Understanding Heritage Settings:

More Than Just What Can Be Seen

In recent years, both Conservation Officers and Historic England have increasingly emphasized the need for thorough Heritage Statements that fully assess the impacts of development on the setting of heritage assets, particularly those located near proposed sites. A common misconception is that “setting” only refers to the direct visual relationship between a development and a heritage asset—whether one can be seen from the other. However, the Court of Appeal ruling in Catesby Estates Ltd and SSCLG v Steer [2018] clarifies that setting encompasses much more than mere visibility.

This landmark case has been pivotal in shaping our understanding of heritage settings, reinforcing that visual and physical impacts are just part of a broader context. The Court’s decision highlighted that the setting of a heritage asset includes views from more remote locations, where both the asset and the development might be visible together, even if they are not directly intervisible. This is key in acknowledging the historical and contextual relationship between the asset and its wider environment.

Historic England’s Guidance on the assessment of setting mirrors this perspective. It points out that factors like changes in noise levels, traffic increase or decrease, and even olfactory shifts (such as new industrial smells) can significantly impact the setting and, by extension, the significance of heritage assets. These subtle environmental changes can alter how a heritage asset is experienced and understood, even if the asset itself remains physically untouched or visually obscured.

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) reinforces this broader interpretation. Paragraph 200 requires local authorities to ensure that Heritage Statements provide a proportionate description of how a development might affect a heritage asset’s setting. The emphasis is on ensuring that all aspects of significance—historical, environmental, and contextual—are fully understood, rather than simply focusing on what can be seen. The level of detail should match the importance of the heritage asset but should avoid unnecessary depth when it isn’t needed.

In practice, this means that intervisibility—the ability to see the asset from the site and vice versa—can be a useful starting point for assessing impact, but it should not be the only consideration. A robust Heritage Statement will also look at how a development might alter the character of the setting, whether through noise, visual change, or alterations to the wider environment, even when direct visual connections are absent.

In conclusion, the concept of setting is a multifaceted tool that goes beyond sightlines. When considering the potential impact of a development on a heritage asset, it’s essential to consider the full range of environmental, contextual, and sensory changes that may affect how the asset is appreciated in its setting. This more comprehensive approach, informed by case law, Historic England guidance, and national policy, ensures that heritage assets are protected in a way that respects both their visual and non-visual significance.

For more information on how AB Heritage can assist with Heritage Statements and settings assessments, please see our services page.

See also our Frequently Asked Questions page.