## 3 Initial Survey Results and Discussion
### Industry Awareness and Knowledge Gaps  
Following this question, the participants were asked whether they perceived a lack of awareness within the industry regarding contemporary techniques and emerging technologies. The responses included six \"yes\" responses, three \"no\" responses, and one response indicating \"unknown\". Combining the responses from Figure 3 indicates that most of the participants agreed on which elements of historical assets would benefit from a material change to improve their preservation. However, there was limited awareness of the specific contemporary materials and techniques available or previously implemented in similar contexts. This is a critical gap for which further research and industry focus could lead to measurable improvements in cost efficiency, maintenance time, and long-term asset sustainability. A broader set of questions was included to explore potential correlations between industry competencies, the lack of comprehensive knowledge regarding contemporary materials and manufacturing techniques, and the absence of accessible records on previous successful interventions for historical assets. The absence of such information may negatively impact the planning approval and consent process. Additional questions were posed to understand why planning applications proposing changes to historical assets are frequently rejected. Participants were asked whether they perceived a connection between proposed modifications and planning rejections. The survey responses are illustrated in Figure 4. Many of the respondents (four out of ten) frequently perceive a relationship between proposed material or technological changes  
Figure 3: Participant response to the survey to help establish which elements of an asset could benefit most from a contemporary change in material or manufacturing process. and the rejection of planning applications. This suggests that stakeholders experience significant challenges in gaining approval for modifications to historic assets. Additionally, three respondents selected \"Sometimes\", indicating that while this issue is not always a barrier, it occurs often enough to be a concern. The two \"No\" responses suggest that, in some cases, proposed changes do not necessarily lead to rejection, possibly depending on the nature of the modification or the local authority involved. These responses reinforce the challenges of integrating contemporary materials into historical asset preservation. The results suggest that planning authorities may have varying acceptance levels for technological and material updates. The pie chart in Figure 5 presents responses to the following question: 'Do you feel that due to a gap in the Network Rail processes or design documentation, there is a need to duplicate activity when making a planning application to the local authority when working on a listed asset?' The results indicate that the duplication of efforts in regards to planning applications for listed assets is a recurring issue, though not universally experienced. Eight respondents stated that duplication occurs in some cases, suggesting that while the planning and approval process does not always require redundant work, inconsistencies in Network Rail's internal processes or documentation gaps can lead to unnecessary repetition. Figure 4: Participants’ response to the survey to establish relationships between proposed changes and the success of planning applications. Figure 5: Participant response to the survey to establish any gaps in NR processes or documentation and whether activity is duplicated as a result. A smaller portion of respondents indicated that duplication is a frequent or systematic issue, implying that inefficiencies exist in aligning Network Rail's documentation with local authority requirements. This may be due to differences in design submission formats, planning application procedures, or coordination between departments. The findings suggest that a more streamlined and standardised approach to planning applications is needed to minimise redundant work.