Month: September 2026

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