NPPF and NDMPs!
The much awaited National Planning Policy Framework has been revised and adopted on the 18th August 2026.
The NPPF is the document which guides decisions and policy for development across England and Wales. The NPPF was first published in 2012 and we have seen numerous revisions over the 14 years since its inception.
Following the publication and consultation on the Draft NPPF we had been anticipating the adoption of the new NPPF, which the consultation document had anticipated for late spring/early summer 2026.
This edition of the NPPF really grapples with some of the issues of interpretation of the previous versions and the government’s ambitions to streamline the planning system and reduce duplication in local plans.
The NPPF (2026) is divided into Plan Making Policies and National Decision-Making Policies (NDMPs) and makes clear that the plan making policies are not to be used to determine planning applications. The document also states that local plan policies should not duplicate, restate or be inconsistent with the content of the NDMPs.
When considering whether local plan policies are ‘out of date’ the test is no longer the date of adoption, but the degree of inconsistency with the NPPF.
The revised NPPF, whilst not making the policies statutory, makes clear that the document has primacy over the local development plan, as emphasised in paragraph 1 of the document, which states that the NPPF is a “material consideration of critical importance”. The document also attempts to make the planning system more ‘rules based’, clearly indicating how much weight should be given to different elements.
Some key sections and changes are discussed below.
Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development
S3 establishes the presumption in favour of sustainable development. This is then given more detail for development in a settlement (S4) and out of a settlement (S5). The definition of settlements now includes villages, but does not include hamlets. Where development is acceptable there is a stronger presumption in favour. But where development is found to be unacceptable, the tests are even tougher, creating a reverse tilted balance.
S4 lists a number of material considerations which would weigh against the presumption of sustainable development, which indicate areas where harm would outweigh the benefits of approval.
S5 refers to the existing building as the building at the time of the NPPF’s publication, rather than as it was in 1948 or as constructed. However, this is the only part of the framework where this is the test, all other references to original building still refer to the building as it was in 1948 or as constructed (if built after 1948).
Housing, making effective use of land and densities
HO7 gives substantial weight to homes that contribute to an identified need, including homes needed for different groups and specialist accommodation.
L2 gives substantial weight to making more efficient use and remediating previously developed land and buildings. S5, L3, GB7 give weight to development within ‘reasonable walking distance’ to well connected stations. The glossary defines this as “around 800 metres, or around 10 minutes’ walk time if topography, route availability and quality or physical barriers would prevent or discourage walking from up to 800 metres away”. The glossary also gives definition to ‘well-connected stations’, as “Railway stations and underground, tram and light rail stops located within a top 80 Travel to Work Area” and in a normal workday timetable have, or have reasonable prospect of having, “at least four trains or trams per hour overall, or at least two trains or trams per hour in any one direction.”
Consultation
DM3 reduces the over reliance on consultees maintains that the decision maker needs to make a judgement based on the consultee feedback.
Enforcement
DM8(2) introduces a big test for retrospective applications in light of enforcement action. If it can be proved unauthorised development was intentional it will be harder to regularise.
Heritage
The definitions used to assess impact of development on heritage assets have been altered, removing the ‘less than substantial harm’ in favour of ‘positive effect’, ‘no effect’, ‘harm’ and ‘total loss’ as outlined in HE5. The framework has also added "preserve" to the heritage glossary.
Green Belt
There have been some small changes in the wording of development which would not be inappropriate in the Green Belt.
Grey belt and the golden rules still stand but there is no more requirement to apply footnote 7 to grey belt sites. This means that whether a site is defined solely by the purposes and functions of the greenbelt land, rather than other concerns such as heritage and flood risk as were contained in footnote 7.
Industrial land
E2 gives substantial weight for commercial development where there are economic benefits and market signals.
Town Centres
There are not any significant changes to town centres though TC12 encourages LPAs to impose Article 4 directions, which could see more permitted development rights removed for Class MA conversions.
Renewables and climate change
CC3(1)(e) introduces support for measures to mitigate against wildfires, such as providing fire breaks, defensible spaces and avoiding timber panelling in vulnerable locations.
The framework introduces greater support for renewables and carbon reduction in heritage assets in HE6(4).
WEA Planning are advising clients on the change in policy and what this means for development applications. Contact us for advice on your projects today.