NPPF: The key policy shifts and what they mean for homes, jobs and growth

The Government’s new National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) significantly rewrites how planning decisions should be made, shifting influence from locally drafted policies to national government.

The framework is considerably more detailed than its 2024 predecessor, and its publication follows an already intense period of planning reform. It reflects the Government’s drive to remove barriers to development and puts a key part of Labour’s 2024 manifesto into meaningful policy.

It is unambiguously pro-growth.

These are the key policy shifts we are seeing and what they could mean for landowners, developers and investors.

National policy now in the driving seat

Perhaps the biggest (and potentially most controversial from a local authority perspective) reform is the emphasis on national decision-making policies and the weight they carry relative to local policy.

Applying immediately, where an existing local policy is inconsistent with a new national decision-making policy, it should be given “very limited weight”, unless it has been examined or adopted under the new 2026 framework.

Although a Local Plan still remains the starting point for decisions, this shift is a significant centralisation of planning policy (setting aside, for the moment, Andy Burnham's devolution agenda).

It gives applicants much stronger grounds to challenge restrictive or outdated local requirements and increases the pressure on authorities to align local plans with the new NPPF as quickly as possible.

In future, local plans will be expected to focus on spatial strategies, site allocations and genuinely local matters rather than recreating or modifying national policy.

A broader presumption in favour of development

Whilst there has always been a presumption in favour of development, the new NPPF introduces an even stronger approach within settlements.

Applications should be approved unless their benefits are substantially outweighed by adverse effects, as assessed against national policy.

This is broader than the previous “tilted balance”, which was principally triggered when relevant policies were absent or out of date, an authority lacked a five-year housing supply or housing delivery had fallen below the required level.

The new NPPF also provides a national list of development that is acceptable in principle outside settlements. It includes appropriate rural business development, previously developed land, limited infill, allocated sites, certain station-led development and development responding to an evidenced unmet need.

It is a long and deliberately broad list.

The definition and extent of a “settlement” will become increasingly important, and potentially contested through appeals. However, the NPPF does provide a national definition that includes allocated or permitted land which will form part of the built-up area in future.

Stations become major development opportunities

Previous NPPFs have always sought to prioritise development around transport hubs. However, this version goes a step further with a presumptive ‘yes’ to development as long as key criteria are met.

The new approach generally applies within 800 metres, or a ten-minute walk, of a qualifying rail, underground, tram or light-rail station. Stations must be located within one of the country’s top 80 Travel to Work Areas by economic output and meet minimum requirements.

Residential development within these locations should achieve at least 35 homes per hectare. This increases to 45 homes where services operate more frequently, with higher densities encouraged where possible.

Significantly, the policy can apply outside existing settlement boundaries and within the Green Belt. Qualifying station development is expressly identified as not inappropriate Green Belt development and does not need to be located on grey-belt land.

This could be particularly significant for parkway and similar stations located beyond the main conurbations.

Major Green Belt development will still have to meet the Golden Rules covering affordable housing, infrastructure and accessible green space. Nevertheless, the change opens a new route to permission in locations where establishing the principle of development may previously have been difficult.

More support for economic growth and logistics

Economic policies have also been strengthened. Substantial weight is to be given to the economic benefits of commercial development that enables businesses to invest and expand.

The NPPF highlights Industrial Strategy sectors, data centres, energy infrastructure, freight and logistics. For the first time, logistics has a dedicated national policy to enable its delivery.

Strategic logistics development may also be acceptable outside settlements where there is an evidenced unmet need and the relevant transport and environmental tests are satisfied.

This reflects today’s market reality that demand for logistics space has evolved more quickly than local planning policies.

Indeed, local plans are warned against being overly prescriptive about acceptable employment uses or sizes without a clear and justified rationale. This could have significant implications for established employment sites where market conditions have evolved from the original aspirations.

New expectations for housing

At least 40% of homes on major developments should meet the accessible and adaptable homes standard. Local plans must also establish a minimum proportion of Social Rent on major schemes based on local circumstances.

However, the Government has not imposed a national minimum, giving local areas some flexibility.

Authorities will also be expected to obtain at least 10% of their housing requirement from sites of one hectare or less, with a further 10% coming from sites between one and 2.5 hectares.

The NPPF introduces the concept of “medium development”, covering schemes of 10 to 49 homes on sites of up to 2.5 hectares. Despite the new terminology, these schemes will generally continue to be subject to affordable-housing and other major-application requirements.

Major housing proposals must demonstrate a reasonable prospect of being delivered, taking account of factors including tenure, market absorption and delivery history. This strengthens the focus on whether permissions are realistic and implementable.

Less scope for local policy difference

The framework imposes greater discipline on local requirements.

For example, local biodiversity net gain policies exceeding the statutory minimum will only be supported for specific site allocations where the additional requirement is fully justified and deliverable.

Local validation requirements must also be proportionate and supported by development-plan policy. Authorities should only consult statutory consultees where the relevant criteria are met and are discouraged from delaying decisions beyond consultation deadlines without proper justification.

These changes are intended to create greater consistency and reduce the ability of local policies to accumulate costs or delay applications unnecessarily.

Planning is only half the problem

The new NPPF should make the principle of development easier to establish in a wider range of circumstances. It creates particularly significant opportunities around stations and for strategic employment and logistics schemes, while giving applicants stronger grounds to challenge inconsistent local policies.

But planning policy is only one part of the equation.

Viability, infrastructure capacity, construction costs, finance, market demand and sales rates continue to constrain delivery. The framework recognises some of these issues, but it cannot resolve them on its own.

The Government has made a concerted attempt to make it easier, at least on paper, to obtain planning consent. Its success will ultimately be judged not by how many additional homes are permitted, but by how many are actually delivered.