Old Wine In A New Bottle: Heritage Considerations In The New NPPF

Some of the language on heritage in chapter 20 of the new NPPF is different to the previous version: does that matter in practice?  That’s what I’m covering in this post (although, darn it, the title has given away what I think the answer is) as well as briefly referring to an interesting case handed down last week.

My thanks to my Town Legal colleague Tom Brooks (previously a heritage consultant before requalifying as a solicitor) who is my first port of call on these issues. Most of the analysis which follows is his, with any errors in transcription being mine. We are focusing just on the development management policies within chapter 20 and specifically the tests for assessing the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset.

The definition of designated heritage assets has not been expanded, comprising world heritage sites, scheduled monuments, listed buildings, protected wreck sites, registered parks and gardens, registered battlefields and conservation areas.

Policy HE6: Proposals affecting designated heritage assets reads as follows:

1. When considering the potential effect of a development proposal on the significance of a designated heritage asset, substantial weight should be given to the asset’s conservation (and the more important the asset, the greater the weight should be). This is irrespective of whether any potential effect amounts to a positive effect, harm, substantial harm, or total loss of its significance.

2. Development proposals which would have a positive effect on a designated heritage asset should be supported.

3. Any harm to a designated heritage asset will be a matter of considerable importance and weight, which should be dealt with in accordance with paragraphs 4 to 6 of this policy.

4. Where a development proposal would harm the significance of a designated heritage asset the effect on the asset and its significance should be weighed against any public benefits resulting from the proposal. Important public benefits can include securing the long-term reuse of a vacant or underused listed building, and enabling energy efficiency and low carbon heating measures to be employed.

5. Where a development proposal would cause substantial harm to, or the total loss of, the significance of a designated heritage asset, consent should be refused unless it can be demonstrated that the harm is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh the harm or loss, or if all of the following apply:

a. The nature of the heritage asset would otherwise prevent all reasonable uses of the site;

b. No suitable use for the heritage asset itself can be found in the medium term through appropriate marketing that will enable its conservation;

c. Conservation by grant-funding or some form of not for profit, charitable or public ownership is not possible; and

d. The harm or loss is outweighed by the benefit of bringing the asset back into use.

6. Within this context, development which would cause substantial harm to, or the total loss of, the significance of grade II listed buildings, or grade II registered parks or gardens, should be exceptional; while development which would cause substantial harm to, or the total loss of, assets of the highest significance, notably scheduled monuments, protected wreck sites, registered battlefields, grade I and II* listed buildings, grade I and II* registered parks and gardens, and World Heritage Sites, should be wholly exceptional.

The key changes in these policy tests compared to the equivalent tests under paragraphs 212–215 of NPPF 2024 are as follows:

  • The reference in HE6.1 to “substantial weight” is a change from “great weight” in paragraph 212 of NPPF 2024. The Government’s response to the consultation on the draft NPPF 2026 makes clear that this terminology change was not intended to be substantive and “maintains the existing level of protection and that, when following the approach set out in the NPPF decision makers will discharge the statutory regard duties in relation to the protection of designated heritage assets.” To underline this, HE6.3 (which was not in the draft NPPF 2026) states additionally that any harm will be “a matter of considerable importance and weight”. Again, this simply aligns with the statutory duty that already existed alongside NPPF 2024, so is not a substantive change.
  • The potential for development to result in positive effects is expressly recognised in HE6.1 and .2 whereas this was not mentioned at all in NPPF 2024. This follows HE5.2 which helpfully sets out the possible outcomes of effects on heritage assets as follows:
  • a. Have a positive effect, which is where the significance of a heritage asset would be enhanced, or better revealed; or
  • b. Have no effect on the significance of a heritage asset; or
  • c. Result in harm to the significance of a heritage asset, either from work affecting the asset itself or from development within its setting. The degree of harm should be identified: substantial harm would occur where the development proposal would seriously affect a key element of the asset’s significance; or
  • d. Cause the total loss of the significance of a heritage asset.
  • The definition of “substantial harm” above aligns with PPG Paragraph: 018 Reference ID: 18a-018-20190723, from which that “seriously affect a key element of the asset’s significance” wording is drawn.
  • The express support for proposals with a positive effect in HE6.2 is a change in emphasis from NPPF 2024.
  • The category of “less than substantial harm” has been removed in NPPF 2026 although there remains a need (as per HE5.2(c) reproduced above) to determine whether harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset is substantial or not. Therefore, in practice, the removal of less than substantial harm as an express category is inconsequential.
  • The test in HE6.4 for weighing harm against public benefits is essentially unchanged from paragraph 215 of NPPF 2024. This exercise remains a matter of planning judgment for the decision maker to be carried out alongside their statutory duties. In terms of specific public benefits to be taken into account in the balancing exercise under HE6.4, the concept of “optimum viable use” as a potential public benefit in NPPF 2024 has been removed. Instead HE6.4 refers to “important” public benefits, including more generally “long-term reuse of a vacant or underused listed building”, which is likely to be easier to satisfy than demonstrating optimum viable use. There is also now express reference to “enabling energy efficiency and low carbon heating measures”; again, this is likely to be helpful in building the public benefits case to outweigh harm where such improvements are provided. As these benefits are described as “important” they should be given increased weight in the balancing exercise. For guidance as to the scope of other potential public benefits, the broad definition in the PPG remains relevant. The test for substantial harm under HE6.5 is substantively unchanged from paragraph 214 of NPPF 2024. Similarly, HE6.6 reflects the second sentence of paragraph 213 of NPPF 2024.
  • As an aside, there is a question as to whether, where substantial harm arises, it should be assessed against HE6.4 as well as HE6.5 and .6. Technically it is also still “harm” under HE6(4) (this is a consequence of the removal of “less than substantial harm”) but it seems unlikely that this was the intention because HE6.5 provides a different test for substantial harm.

So, in summary, we do not see NPPF 2026 changes as substantively changing the tests for assessing the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset. In particular, the core policy tests for considering harm to designated heritage assets are fundamentally unchanged.

There are nonetheless some changes that are potentially helpful to developers of designated heritage assets, in particular that proposals with a positive effect should be actively supported, and that where proposals cause some (not substantial) harm, reuse and energy efficiency improvements to listed buildings should be considered by decision makers as important public benefits – potentially increasing their weight in the balancing exercise.

Thank you Tom!

I mentioned a case handed down last week. King Media Limited v Secretary of State (Lieven J, 25 September 2026). The case concerned a legal challenge to an inspector’s decision to dismiss an appeal against a discontinuance notice under the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007.  (This was in the context of the old NPPF).

Discontinuance notices may be served against lawfully displayed advertisements where “substantial injury to the amenity of the locality” has been caused. The principal controversial issue in this case was the scale of harm that a particular advertisement caused to the South Shoreditch conservation area.

The inspector had found that “the advertisement presents as a dominant and intrusive feature in the street scene, considerably at odds with the appearance of built development in the area. For these reasons, the display of the advertisement causes harm to the character and appearance of the [conservation area] and substantial injury to the amenity of the locality.” One of the grounds of challenge was that the inspector failed to reach conclusions of the specific level of harm caused (e.g. less than substantial ham/substantial harm/where on the spectrum of less than substantial harm).

After considering the parties’ submissions, Lieven J stated:

“There is no obligation on a decision maker to set out precisely where on a scale of harm to heritage assets a particular development lies”.

Given that my firm acted for the claimant, I won’t go beyond this brief pointer to the judgment (and you will see that the case raised other interesting issues too, in relation to the application of the Human Rights Act in particular) but I look forward to reading commentaries in due course.

Simon Ricketts, 27 September 2026

Personal views, et cetera

Evidenced Unmet Need

Before we get stuck into this further post on the NPPF, I do need to allay possible misapprehensions of Daily Mail readers this morning:  the PF in NPPF does not stand for Pergola Framework.

Right, here we go. As a follow-on to my 31 August 2026 blog post Push The Button: The Pro-Development Presumptions, “Substantial Weight” & “Support” Policies In The New NPPF I wanted to zoom in on policy S5.1 j.

For development outside settlements, there is this seesaw/fulcrum policy S5.

If your development does not fall within one of the ten categories listed, a to j, the national policy is that planning permission should only be granted “in exceptional circumstances, where the benefits of the proposal would substantially outweigh the adverse effects, including to the character of the countryside and in relation to promoting sustainable patterns of movement”.

However, if it falls within one or more of categories a to j, planning permission should be granted “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”. “Substantially outweighing” includes where the development trips one of 15 specific “refusal” policies in the document. This pro-development presumption even applies to green belt development, which is not “inappropriate development “ under policy GB7 so includes e.g. grey belt development.

I said I wanted to focus on category j within policy S5.1. Category j is:

“Development which would address an evidenced unmet need (including, but not limited to, development proposals involving the provision of housing where the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites or scores below 75% in the most recent Housing Delivery Test), and where the development would:

i. Be physically well-related to an existing settlement (unless the nature of the development would make this inappropriate) and be of a scale which can be accommodated taking into account the existing or proposed availability of infrastructure; or

ii Comprise major development for freight and logistics purposes which accords with policy E3.”

