The machinations of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) are rarely front of mind in the property industry. It is, however, the department responsible for heritage protection, the sponsor of Historic England and the owner of the listed building system. As a result, its influence over new development and redevelopment schemes is not to be ignored.
Lem Bingley
We saw evidence of this only recently in the case of Berkeley Group’s proposed 850-home redevelopment of the crumbling Aylesham Centre in Peckham, south-east London.
Initially submitted to Southwark Council in July 2024, the scheme went to the Planning Inspectorate on appeal for non-determination in May 2025. One year later, the inspector rejected the scheme, largely on heritage grounds. Last month, the developer applied for a judicial review.
DCMS’s influence over new development schemes is not to be ignored
Interestingly, London’s mayor can’t call it in after an inspectorate decision, which is something for developers to ponder when choosing the non-determination route.
At the time, Berkeley executive chair Rob Perrins said: “The fact that [Southwark] is spectacularly failing its housing targets and faces a severe housing crisis appears to count for nothing.” He added: “It cannot be right that heritage concerns trump all other policies, including the delivery of new homes, jobs and growth. This decision has already shaken investor confidence.”
This week saw the publication of a report by the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, which scrutinises the work of DCMS, as part of its inquiry into the protection of the nation’s
built heritage.
The inquiry has explored the fragmented and sometimes contradictory processes that govern heritage assets. Among other submissions, the inquiry received written testimony from historic estate owner Grosvenor, which observed: “No department currently has strategic accountability for aligning conservation and retrofit delivery. This is illustrated by the fact the previous government’s review into this issue [in 2024] was co-authored by three separate departments.”
Grosvenor also noted that “planning and heritage frameworks remain complex, inconsistent and risk-averse”, and that local authorities “apply rules in different ways due to poor policy understanding, meaning that securing permissions has become a postcode lottery”.
The committee’s report makes a series of recommendations, many of which are surprisingly prodevelopment.
“Without a more coherent and proactive approach [to policy], increasing numbers of historic buildings will fall into disuse or managed decline, representing a loss not only to the historic environment but to growth and regeneration,” the committee wrote.
It added: “We recommend the government introduce a ‘heritage-to-housing’ scheme to bring vacant and atrisk historic buildings back into residential use”. It cited regeneration policies in other countries including Italy, where disused public buildings can be sold for €1 on condition of renovation. It went on to underscore the need for tax incentives to encourage retrofit.
The committee also cited an estimate from Historic England that up to 670,000 homes could be delivered through the redevelopment of vacant heritage buildings – almost half the government’s oft-repeated housebuilding target.
History will record whether the incoming Burnham administration will take heed, among the vast number of flopping fish it has to fry.
