Draft NPPF Consultation: What’s new in the Government’s revised planning framework
In what is fast becoming a Christmas tradition, the Government published an updated draft version of the National Planning Policy Framework in December. Freeths has taken some time to examine the detail, and we set out below some of the key proposed changes.
So what has changed?
Quite a lot actually. The first point of order is the NPPF’s structure. Gone is the chronological paragraph numbering, proposed to be replaced with policy numbering structured on a chapter by chapter basis, but with a much clearer distinction between plan making and decision-making policies.
The Development Plan retains its primacy, but the opening paragraph confirms that the NPPF represents the government’s policies for plan-making and for making decisions on development proposals in England and it is a material consideration of critical importance in both contexts. An early indication of increasing weight and influence?
The change in weight is a key theme with the use of ‘substantial weight’ referenced 19 times in the draft document. The current NPPF only applies this twice. This and other planning balance terms have become far more prevalent to offer much clearer guidance on applicable weight in assessing schemes.
Plan making
For plan making we see policies for the incoming new system, with Spatial Development Strategies required to set out sustainable patterns of growth of at least 20 years including the apportionment of objectively assessed needs for housing and other uses (PM1). Local Plans should set out a vision for the plan area, supported by no more than ten measurable outcomes. They should deliver policies for the minimum amount of development to be provided, land allocations and broad locations for growth, for a period of no less than 15 years from the point of adoption of the plan. Local plans should be prepared and adopted within 30 months of publishing a Gateway 1 self-assessment (PM2).
Under ‘General principles for plan-making’ (PM6) there is an emphasis on plans being concise, avoiding duplication from other parts of the development plan and not restating or modifying the contents of national decision-making policies (more on this below) unless directed by other policies in the Framework.
The tests for examining plans (PM14-PM17) include spatial development strategies satisfying the tests of ‘positive’, ‘appropriate’, ‘effective’ and ‘consistent with national policy’. The tests for local plans and mineral and waste Plans sees ‘effective’ replaced by ‘realistic’ albeit in practice the test appears very similar. There is a 5th test which requires conformity with any adopted spatial development strategy. The return of policy to implement genuine sub-regional planning strategy is welcomed. Whilst there is an overall emphasis on improving speed of plan making and streamlining their scope to what is necessary, questions clearly remain of whether the complexity of the system can deliver efficient plan making outcomes.
Sustainable development & tilted balance
Policies S4 and S5 under ‘Achieving Sustainable Development’ are highly significant and are proposed to replace paragraph 11d of the existing NPPF and reframe the ‘tilted balance’. They provide the framework for considering the principle of development within and outside settlements respectively. S4 states “Development proposals within settlements should be approved unless the benefits of doing so would be substantially outweighed by any adverse effects, when assessed against the national decision-making policies in this Framework.”
The policy provides examples of where adverse effects are likely to substantially outweigh benefits (this is not a closed list) including having unacceptable impacts on allocated or safeguarded land; open space, sport and recreation facilities, local green space, designated wildlife habitats or managing development within residential curtilages. Land used for a cemetery/burial ground or water storage and/or flood risk management is also referenced, whilst failure to comply with national decision-making policies, which state that development proposals should be refused in specific circumstances, is also likely to outweigh the benefits of a scheme.
Despite the caveats, which are clearly necessary to protect specific land uses, the introduction of an automatic ‘tilted balance’ test for ‘in-settlement’ development further strengthens the desire to see development in these locations.
However, S5 goes further. This sets out that ‘only’ certain forms of development should be approved outside of settlements, and such schemes are again subject to the same tilted balance test as S4. The list of ‘certain forms of development’ contains in particular two notable types of development. Item ‘h’, development for housing and mixed-use development which would be within reasonable walking distance of a railway station and which provides a high level of connectivity to jobs and services. The latter is defined by footnote 26 which states “Well-connected rail stations and underground, tram and light rail stops are those in a top 60 Travel to Work Area located partially or fully within England by Gross Value Added (GVA) and which, in the normal weekday timetable, are served (or have a reasonable prospect of being served due to planned upgrades or through agreement with the rail operator) throughout the daytime by four trains or trams per hour overall, or two trains or trams per hour in any one direction.”
Item ‘j’ relates to development which would address an evidenced unmet need. For housing this is defined by a local planning authority being unable to demonstrate a five-year housing supply or scoring lower than 75% on the Housing Delivery Test and is therefore similar in effect to existing policy. However, S5 does not apply just to housing. Storage and distribution is expressly referenced and S5 would have a wider ambit of applying to any evidenced unmet need.
S5 is a strong ‘pro-development’ policy with government recognising the value of significant development located close to railway stations. Simple identification of ‘well connected’ train stations will be important and it will be interesting to see whether developers attempt to argue any ‘evidenced unmet need’ cases into very specific forms of development (ie: care; self-build; specific scale of employment development to name but a few).
National decision-making policies are introduced on a non-statutory basis. Their aim is clear, to provide consistency and clarity and remove unnecessary from development plans. Although non-statutory, their weight is apparent with the ‘implementation’ section advising that “development plan policies which are in any way inconsistent with the national decision-making policies in this Framework should be given very limited weight, except where they have been examined and adopted against this Framework.”
