The draft NPPF was published for consultation in late December, representing not just a modest change to the document as we have seen in proceeding years but a wholesale shift similar to the loss of the PPGs and PPSs in 2012.
It’s likely to be subject to change before being adopted later in the year, but there are 12 key areas being proposed. Here our team review the key topics – and the implications for residential developers and the Government’s ambitious plans for housebuilding in England.
And as always, please get in touch if you have any queries or want to discuss how these changes may affect your proposal.
𝟏𝟐 𝐊𝐞𝐲 𝐀𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐬 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐂𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐞
1. A permanent presumption in favour of suitably located development
The Paragraph 11 presumption in favour of sustainable development is to be superseded with a general presumption in favour of sustainable development.
A default assumption of acceptability of development within settlement boundaries is now applied, unless the adverse impacts of doing so would be substantially greater than the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the NPPF.
There are some stated exceptions, but these do not materially change the current status quo of assessing applications within settlement boundaries generally.
Development Outside Settlement Boundaries
For development proposals outside settlement boundaries, we see a default assumption of acceptability for the following proposals (not exhaustive), unless there are substantial adverse effects:
- Agriculture, horticulture, outdoor sport and recreation, allotments, cemeteries, engineering operations and infrastructure etc
- Development of rural business and services where the location is shown to be necessary
- Re-use, extension, alteration of an existing building of permanent and substantial construction
- Redevelopment of PDL
- Limited infilling
- Gypsy and Traveller sites.
Notably – housing and mixed-use developments within reasonable walking distances to a railway station. We will discuss this further in a separate post.
Paragraph 11 Test and Housing Supply
The Paragraph 11 test remains in some form in Policy S5j) where there is still a need for the Council to demonstrate a 5YHLS and/or deliver more than 75% against the Housing Delivery Test. Annex D provides a clear standard method for ascertaining 5YHLS.
This new test goes further than the paragraph 11 test and requires developments to be:
- Well related to an existing settlement; and
- Of a scale that can be accommodated, having regard to the existing or proposed infrastructure; or
- Comprise major development for storage and distribution, subject to other policy considerations.
This will require additional evidence at an application stage to demonstrate adequate infrastructure provisions. We will await clarification on how this applies to foul water provision in the public networks – where providers increasingly object on capacity grounds, even when they have a statutory duty to provide capacity for development.
Limitations of the New Presumption
The change makes it expressly clear that the presumption:
- Does not apply to isolated homes;
- Should seek to promote sustainable patterns of movement; and
- Does not override Green Belt policy objectives.
The Paragraph 14 tests in respect of Neighbourhood Plans remain largely unaltered.
The overall thrust of the policy is clear – build, build, build!
2. Building Homes Around Stations
The next topic focuses on building homes around stations.
A “Default Yes” Approach
There is a clear drive for ‘in principle’ support – effectively a “default yes” – for suitable development around rail stations. This applies to:
- Stations within existing settlements, and
- Well-connected train stations outside settlements, including those in the Green Belt.
What Does “Well-Connected” Mean?
The draft attempts to clearly define this. Footnote 26 explains that it relates to rail stations, the underground, tram and light rail stops.
These stops must be located within one of the top 60 Travel to Work Areas (TTWA) that are partially or fully within England. A TTWA is generally defined as a large town, city or conurbation where people commute to work.
The ONS 2011 data identifies over 220 TTWAs across the UK, so it will be interesting to see how this is narrowed down to the top 60.
Stations must meet minimum service levels during a normal weekday timetable. This equates to:
- Four trains or trams per hour overall, or
- Two trains per hour in one direction.
This can include stations where there is a reasonable prospect of future upgrades.
Any scheme must be of a scale that can be supported by existing or planned infrastructure and not prejudice any long term comprehensive development in the same area.
Minimum Density Requirements
Because of the sustainable nature of these locations, the consultation introduces minimum density standards. Draft Policy L3 proposes a minimum density of 40 dwellings per hectare around all stations and 50 dwellings per hectare around well-connected stations. The aim is to make the most of high levels of connectivity and improve access to jobs and services.
The policy is firm: proposals that do not make efficient use of land in accordance with this policy should be refused.
It remains to be seen whether this strong wording will survive. Even in the most sustainable locations, achieving these densities may not always be due to other constraints such as surface water flooding, BNG or protected trees.
These factors may limit what can realistically be delivered on some sites.
3. Driving urban and suburban densification
Topic 3 is about driving urban and suburban densification.
The ambition to increase density in urban and suburban areas has been part of the planning agenda for some time. The introduction of the Part 20 permitted development rights -allowing upward extensions, subject to prior approval for example – was one mechanism used by previous Governments to support this objective.
