Category: NPPF

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

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

Grey Belt Tests Tested

There have been three examples in recent weeks of either the High Court considering arguments that an inspector had misapplied the grey belt tests within the NPPF or of the government legal department conceding that an inspector had misapplied the tests, each example useful in isolating a specific element of the required decision-making process:

How should footnote 7 be applied?

“Grey belt” is defined in the NPPF glossary as follows:

“Grey belt: For the purposes of plan-making and decision-making, ‘grey belt’ is defined as land in the Green Belt comprising previously developed land and/or any other land that, in either case, does not strongly contribute to any of purposes (a), (b), or (d) in paragraph 143. ‘Grey belt’ excludes land where the application of the policies relating to the areas or assets in footnote 7 (other than Green Belt) would provide a strong reason for refusing or restricting development.”

Footnote 7 reads:

“The policies referred to are those in this Framework (rather than those in development plans) relating to: habitats sites (and those sites listed in paragraph 194) and/or designated as Sites of Special Scientific Interest; land designated as Green Belt, Local Green Space, a National Landscape, a National Park (or within the Broads Authority) or defined as Heritage Coast; irreplaceable habitats; designated heritage assets (and other heritage assets of archaeological interest referred to in footnote 75); and areas at risk of flooding or coastal change.”

In Wrotham Parish Council v Secretary of State (Lieven J, 30 January 2026) the specific question arose as to whether “development” for the purposes of that sentence I emboldened above, means any hypothetical development, or whether it means the specific development the subject of the application or appeal.

The case concerned a proposal by Moto Hospitality for a secure 24-hour truck stop facility on the A20 in Wrotham, Kent. An inspector had allowed Moto’s appeal against refusal of planning permission by Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council. The inspector had allowed the appeal and, in her reasoning, had determined that the proposal would “only limited and localised harm to the setting of the [Kent Downs National Landscape] and no harm to the special characteristics of the views into or out of the Protected Landscape. Notwithstanding that the proposal will not conserve and enhance the landscape and its setting considered together, I do not consider the identified harm would provide a strong reason to refuse or restrict the development.”

The claimant, Wrotham Parish Council, argued that the impact of development generally on the national landscape should be considered and whether impact generally of development on the setting of a national landscape would provide a strong reason for refusing or restricting development.

Lieven J rejected that argument:

“In my view the Inspector in DL/41 was correct to apply the footnote 7 test to the development that was the subject of the application and not to all development, or any hypothetical development.”

“For development control purposes the acceptability or otherwise of that impact will fundamentally turn on the impact of the development applied for. This is particularly clear with heritage and habitats impacts, where some developments might have minimal impact, while others provide a strong reason for refusal.”

This “interpretation is strongly supported by the policy purpose of the introduction of the Grey Belt. That purpose, as set out in NPPF paragraph 155, is to allow the release of Green Belt land where it does not strongly contribute to the purposes of the Green Belt; and where there is no strong reason for refusal by reference to the important policy safeguards in footnote 7. It is obviously intended to lead to the release of some additional Green Belt land to meet development needs. It is a further exception to Green Belt policy, but that is not a reason to interpret the policy in a restrictive manner. The interpretative principle is to consider the words in context and with regard to the policy purpose.”

“In this case the Inspector found that the Site did not strongly contribute to the Green Belt purposes in NPPF paragraph 143(a), (b) or (c), and that finding is not challenged. Further, she found that footnote 7 did not provide a strong reason for refusing the Development. A conclusion that, despite those findings, planning permission should be refused is plainly contrary to the purpose of the introduction of the Grey Belt into the NPPF. It is not an answer that the developer can fall back on broader Green Belt policies and show very special circumstances. The point of the introduction of the Grey Belt is to avoid that policy requirement.”

What does “strong reason for … restricting development” mean?

What if one of the policies listed in footnote 7 would provide a strong reason for resisting development within a particular part of the relevant site, even though the specific development proposal being determined does not entail development within that part of the site? You can perhaps guess the correct answer to that test, in the light of the Wrotham case.

