The New NPPF (August 2026): What It Means for Landowners

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) sets out the government's planning policies for England. Councils must take it into account when they write local plans and when they decide planning applications. Planning inspectors apply it when they decide appeals. When national policy changes, the chances of getting planning permission on a particular field can change with it, sometimes overnight.

The August 2026 framework is the biggest rewrite since the NPPF was first introduced in 2012. It followed a consultation that ran from December 2025 to March 2026, and it built on changes made in December 2024, when grey belt was introduced and mandatory housing targets were restored.

• A new structure. Policies are now coded (for example S4, S5, GB8, L3) and labelled as either plan-making or decision-making, instead of the old numbered paragraphs. References to "paragraph 11d" in older articles no longer apply.
• National decision-making policies apply now. They became a material consideration from 17 August 2026. Local plan policies that materially conflict with them should be given very limited weight, unless the plan was examined and adopted against the new framework.
• A permanent presumption in favour of suitably located development. Inside settlements (policy S4), development should be approved unless its benefits are substantially outweighed by its adverse effects.
• Routes to approval outside settlements. Policy S5 sets out when the same favourable approach applies beyond settlement boundaries.
• Development near stations. There is a presumption in favour of homes and mixed-use development within reasonable walking distance of well-connected stations, at minimum densities of 35 homes per hectare, or 45 where services are more frequent.
• Small sites in local plans. Plans should allocate at least 10% of their housing on sites of up to 1 hectare and a further 10% on sites of between 1 and 2.5 hectares.
• A national validation checklist. Annex C sets out what information an application needs, and councils can only ask for more in very limited circumstances.
• A limit on Biodiversity Net Gain demands. Councils should not ask for more than the statutory 10% unless a higher figure is justified for specific strategic sites and set out in their plan.

Under the old framework, the "tilted balance" in favour of development only applied in certain circumstances, most often when a council could not show a five-year supply of housing land. That made the outcome of many applications turn on arguments about housing numbers.

Policy S4 changes the starting point for land inside settlements. Development there should be approved unless the adverse effects substantially outweigh the benefits. That is a strong default, and it applies whatever the council's housing numbers are. For owners of land inside a village or town, such as a large garden, a yard or a vacant plot, it makes the principle of development more straightforward.

Most of the land we look at sits just outside a settlement, so the next section matters more for most landowners.

Under older policy, land outside a settlement boundary usually meant a refusal unless the council was short of housing land. Policy S5 now sets out national routes for approval outside settlements. The ones most relevant to landowners are:

• Evidenced unmet housing need, where the site is physically well related to an existing settlement and can be accommodated with existing or proposed infrastructure. A council scoring below 75% in the Housing Delivery Test is treated as having unmet need for this purpose, and a shortfall in its supply of deliverable housing sites can also be used as evidence.
• Previously developed land, such as old commercial yards, and the reuse or extension of existing lawful buildings.
• Limited infilling within groups of houses.
• Sites near well-connected stations, as described above.

"Physically well related" is not the same as "touching the boundary". A field across a lane from the last house can qualify if access, topography and the pattern of the settlement support it. Equally, a field that touches the boundary can fail if it would harm the landscape or cause flooding.

The unmet need route in S5 is the one most edge-of-village fields will rely on, so it is worth setting out the tests in order. A proposal outside a settlement can use it where:

1. There is evidenced unmet housing need. Need is treated as existing where the council scores below 75% in the Housing Delivery Test, and a shortfall in the five-year supply of deliverable housing sites is also evidence of unmet need. Where neither applies, the applicant needs other convincing evidence of a particular unmet need, which is much harder.
2. The site is physically well related to an existing settlement. This is a judgement about the real relationship on the ground: how the site sits against the existing edge, the landscape, and whether it reads as part of the place or as a separate outpost in open countryside.
3. The scale can be accommodated. The number of homes must be capable of being accommodated, taking account of existing or proposed infrastructure such as roads, schools, drainage and doctors.
4. The proposal addresses the need. The homes must help meet the need that has been identified.

Where those tests are met, the proposal should be approved unless its benefits would be substantially outweighed by adverse effects, assessed against the other national decision-making policies. That is a strong presumption, but the other policies, on flood risk, heritage, landscape, access and design, still have to be satisfied.

A site that straddles a settlement boundary is split for this purpose. Under policy S3, the part inside the settlement is assessed under S4 and the part outside under S5, and the overall position is then reached.

