The Holly & MHCLG: Consultation on Revised NPPF Opens – along with a raft of other reforms

In what is rapidly becoming an annual festive tradition, MHCLG has once again unveiled a raft of a major planning reforms in the week before Christmas…. so let’s jump in and see who, or what, is on the Ministry’s Christmas list this year…

First of all a disclaimer. MHCLG’s busy little elves have released a LOT of information and I haven’t had time to go through it in any kind of detail. This blog is more of a sign-posting exercise, with some very high level summaries included for good measure. Whilst I would always urge you to read the underlying material, this time, it is essential*. Also, I am focusing on what is in the documentation. Any analysis of whether the proposals are a good, or a bad, idea will have to wait.

Right, now I have got that out of the way… let’s get started.

House-keeping: consultation periods and scope

To start with some house-keeping:

• The full consultation can be found here
• The text of the new draft NPPF can be found here
• The MHCLG Press Release is here;
• The Written Ministerial Statement is here; and
• MHCLG’s letters to LPAs and other stakeholders are here and here.

The consultation period closes at 11:45pm on 10 March 2026 – so there is plenty of time to get your head around the proposals.

There is a lot to get your head around. In addition to the revised NPPF itself (which includes the proposed new non-statutory NDMPS), the consultation is seeking views on:

• data centres and onsite energy generation
• standardised inputs in viability assessments
• reforming site thresholds

As well promising a further consultation from DEFRA on BNG, and the start of work on a LPA-lead “pattern-book” of new housing designs.

New NPPF and Policies for Development Management

The proposed new NPPF is a *very* different document to the one that has come before it, so there is no point in even attempting to run a tracked-change comparison. It has been completely restructured, so the outcome would not be useful. The changes are so extensive that there is little point in even attempting to summarise it after only a few hours. So, I am not going to**.

MHCLG have summarised what they consider to be the twelve most significant policy reforms as follows:

1. A permanent presumption in favour of suitably located development. We want to make clear what forms of development are acceptable in principle in different locations as part of creating a more rules-based approach to development. For urban land, this approach takes forward parts of our ‘brownfield passports’ work and builds on the December 2024 Framework update, by making development of suitable land in urban areas acceptable by default. As part of this change, we are also proposing a revised presumption in favour of sustainable development, underpinning the way the new policies direct different forms of development to the most appropriate locations – in effect applying a permanent presumption in favour of suitably located development.
2. Building homes around stations. We want to establish ‘in principle’ support – a “default yes” – for suitable proposals that develop land around rail stations within existing settlements, and around ‘well-connected’ train stations outside settlements, including on Green Belt land. We are also proposing a minimum density of 40 dwellings per hectare around all stations and 50 dwellings per hectare
   around ‘well-connected’ stations – maximising opportunities for sustainable development, making the most of high levels of connectivity, and improving access to jobs and services.
3. Driving urban and suburban densification. We want to get the most use out of land in urban and suburban areas, including through the redevelopment of corner and other low density plots, upward extensions and infill development – including within residential curtilages. These changes will support higher density development in sustainable locations, with good access to services. We are also
   setting clear expectations that authorities should set minimum densities in well connected locations, including around train stations and town centres, and support
   an overall increase in density within settlements.
4. Securing a diverse mix of homes. We want to better support the needs of different groups through the planning system. This includes stronger support for rural social and affordable housing, and setting clearer expectations for accessible housing to meet the needs of older and disabled people. It also means providing more flexibility on the unit mix of housing for market sale, where local requirements
   have been met for the mix of affordable homes.
   