By her decision letter dated 13 November 2025 an inspector had dismissed an appeal by Boningdale Homes following South Staffordshire District Council’s refusal of planning permission for up to 100 dwellings in Boscobel Lane, Bishops Wood, Staffordshire. Following a six day inquiry, the inspector agreed with the council that the impact the scheme would have on the local grade II listed Church of St John “represents a strong restriction on development”, concluding that “the appeal site is not grey belt land”.  

She said this:

“66. The parties differ regarding the application of footnote 7 with reference to the potential heritage impact of the proposed development. The appeal site extends close to the Grade II listed Church of St John. There was no heritage reason for refusal and the parties agree that the eastern part of the site is not proposed for development because of the harm that it would cause to the heritage significance of the Church of St John. The Council maintain that this represents a strong restriction on development and for this reason the proposed development would not be grey belt development.”

“71. When considered together with the definition of grey belt, I consider that grey belt is an assessment of the land rather than the proposed development, and that the Council’s interpretation correctly reflects the definition of grey belt within the Framework. Consequently, even though the parties agree that the heritage harm would not be a strong reason for refusal, it is a strong reason for restricting the development and as such I conclude that the appeal site is not grey belt land.”

Lord Charlie Banner KC posted on LinkedIn on 22 December 2025 that in the face of a legal challenge brought by Boningdale, the government has now agreed to consent to judgment on the basis that the inspector’s approach was unlawful.

[NB Of course, the December 2025 draft NPPF proposes removing footnote 7 in its entirety and the reference to it within the “grey belt” definition.]

How does one interpret “fundamentally undermine the purposes (taken together) of the remaining Green Belt across the area of the plan”? (NPPF paragraph 155a)

Is it relevant to consider whether the proposed development would fundamentally undermine the Green Belt purposes of the development site itself, rather than simply the purposes of such parts of the Green Belt as would remain? One might think that the latter interpretation is obviously the case. I’m glad that the government legal department plainly agrees, given that again it has agreed to consent to judgment, this time following a decision letter dated 22 December 2025 in relation to an appeal by O15 from refusal by Warwick District Council of permission in principle for up to three dwellings.

The inspector dismissed the appeal, with her decision letter including this reasoning:

“18. Criterion a. requires the development to not fundamentally undermine the purposes (taken together) of the remaining Green Belt across the area of the plan. This refers to all five Green Belt purposes set out at paragraph 143 of the Framework, not only the three purposes referred to in the definition of grey belt.

19. Green Belt purpose c) seeks to safeguard the countryside from encroachment. I have characterised the site as countryside rather than as part of the village. The proposal would introduce built development onto land which is currently free from development. As such, the proposal would result in encroachment into the countryside and thus would fundamentally undermine purpose c). Consequently, the proposal would fail to meet the requirements of criterion a.”

Another Lord Charlie Banner KC quick win. Planning magazine reported on 2 February 2026 that following receipt of a pre-action letter the Secretary of State had confirmed by letter on 23 January 2026 that it was minded to concede.

Taking a step back… the introduction of grey belt has not seen the avalanche of litigation catastrophised by some. This is the system working as it should. The NPPF grey belt tests are relatively clear in my view but inevitably there are uncertainties and/or misinterpretations. The acceptance of MHCLG to admit where a mistake has been made is always welcome.

Simon Ricketts, 7 February 2026

Personal views, et cetera

Framework Good Work

I described MHCLG’s and the Mayor of London’s proposed emergency measures for London as “underwhelming” in my 13 December 2025 blog post.

By contrast, maybe the only word for this week’s draft revised NPPF, accompanying consultation paper (225 questions to respond to by 10 March 2026) and the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 is “overwhelming”.

However, in suitably positive and festive mode, the theme of this blog post is as follows:

🎵 It’s beginning to feel a lot like we are moving towards a coherent, understandable, English planning system 🎵 and for that the relevant ministers and civil servants deserve a couple of weeks’ rest and reflection before the hard work begins again (because it certainly isn’t all finished yet…).

