How the draft NPPF could affect local planning decisions

The draft NPPF has three high-level implications for outcomes of local planning decisions, says the TCPA’s Director of Policy, Hugh Ellis

The draft National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is now out for consultation with a deadline of 10 March. The framework represents a major change in policy for the English planning system with significant implications both for the quality of development and local democracy. 

For example, key policy innovations on climate change, driven by local authorities and supported by the TCPA, will no longer be possible if this framework is adopted unamended. That is why it is so important that communities and local authorities respond to the consultation. 

All participants in the planning process will now have to grapple with a new approach to making plans and deciding planning applications. The TCPA will be working to improve the final policy to ensure community participation, health, climate change and sustainable development are placed at the heart of the system.

The TCPA will be working to improve the final policy to ensure  community participation, health, climate change and  sustainable development are placed at the heart of the system.

 

This first scan of the proposed new policy highlights the high-level implications for planning decisions. It will be followed by more detailed assessments of how, for example, the draft policy impacts upon the planning system’s ability to address climate mitigation and adaptation.    

The draft NPPF has three high level implications for outcomes of local planning decisions: 

1. The policy significantly changes the nature of our discretionary system by limiting the scope of local decision makers.  

The new presumptions² in favour of development shift the balance of power from the judgement of local decision makers to a centralised ‘rules based’ approach. These ‘rules’ are expressed in the draft NPPF by a set of detailed development management policies which local authorities must have regard to by determining both the issues that can be considered and the weight that these different issues should carry. Paragraph 7 makes it clear how the Government expects such policies to be applied:  

‘Some of these policies indicate how much weight the government would expect a particular consideration to be given, including cases where it is appropriate to give substantial weight to certain benefits, and the limited circumstances in which it is expected that permission would be refused.’³

In the absence of up-to-date plans in over two thirds of England,⁴ this policy would be applied to the majority of planning applications and appeals. Under the new structure of the NPPF, none of the plan-making policy would apply to development management decisions. This matters because on key issues such as transport there is a gap between the welcome ambition of plan-making policy and limitations of development management policy. 

It is also important to note that the draft NPPF plan-making policy⁵ places strict limitations to the kinds of local standards on energy efficiency and embodied carbon which have traditionally been within scope of local plans. 

The decision to introduce detailed development management ‘rules’ through NPPF policy, rather than law, will reignite all the legal arguments about the weight which can be afforded to national policy versus the development plan. As a result, the draft NPPF will undoubtedly result in new wave of complex case law. Whatever the outcome of these cases, the Government is seeking to limit the freedom of what have traditionally, and rightly, been matters for local discretion. 

This sense of centralisation is reinforced by the powers to impose the delegation of all planning decisions to officers contained in the 2025 Planning and Infrastructure Act.⁶ There are a host of obvious implications of this change for local democracy, professional judgement and public legitimacy. 

There is one further important implication of the draft framework which is that by setting out detailed decision-making policy, the NPPF has become a de facto plan for England. That raises important questions about why the development of this policy was not subject to a Strategic Environmental Assessment. 

2. The policy creates a significantly more permissive planning regime.    

This goal is achieved by the framing of two very powerful presumptions in favour of development. Unlike the current NPPF where the presumption in favour is fully engaged on housing policy only when a plan is judged to be out of date these new presumptions apply at all times and in all circumstances. 

The presumption in favour of development in urban areas is set out in policy S4 and makes clear that development should be approved unless it conflicts with NPPF policy which specifically indicates that refusal is appropriate.  

Development management policy then sets out these circumstances which include criteria in relation to making sure development is safe from flooding, specific impacts on biodiversity and good design. But this list does not include health and wellbeing, carbon impacts or sustainable transport. Where an authority does not have an up to date plan, it is not clear what weight will be afforded to these other crucial considerations or how they will be considered at subsequent appeals.  

The presumption in favour for non-urban areas contains a number of additional caveats, but on balance presents a more permissive regime for greenfield site development including in green belt designations and around rail stations. 