The draft NPPF takes this approach a step further. Draft policy L2 gives substantial weight to a more explicit list of development proposals, which can be summarised as follows:
- Use of derelict, contaminated or despoiled land
- Use of vacant, under-utilised land or buildings
- Effective use of previously developed land (PDL)
- Airspace development
- Development within existing plots
Together these measures are intended to support higher density of development in sustainable locations.
Minimum Density Requirements and Efficient Use of Land
Draft policy L3 seeks to support the use of minimum density requirements in sustainable locations, with an emphasis on refusing applications that do not make efficient use of land.
It also clarifies that density (dph) calculations should be based on the net developable area rather than the site as a whole.
However, this raises an important question: does this go a step too far when balancing the drive for denser development against the need to reflect local character and appearance, or the setting of a heritage asset for example?
4. Securing a diverse mix of homes
Here we consider the proposals for securing a diverse mix of homes.
Identifying Housing Needs at the Plan-Making Stage
There has always been a need to identify diversity in housing mix to be secured at the plan making stage. However, until now, it has never been explicitly stated which groups’ needs should be met, leaving the matter for Local Housing Needs Assessments.
This draft expressly sets out these groups and requires Local Planning Authorities to use the identified need as a minimum.
It also seeks to introduce a policy requirement for a minimum proportion of social rented homes in major developments and allows affordable housing requirements to be set for non-major development in Designated Rural Areas.
Market Housing and Deliverability
The proposals also appear to step away from controlling the market mix of housing, but subject to the delivery of a compliant affordable housing mix.
This may acknowledge the practical reality that developers cannot build homes that will not sell!
Overall, the draft places a much greater emphasis on providing access to housing for all.
5. Supporting Small and Medium Sites
In topic 5 of our NPPF review, we consider the Government’s proposal to make it easier to bring forward small and medium sites.
Policy Direction for Small Sites
For small sites this includes encouraging denser development within settlements. Policy L1 would require development plans to use design guides/codes to show how small sites can make more efficient use of land. This includes filling in gaps in roof lines, allowing taller curtilages.
Introducing ‘Medium Development’
For medium housing sites, a new development category of ‘medium development’ is proposed. This is likely to cover schemes of 10-49 homes on sites up to 2.5 hectares.
Proposed Policy DM2 asks LPAs to distinguish between local validation requirements for major, medium and other development types. An alternative option under consideration is to mandate some information requirements through development management regulations, similar to how the DMPO currently specifies when Design and Access Statements are required.
Affordable Housing and Cash Payments in Lieu
More notably, the supporting consultation (rather than the draft policy itself) suggests allowing ‘medium development’ sites total discretion over providing social and affordable housing either on-site or via a “cash payment in lieu”.
A softer version appears in proposed Policy HO8, which expects on-site provision unless a cash payment can be robustly justified.
Implications for SMEs
While this may be welcomed by many SMEs, it appears to conflict with the Government’s position that is has already taken steps to help SME housebuilders secure Registered Providers for S106 units on medium sites. Caveats may also emerge, for example where the Golden Rules apply.
Does This Really Reduce Burden?
Given that local validation requirements for minor development are increasingly resembling those for major applications, it remains to be seen whether this new category will truly reduce burdens on SMEs, particularly if cash payments in lieu for medium sites still have to be robustly justified rather than automatically accepted.
And finally… does the term “cash payment” conjure an image of an SME developer turning up to the Council offices with a duffle bag of cash for anyone else, or just us?!
6. Streamlining Local Standards
Topic 6 focuses on streamlining local standards.
Limiting Local Quantitative Standards
To provide greater certainty for applicants and accelerate local plan production, the Government is proposing to limit local ‘quantitative standards’ in development plans only where local variation can be clearly justified.
Under draft Policy PM13 – ‘Setting Standards’ this would be limited to:
- Infrastructure provision
- Affordable housing requirements
- Parking standards
- Design and placemaking.
While this still covers a significant number of matters, councils will be expected either to justify local standards or to use/adapt relevant national standards.
The draft policy also explicitly resists duplication of Building Reg matters, apart from accessibility and water efficiency standards.
Elsewhere, the draft NDMPs seek to establish national standards where an LPA has not adopted a local one. For example, the Golden Rules requires development to meet local green space standards, but where none exist, national standards would apply.
Implications for BNG and Energy Standards
Of particular interest to many of us will be Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG). The draft framework resists local standards for net gains, and we will explore this in more detail in a later post.
Similarly, we will look at energy matters separately, but it is noteworthy that the consultation document expressly highlights a desire to avoid local standards for energy efficiency.