After all, doesn’t the following summary start to make sense to someone fresh to all this? In a way that the system hasn’t since the abolition of the regional strategies in 2010, or indeed long before that in much simpler times?

At a national level:

  • a comprehensive set of numbered policies setting out the approach to development plan-making to be taken by plan-making authorities at three levels: strategic (via procedures the framework of which is set out in the 2025 Act); local (via procedures the framework for which is set out in LURA 2023), and neighbourhood;
  • a comprehensive set of numbered policies to be followed when planning applications and appeals are determined, written in a rules-based style so as to minimise ambiguity – policies which (from the date the draft NPPF is finalised) override any inconsistent policies in any development plan (unless those policies have been examined and adopted against the finalised NPPF).

Planning practice guidance will still have an important “but supporting” role to national planning policy “and its status should be regarded in that light”.

At a strategic level (the boundaries of which in many cases will be determined in due course via the devolution process happening meanwhile in another part of the forest):

  • a comprehensive set of spatial development strategies focused on providing a clear spatial framework for investment and growth, including new housing, looking forward at least 20 years (to be altered at least every five years to reflect any changes to housing requirements for the local planning authorities in the strategy area and to be replaced at least every ten years). This will include apportioning to local planning authorities in the strategy area the objectively assessed needs for housing and other uses which those authorities should plan for in their local plans and identifying “broad locations for strategic development including new settlements, major urban extensions, major cross-boundary development and key locations with the potential for new homes and jobs” as well as strategic infrastructure requirements. There should be no duplication, substantive restatement or modification of the content of the NPPF, unless any policy in the NPPF so directs.

At a local level (the boundaries of which in many cases will be determined in due course via the local government reorganisation process happening meanwhile in yet another part of the forest):

  • slimmed-down local plans, to be prepared and adopted within 30 months, setting out a vision with a limited number of measurable outcomes, policies for minimum amounts of development to be provided for, land allocations (with a specified amount of detail), broad locations for growth, infrastructure requirements to support delivery of the plan and other policies “only where these support the delivery of specific allocated sites”. There should be no duplication, substantive restatement or modification of the content of the NPPF, unless any policy in the NPPF so directs. There must be “general conformity” with the relevant spatial development strategy. Supplementary plans may be used to address specific issues, subject to constraints set out in the NPPF.

At a neighbourhood level (optional):

  • allocating land to meet the development needs of the neighbourhood (with a prohibition on promoting less development than provided for in other parts of the development plan for the area) and policies to address particular local issues. Neighbourhood plans should accord with the plan-making policies in the NPPF and again there should be no duplication, substantive restatement or modification of the content of the NPPF.

At each level (strategic; local; neighbourhood) a specific set of tests is set out against which draft plans will be examined. There are specific requirements for plan-making authorities at each level to engage with infrastructure providers, other relevant plan-making bodies and other relevant bodies and to demonstrate this by way of statements of common ground. Expectations as to developer contributions should be set at the relevant level. Qualitative standards for development should not cover matters already addressed by Building Regulations with limited specific exceptions and should not cover matters relating to the construction or layout of buildings unless they are to implement the nationally described space standard. Plans are to be published in a searchable digital format – no more PDFs!

Aside from there being a more cohesive, tiered, policy basis for decision making, the decision-making process will be made simpler and more predictable by way of simplified procedural requirements for schemes of less than 50 dwellings, by way of increasing the standardisation of section 106 agreements and viability inputs and by way of greater delegation of decision-making to officers.

I’m focusing here more upon the structural framework of the system – the hardware as it were – rather than the substantive direction of the policies – the software as it were. But the software also now works more smoothly. Rather than the previous tilted balance, with its various caveats over time and footnotes, we have, front and centre, policy S4 setting out the principles to be applied to development within settlements and policy S5 setting out the principles of development outside settlements (including the new criteria for housing and mixed-use development within reasonable walking distance of railway stations which meet a specifically defined level of connectivity to jobs and services (with those criteria also now providing a new category of not inappropriate development in the green belt)) and the drive towards densification, a more diverse mix of homes, focus on particular areas and sectors (e.g. those names in the government’s growth strategy, AI growth zones, logistics, town centres and agricultural and rural development), minerals, a vision-led approach to transport, addressing climate change, a tidying up of heritage policies and finally a more strategic approach to the natural environment (with the read-across to local nature recovery strategies as well as the environmental delivery plans provided for within the 2025 Act).

