PLANNING LAW

The 2026 National Planning Policy Framework: a reimagining for national planning

On 17 August 2026, the government published yet another National Planning Policy Framework, only this one is a complete rewrite compared to other revisions. It brings plan-making and national decision-making policies together in a single document with a completely new structure, which the government describes as integral to making NPPF “more rules-based and certain”.

A new presumption in favour of sustainable development

The presumption in favour of sustainable development now depends on location. Within settlements, proposals should not be approved unless their benefits are substantially outweighed by adverse effects. Outside settlements, policy allows only listed categories of development. These categories include schemes within reasonable walking distance of a well-connected station and development meeting an evidenced unmet housing need.

Plan-making

Spatial Development Strategies have been retained from the 2025 draft and must cover at least 25 years. The minimum local plan period falls from 15 years to ten. Local plans should be adopted within 30 months of a Gateway 1 self-assessment.

Housing delivery

Housing need must be assessed using the standard method from the previous NPPF, and the requirement should exceed local need “where appropriate”, for example, to meet neighbouring authorities’ needs or significant growth ambitions. Where a Spatial Development Strategy sets housing requirements, they should not be retested at local plan stage unless circumstances change significantly. The NPPF also introduces a new medium-sized site category of between 10 and 49 homes or sites up to 2.5 hectares. Local plans should allocate at least 10% of the housing requirement to sites of one hectare or less, and a further 10% to sites of between 1 and 2.5 hectares. A Housing Delivery Test result below 75% means an unmet housing need is deemed to exist, and delivery below 85% triggers a 20% buffer for the five year housing land supply calculation.  However, authorities that can show a five-year supply and delivery of more than 75% are protected for five years after the adoption of their local plan, so a higher updated need figure will not, on its own, count as unmet need.

Green Belt and Grey Belt

Exceptional circumstances do not have to be shown to alter Green Belt boundaries around well-connected stations that a spatial strategy has identified. Elsewhere, exceptional circumstances are still required, including where an authority cannot meet its housing need in full. Grey Belt is defined as previously developed land or other land that does not strongly contribute to Green Belt purposes (a), (b) or (d). Development on Grey Belt is not inappropriate where it would not fundamentally undermine the remaining Green Belt, meets an evidenced unmet need and is in a sustainable location. The Golden Rules still apply to major housing on Grey Belt sites, requiring affordable housing at 50%, necessary infrastructure and accessible green space. Compliance with the Golden Rules carries substantial weight. The 2025 draft’s requirement for compensatory improvements to the remaining green belt has been dropped.

Design, environment and heritage

The blanket policy to refuse development that is not well designed in the 2025 draft has been replaced. Under the new test, proposals should be refused if they conflict with design principles or explicit local standards without clear justification. Councils may set biodiversity net gain above the statutory level only for specific site allocations. Heritage assessment has been restructured into four tiers. Assessments must identify whether a proposal would have a positive effect, no effect, harm or the total loss of significance.  Substantial harm arises where a proposal would seriously affect a key element of an asset’s significance.

Practical implications

Developers should find more certainty in settlement-based schemes and in development around stations and with the improved definition of the “Presumption” for sites outside of settlements.  The position on standardised viability inputs is still unsettles but with more information to be provided in planning practice guidance. Landowners with land in the Green Belt, near stations or on the edge of a settlement should reassess its potential. Practitioners will need to apply the new weighting rules carefully. The policies remain non-statutory for now, but the government keeps open the option of making them statutory later.

DMH Stallard’s expert planning lawyers and consultants have the knowledge to help you comply with planning regulations. Contact the team today by email or call +44(0)3333 231580.

About the authors


about the author img

John Brindley

Director of Planning

Providing town planning advice and services to the residential sector on large strategic sites and for large, complex planning applications.

Stay connected, sign up for updates

Stay connected

Recent articles

Events

Property and Planning festive quiz, Brighton 3 December 2026

As we take a festive break from our usual Property and Planning breakfast seminars, join us in Brighton this December for a special festive quiz edition, hosted by our Real Estate and Planning teams.

Events

Property and Planning festive quiz, Gatwick 26 November 2026

As we take a festive break from our usual Property and Planning breakfast seminars, join us in Gatwick this November for a special festive quiz edition, hosted by our Real Estate and Planning teams.

Insights

CIL indexation and outline planning permissions: what developers need to know

For outline planning permissions, CIL indexation is fixed at the date the outline permission is granted. Developers should not accept liability notices that apply a later date.

08/10/2026

Insights

Government proposes targeted Biodiversity Net Gain reforms

The Government has published its response to the 2025 consultation on improving the implementation of biodiversity net gain (“BNG”).

20/05/2026

DISCLAIMER:

THIS INFORMATION IS FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES AND IS NOT INTENDED TO AMOUNT TO LEGAL ADVICE ON WHICH RELIANCE SHOULD BE PLACED. WE, DMH STALLARD LLP, DISCLAIM ALL LIABILITY AND RESPONSIBILITY ARISING FROM ANY RELIANCE PLACED ON THIS INFORMATION. ANY RELIANCE ON THIS INFORMATION IS SOLELY AT YOUR RISK. The provision of this information does not create a business or professional services relationship. This information is not exhaustive and does not attempt to address every issue relevant to a particular situation. If you require advice on a specific legal issue, please contact a lawyer listed on our website, dmhstallard.com, or send an email to [email protected].