It is crucial to know what amounts to an “evidenced unmet need” and indeed the extent of need which has to be shown in order to trigger this strong (as strong as the old NPPF “tilted balance”) S5 pro-development presumption. Rather than a seesaw, or fulcrum, maybe knife-edge would be more appropriate.

It’s clear that category j does not just relate to housing proposals. When we are dealing with evidencing a need for business land and premises, we have policy E2.2 to help us:

“Where a development proposal is required to demonstrate whether an unmet need exists (including under policy S5) consideration should be given to whether:

a. Market signals indicate an undersupply of specific types of business land or premises, taking into account the anticipated catchment area for the type of development proposed, the changing needs of different sectors and the availability of suitable existing land and buildings; or

b. The specific locational requirements of the proposal are met by existing allocations in the development plan. This includes, but is not limited to, situations where:

  1. Existing businesses plan to expand or improve their premises, or clusters or networks of businesses need to grow (such as clusters of knowledge and data driven, creative or high technology industries and associated facilities and infrastructure); or
  2. The availability of infrastructure (such as electricity network infrastructure to provide adequate grid connections, or water and wastewater capacity) makes certain locations particularly important, including opportunities to co-locate large scale generators and users of power (such as data centres); or
  3. Proposals would meet a local, regional or national need for the provision of new, expanded or upgraded facilities that would result in more efficient, reliable or sustainable handling of goods (whether for their receipt, storage, processing, interchange or distribution).”

It’s less clear what “evidenced unmet need” amounts to for residential proposals. When you look in the housing chapter for an equivalent policy to the employment chapter’s policy E2.2, policy HO7 is less specific:

“In applying the policies in this Framework, substantial weight should be given to the benefits of providing homes which will contribute towards meeting the evidenced accommodation needs of the community, as identified through needs assessments prepared for the area of the local planning authority and other relevant evidence. This includes, but is not limited to, homes needed for different groups assessed under policy HO1.”

Are any “evidenced accommodation needs” that fall within policy HO7 an “evidenced unmet need” for the purposes of category j? Unlike with policy E2.2 there isn’t an express cross-reference to policy S5.

The wording of category j itself could put it beyond doubt but hasn’t:

“(including, but not limited to, development proposals involving the provision of housing where the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites or scores below 75% in the most recent Housing Delivery Test)”

Does this phrase mean:

  • “including development proposals involving the provision of housing and in the case of those involving the provision of housing including where the local planning authority cannot demonstrate…” (in which case other unmet accommodation needs might be evidenced, such as for affordable housing in the area?); or
  • “including development proposals involving the provision of housing and in the case of those involving the provision of housing unmet need means where the local planning authority cannot demonstrate…”?

I’ll call these the wider interpretation and the narrow interpretation respectively.

Linguistically, I’m genuinely unsure which is right. In fact I’m getting nervous flashbacks to the litigation over the interpretation of paragraph 49 in the 2012 NPPF: for the purposes of the operation of the “tilted balance”, what did “Relevant policies for the provision of housing” mean? The uncertainty could have been resolved at an earlier stage by a tweak to the NPPF itself but instead it took the Supreme Court in Suffolk Coastal five years later to resolve, in part at least, what seven simple words meant.

If the words in category j itself are not clear, what pointers are there elsewhere in the document?

Well, one of the criteria for development on grey belt land not being “inappropriate development” is that “there is an evidenced unmet need for the type of development proposed.” . A footnote explains that for housing development this means “lack of a five year supply of deliverable housing sites, including the relevant buffer where applicable, or where the Housing Delivery Test result was below 75% of the housing requirement over the previous three years; and in the case of traveller sites means the relevant local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable traveller sites.”

So, for grey belt development to fit within category j, undoubtedly the narrow interpretation applies. But this doesn’t help with non grey belt development because it might be said that the document is deliberately setting a stiffer test for green belt development than for non green belt development. Aaagh!

Perhaps there is another clue in paragraph 3 of Annex A:

“Where a local planning authority can demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites (with the appropriate buffer) and where the Housing Delivery Test indicates that the delivery of housing is more than 75% of the housing requirement over the previous three years, for the purposes of policy S5(1)(j), if the most up-to-date local housing need figure (calculated using the standard method set out in Annex D) is greater than the housing requirement set out in adopted development plan policies, this should not be considered as evidence of unmet need, for a period of five years from the date of the plan’s adoption.”

This is a particularly contorted sentence but it seems to be saying that if housing need calculated under the standard method set out in the new NPPF is more than the housing requirement set out in the local plan, for five years from adoption of the plan it cannot be used as evidence of unmet need. Does it exclude unmet need being shown in other ways, e.g. by way of an unmet need for affordable housing?

An inspector, Hollie Nicholls, has already grappled with the S5.1 j narrow interpretation vs wider interpretation question in a decision letter dated 14 September 2026 in relation to a proposal by Nicholas King New Homes Limited in Kingston Bagpuize with Southmoor (within Vale of White Horse District). The Council could only just show a five year housing land supply. There was no failure of the housing delivery test. In terms of affordable housing need, “the appellant’s evidence indicates that as of the 31 March 2025, there were 2,904 households on the Council’s Housing Register”. The inspector found that there was an evidenced unmet need:

“The wording in Policy S5(1)(j) referring to evidence of an unmet need specifically uses the words ‘including, but not limited to’, indicating that the absence of a five year deliverable supply and HDT outcomes are not the only means by which an unmet need can be proven to exist. These are key indicators, but the list is not exhaustive.”

“In this case, the very marginal five year housing land supply position and the evidenced significant unmet need for affordable housing combine together to indicate that the scheme complies with 2026 Framework Policy S5(1)(j).”

So the inspector here relied on the wider interpretation of S5.1 j.

What might be the government’s position? Lord Jamieson asked this question this week in the House of Lords:

“under the new National Planning Policy Framework, where an authority has a five-year supply and scores above 75 per cent in its most recent Housing Delivery Test, under what conditions a need for affordable housing would permit a development outside the local plan and settlement envelope; and what the percentage of affordable housing would need to be for such a development to be considered?”

Baroness Taylor responded on 15 September 2026 on behalf of the government:

“The new National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), published in August 2026, introduces a revised presumption in favour of sustainable development which, in combination with new policies on development inside and outside of development boundaries, promotes a sustainable pattern of development. It does this by steering proposals to appropriate locations: maximising the use of suitable land within urban areas and taking a more selective approach to the types and locations of development outside settlements.

The Housing Delivery Test (HDT) and five-year housing land supply (5YHLS) policies are important mechanisms within the planning system to ensure homes are delivered in line with needs. Where an authority can demonstrate a 5YHLS and has achieved a HDT result of at least 75%, the presumption in favour of sustainable development would not be engaged through those policies.

While failing against either HDT or 5YHLS is a strong indicator of housing need in an area not being sufficiently met, it does not mean that planning permission for housing will be automatically granted, and local planning authorities must consider a range of factors when determining planning applications.

The NPPF also sets out that substantial weight should be given to the benefits of providing accommodation that will contribute towards meeting the evidenced needs of the local community, including those who require social and affordable housing.”

I have emboldened the key passage. It seems that the government’s stance is that in fact the narrow interpretation applies, which would imply that that decision letter to be in error (although this interpretation question would ultimately be for the courts).

I think we need some clarity, fast! If affordable housing need may in some circumstances be sufficient to trigger the S5 presumption in non green belt cases surely we need to know what is sufficient by way of evidence (Ashley Bowes raised some interesting questions on that in his LinkedIn post this week) and indeed (as Lord Jamieson raised in his question) what percentage of housing in a development would need to be affordable in order for it to count.

I’m thinking back to that sardonic aside by Lord Carnwath in his judgment in Suffolk Coastal, in relation to the 2012 NPPF:

“One purpose, in the words of the foreword, was to “(replace) over a thousand pages of national policy with around 50, written simply and clearly”, thus “allowing people and communities back into planning”.”

Can we at least agree, in relation to S5.1 j, that this crucial policy could easily be made both simpler and clearer?

Simon Ricketts, 20 September 2026

Personal views, et cetera

A Problem With The Draft London Plan?

The 16 July 2026 London Plan consultation draft was published before the publication of the government’s 17 August 2026 National Planning Policy Framework  which sets out the tests which strategic development strategies such as the London Plan should meet. In my view, it does not meet those tests. The current consultation process (mainly closing on 15 October 2026 but with a later closing date of 23 October in relation to corrections announced on 11 September to ten boroughs’ proposed brownfield housing targets) does not have the benefit of any explanation of the Mayor’s position vis a vis compliance with the 2026 NPPF nor either any justification for non-compliance or any stated proposal to prepare a further updated draft.

Why does the 2026 NPPF apply?

See Annex 1:

5. Spatial development strategies should be produced in accordance with this Framework.

7. For all plans that should be produced in accordance with this Framework this means the policies in this version of the Framework will apply from 17 August 2026.

8. Any other plans should be produced in accordance with the version of this Framework published in December 2024, unless any of the transitional arrangements in Annex 1 to that Framework apply (in which case those transitional arrangements continue to apply).