Complicated? Inevitably. But refreshingly it does all hang together. In fact, the new system is probably more intimidating for all of us who have to get to grips with this quite different approach and unlearn a whole host of previous policy tests and workarounds than for someone coming at this afresh. Any attempt at a straightforward mark-up of changes from the current December 2024 NPPF is doomed to failure but this side-by-side comparison of the paragraphs of the draft revised NPPF as against the relevant paragraphs of the existing 2024 NPPF may help (for which I thank my colleagues Archie Hunter and Adam Choudhury).

What are the challenges ahead?

  • How to get there from here, i.e. transition. The NPPF’s decision-making policies will have full effect from the day that the final version of the document is published. We are of course going to have to wait longer for spatial development strategies (individual timescales dependent on dependent on individual devolution processes but against the government’s ambition of a full suite of adopted SDSs by 2029) and indeed the next generation of local plans (27 November 2025 written ministerial statement: “Local planning authorities covered by the NPPF transitional arrangements will have to commence formal plan making (Gateway 1) by 31 October 2026, while those that have a plan that is already over five years old must commence by 30 April 2027”).
  • Politics and administrative processes. The planning system is under major reconstruction but of course so is the whole architecture of sub-national government. The worst that could happen would be for any of these reconstruction jobs to be left half-done. Continuity is important and if this is going to work, for the long-term improvement of the whole system, those elected to prepare plans need to proceed in a way which is consistent with the timescales and objectives that have been set out – and to avoid every understandable temptation in a period of transition to wait first for the next jigsaw piece to fall into place.

Have a good Christmas everyone and don’t worry: I shall switch back to Grinch-mode in the new year I feel sure.

Simon Ricketts, 19 December 2025

Personal views, et cetera

Local Plans, LGR, Devolution: Goal Posts Moving On A Sloping Pitch For A Game Of Indeterminate Length With Shifting Rules & Teams

Am I wrong?

Let’s ease ourselves in gently…

Pragmatism, co-operation

I covered Matthew Pennycook’s 30 July 2024 letter to the Planning Inspectorate’s chief executive Paul Morrison in my 11 August 2024 blog post Plan-Making, Or, The Olympic Sport Of Trying To Hit A Slowly Moving Target, which announced a reversal of the previous Government’s “expectation that Inspectors should operate “pragmatically” during local plan examinations to allow deficient plans to be ‘fixed’ at examination. This has gone too far and has perversely led to years of delays to local plan examinations without a guarantee that the plans will ever be found sound, or that the local authorities will take the decisions necessary to get them over the line. This has to end.

[…]

Pragmatism should be used only where it is likely a plan is capable of being found sound with limited additional work to address soundness issues. Any pauses to undertake additional work should usually take no more than six months overall. Pragmatism should not be used to address fundamental issues with the soundness of a plan, which would be likely to require pausing or delaying the examination process for more than six months overall. Local authorities should provide regular progress updates of their work to the Planning Inspector during any agreed pause.”

Muscular stuff in that heady first month. Principles above pragmatism and the delays thereby arising, addressing the problem of submitted plans being allowed to limp on for years through long examinations, through authorities being given time by inspectors to try to fix soundness issues arising.  