Change one fact and the picture changes. If the same council scored 95% in the Housing Delivery Test and could show a five-year supply, Field A would need other convincing evidence of unmet need. In practice it would probably be better put forward through the local plan. If Field A's only access were a narrow lane with poor visibility, or a third of it sat in Flood Zone 3, the presumption would not rescue it.

Field B is not worthless. A field that is too far out today can become well related once land between it and the village is built on, or if the council allocates it in a new plan. Our guide to how long planning takes explains what those timescales look like. Field C's prospects turn on the grey belt tests, covered in our grey belt guide.

The latest Housing Delivery Test results, the 2025 measurement, were published on 17 August 2026, the same day as the new framework. They compare the homes each council delivered between April 2022 and March 2025 with the number required.

Of the 301 councils measured, 93 scored below 75%. They are spread across the country, but the lowest scores are concentrated in areas with a lot of Green Belt or protected landscape, such as parts of Surrey, Kent, Hertfordshire, Essex and West Sussex. Some councils delivered less than a third of the homes they needed.

Because the test is re-run every year, a council can move in or out of the below-75% group. Our area pages show the 2025 result for every council in the counties where we are most active.

Policy L3 creates a presumption in favour of residential and mixed-use development within reasonable walking distance of well-connected train, tram, underground and light rail stations. Commentators describe the distance as around 800 metres. The minimum density is 35 homes per hectare of net developable area, rising to 45 where services are more frequent.

The policy applies in the more economically significant parts of the country, based on the top 80 travel-to-work areas, and it can apply in some Green Belt locations where the tests are met. If your land is within walking distance of a station with a good service, it is worth checking whether this policy applies.

The grey belt approach introduced in December 2024 remains, with minor changes. Grey belt development can be treated as not inappropriate where the policy tests are met, including evidenced unmet need, a sustainable location and compliance with the Golden Rules on affordable housing, infrastructure and green space. Under policy GB8, compliance with the Golden Rules attracts substantial weight.

We explain this in detail in our grey belt guide.

Alongside the new framework, councils are moving to a new plan-making system, which began on 25 March 2026. Plans are expected to be prepared within 30 months, with gateway checks along the way. A first group of 39 councils was required to start by the end of June 2026, and the rest are encouraged to start as soon as possible.

Plans prepared under the new system must show a five-year supply of deliverable sites from the date they are adopted, and must allocate the share of small and medium sites described above. For landowners, that means many councils will be looking for land over the next few years, and a call for sites is often the first public step. Our guide to call for sites and local plans explains how to take part.

It is easy to read headlines about planning reform and assume any field near a village will now be approved. That is not the case. The things that decided most applications before still decide them now:

• Safe access onto a road with adequate visibility.
• Flood risk, where the sequential and exception tests still apply.
• Protected habitats and species, including Sites of Special Scientific Interest.
• Heritage assets and their settings.
• National Landscapes and National Parks, which carry great weight.
• Good design that fits the character of the place.
• A scheme that can actually be delivered.

The new framework makes it harder for councils to refuse well-located, well-designed schemes on principle. It does not make a poor site acceptable.

• Land that was refused in the past may deserve a fresh look, especially in districts that are behind on housing delivery.
• Councils are rewriting local plans. Getting your land considered in a call for sites is still one of the most reliable long-term routes.
• Sites of up to 2.5 hectares (about 6 acres) have a clearer place in local plans than before.
• Land within walking distance of a well-served station may benefit from the station-led policy.
• Well-prepared applications matter more than ever. The national validation checklist makes it harder for councils to delay, but a weak scheme will still be refused.

Because your land's prospects depend on your council's current housing delivery and plan status, the most useful next step is a site-specific review. Ask for a free desktop review.

• Find your council's latest Housing Delivery Test result. Below 75% means unmet need is treated as existing under S5.
• Check whether the council says it has a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. It is usually in its annual monitoring report or housing land supply statement.
• Check whether your land is inside or outside the settlement boundary, and whether any of it is in the Green Belt, a National Landscape or a flood zone.
• Look at how the land sits against the village or town. Would new homes read as part of it, or as a separate group in the countryside?
• Check the road frontage and where a safe access could go. Our guide to access and ransom strips explains why this matters.
• Look up the flood map for planning. Our guide to flood risk and development land explains the zones.
• Find out where your council is in its local plan, and whether a call for sites is open or coming.
• Before signing anything with anyone, take independent advice on the agreement. Our guide to option agreements sets out the terms to check.

You do not need to do all of this before speaking to us. Our free desktop review covers each point and tells you plainly whether the new policies help your land.