There’s no transitional arrangement for SDSs such as the London Plan which may have reached a particular stage short of publication of the final version. Because paragraph 8 says “any other plans” Annex 1 to the 2024 NPPF doesn’t apply.

What does the 2026 NPPF require?

Policy S1 states that SDSs should seek “to meet the development needs of their area, as a minimum” by “providing for objectively assessed needs for housing, business and other uses (including supporting infrastructure), as well as any needs that cannot be met within neighbouring areas, unless:

i. The application of the policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of

particular importance provides a strong reason for restricting the overall scale, type or distribution of development in the plan area; or

ii. Any adverse impacts of doing so would substantially outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole.”

Policy HO1 states that the preparation of SDSs should be based on:

a. A housing need assessment that establishes the overall number of homes needed in the area as a minimum over the plan period, using the standard method in Annex D;

b. An assessment of the permanent and transit site accommodation needs of travellers in the area as a minimum over the plan period; and

c. An understanding of any accommodation needs that cannot be met within neighbouring areas.

Under policy HO2, a housing requirement is then established for each local planning authority within the strategy area.

Under policies PM10 and PM11 there needs to be co-operation between plan-making authorities to identify and address cross-boundary measures where, for instance, development  needs that cannot be met wholly within a particular plan area could be met elsewhere and this must be demonstrated by statements of common ground. “Where it has not been possible to fully address cross-boundary matters, plan-making authorities should demonstrate that they have taken all reasonable steps to address them”.

Under the soundness test for SDSs (policy PM14.2): “Positive – the strategy sets out a positive approach to delivering growth which, as a minimum, seeks to meet the area’s objectively assessed needs, and is based on effective joint working on cross-boundary strategic matters. A strategy which does not provide for objectively assessed needs should be considered an exception, and only where it is evidenced that stringent efforts have been taken to meet those needs through cooperation with other strategic planning authorities”.

I have emboldened that last sentence, which indeed has footnote 20 against it: “This also applies to the Mayor of London.”

What is potentially in conflict?

There are wider, more fine-grain, issues as to whether the draft London Plan meets the first three requirements of PM6:

a. Only address matters, and include policies, that are necessary and relevant to the plan being prepared, and that avoid unnecessary duplication of other parts of the development plan; 

b. Only include policies that extend beyond site or location-specific requirements where these are necessary and where plan-makers consider there is a clear and justified reason for inclusion;

c. Not include policies which duplicate, substantively restate or are inconsistent with the content of national decision-making policies, unless directed by other policies in this Framework

But I wanted to focus for the moment just on the overall housing numbers for which the Mayor of London is planning for in the draft. This is proposed to be a 20 year plan. It is noted in the first chapter: “The government has set the housing need in London at 84,884 new homes per year.” (paragraph 1.9). The plan “sets out how we can deliver 558,000 homes over the ten-year period up to 2037” (paragraph 1.12).

“This is based upon an assessment of what could be feasibly deliverable in the coming decade, taking into account viability and build-out rates, while analysing and optimising what more is possible through the lens of the Plan’s new and ambitious policy framework – representing a step change in the approach to planning for housing in London. This includes policies to boost housing delivery through:  

  • optimising brownfield sites, building out Opportunity Areas and evolving town centres
  • closer integration between land use and transport – leveraging all opportunities from existing and planned transport, using new tools & approaches
  • making a step change in the approach to small sites (e.g. London-wide design code) and suburban densification (through the new Optimisation Framework)
  • targeting some industrial land release in accessible locations for housing
  • using the Green Belt to deliver major new settlements and ensure industrial provision, while increasing access to nature and deliver Biodiversity Net Gain.
  • deploying a range of tools such as Local and Mayoral Development Orders to increase certainty in planning system and drive density and delivery in sustainable locations
  • managing car parking to maximise land available for housing and other needs (and avoid unacceptable levels of congestion)
  • tackling viability constraints through consideration of alternative delivery formats, and other development expectations, including quality place-making and more active public sector delivery role.” (paragraph 1.13)

“The Mayor is very conscious that this does not meet the government’s housing need figure for London. More is possible beyond the initial ten-year period, and the Plan identifies opportunities and capacity to deliver homes up to and beyond the 850,000 – but this requires investment, measures and delivery rates that can only realistically and properly be put in place beyond the ten-year timeframe.” (paragraph 1.14).

Surely, factually, this is a draft which does not meet London’s objectively assessed needs? This SDS is going to be an important precedent for all others coming forward across the country. Is it enough to plan to undershoot in the first ten years on the basis of what “could be feasibly deliverable” in the second decade of the plan:

  • without indeed any evidence that I have seen of “stringent efforts…taken to meet those needs through cooperation with other strategic planning authorities”; and
  • without stringent testing as to whether higher numbers might be achieved with reduced development management policy requirements or with other policy choices in relation to, for instance, density? And without interrogating for instance the justification for assuming an upturn in economic conditions such that the current London housing emergency measures package is no longer necessary past its expiration?

Wider considerations

To my mind, strategic planning is only going to work nationally if objectively assessed housing numbers are handed down by government to each strategic authority, for that authority to apportion to the LPAs within its area unless it has reached an accommodation with another strategic authority or can show that it at least has made “stringent efforts” to that end. Otherwise, we all know the outcome: many strategic authorities will succeed with special pleading and under this new system we will still end up with a huge national undershoot.

Before this new system goes much further, I think we do need more clarity as to what wriggle room strategic authorities (including the Mayor of London) have in preparing plans which do not meet their areas’ objectively assessed needs. Otherwise many draft SDS examinations will simply get bogged down in debates over housing numbers.

Who knows, it may be that 558,000 homes is the right number for London up to 2027, but that is going to need a lot more by way of testing and consideration of other policy options, in my very humble opinion.

Simon Ricketts, 13 September 2026

Personal views, et cetera

Developing Near Stations

As a supplement to my 31 August 2026 blog post Push The Button: The Pro-Development Presumptions, “Substantial Weight” & “Support” Policies In The New NPPF, I thought it might be helpful if I simply set out in a post the relevant policies in the new NPPF that articulate the government’s encouragement to certain forms of development near some stations, trumping any “materially inconsistent” development plan policies, which now have “very limited weight” (Annex A, paragraph 2).

We start with the pro-development presumption within policy S5 that kicks in for specific categories of development. Here, category h is relevant:

S5: Principle of development outside settlements

1. Only certain forms of development should be approved outside settlements, as set out in the following list. These 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:

…

h. Residential and mixed-use development which would:

i. Be within reasonable walking distance of a well-connected station (applying the definitions in the glossary at Annex B);

ii. Be physically well-related to the station or the settlement within which the station is located;

iii. Be of a scale which can be accommodated taking into account the existing or proposed availability of infrastructure; and

iv. Not prejudice any proposals for long-term comprehensive development in the same location.

You look to the glossary to see what “reasonable walking distance” and “well-connected station” mean:

Reasonable walking distance: For the purpose of policies S5, L3, GB7 (relating to land around well-connected stations), this should be considered to be 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. […]  Where a reasonable walking distance is required to be calculated when applying policies S5(1)(h), L3(2)(c) and GB7(1)(h), and only part of the site falls within the reasonable walking distance, those sub-paragraphs of policies S5, L3 and GB7 only apply to the area of the site within that reasonable walking distance.

Well-connected station: Railway stations and underground, tram and light rail stops located within a top 80 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 at least four trains or trams per hour overall, or at least two trains or trams per hour in any one direction.

Footnote 72 , against “top 80 Travel to Work Area located partially or fully within England by Gross Value Added (GVA)”, states:  “For the purpose of assessing whether Travel to Work Areas fall within this definition, the 2023 GVA data should continue to be used up to the day after the publication of the 2028 GVA data. For subsequent years, the GVA data used for the purpose of this definition should continue to be regarded as fixed for each five year period. Published in: https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossvalueaddedgva/datasets/ukgvaandproductivityestimatesforothergeographies .”

Policy S5 5 makes it clear that the S5 presumption also applies to any development in the green belt which is not “inappropriate”. Category h of policy GB7 replicates category h of S5, but with the additional requirement that the golden rules in policy GB 8 are to be followed.

GB7: Development which is not inappropriate in the Green Belt

1. The following categories of development are not inappropriate in the Green Belt, and therefore should not be regarded as harmful to the Green Belt or be required to demonstrate very special circumstances:

…..

h. Residential or mixed-use development which would:

i. Be within reasonable walking distance of a well-connected station (applying the definitions in the glossary at Annex B);

ii. Be physically well-related to the station or the settlement within which the station is located;

iii. Be of a scale which can be accommodated taking into account the existing or proposed availability of infrastructure;

iv. Not prejudice any proposals for long-term comprehensive development in the same location; and

v. In the case of proposals for major development, comply with policy GB8.

The golden rules in GB8 are, in summary:

  • Affordable housing “which is 15 percentage points above the highest existing affordable housing requirement which would otherwise apply to the development, subject to a cap of a 50%”
  • Necessary improvements to local or national infrastructure
  • The provision of new green space, or improvements to existing green space, which is accessible to the public. New residents should be able to access good quality green spaces within a short walk of their homes, whether through on-site provision or through access to offsite spaces. […]

Finally, when developing within one of these sites (whether in the green belt or not, and whether within a settlement or not) the minimum density requirements in policy L3 kick in:

L3: Achieving appropriate densities

1. Development proposals should make efficient use of land, taking into account the identified need for different types of housing and other development, local market conditions, the availability of infrastructure (including that supporting sustainable transport modes) and its scope for improvement, a site’s connectivity and the importance of securing well-designed, attractive and healthy places.