But then, more recently, in his 9 October 2025 letter to Paul Morrison, pragmatism isn’t dead after all:

“In advance of the new plan-making system and mechanisms for cross-boundary cooperation coming into force, the final set of local plans being delivered within the current system remain essential to facilitating the effective delivery of housing, jobs and infrastructure. It is therefore critical that Inspectors approach examinations of current system plans with the appropriate degree of flexibility. The evidencing of expectations to establish whether the legal and soundness tests have been met – including with respect to the Duty to Cooperate – should be proportionate to the context in which plans in the existing system are being prepared. I very much welcome that in some cases Inspectors are already exercising a degree of flexibility to expedite adoption of local plans. For example, I note recent pragmatic decisions to proceed toward adoption in instances where a five-year housing land supply cannot be evidenced at the point of adoption but where the plan significantly boosts supply and still meets housing needs over the plan period or by providing additional opportunities to clarify compliance with the Duty to Cooperate. Relevant Planning Practice Guidance provides advice in respect of both of these matters, and will no doubt be of ongoing assistance in assessing whether proportionate evidence has been provided or considering whether stepped housing requirements may be justified.

It remains important that we do not see the adoption of poor-quality plans, or accept overly long examinations (I am grateful for the action that Inspectors have taken following my letter of 30 July 2024 in that regard). However, within those bounds, where plans are capable of being made adoptable, I want Inspectors to seek to do so in the examination process.”

It was unsurprising to see the pendulum swing back, because we aren’t ever really talking about, or dealing with, the planning system in isolation, are we? The three Ps in our world are planning, pragmatism and politics. Pragmatically, what is a plan-led system without … plans?

And p for pragmatism has been given extra oomph with the 27 November 2025 announcement that the forthcoming regulations that will specify how the new plan-making system is to work will (once made) immediately abolish the statutory duty to co-operate (i.e. affecting plan making under the current system as well). See the minister’s letter of that date to Paul Morrison :

“We intend to shortly lay regulations which will enable Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) to initiate formal preparation procedures for new-style plans. These Regulations will also have the effect of abolishing the Duty to Co-operate for the existing plan-making system.

As you know, the Duty to Co-operate (“the Duty”) was inserted into the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, through the Localism Act 2011, to help bridge the gap in co-operation resulting from the abolition of regional planning. The Duty requires LPAs to “engage constructively, actively and on an ongoing basis” with neighbouring authorities whilst preparing their local plan. However, as noted in your letter of 30 October, the Duty as a legal provision has, at times, been difficult to comply with and has led to some notable local plan failures. This is in part because any shortcomings relating to the Duty cannot lawfully be remedied during examination.

The new plan-making system provided by the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act 2023 does not include the Duty. Instead, the new system will rely on revised national policy and the new tier of strategic planning to ensure effective co-operation between plan-making authorities. The Regulations for the new system will also ‘save’ the current plan-making system for a period to allow emerging plans to progress to examination by 31 December 2026. Given the above, and to help drive local plans to adoption as quickly as possible and progress towards our objective of universal local plan coverage, we have decided not to ‘save’ the Duty, thereby removing this requirement for plans in the current system.

The Duty will therefore cease to apply when the Regulations come into force early next year, including for plans at examination at that point. On the basis of the government’s firm intention to abolish the Duty for the current system, examining Inspectors may wish to begin any necessary dialogue with LPAs in advance of the Regulations coming into effect, with reference to this letter. Of course, LPAs should continue to collaborate across their boundaries, including on unmet development needs from neighbouring areas and Inspectors should continue to examine plans in line with the policies in the NPPF on ‘maintaining effective co-operation’.”

This is perilously close to retrospective legislation it seems to me but, pragmatically, politically, a potential lifeline has been thrown to, for instance, the Mid-Sussex local plan and the South Oxfordshire and Vale of White Horse joint local plan. For some background on the Mid-Sussex local plan duty to cooperate issue, see my 7 June 2025 blog post Not Sure Why The Media Was So Focused On Musk v Trump This Week Given What Has Been Happening In Sussex since when the inspector, in a letter dated 3 November 2025,  had – can we say grudgingly? – agreed to hold a further hearing session in January 2026. The South Oxfordshire and Vale of White Horse joint local plan inspectors had written to the two authorities on 26 September 2025 indicating that they considered that the duty to cooperate had not been met. Since the minister’s 27 November 2025 announcement they have now written again to the authorities in a letter dated 1 December 2025 seeking their views on the implications of the announcement for the examination and “in particular how the Councils wish to proceed”.

