CONTEXT 186 : DECEMBER 2025 11 professional negligence, a defendant submitted heritage advice as part of a pre-application advice application for works to a Grade II-listed building. The court held that the submission failed to follow the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework and National Policy Guidance. The claimant was awarded a full reimbursement of all costs. The architect was found to be negligent, based on: • Failure to understand that the entire building was listed and not just the facade • Failure to provide an assessment of significance of the heritage assets as is required by the NPPF • Failure to assess the impact of the proposed works on the heritage asset • Failure to research similar works on a neighbouring building, which would have provided information pertinent to the host scheme. While each application should be considered on its own merits in the light of local and national policy, researching similar applications in the locality would have provided relevant information • Breach of their duty of care by not understanding the heritage requirements as part of the application process. This decision highlights that any person claiming to possess the skills of a professional built heritage specialist will be judged by the standards of a reasonably competent person. To ensure that they meet this standard, they must have a thorough understanding of national planning policy, and they will be open to challenge if they do not apply it rigorously. The pre-application process is considered more formal than just being a matter of testing the waters. The judgement confirms that the professional duties to apply national policy, and to assess significance and heritage impacts, should always apply, even at a pre-application stage; and that the professional duty of a specialist is not different at pre-application and planningapplication-submission stages. It’s still good practice R (Andrew Rickards) v East Hertfordshire District Council and Vladslav Petryk, decision date 5 September 2025 This application related to a prior approval application for the erection of a polytunnel in the green belt. While there is a lower standard of scrutiny for applications for prior approval than for planning permission, this decision was quashed because the council did not consider material considerations such as the impact of the development on a nearby listed building and an ancient woodland. However, the decision is worth further scrutiny as the deputy high court judge, Mr Justice Smith, referred at paragraphs 96–101 of the transcript to Annex E of the now-superseded Planning Policy Guidance 7. He noted that PPG7 (including Annex E) had been withdrawn and superseded by the consolidated NPPF and PPG, and that those documents went into much less detail about how to approach applications of this case. In his judgement, ‘the withdrawal of Annex E does not affect materially the assistance it provides to this case. Good practice guidance does not cease to be that just because the policy document in which it is found is later withdrawn. PPG7 was withdrawn not because it was considered to be no longer applicable but because in 2012 the government had concluded that the lexicon of planning policy should be consolidated, and reduced in size dramatically, by replacing it with the NPPF.’ Appeals Ref: 3363903 Development in the green belt with a s106 for repairs to a listed building, some four miles from development site, was considered to be very special circumstances. Allowed Ref: 3365056 A proposal for six dwellings in open countryside which would result in the loss of a non-designated heritage asset, with poor design not reflecting the rural character of the locality. Dismissed Ref: 3369175 The restoration of a Grade II*-listed building and its residential conversion was considered acceptable, despite being located in the tidal breach zone and subject to flood risk. Allowed Refs: 3359802 and 3359803 Planning permission for the replacement of a shopfront and advertisement within a conservation area, with modern materials proposed (uPVC and aluminium). The inspector concluded that the scheme would cause harm. Dismissed Ref: 3362993 (An appeal relating to design) A new dwelling in the green belt amounted to very special circumstances on the basis that it would be constructed using graphene-enhanced materials, and that the use of these would provide potential sustainability and innovative design benefits that could provide live-testing of its performance, and contribute to meeting housing need. The development would be the basis for continuing learning about its practical use in residential construction. Allowed Alexandra Fairclough, chair of the north west branch of the IHBC, is the cultural heritage and design lead at Bolton Council. Called to the Bar in 2009, she sits on the IHBC legal panel and lectures on heritage planning law.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=