2. To contribute to making efficient use of land:

…..

c. Where development proposals for residential or mixed-use schemes are within reasonable walking distance of a well-connected station (applying the definitions in the glossary at Annex B), a density of at least 35 dwellings per hectare should be achieved within the net developable area of the site. Higher densities – of at least 45 dwellings per hectare – should be achieved where the service frequency is at least twice that of the minimum required for a well-connected station. Exceptions to meeting these minimum standards should be made only in the case of:

i. Sites which fall below the threshold for major development where it can be demonstrated that meeting the standard is either inappropriate or not possible; or

ii. Development for traveller sites.

3. The minimum densities in paragraph 2(c) of this policy should be exceeded where possible, especially in areas of high connectivity, to optimise the efficient use of land. The Connectivity Tool (Connectivity Tool – GOV.UK) should be used alongside other relevant quantitative or qualitative evidence in assessing the connectivity of particular locations proposed for development.

4. Development proposals that do not make efficient use of land in accordance with paragraph 2 of this policy should be refused.

So we all now have the criteria to be met. Of course, a few uncertainties remain, for instance:

  • Any possible wriggle room in that 800m /10 minutes’  walking distance  
  • The lack of a readily available public source interpreting the government’s GVA datasets meaning that many of us are relying on consultancies’ analysis to arrive at that top 80 list.
  • Some nuances in looking at station timetables for service frequency and as to when there may be a reasonable prospect of service improvement.

Well done Lord Banner for tabling a written question to the government in the House of Lords as to “whether they intend to publish a list of the “well-connected stations” within the meaning of Policy S5(1)(h) and Annex B of the August 2026 National Planning Policy Framework; and, if not, why not.”

Everyone on board?

Simon Ricketts, 5 September 2026

Personal views, et cetera

Push The Button: The Pro-Development Presumptions, “Substantial Weight” & “Support” Policies In The New NPPF

To maximise the prospect of securing planning approval, scheme promoters need to ensure that their schemes press as many of the relevant buttons in the new NPPF as possible.

I have counted 21 of them, which I set out below. Most have detailed qualifying criteria to meet, but hopefully this will allow you to see the wood for the trees in applying the new policy framework. Not triggering the particular policy may in some cases count against you in the planning balance, so this is not quite just the Scrabble approach of always looking to maximise use of those triple word scores.

S3: Presumption in favour of sustainable development

1. Decisions on development proposals should apply a presumption in favour of sustainable development. This means:

a. Policy S4 in this Framework should be applied when considering development proposals within settlements;

b. Outside settlements, policy S5 should be applied; and

c. In all locations, development proposals that accord with both an up-to-date development plan and the decision-making policies in this Framework should be approved without delay.

S4: Principle of development within settlements

  1. 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.

S5: Principle of development outside settlements

  1. Only certain forms of development should be approved outside settlements, as set out in the following list. These 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.

For developments outside settlements, falling within the a to j list is vital. If your land is green belt the development proposed must not be “inappropriate development” and must therefore fall within one of the a to h criteria in policy GB7 1 – so grey belt development, for instance, also qualifies for this strong pro-development presumption.

CC2: Mitigation of climate change

2. Substantial weight should be given to the benefits of improving the energy efficiency of existing buildings and/or drawing energy from district heat networks, renewable and low carbon sources (including through the installation of heat pumps and solar panels where these do not already benefit from permitted development rights) where this would be achieved through proposals for development.

CC3: Adaptation to climate change

2. Substantial weight should be given to the benefits of improving the resilience of existing buildings and public spaces to anticipated climate change impacts where this would be achieved through proposals for development.

HO7: Meeting the need for homes

1. In applying the policies in this Framework, substantial weight should be given to the benefits of providing homes which will contribute towards meeting the evidenced accommodation needs of the community, as identified through needs assessments prepared for the area of the local planning authority and other relevant evidence. This includes, but is not limited to, homes needed for different groups assessed under policy HO1.

E2: Meeting the need for business land and premises

1. To support business growth, substantial weight should be given to:

a. The economic benefits of proposals for commercial development which allow businesses to invest, expand and/or adapt; especially where this would support the economic vision and strategy for the area, the implementation of the Industrial Strategy, support improvements in freight and logistics and/or reflect proposals for Industrial Strategy Zones and AI Growth Zones; and

b. Benefits for domestic food production, animal welfare and/or the environment which can be demonstrated through proposals for development for farm and agricultural modernisation.

TC2: Development in town centres

1. In considering proposals for development in town centres, substantial weight should be given to the benefits of:

a. Supporting the overall vitality and viability of the centre, including where this can be achieved through the diversification of uses, intensification and provision of residential accommodation (provided this would not conflict with policies in the development plan for specific locations); and

b. Improving or retaining access to local shops and other facilities which provide day-to day services for the local community.

CO1: Proposals for telecommunications infrastructure

1. In considering proposals for the expansion or upgrading of electronic telecommunications networks, substantial weight should be given to the benefits of maintaining or improving network coverage, capacity, reliability and resilience, including where significant improvements are required such as along rail corridors. This includes, but is not limited to, providing for next generation wireless technologies (such as standalone 5G), gigabit capable broadband connections and supporting infrastructure such as fibre exchanges.

W3: Renewable and low carbon energy development and electricity network infrastructure

1. In considering proposals for renewable and low-carbon energy development and electricity network infrastructure, substantial weight should be given to:

a. The benefits for improving energy security, supporting economic development and/or the transition to a net zero future;

b. In the case of applications for the re-powering and life-extension of existing sites, the additional benefit of utilising an established site for this purpose; and

c. The contribution that small-scale and community-led renewable and low carbon energy projects can make to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, along with their associated economic and social benefits.

W4: Water infrastructure

1. In considering proposals for water supply, drainage and wastewater development, substantial weight should be given to the benefits of: a. Providing the capacity needed to serve proposed development and/or improving the security of supply and capacity for existing users (both residential and commercial, including agricultural users); and

b. Improving water quality and reducing water-borne pollution.

M3: Assessing the benefits of mineral development

1. In assessing proposals for minerals development, substantial weight should be given to the benefits of mineral extraction and processing, including to the economy.

L2: Making effective use of land

1. Substantial weight should be given to the benefits where a development proposal would achieve one or more of the following:

a. Remediating despoiled, degraded, derelict, contaminated or unstable land;

b. Making better use of vacant and underutilised land and buildings (such as: by bringing back into residential use empty homes and other suitable buildings; converting space above shops; redeveloping underutilised retail and business sites; and building on or above service yards, lock-ups, car parks and other transport infrastructure which are no longer required);

c. Making effective use of previously developed land and buildings through temporary uses, in situations where alternative development is anticipated within a reasonable period (including as a result of the land being allocated for an alternative purpose in the development plan); or

d. Creating additional homes or floorspace within settlements by using the airspace above existing residential and commercial premises, or through sensitive redevelopment or additional development within existing plots (including, but not limited to, the addition of mansard roofs, proposals to fill gaps in the existing roof line, the introduction of higher buildings at street corners and additional units within residential curtilages).

GB8: The Golden Rules

2. In considering applications for major development involving the provision of housing on land released from the Green Belt through plan preparation or review, or on sites in the Green Belt subject to a planning application, substantial weight should be given to the importance of complying with the Golden Rules.

DP3: Key principles for well-designed places

5. Substantial weight should also be given to outstanding or innovative designs which promote high levels of sustainability, or which help raise the standard of design more generally in an area, so long as they are consistent with the overall form and layout of their surroundings.

HC4: Proposals for new and improved community facilities, public service infrastructure and development providing public health benefits

1. Substantial weight should be given to the benefits where:

a. New or improved public service infrastructure or community facilities would be provided; and

b. Development proposals would make a demonstrable contribution towards promoting good health, preventing ill-health, reducing health inequalities or supporting social interaction in the local community (such as, but not limited to, the provision of new recreation facilities, meeting places and opportunities to grow or purchase healthier food).

P6: Land and operations for defence and public safety

1. Substantial weight should be attached to the importance of sites, activities, facilities and infrastructure required to maintain and enhance defence capability, or whose primary purpose is public safety (including uses such as coastal protection works, coastguard and lifeboat facilities and emergency services telecommunications infrastructure), when considering:

a. Proposals for such development (whether through modernisation, intensification, redevelopment or expansion for operational and related purposes); and

b. Proposals which could affect their operational activity and capability, including situations where other development should only proceed where it can make alternative or replacement provision for defence or public safety operations which would otherwise be affected, or where noise from operational activities could affect the proposed development (in which case policy P4 should also be applied).

