The Government published a completely reworked National Planning Policy Framework for England on 17 August 2026. It follows the draft published for consultation on 16 December 2025 and replaces the previous Framework published in December 2024.
This is much more than a reshuffle of paragraph numbers. The NPPF now separates plan-making from national decision-making policy, replaces the old paragraph 11 tilted-balance machinery, changes how older development plan policies are weighted, introduces new rules around settlements and stations, and alters some of the housing land supply rules.
This article gives the main changes. Where a subject needs more detail, we link straight into the relevant Planning Geek guide, starting with our updated explanation of what the NPPF is and how it fits into the planning system. For a full side-by-side review, see the NPPF 2024 vs 2026 comparison.
Need help with a planning application?
Planning Geek isn’t just a reference site - preparing and submitting planning applications is what we do. If you’d like a hand with an application, an appeal or any other planning matter, we’d be glad to help.
A new structure for national planning policy
The old NPPF was largely discussed by paragraph number. The August 2026 Framework is organised around named policy codes instead. There are dedicated plan-making policies and national decision-making policies, with thematic codes for subjects such as housing, transport and Green Belt.
That separation matters. The Framework expressly says that plan-making policies should not be used to decide development proposals. The annexes are also national planning policy and contain important operative material, including implementation, definitions, application information requirements, housing supply and Green Belt assessment provisions.
Any older article or appeal decision quoting a familiar NPPF paragraph number therefore needs care. Our NPPF guide explains the new structure.
Annex A could immediately change the weight of local policies
For applicants, officers and appeal practitioners, this may be one of the most important immediate changes.
The development plan remains the statutory starting point for decisions. But Annex A now says that an existing development plan policy, or part of a policy, which is materially inconsistent with a national decision-making policy should be given very limited weight.
There is an important exception. That very-limited-weight rule does not apply where the relevant policy has been examined and adopted, or a neighbourhood plan made, against the August 2026 Framework. Other older policies should not lose weight simply because they pre-date this NPPF.
The real question is therefore the actual relationship between the development plan policy and the new national decision-making policy, not simply the age printed on the local plan. We have added this to our detailed guide to local plans and emerging local plans.
The tilted balance has been replaced
The old paragraph 11(d) tilted balance has gone. The August 2026 NPPF instead uses policies S3 to S6.
S4 gives strong support to development within settlements. S5 deals with development outside settlements, identifying categories which are acceptable in principle and retaining a separate exceptional-circumstances route for other proposals. S6 gives particular protection to qualifying recent neighbourhood plans.
Housing land supply and delivery still matter enormously, but they now feed into the new rules differently. A failure to demonstrate the required five year housing land supply, or Housing Delivery Test performance below 75%, can amount to evidence of unmet housing need under S5 rather than switching on the old paragraph 11 balance.
Our updated presumption in favour of sustainable development guide explains S3 to S6, while the tilted balance page remains as a guide to the former rule and its replacement.
There is now a national definition of a settlement
The Framework now defines a settlement for national policy purposes. It is not limited to a town or village with a line drawn around it on a policies map. It can include cities, towns, villages and other predominantly built-up areas, together with allocated or permitted land which will become part of the built-up area.
Plans can identify settlements by boundaries or by criteria. The glossary also addresses hamlets and scattered groups of houses. This matters directly because S4 and S5 distinguish between development within and outside settlements.
We have therefore substantially revised our guide to settlement boundaries.
More housing around well-connected stations
The final Framework contains strong support for housing and mixed-use development around qualifying well-connected railway, Underground, tram and light-rail stops.
A well-connected station must be in one of the top 80 Travel to Work Areas located partly or wholly in England by Gross Value Added, and normally be served throughout the daytime by at least four trains or trams per hour overall, or at least two per hour in any one direction. A station can also qualify where there is a reasonable prospect of reaching that service level because of a planned upgrade or agreement with the operator.
The final policy is more nuanced than a simple “800 metre rule”. Reasonable walking distance is generally around 800 metres, but the Framework also uses around a 10-minute walk where topography, route availability or quality, or physical barriers would prevent or discourage walking from up to 800 metres. If only part of a site falls within reasonable walking distance, the station policy applies to that part.