These presumptions mean that, in effect, the answer to development proposals should be yes, unless there is an overwhelming reason why not. Given that a significant proportion of planning applications are of a poor quality⁷, the ability to say no unless local plan standards are met is a vital and positive role for local planning authorities.  

The challenge posed by the draft NPPF is that the reasons for refusal are strictly limited. At the heart of this weakness is the lack of any meaningful definition of sustainable development, including the omission of any mention of environmental limits. In practical terms, this is reflected in the absence of any national development management policy which would allow a local authority to refuse an application because of its carbon intensity.  

As a result, the proposed NPPF offers an unprecedentedly permissive planning regime, for both urban and non-urban areas, subject only to a very limited number of prescribed safeguards. Alongside centralised decision-making rules, this is also accompanied by significant limitations on the information which local authorities can require in making decisions on planning applications,⁸ which is a significant limitation on the effectiveness of the planning system in dealing with issues such as public health.  

Rather than achieving a more streamlined system the government risks creating a framework which is simplistic, centralised and ultimately ineffective. For example, the weakening of policy in relation to flood risk and zero carbon homes both significantly undermine the economic value of development and the government’s legal obligations under the 2008 Climate Act.     

While the creation of a more permissive planning system, particularly for urban areas, will do nothing to increase housing supply for the reasons that the TCPA has set up elsewhere,⁹ it will undermine effective healthy placemaking.  

3.   The absence of public participation 

The presumption also raises questions as to the power of local decision-makers, including devolved Mayors, to set a positive locally determined future for their towns and cities. This runs counter to the Government’s objectives in relation to devolution and undermines the ability of local authorities to provide innovative solutions to the distinctive and diverse problems of the urban areas. For all these reasons, the final version of the NPPF will require significant change if it is to deliver on the Government’s stated aims around nature, climate change and health. 

There is a striking lack of content in the NPPF about the voice of communities in decision-making. The notion of public participation has disappeared completely from national policy to be replaced with a small number of brief mentions of the need to ‘positively engage’ local people.  

The notion of public participation has disappeared completely from national policy to be replaced with a small number of brief mentions of the need to ‘positively engage’ local people.  

There is an equal absence of any encouragement for community-led forms of development which will become increasingly important in a continued era of austerity. Local communities should both be at the heart of decisions which affect them and be encouraged to be the driving force to deliver solutions.  

Conclusion

The TCPA has long advocated the need to achieve a broad consensus between the different players in the planning sector to ensure the stability of the planning system. However, one of the striking features of the wider response to the draft NPPF is the way it has divided opinion. 

Land promoters, developers and their legal representatives have broadly welcomed the permissive nature of the policy. Many local authorities have voiced concerns about a wider loss of local power and restrictions on setting local planning standards. Bridging that divide and reaching out to communities – who are the ultimate consumers of planning decisions – will be vital to the effectiveness and longevity of the new NPPF.    

There is no articulation of how we will navigate the climate crisis or the impacts of artificial intelligence to build resilient and sustainable communities.

The draft NPPF has one final and crucial omission. At no point does it set out a vision of what our communities should look and feel like in the coming decades. Beyond the focus on particular forms of development, such as data centres and the rapid expansion of housing units, there is no articulation of how we will navigate the climate crisis or the impacts of artificial intelligence to build resilient and sustainable communities. This is crucial in creating some hope for our collective future and even more important for a national policy which seeks to control how local decisions are made. 

¹ National Planning Policy Framework: draft text for consultation 

² See draft NPPF Policy S3, S4, and S5 

³ See draft NPPF paragraph 7 

⁴ Gov.uk: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-local-plan-system-launching-early-2026-latest-update  

⁵ See draft NPPF Policy PM13 

⁶ See Section 54 of the 2025 Planning and Infrastructure Act.  Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 – UK Legislation 

⁷Place Alliance – A Housing Design Audit for England_2020  

⁸ See Annex C of the draft NPPF which does not include any information requirements on public health or carbon impacts. 

⁹ Our shared future: A TCPA White Paper for Homes and Communities