the scale of harm and the significance of the asset. The City Corporation will aim to identify nondesignated heritage assets at the earliest stage in the planning process, with reference to current national criteria. This may be supported by additional research or investigations as appropriate and be based on a clear understanding of the building, structure, open space or archaeological remains, including group value. 11.2.5 The designation of conservation areas carries with it the statutory duty to consider how an area or areas can be preserved and enhanced. The City Corporation will take the opportunity presented by development proposals within a conservation area to strengthen the special character of that conservation area and its setting. Applicants should consider the significance City Plan 2040 | Shaping the Future City gs and special character of conservation areas, informed by the Character Summary and Management Strategy Supplementary Planning Documents. 11.2.6 In the design of new buildings or the alteration of existing buildings, developers should have regard to the character of conservation areas and their settings. This includes the size and shape of historic building plots, existing street patterns and the alignment and the width of frontages, materials, vertical and horizontal emphasis, layout and detailed design, bulk and scale, including the effects of site amalgamation on scale, and hard and soft landscaping. Regard should be paid to the richness, variety and complexity of the architectural form and detailing of buildings and to the broader character of the area. 11.2.7 Many buildings in conservation areas, make a significant contribution to the character of these areas. Proposals for the demolition of a non-listed building will be considered in terms of the building’s significance, its contribution to the character or appearance of the area and the level of potential harm. 11.2.8 Even minor changes to listed buildings can have a significant impact on their character and appearance. Listing descriptions are unlikely to refer to every feature of significance and buildings’ interiors and plan forms are also of importance. Inspections of listed buildings will be necessary to identify the special interest and significance of the building and its curtilage. Heritage & Tall building 11.2.9 Extensions to listed buildings should be of an appropriate scale and character and will be acceptable where the overall impact on the building does not harm its significance. The bulk, height, location and materials of roof extensions will be particularly important and should be appropriate to the period and style of the building and its setting. Where listed buildings are no longer used for their original or previous purpose, it is important to find alternative uses that safeguard their future, while being compatible with the character of the building.

Verbatim from the adopted City Of London plan · source document. The council's published plan is the authoritative version.

How it lands
100% in approvals · 0% in refusals
3 citations in the selected period
The approval/refusal split is subscriber intelligenceUnlock →
Where it bites
Cheap1
Broad Street1
Walbrook1
What cites it — application types
all years on record · click a slice to filter
What it means in practice

Not filled in yet. This will hold how officers actually argue HE1 case by case, classified from their decision reports — the classification pass hasn't run. Nothing is paraphrased in its place.

What the published record shows

HE1 appears most often in Cheap, Broad Street, Walbrook. It appears across 3 of 8 officers recorded in this period. The map shows the pattern for the selected period.

Who cites it — case-officer spreadfrom parsed decision notices · click an officer
Who leans on this policy — and how often — is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Why it is cited — and what follows
100%
in approvals
3 citations
0%
in refusals
0 citations

This shows the decision reports in which HE1 appears. It does not yet claim that the policy caused those outcomes.

Reason · role · consequence

Not filled in yet — the classification pass over the citing passages hasn't run. When it has, this shows why HE1 was used, whether it supported approval or refusal, and what changed as a result. No conclusion is shown until that classification has been checked.

Why this policy is cited, and what follows, is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Does it hold up? — appeal performance
survival
1 dismissed · 1 allowed2 PINS appeal decisions cite HE1

From Planning Inspectorate decision letters that cite HE1. Dismissed = the council's refusal stood, the policy held; allowed = overturned. Too few decisive appeals for a rate — the counts are the record. The tighter join — this borough's own refusals citing HE1 traced to their specific appeals — is still to come.

Related — follow the thread
City Of London
Back to the borough policy record
Open →
Committee record
What reaches members, and what they do with it
Open →
Case officers
City Of London's decision-makers
Open →
Citations, officer spread, ward and application-type counts parsed from published City Of London decision notices (high-confidence parses, approvals and refusals), joined to the canonical application record. One citation = one decision citing the policy. See the policy overview for every policy cited.

Atlas intelligence summarises patterns and observations from published planning records. Past decisions do not indicate how any future application will be determined. Every application is assessed on its own merits, having regard to the proposal, site, evidence and policies applying at the time. This information is provided for general information only and is not planning, legal, financial or professional advice.