Refused over a non-designated heritage asset

A refusal citing harm to a non-designated heritage asset is answered differently from a listed building refusal, and the difference is structural. No statutory duty applies. There is no section 66 or section 72 obligation, no requirement to give great weight to conservation, and none of the substantial and less than substantial harm machinery that governs designated assets. What national policy asks for instead is a balanced judgement, having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the asset.

That phrase is doing all the work, and it is the reason these appeals turn on evidence rather than on policy tests. A non-designated heritage asset appeal is usually won by showing that the harm is modest, the significance is modest, or the identification was wrong in the first place.

What makes an asset non-designated

The current National Planning Policy Framework, issued on 17 August 2026, defines a heritage asset as a building, monument, site, place, area or landscape identified as having a degree of significance meriting consideration in planning decisions. Designated assets are those with a statutory designation: listed buildings, scheduled monuments, conservation areas, registered parks and gardens, registered battlefields, protected wreck sites and World Heritage Sites. Everything else with identified significance is non-designated.

The identification does not have to come from a list. An asset can be identified through the Historic Environment Record, through a conservation area appraisal, through a neighbourhood plan, or by the authority during the determination of the application itself. That last route is the one that surprises applicants, and it is lawful.

One category crosses back over. Where a non-designated heritage asset is of archaeological interest and is demonstrably of equivalent significance to a scheduled monument, national policy directs that it should be considered subject to the policies for designated assets. That carve-out is narrow but it matters on rural sites with substantial buried remains.

The balanced judgement and how it differs

Set the two frameworks side by side and the practical difference is obvious.

The absence of a statutory duty is the single most useful point for an appellant, because it removes the considerable importance and weight that the courts attach to the section 66 duty. Harm to a non-designated asset is an ordinary material consideration, weighed against the benefits of the scheme in the ordinary way.

That cuts both ways. There is no threshold below which harm can be ignored, and a well-evidenced council case on a locally important building can still outweigh a thin scheme.

Evidencing significance where there is no list entry

With a listed building you start from the list description. With a non-designated asset you start from nothing, and whoever builds the better evidence base usually wins.

A statement of significance for a non-designated asset should do five things, following the approach in Historic England's Advice Note 12 and its guidance on managing significance in decision-taking:

1. Establish what the asset is and its physical extent, with a measured or annotated survey.
2. Set out the documentary history, using the county record office, tithe and enclosure maps, historic Ordnance Survey editions, trade directories and census returns.
3. Assess significance under the recognised interests: architectural, historic, artistic and archaeological.
4. Say what contributes to significance and what detracts from it, including later alterations.
5. State the level of significance in words, and explain why.

That last step is where appeals are won and lost. A building can be identified as a heritage asset and still hold low significance, and saying so with evidence is a legitimate position. An appellant who refuses to accept the asset has any significance at all tends to lose credibility on everything else.

Where the identification itself is weak, challenge it directly. An asset identified for the first time in an officer's report, without any assessment against published criteria, is vulnerable, and that argument belongs in the statement of case rather than in a late submission, as set out in preparing a statement of case.

Local lists, selection criteria and the weight they carry

Historic England's advice on local heritage listing encourages authorities to compile local lists using published selection criteria, adopted after consultation and applied consistently. A local list produced that way carries real weight, because the asset has been assessed against stated criteria by people who considered the evidence.

Ask three questions of any local list entry:

Was there a published methodology with criteria, and is the entry documented against them? Was the list adopted, and by what route, such as a supplementary planning document or a cabinet decision? And is there a description of the asset, or only an address?

An entry that is a line on a spreadsheet with no assessment is a weak foundation for a refusal. A properly documented entry, with a description and a criteria assessment, is not, and pretending otherwise wastes an appeal.

Neighbourhood plans complicate this. Assets identified in a made neighbourhood plan sit within the development plan, so the policy that protects them has statutory force under section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 even though the asset is not designated.

Recording as mitigation and its limits

Offering a programme of recording is standard in these cases, usually to one of the Historic England building recording levels, and it is usually accepted as a condition.

Be honest about what it achieves. Recording creates a record; it does not reduce the harm. National policy is explicit in the archaeological context that the ability to record evidence of the past is not a factor in deciding whether loss should be permitted, and inspectors apply the same thinking to buildings.

So present recording as what it is: a proportionate response to loss that has been accepted as necessary, not as mitigation that neutralises harm. Specify the level, the deposit arrangements with the Historic Environment Record, and the timing relative to demolition. Offer it before the council asks, because an appellant who volunteers a recording condition looks like someone taking the asset seriously.

Where fabric is being retained rather than lost, salvage and reuse of specific elements carries more weight than a photographic survey, and it is worth costing properly at design stage.

How inspectors have weighed harm to these assets

Appeal decisions are indicative rather than binding, and the pattern across them is consistent enough to plan around.

Inspectors generally attach moderate weight to harm to a non-designated asset of real significance, and limited weight where significance is low or where the asset has been heavily altered. They look for a reasoned identification of significance from both sides, and where only one side has provided it, they tend to adopt it.

Total loss is treated differently from alteration. Demolition of a non-designated asset removes its significance entirely, and inspectors say so, which means the benefits offered have to be correspondingly clearer.

The scheme's own quality matters more here than in a designated asset case. Because the balance is an ordinary one, a well-designed replacement that delivers housing, employment or improved public space can carry the day, while a mediocre replacement cannot.

Building the appeal case on proportionality

Decide first whether this is an appeal or a redesign. Where the refusal turns on the loss of a building that could be retained and worked around, a revised application often costs less than an appeal, which is the calculation set out in choosing between a resubmission and an appeal.

If the appeal is right, structure the case in four parts. Establish the asset and its significance with evidence. Describe the effect of the proposal on that significance precisely, room by room or elevation by elevation where appropriate. Identify the benefits with the same precision, quantified where possible. Then perform the balance openly rather than asserting its outcome.

Concede the harm you cannot argue away. An appellant who accepts moderate harm and then demonstrates that the benefits outweigh it reads as reliable, and reliability is what a written representations inspector is assessing from paper alone.

PlanScope can draft the heritage and policy sections of the Planning Statement and the supporting heritage documents for a conservation-accredited professional to review before they are submitted.

This is general guidance, not legal advice; check the position with your local planning authority or a qualified professional before relying on it. PlanScope provides AI-assisted draft reports for planning applications. Reports should be reviewed before submission. We do not guarantee planning approval.