A Shift Towards a Rules-Based Approach
The overarching theme is a move towards adoption of national standards to create a more ‘rules-based’ approach to planning. This appears an attempt to replicate the ‘success’ of national policy in areas such as Green Belt, heritage and flood risk, where LPAs already defer to national policy.
However, given the national policies will not be subject to examination but will effectively operate as development plan documents, this is a potentially controversial shift in approach.
7. Boosting Local and Regional Economies
Topic 7 looks at proposals aimed at boosting local and regional economies.
The Government is looking to drive growth by strengthening economic policies, split broadly into two areas:
- Plan-making policies, to create conditions for long term growth
- National Decision-Making Policies (NDMPs) aimed at meeting business needs including in rural areas.
Conditions for long term growth
Policy E1 builds on existing paragraphs 86 and 87. There’s a clear message to LPAs to avoid overly prescriptive employment allocations limiting the types of uses which would be accepted on employment sites, reflecting the changing demands of a modern economy.
Meeting the need for business land and premises
Within the NDMPs, decision makers would be required to give substantial weight to the benefits of economic development – particularly where proposals align with a local economic strategy, the national Industrial Strategy, AI Growth Zones or agricultural modernisation.
Some flesh on the bone is also added on how to demonstrate unmet employment land need, to assist with Grey Belt development.
This includes market signals indicating an undersupply, though how this would work in practice is less clear. It feels slightly sequential test-adjacent, which is interesting given separate proposals to remove the town centre sequential test to allow more flexibility for the economy to respond to changing patterns of demand.
Freight and logistics
New policy is proposed to support the movement of goods where there is good access to transport networks, limited environmental impact and sufficient lorry parking.
Rural Business
Support for rural business is incorporated into the NDMPs, with rural community facilities covered elsewhere in the framework. New references support farm viability and sustainability, domestic food production, and temporary accommodation for seasonal workers.
The current paragraph 89 recognising that some rural businesses need to be beyond settlements remains, but with stronger encouragement to use PDL sites, relate well to existing development and achieve appropriate design.
8. Supporting critical and growth in minerals
Topic 6 is about minerals and waste. While not a key area of our work, we note that the proposed draft ensures that adequate provision is made for the continuing extraction of minerals, recognising their economic importance and role in supporting growth.
This is particularly relevant for development sites located in mineral extraction areas, where the potential for prior exploration and extraction will need to be carefully considered before other forms of development can proceed.
These proposals should also be considered alongside the government’s wider objectives, including the mission to achieve clean power by 2030 and the associated move to further limit the extraction of coal.
9. Embedding a vision-led approach to transport
Topic 9’s instalment covers transport matters.
Vision-Led Transport Planning
Transport matters are addressed in Chapter 15 of the draft NPPF. The latest changes further embed the vision-led approach to transport which was introduced in December 2024.
The updates also reference the DfT’s Connectivity Tool as a method for assessing site connectivity and informing site selection. This is online tool assesses how well locations are connected to everyday services by walking, driving, cycling and public transport.
As this tool is still very new in industry use, careful consideration will be needed in how its scores are interpreted. A low score should not automatically indicate an unsustainable location, as the tool does not account for several important factors, including the quality of walking, cycling or public transport routes. Any assessment of connectivity will therefore need to consider local context.
Locating Development in Sustainable Locations
Policy TR3 revises elements of current Paragraphs 109 & 110 to consolidate key decision-making principles for sustainable development patterns. The draft text replaces previous references to “significant development” with development proposals that could generate a “significant amount of movement in the context of the area within which they would be situated”.
Development plans will be able to set thresholds for what constitutes a “significant amount of movement”. This will require careful consideration of how such thresholds are established and applied in practice.
Local Parking Standards
There will also now be a requirement for development plans to set local parking standards, rather than this being a suggestion as in the current NPPF.
While this may be welcomed in principle, parking standards will need to be applied flexibly to respond to the needs of different uses, localities and specific business requirements.
Assessing Impacts on Transport Networks
Policy TR6 introduces clearer language on how adverse impacts on transport networks should be assessed. Importantly, it has been broadened to reflect potential impacts on the transport network as a whole, rather than focusing solely on highways impacts.
10. Better Addressing Climate Change
This chapter reviews how the draft NPPF seeks to tackle climate change and strengthen the tole of the planning system in reducing emissions, building resilience to climate impacts and supporting the transition to net zero.
A Holistic Policy Approach
The updates to the NPPF adopt a more holistic approach to climate change, with the overarching policy aims to:
- Promote sustainable transport and development patterns
- Encourage design approaches that conserve energy and other resources
- Support opportunities to reuse existing structures and materials
- Protect and restore habitats which act as important carbon stores
- Restrict fossil fuel extraction
Energy Efficiency and Low-Carbon Energy
Policy CC2 gives substantial weight to the benefits of improving the energy efficiency of existing buildings and/or drawing energy from district heat networks, renewable and low-carbon sources.