Plan-making deadlines

Two reasons why the notion of a “plan-led” system is increasingly theoretical are surely:

  • Obviously, the continuing lack of up-to-date local plan coverage across England.
  • The increasingly impenetrable nature of the local plans system, already with plans proceeding under the previous and current NPPFs and now to overlap with the proposed new system, supposedly to be faster but that was initially designed with the concept of (a) statutory national development management policies (we will see if the non-statutory fudge makes a practical difference in that respect) so as to narrow down their role basically to the allocation of land for development and the designation of land for specific forms of protection and (b) a now abandoned watered-down “soundness” test.

Is a simpler, speedier system on the horizon? Hmm.

In his Q&A session with Sam Stafford at the LPDF conference on 27 November 2025, Matthew Pennycook revealed that timescales for authorities to prepare new style local plans would in some instances be brought forward, rather than the previously proposed phased introduction. That day we then had a press statement (New local plan system launching early 2026: latest update), a written ministerial statement (Reforming Local Plan-Making) and a detailed Plan-making regulations explainer.

From the written ministerial statement:

“Having considered carefully responses to the earlier consultation, I am announcing today that we no longer intend to roll the system out in a series of plan-making ‘waves’. Instead, local planning authorities will be encouraged to bring plans forward as soon as possible following the commencement of the regulations early in the New Year.

Whilst authorities will have discretion over how soon they start their plan, regulations will set out final ‘backstop’ dates for when plan-making must legally have commenced. Local planning authorities covered by the NPPF transitional arrangements will have to commence formal plan making (Gateway 1) by 31 October 2026, while those that have a plan that is already over five years old must commence by 30 April 2027. Further information will be set out in the regulations and in guidance.”

From the explainer:

“In general, the regulations will require that local planning authorities publish their Notice to Commence Plan-Making within 4 years and 8 months of adopting their existing local plan, or by 31 December 2026, whichever is the latest. They must then begin preparation of a new local plan (publish their gateway 1 self-assessment form) within 5 years of adopting their existing local plan, or by 30 April 2027, whichever is the later.

However local planning authorities who submitted a plan for examination on or before 12 March 2025 with an emerging housing requirement that was meeting less than 80% of local housing need will be required by regulations to publish their Notice to Commence Plan-Making by 30 June 2026 and their Gateway 1 self-assessment by 31 October 2026. This will not apply to areas where there is an operative Spatial Development Strategy which provides the housing requirement for the relevant areas. 

If an existing system plan is withdrawn from examination prior to adoption, regulations will require local planning authorities to publish their Notice to Commence Plan-Making in the new system at the same time as the plan is withdrawn, and to publish their Gateway 1 self-assessment 4 months later.

Further details on the initial rollout of the new plan-making system will be set out on Create or Update a Local Plan.

Supplementary Planning Documents (SPDs) will remain in force until planning authorities adopt a new style local plan or minerals and waste plan. The final adoption date for new SPDs will be 30 June 2026, to ensure any advanced emerging SPD can be adopted. 

These Regulations will also have the effect of abolishing the Duty to Co-operate for the existing plan-making system, by not saving this provision for plans progressing to examination in the existing system by 31 December 2026.”

Whilst in theory encouraging an earlier start to plan making sounds positive, in many areas these emerging plans could well get stalled by a combination of local government reorganisation and the incoming spatial development strategies.

The local government reorganisation map is still unclear, with authorities in two tier areas outside the devolution priority programme having now submitted their proposals by the 28 November 2025 deadline, apparently proposing more than 50 different potential configurations for ministers to consider (Exclusive: Over 50 LGR proposals sent to MHCLG – Local Government Chronicle, 3 December 2025). Elections for the new authorities are due in May 2027 ahead of going live in April 2028. How many current authorities will push through their plans to a conclusion ahead of, and in the face of, what lies ahead?

