When Heritage Professionals and Decision-Makers Disagree: Does It Mean the Heritage Assessment Was Wrong?
Heritage assessment is evidence-led, but it also involves professional judgement.
That distinction matters. A heritage consultant, conservation officer, planning officer and Planning Inspector may all consider the same heritage asset, development proposal and evidence and nevertheless reach different conclusions about the degree of effect or the weight that should be given to a particular consideration.
A recent High Court judgment provides a useful reminder that professional disagreement does not, in itself, mean that the underlying heritage assessment was inadequate.
The Dixon judgment
In R (Dixon) v Wakefield Metropolitan District Council & Boom Developments Limited [2026] EWHC 1272 (Admin), the High Court considered a challenge to planning permission for a solar farm in the Green Belt close to the Grade II Registered Park and Garden at Bretton Hall.
Among the issues before the Court was a disagreement between specialist heritage advice and the planning judgement ultimately reached by the Council.
The Court upheld the decision. Importantly, it recognised that planning decision-makers are not necessarily bound to reach the same conclusion as specialist heritage advisers. Where the relevant heritage considerations have been properly understood and addressed, the weight attributed to those considerations and the conclusions ultimately reached can be matters of legitimate planning judgement.
Although the case concerned a Registered Park and Garden and was determined under the national policy framework then in force, the broader lesson is useful across heritage planning.
Different conclusions do not necessarily mean somebody got it wrong
A Heritage Impact Assessment is not just a checklist.
It requires the consultant to understand the significance of the heritage asset, identify how the proposed development interacts with that significance, assess the resulting effect and reach a professional conclusion.
That exercise should be based on appropriate evidence and a clear methodology. But professional judgement remains involved.
This is particularly apparent when considering setting. The surroundings of a heritage asset do not possess heritage significance simply because they are nearby, visible or undeveloped. The relevant question is whether, and how, elements of those surroundings contribute to the significance of the heritage asset or affect the ability to appreciate that significance.
Reasonable professionals can sometimes reach different conclusions about the extent of that contribution and the effect that change would have upon it.
A decision-maker reaching a different conclusion therefore does not automatically demonstrate that a consultant failed to consider an issue. There is an important distinction between an issue not being assessed and a decision-maker attributing different weight to an issue which was assessed.
Heritage and landscape can overlap
Dixon is also a useful reminder that heritage and landscape considerations do not always sit neatly in separate boxes.
Topography, vegetation, views, settlement form and landscape character can all be relevant to the way a heritage asset is experienced and, in some circumstances, to its significance.
That does not mean that every landscape or visual change is automatically a heritage effect.
The assessment still needs to make the connection: what is significant about the heritage asset, what contribution does the landscape or view make to that significance, and how would the proposed development alter that contribution?
This distinction is particularly important when considering development within the setting of Conservation Areas, Registered Parks and Gardens, Listed Buildings and other designated heritage assets.
The value of early heritage advice
There is also a practical lesson for developers, architects and planning consultants.
Heritage consultants are frequently appointed once a scheme has already been designed, with a request for a Heritage Statement or Heritage Impact Assessment to support the planning application.
At that point, the consultant can assess the proposal, identify effects and recommend mitigation. What they cannot necessarily do is undo fundamental design decisions which have already been made.
If a potential heritage issue relates to the location of development, its extent, massing, relationship with topography, important views or the way in which a settlement has historically developed, mitigation at the end of the process may have limited ability to address it.
Early heritage advice creates a different opportunity.
Before the design is fixed, heritage assessment can inform where development sits, how much development is appropriate, which elements should be retained, how buildings respond to existing character and which views or relationships should influence the emerging design.
Potential harm can then be designed out, rather than subsequently assessed and justified.
Heritage assessment should inform design, not simply accompany it
The lesson from cases such as Dixon is not that heritage assessment is subjective or that any conclusion is equally valid. Professional conclusions must still be supported by appropriate evidence, analysis and reasoning.
Rather, it is that heritage planning involves informed professional judgement, and disagreement between professionals or with the eventual decision-maker can occur.
The best way to manage that uncertainty is not just to commission more reporting at the end of the process. It is to integrate heritage assessment into the design process from the outset.
At Aurora Heritage Planning, we provide both formal heritage assessments for planning applications and early-stage heritage advice to help project teams understand constraints, opportunities and design considerations before proposals become fixed.
Considering a site affected by heritage constraints?
Early advice can often identify issues before they become planning problems. Contact Aurora Heritage Planning to discuss your project.
Comments