Housing
Noteworthy revisions include a requirement to allocate at least 10% of sites to be no larger than 1ha and a further 10% on sites between 1-2.5ha unless there are strong reasons why this can’t be achieved (HO6). Where development proposals meet or exceed up-to-date development plan requirements for the proportion and mix of affordable housing tenures, a flexible approach to the size of market homes should be taken. The definition of affordable housing has been widened to include military affordable housing (HO8).
There is a strong emphasis on achieving appropriate densities. Where development proposals for housing or mixed-use schemes are within reasonable walking distance of a railway station, a density of at least 40 dwellings per hectare should be achieved. This rises to 50 dwellings per hectare, where the station is defined as well-connected (L3).
Development viability has a specific development management policy (DM5). Where development proposals accord with relevant up-to-date plan policies and national decision-making policies, they should be assumed to be viable. The policy lists ‘limited circumstances’ where a viability assessment may be justified relating to differences in circumstances to that assessed in the development plan viability assessment. These including matters such as typology, site characteristics, unforeseeable costs and significant changes in economic circumstances. In practice, it appears that there may still be sufficient wriggle room to run viability arguments but the Government is continuing a trend of attempting to tighten the net.
Economic growth
The focus on delivering economic growth is to be strengthened with a widened chapter on plan and decision making. This follows the general approach of NPPF 2024 with new references to the Industrial Strategy Zones Action Plan and AI Growth Zones, campus facilities and associated generating capacity for data centres. There is also reference to the importance of leisure and tourism as an industry of particular importance in certain areas which is a welcome addition.
The importance of flexibility in plan-making is emphasised with advice that development plans are not overly prescriptive about the types of acceptable uses given changing commercial property requirements unless there is specific justification. The development management policies (E2 and E3) are proposed to be widened for business land and premises. Substantial weight is proposed to be given to (a) economic benefits of commercial development and especially where this supports economic vision and strategy for the area and other specific instances and (b) benefits of domestic food production, animal welfare and the environment demonstrated via proposals for farm and agricultural modernisation.
There is also a proposed new policy (E2.2) for where a development proposal meets an unmet need (including outside a settlement boundary under S5) and the considerations that need to be given. This covers market signals and locational requirements. This is a very useful new specific section addressing policy issues encountered in appeal decisions. A specific policy (E3) is proposed for freight and logistics uses and associated infrastructure. This deals with locational requirements and impacts offering useful specific measures to assess proposals and locations. Again, another useful addition to support this key growth sector.
Town centres
There are subtle changes proposed to this chapter with some interesting additions. Policy TC2 is a new specific policy dealing with proposals for development in town centres and how substantial benefit should be given to the benefits of: a) supporting the overall viability of the centre including specific proposals such as residential; and improving or retaining access to local shops and other facilities.
Policy TC3 relates to the sequential test which remains in place. Part 3 however introduces whether the type of development proposed could be accommodated across multiple sites. This is disaggregation in all but name with this term having been removed in the 2012 NPPF.
The definition of edge-of-centre in the Glossary is proposed to change to for main town centre uses, a location within a settlement that is well connected to and within 300 metres of a town centre boundary. A more straightforward definition applied to all town centre uses rather than retail specifically.
Design
The importance of design remains but is re-presented as key principles for well-designed places. These are 8 principles described more fully in Part 1 of the Design and Placemaking PPG. This has also been published for consultation closing on 10th March 2026 (see: Design and Placemaking Planning Practice Guidance - GOV.UK). This has been published to consolidate four previous guidance documents (National Design Guide, Design Process and Tools Planning Practice Guidance, National Model Design Code Parts 1 and 2). Substantial weight is proposed to be given to compliance with design policies which is an increase from the existing ‘significant’.
Not just the guidance
The consultation also deals with other proposed reforms to the planning system:
- The use of the planning system for data centres and on-site energy generation and how to speed up the consenting process
- The use of standardised inputs for viability assessments including key terms and moving this from the PPG to a new annex in the final NPPF
- Reforming site thresholds with a new medium category of 10-49 units and up to 1 hectare to simply the planning requirements on SME developers
Next steps
The draft is open for consultation until 10th March 2026. This is taking the form of a questionnaire with an eye watering 225 questions on all topics that have been subject to change in the document.
There is no published timescale for the final version to be published and certainly no guarantee that the proposed wording will remain. Previous consultations have led to final publications in July. Given the positive pro-development stance the revisions have taken and how this is important to housing and economic growth, we would expect Government to push for publication as soon as possible.
If you require any further advice and support for a response to the consultation, please get in touch with Mark Harris, Mark Bassett or another member of our planning and environment team.
The content of this page is a summary of the law in force at the date of publication and is not exhaustive, nor does it contain definitive advice. Specialist legal advice should be sought in relation to any queries that may arise.
Law Firm of the Year
We are proud to have been named Law Firm of the Year at the prestigious Legal Business Awards 2024!
Legal Business is the market-leading monthly magazine for the UK and global legal market. Its readership spans the UK, Europe, Asia and the US, and the awards celebrate the very best in the legal profession.
This win is absolute recognition for all the hard work across the firm over the past year.
Contact us today
Whatever your legal needs, our wide ranging expertise is here to support you and your business, so let’s start your legal journey today and get you in touch with the right lawyer to get you started.
Get in touch
For general enquiries, please complete this form and we will direct your message to the most appropriate person.