Scenario

Heritage Statement for Change of Use of a Listed Building

Reviewed by

Oliver Wakefield-Smith

Founder, Digital Signet

Last reviewed 22 June 2026 · Refreshed quarterly

Direct answer

Does change of use require a Heritage Statement?

Where the building is listed or in a conservation area, yes. Change of use frequently involves internal alteration (subdivision, partitioning, service routes) which engages the listed-building consent regime even where the use change itself is permitted under the Use Classes Order or General Permitted Development Order. A Heritage Statement is the proportionate document for most cases; a full HIA is appropriate where the change is major (industrial-to-residential, ecclesiastical-to-secular).

Worked scenario

Grade II former Victorian school, change of use to residential

Sample wording

“The proposed change of use from a redundant Victorian board school to a six-unit residential conversion retains the principal hall, the gallery and the cast-iron windows in their existing volumes, with new mezzanines inserted in lightweight materials below the level of the historic windows so as not to occlude them externally. The original entrance vestibule, foundation stone and benefactor plaque are retained in situ in the new communal entrance.”

Likely outcome

LPAs are increasingly supportive of viable-use change for buildings at risk of dereliction, where the conversion preserves the principal historic volumes and respects internal heritage features.

Mitigation pattern that has won consent

Reversible insertion of mezzanines below window cill level, retention of principal volumes (hall, gallery), preservation of all historically-significant fixtures in situ, and a public-benefit case framed around securing optimum viable use under NPPF paragraph 208.

The 'loss of historic fabric' question

Internal alteration almost always involves some loss of historic fabric. The Heritage Statement must (a) identify what is being lost, (b) justify the loss against the alternative of dereliction, and (c) propose mitigation (recording, fabric retention in situ, reversible insertion).

The public-benefit hierarchy

Securing optimum viable use of an asset at risk, strongest argument.
Funding repair to other parts of the asset through enabling development.
Reinstating historically-correct features as part of the works.
Public access where none previously existed.