The final density figures are minimums, not a 35-to-45 dph range. The expectation is at least 35 dwellings per hectare, rising to at least 45 dwellings per hectare where the service frequency is at least twice the qualifying minimum. Those minimums should be exceeded where possible, subject to the specific exceptions in the policy.
There is also a separate Green Belt route for certain qualifying station-related development, so this is a policy worth checking carefully on land around transport hubs.
Five year housing land supply has changed too
Annex D changes some of the mechanics of the five year housing land supply.
Most importantly, where the relevant development plan housing requirement is more than five years old, the calculation now uses local housing need. The Framework also contains alternative 5% and 20% buffers, including a new 20% decision-making route in specified circumstances where an adopted requirement is substantially below current local housing need.
The definition of a deliverable site is also important: major outline permissions and allocations do not simply count automatically without clear evidence of delivery within the five-year period.
There is a temporary practical complication. Some of the Government’s live Planning Practice Guidance still contains wording and paragraph references from the pre-August-2026 NPPF, so Annex D needs to be checked against the current PPG until the guidance is revised.
Major applications: a concise planning statement is now national policy
Policy DM1 introduces a useful new national expectation for major development. Proposals should be informed by proportionate early engagement and should be accompanied by a concise planning statement.
That statement should explain how the proposal is consistent with the relevant development plan and national decision-making policies, the outcome of pre-application engagement and how the scheme changed in response, and the proposed use of planning obligations to make the development acceptable.
For other development, the Framework emphasises the minimum information genuinely necessary to make a decision. This links directly with the new DM2 approach to validation; our Planning Statement guide explains what DM1 now expects and how that differs from the statutory validation rules.
A new medium development category
The NPPF now identifies medium development as housing development of 10 to 49 dwellings inclusive on a site not exceeding 2.5 hectares.
This is important for SME builders because the Framework can apply specific policies to this middle tier while the general policies applying to major housing development continue to operate. It should make the 10-to-49-home market more visible in national policy rather than treating everything from ten homes upwards as one undifferentiated category.
This is another subject we intend to give its own Planning Geek guide rather than burying it permanently inside this news article.
Strategic sites now have a national definition
The glossary also defines a strategic site: a residential, commercial or mixed-use site delivered in multiple phases, with significant infrastructure requirements and a need for a masterplan. For a residential-led scheme, the Framework says this would typically mean capacity for at least 1,500 dwellings, although the scale can vary according to the mix of uses.
This matters because several policies treat strategic sites differently, including plan-making, infrastructure and viability provisions. It is therefore more than just a new glossary label.
Accessible and adaptable homes: a 40% minimum in plan-making
The new housing policies give much greater prominence to accessible and adaptable housing. Development plans should set the proportions of housing on major developments to be delivered to Building Regulations standards M4(2) and M4(3), based on local need.
Importantly, the Framework says plans should ensure that no less than 40% of homes on major developments are delivered to M4(2), subject to any appropriate exemptions set out in the development plan.
This is a plan-making requirement rather than a freestanding rule that 40% suddenly applies to every current application regardless of the adopted local plan. Existing development plan policy and applicable Building Regulations requirements still need to be checked.
Neighbourhood plans receive their own protection
Policy S6 gives particular decision-making protection to qualifying recent neighbourhood plans which contain housing allocations meeting their identified housing requirement.
This means the new presumption cannot simply be treated as a route around every recently made neighbourhood plan. The precise S6 criteria matter, and neighbourhood plans also have their own transitional provisions in Annex A.
Our dedicated neighbourhood plans guide explains the March 2026 statutory changes, the August 2026 transition and the S6 criteria in more detail.
Saving pubs and community facilities
The new Framework strengthens policy around the loss of public houses and other valued community facilities.
Where loss is justified on the basis that the existing use is no longer viable, the policy expects evidence that reasonable steps have been taken to market the property for its existing use without success for at least 12 months. Other routes remain where suitable replacement provision is made or adequate equivalent provision is available.
