Top menu

Social and Cultural Policy SOC2

Proposals that may affect heritage assets should demonstrate, in order of preference:

  1. that they will not compromise or harm elements which contribute to the significance of the heritage asset
  2. how, if there is compromise or harm to a heritage asset, this will be minimised
  3. how, where compromise or harm to a heritage asset cannot be minimised it will be mitigated against
  4. the public benefits for proceeding with the proposal if it is not possible to minimise or mitigate harm to the heritage asset

Policy Considerations

  1. Public authorities may wish to consider non-designated heritage assets and their setting in line with information and advice from English Heritage.
  2. Public authorities may wish to consider the potential impact of projects on heritage assets and should take into account the risk of damage to assets. They may wish to consult with the appropriate decision makers and advisors, local councils and other bodies, like local civic societies, to ensure that designated assets, and also non-designated assets that have a cultural, social or economic value, are considered in the decision-making process.
  3. The more significant the (designated) asset, the greater should be the presumption in favour of its conservation. However, many heritage assets are not currently designated as scheduled monuments or protected wreck sites but are demonstrably of equal significance. "The absence of designation for such assets does not necessarily indicate lower significance and the marine plan authority should consider them subject to the same policy principles as designated heritage assets" – sections 2.6.6.8 and 2.6.6.5 of the Marine Policy Statement.

This plan policy references the following data sources:

Please contact the owner for the most up-to-date data for your decision-making activities.