HE6: Proposals affecting designated heritage assets

  1. Development proposals which would have a positive effect on a designated heritage asset should be supported.

HE7: Decisions on non-designated heritage assets

  1. Development proposals which would have a positive effect on a non-designated heritage asset should be supported.

HE8: World Heritage Sites

  1. Proposals that conserve those elements of a World Heritage Site or its setting, including any buffer zone, that make a positive contribution to it or which better reveal its significance, should be supported.

HE9: Conservation areas

  1. Proposals which conserve those elements of a conservation area that make a positive contribution to the area (or which better reveal its significance) should be supported.

Simon Ricketts, 31 August 2026

Personal views, et cetera

Planning Appeal Procedure Myth Busting: Statistics Do Not Show Hearings Procedure To Be Inherently More Advantageous For Appellants Than Written Representations

I’ve seen that planning lawyers and other planning advisers are increasingly tempted to roll out statistics as to likely appeal outcomes as part of the advice being given by clients. By and large, it’s good, I often do it myself.

But I do wonder whether sometimes it is too easy to get misled by the numbers without digging a little bit further. Damned statistics and all that. This post just looks at one truism that I’m increasingly sceptical about: that for an appellant it is better for your appeal to be determined by way of hearing rather than written representations because the statistics demonstrate a higher success rate.

Appeal Finder do some great tables like this one:

Who wouldn’t look at this and draw an obvious conclusion?

But let’s dig a little deeper. This is an Appeal Finder table which breaks down the percentage of appeals allowed by type of development:

A couple of interesting themes start to take shape:

  • Major dwellings appeals (I assume 10+ dwellings) have a significantly greater success rate than commercial appeals – perhaps unsurprising given the positive national policy climate for residential development (look at the increase since 2023/2024), although perhaps that “commercial appeals” basket may also include some appeals for minor works which have not had the level of professional input and attention as more major schemes in terms of (1) whether to appeal in the first place and (2) a proper evidence-based articulation of the case.
  • Major dwellings appeals have an even greater success rate than minor dwellings appeals – my points (1) and (2) above, surely.

In fact, my proposition is that your prospects of success as an appellant are not particularly down to whether the appeal is determined by way of written representations or by way of hearing (I’m leaving the question of inquiries out of this – maybe I’ll compare hearings and inquiries in a future post). What is more influential is whether the scale of the scheme is such that there has been that professional input. My points (1) and (2).

You can see the position more clearly if you start to break down dwellings appeals as between schemes for 50 dwellings or more and schemes for fewer than 50 homes.

Smaller schemes are less likely to be approved on appeal than larger schemes, regardless of procedure.

I’m very grateful to my colleague Adam Choudhury for producing some tables from the Compass website, looking at appeals determined since the December 2024 NPPF until this month’s version.

With schemes for fewer than 50 dwellings, a circa 29% success rate for written representations appeals plays circa 40% for hearings. A difference but not huge, bearing in mind that many of those written representations appeals will have been at very much the lower end of the scale and made without any initial professional advice as to prospects of success (i.e. hopeless from the start) and/or not assisted by professional representation.

With schemes for 50 dwellings or more the success rate is completely different, a circa 62% success rate for written representations appeals plays circa 70% for hearings. Yes, still a distinction but the huge distinction is with the earlier table. For written representations appeals 62% plays circa 29%. The vast majority of written representations appeals are for those smaller schemes, of fewer than 50 dwellings (1,959 over the period as opposed to 63 for schemes of 50 dwellings or more), which makes it so misleading for anyone to point to anything like the first table in this post as a reason not to go down the written representations route!

Given that with the streamlined procedures now in place for written representations appeals resulting from applications submitted from 1 April 2026 (see my 15 February 2026 blog post Don’t Be An April Fool: Written Reps Planning Appeals Are About To Get Faster But Also Riskier ), there’s a risk that appellants miss out on faster decision making simply through fear that there is an inherent material disadvantage in proposing, or being allocated, the written representations route. I wonder whether advisers and advocates in relying on the overall stats are really in part backing up a “gut feel” that (1) if only they can eyeball the inspector and address him or her face to face they will inevitably improve the appellant’s prospects and/or that (2) a written representations appeal may be determined by a less experienced inspector and/or one paying less attention to the submitted detail. The small delta in percentage prospects of success for similar schemes via the two processes does, I suggest, cast doubt as to whether these are in fact significant factors and that the most important question is which is the procedure that most sensibly is going to give the inspector the necessary understanding of the appellant’s case, which after all is by definition a case based on written documents, drawings and an understanding of the site and surroundings.

(With the new written representations procedure I know there is also a great fear out there amongst appellant teams about the restriction on introducing new material at the appeal stage. In my view the challenge this creates in terms of needing to ensure that your application is “appeal ready” is usually outweighed by the benefits of a faster simpler process without the LPA and third parties able to backfill their case but that’s a topic for another day).

If I have gone any way at all to bust this myth about written representations appeals, I do think there is another much more uncomfortable myth to be busted: that we have a quasi -judicial, rational, development management system such that any inspector is usually likely to reach the same determination in relation to any particular case. The larger the scheme the clearer it is to me that this is not the case,  for an obvious reason: a large element of the decision-making process involves determining how much weight to give to various material considerations, without prescriptive national guidance on calibration. I tried to address this in my 9 February 2024 blog post The Weighting Game. The new NPPF is more prescriptive, more rule-based, but inevitably a huge amount is still left to that black box we call “planning judgment” and that inevitably brings an element of our personal values to the table, however sub-consciously, in the balance of, for instance, heritage, economy, social issues, climate. Appeal Finder have a table identifying each planning inspector’s record in terms of his or her decision making. Whilst again we need to distinguish causation and correlation (a leading surgeon may have fewer successful patient outcomes than a surgeon doing less challenging cases), it always feels uncomfortable to me (on behalf of the client sitting next to me and in fact on behalf of the whole system that we all in some way serve) when the KC’s advice on appeal prospects is along the lines of between x and y % but dependent on knowing which inspector is appointed because for instance if it is going to be Mr or Ms A this is going to be very difficult but if it is going to be Mr or Ms B we stand a much better prospect. The client then asks “What can we do if we get Mr or Ms A?” and we all shrug our shoulders just like that emoji.

I would welcome your thoughts. All this seems to me to be pretty important to the roles that we all play in guiding clients through an uncertain, opaque system, and to how we make it clearer and more certain.

And on that theme…

I was so proud this week to see two initiatives by Town Legal colleagues come to fruition.

First, MHCLG’s consultation on Standard planning agreements for medium-sized sites (25 August 2026), with a series of proposed standard templates for section 106 agreements and unilateral undertakings in relation to residential developments of between 10 and 49 homes and up to 2.5 hectares.  These initial templates comprise draft standard clauses, schedules for financial contributions, councils’ covenants and affordable housing schedules, including a discretionary cascade mechanism (to be used where authorities consider appropriate) in the case of full permissions.  Meeta Kaur has led a large Town Legal team in this work for the Planning Advisory Service. We invite and encourage everyone to respond to the consultation process, by MHCLG’s 11:59 20 October deadline.

Secondly, a brilliant new podcast series on future facilities for women’s football, Built For Her Game, featuring Town Legal’s Victoria McKeegan alongside Sarah Rock (Boodle Hatfield), and Rebecca Burnhams (Quod). The first two, short and snappy, episodes are out now. The second episode is the first of a series of interviews with leaders in the sector, this first being Sue Day, director of women’s football at the Football Association. No mentions so far of the NPPF or of appeals or of anything at all like that. What not to like?

Simon Ricketts., 29 August 2026

Personal views, et cetera

[Image from Wikipedia of the classic visualisation of survivorship bias in statistics: It shows the hypothetical pattern of damage sustained by an aircraft that returned from combat. Reinforcing aircraft just in these areas would overlook the question of where non-surviving planes had been struck, fatally].

When Should Strategic Authority Mayors Be Able To Reverse Local Authority Planning Decisions?

The question goes both ways: if a local planning authority is minded to refuse a planning application, when should the mayor of a strategic authority be allowed to call in the application and potentially approve it? Conversely, if a local planning authority is minded to approve a planning application, when should a mayor be allowed to direct refusal?

The principle of giving mayors of strategic authorities the power to intervene in local decision making is not new – originally proposed in the December 2024 English Devolution White Paper and given statutory effect by way of section 33 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026 – and the operation in practice of the Mayor of London Order 2008 is of course very familiar in practice to those of us who work on projects within London.

However, that is not to say that today’s MHCLG consultation paper Planning powers for mayors in England August 2026) doesn’t raise some significant issues.

Perhaps the biggest change from what was envisaged in the white paper is that mayors’ powers to intervene are no longer proposed to be dependent on their authorities first having a spatial development strategy in place. It is said in the consultation paper that before SDS adoption a mayor would only be able to:

–              direct refusal of PSI applications where the development proposed would be detrimental to the area’s growth, and would be contrary to good strategic planning in the area

–              call in PSI applications if the development proposed would have a significant impact on the growth of the area, and there are sound planning reasons for intervention.

I do worry about this change, for three reasons.

First, it reduces the incentive for the authority to have an SDS in place.

Secondly, a mayor who is intent on standing in the way of a particular development or type of development – or indeed intent on supporting a scheme which is otherwise heading for a local refusal – will not find it particularly difficult to frame his or her intervention in terms which fall within these criteria. They don’t in practice provide much of a safeguard at all.

