Saunders Report

Historic England's response to the Saunders Report

We are pleased to see that the report is supportive of designation as a process, and we welcome the wide range of constructive ideas put forward. We note that the key recommendations broadly align with our own assessment of the current situation and our future plans. 

The four main recommendations are welcomed; they align with our own findings and echo those of the Martin Cherry and Gill Chitty report of 2010, Statutory Lists: Review of Quality and Coverage. We acknowledge that the absence of a third national resurvey has left the later periods of our heritage (aside from a committed drive on post-war design) under-represented on the NHLE.  Focusing on design, quality and historic interest, as well as building type, is key to people’s sense of place and important for good management of the historic environment. 

Current expectations and potential for List entries in this digital age are very different from those of their original purpose, which was simply to include an address and a very short description sufficient to confirm the identity of the building and what it looked like. Hence the majority of entries have minimal content whereas over the last twenty years’ greater effort has been made to distinguish the particular special interest that led to their designation, and to include an image. This additional information helps owners, agents, researchers and decision-makers considerably.  

In 2016, the capacity for anyone with information to ‘Enrich the List’ was successfully introduced to engage and enthuse anyone interested in built heritage. In 2023 this was rebranded as the ‘Missing Pieces Project’, with campaigns to encourage new users. The photographs and comments on the Missing Pieces Project can complement the formal enhancement of an official List entry.  

Central to the development of the NHLE has been a mix of strategic research (known as thematic listing) and responding to requests to list buildings from third parties (known as reactive listing), often because the building in question is thought to be at risk in some way. Our thematic listing projects are prioritised through our internal Listing Work Plan, and we continue to be committed to improving the coverage on the List of buildings from the Nineteenth and early-Twentieth centuries (and to identify and address other gaps in coverage). 

However well-resourced it is, a national list such as this one will never be complete either in identifying every single site of value, or in the information included in each entry. As expectations for the NHLE have grown since it started, as well as changes in process, proportionately more resource goes into adding each entry and amending those existing ones in need of attention.  

To continue to enhance the value of the NHLE in line with public expectations we are keen to engage communities in its benefits, compilation and improvement. 

We welcome the Saunders’ Report both as an endorsement of what has been achieved to date, but also as a challenge for how the organisation might prioritise future action. It provides a solid foundation on which to build a better understanding of the needs and aspirations of those who use the NHLE. 

Celebrating our successes

• We have piloted a new way to update List entries with our  High Street Heritage Action Zone (HSHAZ) projects (recommendation 8) 
• We have completed pilot projects in 5 areas working with groups of volunteers who were recruited and trained for each project. The volunteers photographed listed buildings in their area, added content via the Missing Pieces Project and checked the accuracy of information in the List entry, such as the address (recommendation 4) 
• We have included an explanation of how List entries work and what they cover on each List entry (recommendation 10) 
• We have published new guidance on special historic interest (recommendation 12) 
• We have successfully relaunched ‘Enrich the List’ as the ‘Missing Pieces Project’ to encourage more people to upload user-generated photos and content (recommendation 15) 
• We have developed new tabs for the NHLE and continue to improve functionality, for instance by adding photographs from the Missing Pieces Project to the overview page where possible (recommendations 11 & 18) 
• We have continued to celebrate the variety of buildings added to the NHLE over the last year with our annual Listing Roundup (recommendation 23) 
• We have completed more listing projects as part of ‘Taking Stock’, including in the Dioceses of Portsmouth and Hallam (recommendation 32) 
• The Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, when enforced, will include the removal of compensation where Building Preservation Notices (BPNs) are served but the building isn’t listed (recommendation 37) 

Further work we are committed to

• We will continue to improve the functionality of the NHLE (recommendation 18) 
• We are developing improved guidance to support LPAs in serving BPNs (recommendation 37) 
• We have worked successfully with a number of other organisations including CAMRA and The Gardens Trust, and we will continue to seek out these opportunities (recommendation 39)

How the report was produced

Notice of the inquiry was publicised to potential respondents through heritage organisations such as The Heritage Alliance. Around 60 different groups, societies and individuals submitted responses.  

Face-to-face meetings took place with several stakeholders as well as colleagues within Historic England and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS). Fact-finding visits were made across England. We supplied data and supporting information at the author's request. 

We remain grateful to Matthew Saunders for the care and experienced professionalism that distinguish this report, and to the valuable contributions of those he spoke to.