
The publication of the new NPPF 2026 represents an important shift in national heritage planning policy. While the fundamental objective of conserving the historic environment remains unchanged, the new framework restructures how that policy is presented and introduces some important changes in how heritage assets are assessed and weighed in decision-making.
Key differences include:
'Less than substantial harm' has been removed
Under the previous framework, heritage impacts on designated assets were generally assessed as either less than substantial harm or substantial harm. The 2026 NPPF introduces a new approach, requiring assessments to identify whether proposals would have a positive effect, no effect, harm, substantial harm, or total loss.
This could mark a significant change as the profession builds a shared understanding of how “harm” and “substantial harm” differ in practice.
Positive effects are explicitly recognised
A notable shift in tone is the explicit recognition that development can enhance heritage significance. The new framework acknowledges that proposals may better reveal, restore, secure, or enhance the significance of heritage assets and states that such proposals should be supported.
This is a great move that shows how heritage is being more widely recognised as an active contributor to regeneration, placemaking, and development, rather than an inhibitor or a blocker. Rather than just managing harm, this allows opportunities to recognise good development that improves heritage.
Greater focus on significance
Understanding significance has always been central to heritage planning, but the 2026 framework places even greater emphasis on clearly identifying significance, including the contribution made by setting, and explicitly assessing the likely effects of development upon that significance.
More support for reuse and regeneration
The Government's stated intention behind the reforms is to create a clearer and more positive approach to heritage policy that better supports appropriate development and the sustainable reuse of historic assets. There is increased recognition that bringing vacant and underused heritage assets back into beneficial use can represent a significant public benefit.
This is a welcome change, enabling heritage assets to adapt meaningfully and remain valued and usable for years to come, particularly as the built environment responds to climate change and shifting priorities.
What about archaeology?
Archaeology remains firmly embedded within national policy. The new framework includes specific provisions relating to archaeological interest and the treatment of archaeological remains. The expectation that archaeological significance should be understood and appropriately considered before decisions are made remains unchanged, preserving the long-established principle of informed decision-making.
Climate change adaptation and retrofit
One of the most important implications of the NPPF 2026 for the heritage sector may be its more positive approach to change. While not explicitly singled out, by supporting proposals that deliver positive effects to heritage assets and encouraging the sustainable reuse of historic buildings, the revised framework could provide greater policy support
for well-designed retrofit, energy efficiency improvements, and climate resilience measures. This is particularly relevant as owners, developers, and local authorities seek to reduce carbon emissions from existing building stock while conserving heritage significance. The challenge will remain balancing the need for adaptation, such as improved thermal performance, renewable energy technologies, flood resilience measures, and building reuse, with the conservation of significance. However, the revised framework appears to acknowledge more clearly that sensitive change can be part of securing the long-term future of historic buildings rather than being viewed solely as a source of harm.
What is the overall direction of travel?
The NPPF 2026 does not fundamentally weaken heritage protection. Instead, it reframes how policy is presented and applied, with a stronger focus on:
- significance-led assessment;
- clearer distinctions between harm, substantial harm, and total loss;
- greater recognition of positive heritage outcomes; and
- stronger support for sustainable reuse and regeneration.
Taken together, these changes point towards a more outcomes-focused approach to heritage management. They may also create opportunities to better support climate change adaptation and retrofit within the historic environment.
For heritage professionals, planners, and developers, the challenge will be to demonstrate how sustainability and resilience measures can conserve significance while keeping historic buildings and places viable, useful, and valued over the long term.
This shift will take time to bed in. Heritage professionals, consultants, inspectors, local planning authorities, statutory consultees, and other practitioners will need a transition period to establish how the new terminology is applied in practice.
The coming months will provide an important test of how these changes shape planning decisions, heritage assessments, and archaeological mitigation strategies across the country.
The changes introduced through NPPF 2026 will have implications for planning, development and heritage management projects across the UK.
Contact us to discuss how the revised framework may affect a site, scheme or heritage asset, or find out more about our heritage services.
MORE NEWS






