Thirdly, how can participants predict with any confidence whether the mayor might intervene (for or against), and if so on what grounds, without an SDS in place? What inappropriate negotiating lever might this give whoever is in that mayoral position?

Generally, how robust is this emerging system against the risk that those in positions of power may not have the proper positive planning of their area as their priority as against other political objectives?

Aside from that question, my other main thought at the moment is whether any concerns should arise from how what is set out in the consultation paper reflects very closely how the system operates in London:

  • Applications of potential strategic importance (“PSI applications” in the jargon) are defined by way of various detailed categories (e.g. proposals for at least 150 dwellings or at least 15,000 m2 of commercial floorspace)
  • The local planning authority would consult with the mayor when the PSI application is made (familiar to us in London as the stage 1 referral) and the mayor would give their views, indicating whether they have no wish for further involvement
  • Unless the mayor has indicated that he or she does not wish for further involvement,  the authority would notify the mayor of their ”minded to grant or refuse” decision (familiar to us in London as the stage 2 referral), giving the mayor 14 days to decide whether to intervene either by directing refusal or by calling the application in for the mayor’s own determination.
  • If the mayor calls in the application, he or she determines the application either by holding a hearing or (not previously the case in London) by written representations.
  • The Secretary of State can still call in the application at any time and if the mayor has refused the application, the applicant can appeal in the usual way.

It’s somewhat worrying that planning in London is being used as a blueprint for elsewhere in the country. It’s certainly no silver bullet. In London these procedures add significant time and complexity to application processes. The applicant will want to sound out the mayor’s team at an early stage on any major scheme, so pre-app discussions become more complicated. Negotiations with the mayor’s team often become as important as negotiations with the LPA’s team, particularly (in London) on issues such as affordable housing quantum and viability. Dilemmas arise on occasion: whether to follow LPA officers’ steer or that of the mayor’s team, because priorities will sometimes differ. In practice the stage 2 referral stage takes far longer than two weeks because the mayor’s team will ensure that the application package is not referred until all material issues have been ironed out, including having the section 106 agreement having reached an advanced stage with issues relevant to the mayor usually agreed. Particularly given the detail of the current London Plan, detailed negotiations will also be taking place on any number of detailed issues which if unresolved may lead to a risk of a direction of refusal. If an application is called in by the mayor, there may well be a lengthy further period where negotiations with the mayor’s team are needed to “improve” elements of the scheme or section 106 agreement package.

How this this complex dynamic going to play out in different mayoral strategic authorities? Isn’t the honest answer that no-one knows? It is partly going to come down to the political priorities of individual mayors and partly down to whether mayoral teams will be sufficiently well resourced and managed to deal with referred PSI applications in a timely, predictable and consistent basis.

So, given that this system is being introduced to encourage new homes and economic growth rather than to provide an additional brake or check on decision making, how sure are we that the additional administrative steps involved will not introduce more cost and uncertainty to the system than is outweighed by the opportunity on occasion for a mayor to step in and approve a scheme which the LPA was going to refuse? And has the system been stress tested as against the risk of (elected) bad actors?

What might be mitigations against these risks?

  • Perhaps going back to the concept of having these far-reaching powers only unlocked once a spatial development strategy is in place.
  • Perhaps increasing the PSI application thresholds, at least to begin with?
  • Perhaps closing loopholes that allow referral stage timescales to be elongated?

The consultation process runs until 5 October 2026.

Simon Ricketts, 24 August 2026

Personal views, et cetera

Mark-Up Of Final Version of NPPF vs Draft

Here’s one we prepared earlier: https://www.townlegal.com/wp-content/uploads/Redline-Compare-Draft-NPPF-December-2025-and-NPPF-August-2026.pdf .

By “we” I mean my colleague Archie Hunter, for which thanks (although any errors are mine – please do just use this as an indicative guide).

It’s interesting to see the editing process that has been underway at MHCLG, taking us from the December 2025 draft (see my 19 December 2025 blog post Framework Good Work) to today’s final version (17  August 2026).

Given that the policies in the new document take immediate effect in terms of decision-making, unfortunately we do all need to get our heads around its implications, in detail, without delay. Amongst all the tightening of language throughout,  there are various substantive changes. The two biggest I spotted are probably:

  • In a change from the approach floated in the consultation draft, no standardised viability inputs have been included. The circumstances in which a viability assessment is appropriate at application stage are stated in amended terms in policy DM5.
  • Residential and mixed-use development within reasonable walking distance of a well-connected railway station – the definition of “well-connected” has been extended to catch those within a top 80 rather than 60 travel to work area within England. “Reasonable walking distance” is defined 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.”  Reduction in minimum density requirement to 35 dwellings per hectare from the previously proposed 40 dwellings per hectare. “Higher densities – of at least 45 dwellings per hectare – should be achieved where the service frequency is at least twice that of the minimum required for a well-connected station” unless inappropriate or not possible. These “minimum densities […] should be exceeded where possible, especially in areas of high connectivity, to optimise the efficient use of land. The Connectivity Tool (Connectivity Tool – GOV.UK) should be used alongside other relevant quantitative or qualitative evidence in assessing the connectivity of particular locations proposed for development.”

More broadly there is some watering down of the requirement in policy L3 that development proposals for residential and mixed-use development should contribute to an increase in the density of the area in which they are situated: “where there is a clear justification that this is either inappropriate or not possible (for example, where the prevailing density is already very high, the nature of the accommodation required precludes higher densities, or where it would conflict with other policies in this Framework).”

MHCLG’s own summary of top 10 changes made from the draft are set out in its policy paper Creating a clear, rules-based planning system (also published today):

Aside from scrolling down our mark-up, it is also useful to look at MHCLG’s response to consultation document, also published today, which sets out the background to the approach taken in relation to the various elements of the draft that were consulted upon. There are useful indications in the document as to what further we can expect, e.g.

Viability

“…the government has decided to not take forward a technical annex to include standardised inputs in viability assessment.

While we understand the need for a consistent framework for evaluating development proposals and certainty in the viability assessment process, we consider that further engagement is needed with local planning authorities, developers, development surveyors and other key stakeholders. This will ensure that any changes are thoroughly tested prior to implementation. Viability Planning Practice Guidance will continue to provide guidance on standardised inputs – and policy DM5 is clear that viability assessment should be carried out in accordance with this guidance. The government appreciates the feedback received and will use it to inform a wider update of the Planning Practice Guidance, to be published as soon as possible. 

In relation to review mechanisms, the government proposes that these should be considered through the local plan process under policy PM12. Policy DM5(6) has

therefore been removed. Further guidance on the use of review mechanisms will also be published in due course.” [my emboldening]

Section 73/106A

“Respondents generally highlighted the need to improve the efficiency, clarity and consistency of the process for modifying planning obligations under section 106A, while maintaining confidence that agreed affordable housing and infrastructure contributions will be delivered. Relatedly, some respondents suggested that further guidance on the interpretation and application of s106A legislation, or standard templates to support the modification process, could be developed. 

Many respondents raised concern about the submission of section 73 applications to obtain planning permission with a lower level of affordable housing or other obligations. Respondents emphasised that any proposed reductions to affordable housing or other contributions should be robustly evidenced. 

The government has considered these responses and acknowledges the need for a more detailed review of the statutory framework for amending planning obligations. The government will use the feedback received through this consultation to inform that review and set out further details in due course.”

Conditions

“Working with the Planning Inspectorate, the government will develop a suite of national model conditions and begin publishing these before the end of the year. In developing these, the government will work closely with the sector and will provide guidance to support their use in practice.”

Standardising section 106 agreements for medium sized development

“Revisions have been made to policy DM6(4) to align with the approach for planning conditions so that, where national model planning obligations are relevant to a

development, they should be used unless there are strong reasons to depart from them. The government is taking forward a programme of work with the Planning Advisory Service to support and streamline the process of section 106 agreements, with an initial focus on medium sites. The government will consult on draft standard template planning agreements for medium sites, which are designed to reduce delays and resource burdens on local planning authorities and SME housebuilders. “

Neighbourhood plans

“In response to consultation feedback, the government will also update Planning Practice Guidance to provide greater clarity on neighbourhood plan preparation, including site allocations and the consideration of local housing need. This will set clear expectations for collaborative working between local planning authorities and neighbourhood planning groups, and the use of local evidence to inform housing requirements and delivery.”

Specific housing needs

“…the government will publish updated guidance in due course to assist local authorities in assessing the housing needs of different groups, including older people and disabled people.”

Affordable housing commuted sums

“…the government recognises that challenges remain, particularly for SME developers where there is limited registered provider appetite to acquire small numbers of Section 106 affordable homes. To help address this, the government will publish guidance to improve clarity, consistency and confidence in the use of commuted sums”.

“This will include consideration of how guidance can support effective deployment of contributions in practice, alongside work on standardised planning agreements, including whether standardised clauses could support the use of cash-in-lieu payments.”

Housing Delivery Tests

MHCLG today finally published the 2024 and 2025 HDT results.