The map is also unclear as to what will be the new England-wide strategic tier. The government’s commitment was that the new spatial development strategies, with which in the future local plans should confirm, would be in place by 2029, but this looks increasingly unlikely. Yes it is all complex, but one wonders what role politics will increasingly play. Last week there was the unexpected announcement that Mayoral elections in four areas within the devolution priority programme, Greater Essex, Sussex and Brighton, Hampshire and the Solent, and Norfolk and Suffolk have been delayed from May 2026 to May 2028. There is apparently nothing to prevent the new strategic authorities, once created, from making progress with preparing SDSs ahead of their Mayors being elected but how does this work democratically?

Oh and in a couple of weeks we will see the new consultation draft NPPF, incorporating, we assume, more targeted sets of policies for plan making and for decision taking. And the latest set of housing delivery test outcomes. And throughout, p for politics…

Essay question for the festive period: Is our planning system in practice currently plan-led or application–led? And is this likely to change?

Lastly, thank you Paul Morrison for your work as chief executive of the Planning Inspectorate over the last three years. PINS is the main glue holding the current system together and its performance remains impressive. Congratulations to new interim chief executive Graham Stallwood. No pressure Graham!

Simon Ricketts, 6 December 2025

Personal views, et cetera

Sam Stafford and minister Matthew Pennycook MP at LPDF conference 27 November 2025

“Government to overhaul planning and licensing rules to make it quicker and easier for new cafes, bars and music venues to open in place of disused shops”

This was the government press release from Saturday (26 July).

“Government to overhaul planning and licensing rules to make it quicker and easier for new cafes, bars and music venues to open in place of disused shops.

New ‘hospitality zones’ will fast-track permissions for alfresco dining, pubs, bars and street parties.

Reforms will also protect long-standing venues from noise complaints by new developments.”

“The reforms will make it easier to convert disused shops into hospitality venues, and protect long-standing pubs, clubs, and music venues from noise complaints by new developments – ensuring the buzz of the high street can thrive without being silenced.

As part of this, the Government will introduce the ‘Agent of Change’ principle into national planning and licensing policy – meaning developers will be responsible for soundproofing their buildings if they choose to build near existing pubs, clubs or music venues.

New dedicated ‘hospitality zones’, will also be introduced where permissions for alfresco dining, street parties and extended opening hours will be fast-tracked – helping to bring vibrancy and footfall back to the high street.

The new National Licensing Policy Framework will streamline and standardise the process for securing planning permission and licences, removing the patchwork of local rules that currently delay or deter small businesses from opening. This means that entrepreneurs looking to turn empty shops into cafes, bars or music venues will face fewer forms, faster decisions, and lower costs.

This transformation is already underway through the High Street Rental Auction Scheme, which gives councils the power to auction off leases for commercial properties that have been vacant for over a year—bringing empty shops back into use and turning them into vibrant community hubs where people can enjoy a meal, drink, or night out.”

We wait to see what all this means in practice for our planning and licensing systems. The agent of change is after all already in the NPPF. Paragraph 200:

“Planning policies and decisions should ensure that new development can be integrated effectively with existing businesses and community facilities (such as places of worship, pubs, music venues and sports clubs). Existing businesses and facilities should not have unreasonable restrictions placed on them as a result of development permitted after they were established. Where the operation of an existing business or community facility could have a significant adverse effect on new development (including changes of use) in its vicinity, the applicant (or ‘agent of change’) should be required to provide suitable mitigation before the development has been completed.”

Perhaps there will be a super-charged National Development Management Policy version? Anecdotally, I am still being approached by music venues finding that permissions have been granted for adjoining development without adequate noise mitigation conditions having been applied (most recently a London borough being prepared to consent to judgment in just such a situation). And is the government right to be removing the Theatres Trust as a statutory consultee on relevant planning applications, which is an important check against these sorts of problems arising in relation to some types of venue at least?

For more see my 11 May 2024 blog post Grassroots Music Venues Report/Agent Of Change which in turn references earlier posts.

Now shush, I need to work.

Simon Ricketts, 28 July 2025

Personal views, et cetera