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 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
SIMONICITY 