The consultation response document says this:

“As part of wider efforts to simplify and streamline Housing Delivery Test calculations, the government has also implemented changes to the way the Housing Delivery Test has been calculated, informed by sector feedback outside of this consultation. This includes the removal of unmet need adjustments to Local Housing Need calculations. Unmet need is often inconsistently identified across local plans, making it complex and challenging to apply adjustments consistently, and resulting in some areas being measured against targets which did not accurately reflect need in their area. This change means that local authorities will be measured against either their plan requirement (where any agreed unmet need being taken or transferred to neighbouring authorities is already reflected within these figures), or Local Housing Need. The government considers this provides a more accurate and transparent measure of an area’s housing requirement in the Housing Delivery Test. This change has been applied to the 2024 and 2025 Housing Delivery Test results.

Further, in recognition that it can take time for new housing targets to be reflected in housing delivery figures, the government has introduced a transitional arrangement for the new standard method (published in December 2024) to apply to the Housing Delivery Test. This transitional arrangement means the previous version of the standard method will continue to be used to calculate Local Housing Need until the 2026/27 measurement year.”

Permission in Principle

“The government has considered these responses and is minded to proceed with extending Permission in Principle to medium-sized development, subject to further engagement with the sector. The government agrees that this will enable applicants, particularly SME builders, to test the acceptability of development on more sites without the full cost of a planning application. However, it recognises concerns about making decisions on the principle of development for this scale of development in the absence of mitigations, and will explore the issue further and ensure that there are adequate safeguards before making changes to secondary legislation.”

Lastly, MHCLG also published today (17 August 2026) the government’s response to its consultation on reforms to the statutory consultee system.

Enough for now? I think so.

Simon Ricketts, 17 August 2026

Personal views, et cetera

Talkin’ Bout A Devolution

In a week where Andy Burnham committed to go further than the government’s current programme in terms of devolution, by way of the 31 July 2026 Rewiring the State cabinet statement, it was ironic to see a couple of news pieces that perhaps reveal politicians’ day to day attitude to local government:

“Badenoch suggested the convicted criminal would not be allowed to stand as an MP, but that his ambition to be a councillor was legitimate. “I’m not giving him a national platform, he is standing to be a councillor in Somerset … it is a local platform looking at parking, sorting out bins.”

(Badenoch defends decision to allow man jailed for antisemitism to stand as councillor, The Guardian, 5 August 2026)

““The government is devolving new licensing powers to the mayor [of London] to help support pubs and nightlife. Soho did not become world famous by taking last orders early, switching the lights off at 10 o’clock.

“The prime minister encourages local leaders to work with the industry so that pubs can continue to thrive.”

The government is due to grant new powers to the London mayor, Sadiq Khan, allowing him to “call in” local council decisions he opposes.

Khan said of the proposals on X: “You can’t run a world-famous nightlife district with a village-hall mindset.”

A spokesperson for the mayor previously said he was against “restrictive and anti-growth policies” and said he hoped to use new powers to be granted to him by the government to stop councils from overreaching.”

(‘It is British life’: No 10 vows to stop councils trying to limit standing in pubs, The Guardian, 6 August 2026)

The cabinet paper is intriguing and heralds some fairly immediate changes. Watch for the Chancellor’s Autumn Statement on 28 October 2026 and ahead of that any further hints at the labour party conference at the end of next month.

There is of course already a hugely ambitious English devolution process underway, pursuant to the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026, the main elements of which I initially summarised in my 11 July 2025 blog post A Bluffer’s Guide To The English Devolution And Community Empowerment Bill. The National Audit Office published a report on 1 July 2026 with accompanying press release MHCLG advances devolution plans with expansion of Strategic Authorities and local funding powers confirming that good progress was being made, albeit recognising that “there is a clear tension between departments’ responsibilities and the ambition of the English Devolution White Paper that central government should end the top-down micromanagement of decisions and approaches by local leaders and replace it with a principle of locally accountable autonomy. This tension will need to be resolved, and local accountability arrangements substantially strengthened and tested, before the devolution of funding and accountability can be considered to be working effectively to support improved outcomes for local people “.

So, what is new for England in the latest cabinet statement? Will it address that tension? There’s a lot that could well make a big difference – particularly greater retention of business rates for strategic and local authorities and a slice of local income tax for mayoral authorities. I can now see more clearly how strategic authorities’ spatial development strategies will truly be (as Catriona Riddell has always advocated) the key strategic investment framework for each area.

  • “…empowering mayors to offer a high-quality locally tailored technical or vocational route from age 16, underpinned by control of the budget for 16- to 19-year-olds.”
  • “In respect of transport, we will support mayors to take public control of buses more rapidly and implement fully integrated ticketing systems, alongside our work with local leaders to support active travel options. We will give local leaders more control over commuter rail services, with the most established mayors working in much deeper partnership with Great British Railways. As we introduce new accountability arrangements, we will also remove the need for government approval of locally funded transport schemes for places with integrated settlements, except those that interact with the national network. We will immediately raise the approval threshold to £500 million and work with mayors to replace the concept of “retained schemes” with Local Transport Infrastructure Partnerships. We will also reform our approach to working in partnership with the most strategically significant or complex local projects, drawing on the experience of delivering the Elizabeth Line.”
  • “Mayors will be equipped to support the building of council homes, including through greater devolution of the Social and Affordable Homes Programme and investment to upgrade to warmer homes, and we will strengthen the framework for public development corporations to drive local housing and infrastructure development.”
  • “We will support mayors to foster local innovation ecosystems, devolving a substantially increased share of later-stage innovation funding to local leaders so they can back opportunities with the greatest potential for local growth.”
  • “We will also empower mayors to ensure their regions are thriving places to live as well as work by giving local people – including young people – greater control of how cultural and sporting investment is decided in their regions. This could include funding currently controlled by Arts Council England and Sport England, whilst ensuring individual cultural funding decisions are taken outside of political interference.”
  • “These reforms will be augmented by supporting mayors to establish Good Growth Funds across the country, backed by national Public Financial Institutions and supported by the Local Government Pension Scheme as a key local investor, to assist mayors in investing for the long term in their local economies. We will also support local places to reindustrialise by building on frontier sector and cluster strengths.”
  • “Through devolution, we will ensure services work together as a single coherent system built around the priorities of people and places. We will therefore give areas more local democratic control over their public services, from health to policing to education, including through the establishment of deputy mayor roles with responsibility for key public services. To enable this, we will align key public service boundaries. This will include new local police units aligning with local authorities, and regional police forces, fire and rescue services and Integrated Care Boards aligning with the boundaries of strategic authorities by the end of the Parliament. Where there are strong financial, strategic or operational reasons for larger organisations, this alignment may be to the boundaries of multiple, rather than just one, strategic authority. We will also enable greater alignment and pooling of funding for preventative services by devolving funding, where possible, allowing strategic authorities and constituent local authorities to invest in joint support, as long as national standards are being met.”
  • “We have … agreed to overhaul the way regional government is funded, starting by replacing grants from central government with a share of local income tax for every mayor beginning in 2028, such that where a region grows its tax base, it benefits from the increased receipts. This will sit alongside greater retention of the revenue from business rates for local councils and strategic authorities. The long-term certainty of funding via taxation will provide more flexibility and enable greater investment to fund interventions that will deliver a return. We will consider how these growth incentives can be balanced with the need for fairness between places, recognising that there will be different starting points across the country. We will also give all strategic authorities the ability to introduce an Overnight Visitor Levy, with local leaders able to set out plans for how revenues will be invested by March 2028.“
  • “We also discussed the large regional disparities between current levels of public investment per head in different parts of the country. Alongside our programme of fiscal devolution, we will therefore rebalance public investment, including considering the balance of subsidy and other finance mechanisms, to ensure we are backing growth opportunities in all parts of the country. This will be supported by considering how areas could benefit from increased land values from housing and infrastructure development, strengthening their ability and incentives to invest.”
  • “The government wants all areas that are ready to have a mayor as soon as possible, as long as there is strong local support. We will therefore invite all areas without strategic authorities to confirm their preference as to whether the strategic authority for their area should be mayoral or not. Where areas are not ready to adopt a mayor, the government will work with them to set up non-mayoral foundation strategic authorities with an enhanced set of powers, including the option to introduce an Overnight Visitor Levy. In line with the existing designation criteria, we have also conferred established mayoral strategic authority status to four further areas: Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, East Midlands, West of England, and York and North Yorkshire.”
  • “There will be a stronger role for the Local Audit Office, and we will discuss with the National Audit Office how it can complement this. The outcomes framework for mayoral strategic authorities will also be streamlined to ensure that the government and the public can hold mayors accountable for good growth and addressing inequalities in their area. This will be supported by a strengthened focus on timely and accurate place-based data from the Office for National Statistics and other bodies that will support outcomes-based decision making in places. We will also ensure that there is a clear role for Members of Parliament in local accountability, working with mayors and local councillors.”
  • “…the government will take forward a programme of reform to support the financial sustainability of local authorities. This will include retention of more of the business rates raised locally instead of receiving grants from central government, and ongoing and future reforms to the highest cost services: adult and children’s social care, homelessness, and special educational needs and disabilities.”
  • “We agreed to replace the current model of consultation by default with new and modern forms of public participation. This includes considering where performative statutory duties to consult can be revoked and how we can more actively bring the public into the policy-making process instead.”
  • “Over the coming weeks and months, we will confirm our plans for the design of the Overnight Visitor Levy, activate mayoral intervention powers in the planning system, devolve decisions on Transport and Works Act Orders, and streamline the number of targets that mayors have to report on in relation to their integrated settlements.”