The draft NPPF goes further than current policy by requiring development proposals to consider both current and future climate impacts over the lifetime of the development, including in terms of flooding and drainage.
Flood Risk: Greater Clarity and Flexibility
A dedicated chapter to flood risk aims to clarify when site-specific flood risks assessments, sequential tests and exemption tests are required.
The proposed changes provide additional guidance on circumstances where the sequential test may not be required. This includes situations where a site is potentially at risk from surface water flooding, but where a site-specific flood risk assessment demonstrates that the proposed layout, design and mitigation measures would ensure the development is safe for its lifetime.
The policy also clarifies that the area to which the sequential test is applied should take account of the anticipated catchment of the development, based on its likely occupiers or users.
Alignment with Updated National Guidance
The NPPF reflects recent updates to the Flood Risk and Coastal Change PPG (September 2025), stating that development proposals should not be located in areas at risk of flooding where reasonably available alternative sites exist.
However, it omits reference to development “not being permitted”, recognising that development may still be appropriate, when weighed against other considerations.
This reflects the approach being taken by Planning Inspectorate in a number of recent appeals.
Sustainable Drainage Systems
Finally, the draft NPPF requires developments to incorporate SuDS, in a way that is proportionate to the nature and scale of the development.
11. Conserving and enhancing the natural environment
Topic 11 focuses on proposals to protect and enhance the natural environment.
Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG)
A key consideration in Chapter 19 of the NPPF is BNG. Policy N1 seeks to ensure BNG is applied consistently across Local Authorities and prevent LPAs from setting BNG contributions above the current statutory 10% net gain.
Local standards exceeding the statutory requirement can only be set for specific site allocations, where they are fully justified and demonstrably deliverable. These higher requirements cannot be applied to development that is exempt from statutory BNG.
Potential BNG Reforms
In parallel, the Government is considering wider BNG reform. These include a potential area-based exemption for smaller sites (up to 0.2 hectares), alongside a targeted exemption for residential brownfield development (testing ranges up to 2.5 hectares).
No timescales have been published, but a full consultation response and implementation timeline is expected in early 2026. Any changes will require secondary legislation, passage through both the Commons and Lords, and Royal Assent – meaning this will not be a quick process.
Landscape and Design Considerations
The NPPF updates also make explicit that landscape character and existing natural features must be considered when assessing development proposals. In addition, development will be required to incorporate integrated nest boxes (such as swift bricks), unless there are compelling technical reasons that would prevent their use or render them ineffective.
12. Taking a more positive approach to the use of Heritage Assets
Our final topic looks at what the proposals say about the use of Heritage Assets. We’ve explored 12 key areas in total and hope you’ve found the series informative and useful.
Key Changes: Chapter 20
A notable change in Chapter 20 is the removal of the well-known ‘less-than-substantial-harm’ test.
The draft also introduces more positive support for the sustainable redevelopment of heritage assets to support growth – for example, bringing vacant listed buildings back into use.
Policy HE5: Assessing Effects on Heritage Assets
Policy HE5 replaces current paragraphs 207 and 208. It sets out how applicants and authorities should assess the effects of development on heritage assets, based on whether a proposal is likely to be:
- Positive – enhancing aheritage asset or better revealing its significance
- Neutral – having no effect on the asset’s significance
- Harmful (substantial or otherwise) – resulting in harm to its significance, either through works to the asset, or from development within its setting. Substantial harm would occur where a key element’s significance was seriously affected by a development proposal
- Total loss – causing the complete loss of the asset’s significance
Importantly, the assessment should focus on the effect on significance, rather than the scale of the development.
Policy HE6: Decision-Making for Designated Assets
Policy HE6 replaces current paragraphs 212-215 and clarifies how decisions should be made for proposals affecting designated heritage assets. In summary:
- Proposals with a positive effect on designated heritage assets should be approved.
- Where harm would occur, this should be weighed against any public benefits. These may include the long-term re-use of a vacant or underused listed buildings or enabling energy efficiency and low carbon heating measures.
- Proposals causing substantial harm or total loss should be refused unless they demonstrate that the development is necessary to deliver substantial public benefits that outweigh the harm, or if specific criteria are met.
Policy HE7: Non-Designated Heritage Assets
HE7 revises current paragraph 216, clarifying how proposals affecting non-designated heritage assets should be assessed and introducing explicit support for proposals with positive effects.
It will be interesting to see what the removal of the ‘less-than-substantial-harm’ terminology means for future heritage assessments.
