Beyond “Heritage Style”: Rethinking Rooflight Specification in Historic Buildings

By Paul Trace, Director, Stella Rooflight.......

Over the past decade, the specification of rooflights in historic and sensitive buildings has evolved significantly. Advances in performance, detailing and thermal efficiency have  broadened what is possible, while planning authorities and conservation officers have  become increasingly familiar with rooflights as a legitimate way to introduce natural light  into traditionally challenging spaces. 

Alongside this progress, however, a subtle shift has taken place in how suitability is assessed.  Terms such as “heritage style” are now widely used to describe products intended for  conservation contexts, often implying that visual similarity alone is sufficient justification for  their use. While appearance is clearly important, this trend risks oversimplifying a far more  complex set of considerations rooted in material performance, longevity and long term stewardship.  Heritage is not a look to be applied. It is a responsibility, and one that extends well beyond the moment a project is signed off. 

Conservation as stewardship, not replication 

Historic buildings are not static artefacts. They are layered structures shaped by centuries of use, adaptation and repair. Every material introduced today becomes part of that ongoing story and, in time, part of the fabric future custodians must manage. True conservation has always been about stewardship rather than replication. It asks not only how an intervention appears at the point of installation, but how it will behave, age and endure over decades.

This distinction matters because many modern components are designed around relatively short replacement cycles, whereas historic buildings were never intended to be subject to frequent intervention. Roofscapes in particular demand careful consideration. They are among the most visually sensitive elements of historic buildings and are exposed to the harshest environmental conditions. Materials introduced here must do more than look appropriate on day one. They must withstand prolonged exposure, weather predictably and remain stable over the long term, often with limited opportunity for easy replacement. 

Day one acceptance versus long term impact 

Much of the discussion around rooflights understandably focuses on initial appearance. Sightlines, reflectivity, profile depth and proportion all play an important role in determining whether an intervention is visually acceptable. But conservation decisions rarely end at completion.

A more searching question is how a rooflight will perform and appear after twenty, thirty or fifty years in situ. Different materials age in very different ways. Some weather gradually and consistently, developing a surface character that feels increasingly at home within traditional roofscapes. Others rely on finishes or coatings that can degrade unevenly, leading to visual inconsistency or functional failure far sooner than expected. In modern buildings, replacement may be inconvenient. In historic buildings, it is often disruptive, costly and complex.

Access can be difficult, planning approvals may need to be revisited, and disturbance to historic fabric is rarely trivial. What initially appeared to be a modest intervention can quickly become disproportionate. From a conservation perspective, longevity is therefore not simply a performance metric. It is a measure of how respectfully a modern intervention allows a building to continue its life with minimal disruption. 

Reframing cost as risk in today’s financial reality 

Any discussion of specification must acknowledge the economic environment in which the construction industry currently operates. Across the UK, building projects are facing sustained cost pressures driven by labour shortages, wage increases, material price volatility and constrained margins. Recent forecasts suggest that building costs and tender prices are set to rise further over the coming years, reflecting structural pressures rather than short term fluctuation.

At the same time, recent budget decisions have increased employer costs, adding further strain to an industry already operating within tight financial parameters. In this context, it is entirely understandable that clients and project teams scrutinise upfront costs closely. Every specification decision is evaluated through the lens of immediate value for money. Products that appear cost effective at purchase price inevitably attract attention. However, in historic and listed buildings, this narrow focus can obscure the longer term risk profile of a decision.

A component that performs adequately in the short term but requires premature replacement can introduce significant future costs, not just financially, but in terms of programme disruption, planning complexity and impact on historic fabric. Seen this way, cost should be understood not only as an expense to be minimised, but as a proxy for long term risk. Materials and systems that prioritise durability and predictable ageing reduce the likelihood of repeat intervention at a time when budgets, resources and regulatory capacity are already under pressure. 

The rise of “heritage style” products 

At the same time, the marketplace has seen a noticeable increase in products described as “heritage style”. In many cases, this reflects manufacturers seeking to expand their portfolios into what is perceived as a resilient or specialist sector, often driven by price sensitivity and volume.

There is nothing inherently wrong with broader market participation. The challenge arises when heritage suitability is defined primarily by visual cues, without sufficient consideration of material longevity, ageing behaviour or long term compatibility with historic structures. Surface similarity can be persuasive in planning submissions, particularly where time pressures limit deeper interrogation.

Yet heritage performance cannot be assessed on appearance alone. A product may satisfy an aesthetic requirement today while creating avoidable challenges decades later. This trend highlights the importance of informed specification. It is not about restricting choice, but about ensuring that decisions are grounded in a clear understanding of long term consequences, rather than short term visual reassurance. 

Thinking in decades, not product cycles 

Conservation is, by its nature, an intergenerational discipline. Decisions made today will be inherited by future owners, architects and conservation officers, who will judge them not by intention, but by outcome. The most successful interventions are often those that attract the least attention over time.

They age quietly, perform reliably and do not demand repeated intervention. They become part of the building’s fabric rather than a recurring problem to be managed. As discussions around rooflights in historic buildings continue to evolve, there is an opportunity to move beyond the language of “heritage style” and towards a more meaningful consideration of heritage impact. Longevity, material integrity and long term performance should sit at the centre of that conversation.

By thinking in decades rather than product cycles, and by reframing cost in terms of risk and legacy, we can make specification decisions that genuinely respect the buildings entrusted to us. In doing so, we protect not only individual projects, but the integrity of our built heritage for generations to come. To find out more about genuine conservation rooflights for your project contact the Stella Rooflight team on 01794 745445 or email info@stellarooflight.co.uk  

www.stellarooflight.co.uk