On timing:

  • “This autumn, alongside the Budget and fiscal devolution roadmap that will set out our overall approach to revenue assignment and rates retention, we will publish a white paper detailing our plans for the full set of reforms and a clear timetable for their implementation. This will include plans for legislation, the alignment of public service geographies, and the devolution of new powers and functions. The timetable for implementation will be informed by close work with mayors to consider how we can best build the necessary local delivery capacity and capability.
  • “Next year, fiscal devolution will begin with mayors retaining a share of business rates from April 2027 and securing powers to introduce the Overnight Visitor Levy. We will also establish a new wave of strategic authorities, with new mayors elected in Cumbria, and in Cheshire and Warrington, next May. We will use the upcoming Spending Review to confirm the detailed arrangements for retained income tax, with receipts retained locally from April 2028. And, in spring 2028, a further wave of new mayors will be elected”.

Viva la devolution.

Simon Ricketts 7 August 2026

Personal views et cetera

JR Risk

There was the usual rush of case hand-downs ahead of the end of the court term last week. Some of them caused me to reflect on this thing we talk about with clients all the time: JR risk. Even an unsuccessful judicial review of a planning permission can cause huge delays and problems for the developer (and don’t some objectors, often protected against any significant costs exposure even if they are unsuccessful, know it?) and if one or more of your grounds actually lands in your favour, back the decision goes for re-determination, possibly against a different political or economic background: bonanza…

I was also thinking about the government’s 16 July 2026 consultation paper Judicial Review Reforms Beyond Nationally Significant Infrastructure. Following on from its reforms to the judicial review process in relation to nationally significant infrastructure projects (see my 31 May 2026 blog post Keeping Up: JR Changes, Deadlines, the government is now considering a series of proposals that might be introduced more broadly to developments consented under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and Transport and Works Act 1992. These include:

  • removing the paper permission stage and for removing the right of appeal for cases which are deemed totally without merit at the oral permission hearing – whether for all planning cases or just for major infrastructure projects and other strategically important developments;
  • designating all claims relating to ‘major infrastructure projects’ and other ‘strategically important developments’ as “Significant Planning Court Claims” so that target timescales for dealing with the case apply and so as to ensure that each case is reviewed by the Planning Liaison Judge to ensure it is allocated to a judge with an appropriate level of expertise;
  • encouraging the use of case management conferences – whether for all planning cases or just for major infrastructure projects and other strategically important developments;
  • applying more broadly the new target timescales that will apply to nationally significant infrastructure project claims from 1 October 2026, namely: shortened deadlines for the service of the pre-permission documents from seven days to three; target timescale for having the oral permission hearing three weeks from the claimant’s deadline for filing a reply to the acknowledgment of service; shortened deadline for filing and serving the detailed grounds of defence from 35 to 28 days.
  • extending the target timescales for NSIP appeals in the Court of Appeal to ‘major infrastructure projects’ and other ‘strategically important developments’, namely (1) for permission to appeal: determination to be given four weeks from the application for permission to appeal and (2) for the hearing of a substantive appeal: four months from the application for permission to appeal.

Consultation responses are invited by 27 August 2026.

I can see that much of this is sensible tightening of processes and timescales – indeed it is exactly what we need with the actual planning application process but that is another story. Will it serve to dissuade meritless claims or materially reduce “JR risk”? I’m not so sure.

So what can we do, as planning lawyers and planners, to reduce JR risk on any potential project? It is so difficult. The uncomfortable reality is that the system now has almost countless legal trip hazards, given the numerous overlapping legislative regimes at play. Of course we can try to make the planning application “legally bullet-proof”, by way of (now the norm on larger projects) a legal audit of the draft application package; we can seek to make sure that there are no procedural slip-ups on the part of the local planning authority; we can review the planning committee report (even in draft, the High Court has recently confirmed: see my 12 July 2026 blog post Draft Planning Committee Reports: Sharing Is Caring) and seek to rectify before the decision any errors that we see. But there is always the residual risk that something has slipped through, and for sure the claimant will be looking to identify as many grounds as are seen to have any real mileage, because they only need to win on one ground and in litigation (particularly public law litigation) there are very few legal areas of absolute certainty. Some clients may indeed be driven to take out an insurance policy against the financial impacts of a judicial review, which has its place although inevitably expensive and not a panacea.

Without commentary on the specific legal rights and wrongs, these were some of the recent cases that caught my eye:

Guardians of Whitewebbs Park CIC v London Borough of Enfield (Sir Tim Kerr sitting as a judge of the High Court, 27 July 2026)

This was the quashing of planning permission for the proposed redevelopment of a former golf course in the green belt to provide Tottenham Hotspur’s women’s and girls’ football training academy together with associated development. The land is owned by Enfield Council which had entered into an agreement for lease with the council, which had then in due course granted planning permission. The permission was challenged by claimant on six grounds, one of which was abandoned before the full hearing of the case. Whilst the judge rejected grounds that alleged that the officer’s report had misinterpreted or misapplied a local plan policy in relation to heritage assets, that the report had not properly considered the scheme’s impacts on the openness of the green belt and that there had been apparent bias on the part of the council, the judge allowed the claim on the basis that (1) there was a breach of section 100D of the Local Government Act 1972 given that two background papers had not been published alongside the officer’s report that would have showed a disagreement between expert ecologists about whether the required biodiversity net gain (BNG) could be achieved and that (2) the planning committee had been materially misled by officers in relation to concerns about whether the required BNG could be achieved.

It is interesting to note that the council was defending the claim until shortly before the June 2026 hearing but, following the change of political control of the council the previous month, it informed the court that it would no longer defend the case, leaving Spurs to contest the claim.

The planning committee resolved to approve the application on 11 February 2025 and whilst the claimant did request reconsideration of that decision, this was not any of the grounds on which the judicial review was eventually brought. Only after the permission was eventually issued on 22 July 2025 was a “lengthy and detailed pre-action protocol letter from the claimant’s solicitors” sent on 2 August 2025 – by which time it was of course too late for the council or applicant to do anything about the grounds pleaded.

R (Staunch Campaign Limited) v North Northamptonshire Council (Sir Peter Lane, 30 July 2026)

This was an unsuccessful challenge by a local campaign group to planning permission granted for a large commercial development. The claimant relied on five grounds of challenge, all based on alleged breaches of the Conservation of Habitats Regulations 2017 in the way in which the council had determined the application.

R (Royal Mint Court Residents’ Association) v Secretary of State (Dingemans LLJ and Lieven J, 31 July 2026

This was the unsuccessful challenge to the government’s decision to grant planning permission for the proposed new Chinese Embassy at Royal Mint Court, just to the east of the Tower of London. Again there were five grounds of challenge  on a variety of grounds: unlawful approach to the enforcement of planning conditions and obligations (given the identity of the People’s Republic of China as the applicant); unlawful failure to disclose a Security Statement (summarising a risk assessment that had been commissioned by the PRC) and a Blast Assessment (commissioned by the local planning authority); non-compliance with Article 7 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) England Order 2015 (on the basis that applications were redacted so as not to show all internal room layouts proposed), and unlawful failure to identify and assess human rights.

We also had the publicity given to the apparent end to another east London planning law saga, the Holborn Studios litigation, ten years after the first planning permission was granted (later quashed in 2017 following a judicial review brought by Holborn Studios) for redevelopment of a building then occupied by Holborn Studios. A second planning permission was granted in 2019 and then again quashed in 2020 following a judicial review again brought by the same claimant. Planning permission was then granted for a third time, by a planning inspector on appeal, in 2024 and was quashed by the High Court in 2025. Landmark Chambers has announced Court of Appeal allows appeal in Holborn Studios litigation although in fact unusually the appeal was allowed by way of a consent order dated 17 July agreed between the parties and endorsed by the court, following Holborn Studios having been placed in administration. Ten years…!

It would be interesting to reflect on whether the government’s latest proposals to reform judicial review would have enabled any of these disputes to have been resolved at an earlier stage (I doubt it) and indeed what else might be effective. For instance, in some cases surely there may be a role for what I suggested in my 12 July 2026 blog post:

“The data in relation to any large scheme can be complex and nuanced. And if there is a mistake, a potential claimant for judicial review currently (ridiculously) has the luxury of being able to stay quiet, deliberately, until the permission is issued, perhaps months later after the section 106 agreement has been completed, before then popping up with his or her grounds of challenge once it is too late for the council or applicant to do anything about them (the obvious solution would be for the High Court’s pre-action protocol in relation to judicial review in the Planning Court to set out an expectation that a potential claimant should usually send its pre-action letter promptly once it ascertains that grounds for potential challenge have first arisen rather than being able to wait until the permission has issued but I’ve said that too many times to no effect).”

There I’ve said it again.

Simon Ricketts, 1 August 2026

Personal views, et cetera