The publication of the revised National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) on Monday 17 August 2026 introduces a series of significant changes that will affect plan-making, decision-taking, housing delivery, and the relationship between national and local planning policy in England. From transitional arrangements for local plans through to the introduction of National Decision-Making Policies (NDMPs) and a strengthened presumption in favour of development, the changes represent one of the most consequential shifts in planning policy in recent years.
Transitional Arrangements for Local and Neighbourhood Plans
The revised NPPF includes important transitional arrangement provisions. Under the framework's own transitional arrangements (Annex A), local plans and other plans prepared under the new Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2026 must accord with the revised NPPF, while plans falling outside those regulations continue to be produced in accordance with the December 2024 version. If a plan is submitted for examination before 31 December 2026, it will be examined against the December 2024 NPPF. Local plans submitted after the December 2026 deadline must be examined against the new NPPF.
Neighbourhood plans are treated differently. Plans submitted to the local planning authority under Regulation 15 on or before the publication of the new framework will continue to be produced in accordance with the earlier 2024 version of the NPPF.
There is currently a significant push for local planning authorities to submit their plans for examination before the 2026 cutoff to avoid the newer, more stringent requirements.
National Decision-Making Policies and a New Policy Hierarchy
One of the most significant aspects of the revised NPPF is the proposed split between plan-making policies and decision-making policies. This split represents arguably the most significant element of the new NPPF as published, with National Decision-Making Policies (NDMPs) being set out through a 20-chapter structure.
The framework is described as a material consideration of 'critical importance', and the NDMPs are treated as a material consideration in decision-taking. The NDMPs are intended to establish a consistent national approach to key planning considerations.
Plan-makers are discouraged from repeating national policy, while policies that are materially inconsistent with NDMPs are likely to attract limited weight. The new framework positions the NPPF as a material consideration of such importance that while Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act gives primacy to the local plan, there may be instances where 'NDMPs' take primacy over the Development Plan policies (despite S38(6) of PCPA) when there is a conflict.
A Stronger Presumption in Favour of Development
The government has strengthened the presumption in favour of development. The "default yes" philosophy set out in the Policy S3 presumption and, for sites within settlements, delivered through Policy S4 remains central to the framework and signals a deliberate shift towards boosting growth within settlements. In substance, the within-settlements test has been recalibrated: development is now to be approved unless the benefits would be “substantially outweighed” by adverse effects (Policy S4), replacing the 2024 formulation under which permission was withheld only where adverse impacts would “significantly and demonstrably” outweigh the benefits.
The NPPF narrows the circumstances in which development should be resisted, replacing the older footnote 7 approach with a defined list of 15 restrictions tied to the decision-making policies that require refusal in specified circumstances.
Development Beyond Settlements and the New Rail Connectivity Policy
Underpinning the entire in-or-out-of-settlement distinction is a new glossary definition of “settlement”, which drives whether Policy S4 (default yes within settlements) or Policy S5 (restricted support outside settlements) applies to various types of development. It captures cities, towns, villages and other predominantly built-up areas — including land allocated or permitted for development that will form part of the built-up area — but excludes hamlets and scattered groups of houses unless the development plan specifically defines them as a settlement, and expressly excludes villages that lie within, and are defined as part of, the Green Belt. In borderline cases this makes the development plan's own settlement descriptions decisive.
Both policies S4 and S5 support the listed development types unless the benefits of doing so would be substantially outweighed by any adverse effects. Policy HO7 attributes substantial weight to the provision of homes where there is an evidenced unmet need. This provides a blanket approach to the weight attributed to housing, whereas under the previous version the level of weight was often disputed.
Notably, residential development within approximately 800 metres / 10-minutes walking distance of a “well-connected” station which, under the glossary, includes railway stations and underground, tram and light-rail stops remains strongly supported, whether it be in or outside settlements, or in the Green Belt (the 800-metre/10-minute threshold also runs through Policies L3 and GB7).
Housing Supply and Evidenced Unmet Need
The new NPPF maintains a strong emphasis on housing delivery and unmet need. Policy S5.1(j) (Principle of Development Outside Settlements) supports development physically well-related to an existing settlement where there is evidenced unmet need, particularly where authorities cannot demonstrate a five-year housing land supply. Evidenced 'unmet need' is not limited to housing supply.
Other Important Policy Changes
Grey Belt policy has survived despite attracting significant criticism.
The return of Vacant Building Credit, stronger expectations around timely consultation responses, and the use of standardised national planning conditions and obligations (to follow in due course) also remain key features of the new framework.
Policy DM8 introduces an intentionality test in enforcement — where unauthorised development is found on the evidence to have been intentional, that must be given substantial weight against the grant of retrospective permission.
Under Policy DM3D, decisions should not be delayed by statutory consultees beyond their deadlines unless there is a public safety risk or a lack of information.
Standardized national model planning obligations and conditions are being mandated, and authorities must have strong reasons to depart from these models.
Conclusion
The new NPPF represents a significant restructuring of national planning guidance - with stronger national policies, a reinforced presumption in favour of development, and a clear emphasis on housing delivery and decision-making speed.
For more information, please contact our team.