The practical effect is to make a bare assertion that a pub is no longer viable much harder to rely upon without evidence.
Farm businesses and on-farm reservoirs
The revised rural policies give stronger support to development that maintains and enhances agricultural viability and sustainability and supports domestic food production. On-farm reservoirs are expressly recognised, alongside improved livestock accommodation, greenhouses, polytunnels, farm shops and temporary accommodation for seasonal workers where the policy conditions are met.
This does not grant automatic permission and it does not replace agricultural permitted development rights, but it is a positive national policy change where a planning application is required.
Green Belt, grey belt and stations
The December 2024 grey-belt reforms remain important, but the 2026 NPPF embeds them within the new decision-making structure and adds the station-related route referred to above.
A housing land supply shortfall or HDT result below 75% can be relevant to the evidenced-unmet-housing-need limb of the grey-belt policy. That does not make Green Belt housing automatic: the other Green Belt policy requirements still need to be satisfied and major development may have to meet the Golden Rules.
See our guide to grey belt, Green Belt, greenfield and brownfield land. We will be expanding this area into more detailed coverage.
Other changes: protected landscapes, growth industries and viability
The final Framework also contains changes across a much wider range of subjects. These include policy for major development in protected landscapes, stronger support for commercial growth including knowledge, data-driven and high-technology industries, data centres and AI Growth Zones, changes around intensification and development within existing residential curtilages, and revised policy around viability and developer contributions.
One point worth noting from the consultation process is that the final Framework did not simply carry across every consultation proposal unchanged. For example, the proposed approach to standardised viability inputs was not reproduced as a standalone NPPF annex in the form originally consulted upon; viability continues to need to be read with the relevant decision-making policy and Planning Practice Guidance.
Statutory consultees: a related reform, not part of the NPPF itself
Alongside the NPPF, the Government has also been reforming the statutory-consultee system. This is a related planning reform rather than a policy contained in the Framework itself.
The announced final approach retains Sport England as a statutory consultee but narrows its scope, while The Gardens Trust and Theatres Trust are intended to move away from statutory-consultee status with notification arrangements preserving an opportunity for involvement in the applications most relevant to their interests. Wider changes are also being taken forward for other statutory consultees.
The necessary regulatory changes are to follow in due course, so the current statutory consultation requirements should still be checked rather than assuming the NPPF publication itself changed them overnight.
Does the new NPPF change permitted development?
No. The NPPF does not itself create or remove permitted development rights. Those rights principally sit in the General Permitted Development Order.
But the NPPF is not relevant only where somebody makes a full planning application. Depending on the statutory decision being made, it can be material to full and outline applications, reserved matters, section 73 applications, appeals and other planning decisions. Prior approval under the GPDO remains governed by the matters specified in the relevant permitted development right.
The 2025 Housing Delivery Test was published at the same time
The Government also published the delayed 2024 and 2025 Housing Delivery Test measurements on 17 August 2026. The 2025 measurement is the one now relevant to current decision-making.
Our audit of the 2025 table found 301 numeric results plus one N/A entry for the Isles of Scilly. Of those numeric results, 147 (48.8%) are below 95%, including 93 (30.9%) below 75%; 154 (51.2%) are at 95% or above. The full searchable authority table and the current August 2026 policy consequences are on our Housing Delivery Test guide.
What happens now?
The national decision-making policies took effect immediately on publication on 17 August 2026. Plan-making has separate transitional arrangements in Annex A, so an advanced local or neighbourhood plan may be treated differently from an application being decided today.
We have already updated our main guides to the NPPF, the presumption in favour of sustainable development, five year housing land supply, settlement boundaries and local plans. We are continuing through connected Planning Geek pages where the new policy creates consequential changes.
Read the August 2026 NPPF
- National Planning Policy Framework – August 2026 – full PDF hosted on Planning Geek;
- National Planning Policy Framework on GOV.UK – Government publication page.
Revised NPPF Page Updated: 22nd August 2026