5. Supporting small and medium sites. We want to make it easier to bring forward small sites, through clear support for the principle of development in different locations, the policies on building more densely in settlements and strengthened support for mixed tenure development. We are also introducing a category of ‘medium development’ (see Annex C of this consultation document), linked to a
   range of policy and regulatory easements, to support a more streamlined and proportionate planning system – including exploring further the potential benefits and drawbacks of enabling developers to discharge social and affordable housing requirements through cash contributions in lieu of direct delivery.
6. Streamlining local standards. We want to promote certainty for applicants and speed up local plan production by limiting quantitative standards in development
   plans to only those specific issues where local variation is justified. We also want to limit duplication of matters which are covered by the Building Regulations – other than where there is the existing ability to use ‘optional technical standards’.
7. Boosting local and regional economies. We want to encourage economic growth by giving substantial weight to the benefits of supporting business growth, and to particular areas and sectors – including those named in the Industrial Strategy, AI Growth Zones, logistics, town centres and agricultural and rural development. We are also interested in views on whether the town centre sequential test should be removed, in order to allow greater flexibility to respond to changing patterns of demand.
8. Supporting critical and growth minerals. We want to ensure that adequate provision is made for their extraction, recognising their economic importance. In parallel, and in view of the government’s mission to achieve clean power by 2030, we want to restrict further the extraction of coal.
9. Embedding a vision-led approach to transport. We want to further embed the changes made in December 2024, which signalled the importance of moving away from a ‘predict and provide’ approach to transport planning that can create unattractive environments dominated by cars.
10. Better addressing climate change. We want to set out how decisions can take a proactive approach to both mitigation and adaptation in relation to climate change, in a way that links to other relevant policies in the draft Framework.
11. Conserving and enhancing the natural environment. We want to make a number of changes, including to reflect Local Nature Recovery Strategies, to recognise landscape character and conserve and enhance existing natural features, to incorporate swift bricks and to provide guidance on sites of local importance for nature.
12. Taking a more positive approach to the use of heritage assets. We want a clearer and more positive approach which can better support suitable heritage related development, replacing the current policies that are difficult to navigate.

Figuring out whether these ambitions have been met will take time and careful consideration. In the meantime, however, I would draw your attention to the following, less eye-catching, but definitely very important, proposed changes:

Transitional provisions – the great question of weight

The consultation document makes it clear that the LURA vision of statutory NDMPs is on hold…. for now.

The consultation makes it clear that MHCLG reserves the right to revisit that decision if the non-statutory policies do not have the impact that they expect. Indeed, the consultation document expressly states:

“We will keep this decision under review, and will return to it if the proposed policies do not have the desired outcomes of supporting more effective decisions and reducing generic or alternate policies in development plans.”

Which sounds a little bit like the governmental equivalent of my telling the children that I will turn the car around if they don’t stop messing around… but that my just be my inner parent showing.

As to how they propose to ensure that these new policies actually do what they say on the tin, well…. that is were things get interesting.

The transitional arrangements for the new NPPF begin on page 106 of the consultation paper, and at Annex A of the proposed draft NPPF itself.

The transitional provisions for decision-taking and plan-making in Annex A of the NPPF read as follows:

“For the purposes of decision-making

1. The policies in this Framework are material considerations which must be taken into account in decision-making from the day of its publication.

2. Development plan policies which are in any way inconsistent with the national decision making policies in this Framework should be given very limited weight, except where they have been examined and adopted against this Framework. Other development plan policies77 should not be given reduced weight simply because they were adopted prior to the publication of this Framework.” (my emphasis)

“3. 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.

For the purposes of plan-making

5. Any local plans minerals and waste plans and supplementary plans being prepared under the [title to be added of new plan-making regulations once made under Part 2 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, to be amended by the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023] should be produced in accordance with this Framework.

6. Spatial development strategies should be produced in accordance with this Framework.

7. Neighbourhood plans that have been submitted to the local planning authority under Regulation 15, on or before, the date of publication should be prepared in accordance with the Framework published in December 2024. Any neighbourhood plans that have not been submitted must comply with this Framework. For neighbourhood plans that have already been submitted, the qualifying body may choose to withdraw the plan and update it to take account of this Framework.

8. 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 [insert date of final publication].”

The transitional provisions for decision-making are combined with the new paragraph c of policy s3, which reads:

“In all locations, development proposals that accord with an up-to-date development plan and also the decision-making policies in this Framework should be approved without delay”

Taken together this feels a bit less like a tilted balance, and more like a cliff edge…. or one of those very steep drop slides that I am too chicken to let the children use at soft play.

Nonetheless, it is definitely looks serious. Indeed, it looks as close to a statutory override as it is possible to get without, you know, actually adopting those provisions in LURA.

Tweaking the definition of “grey belt”

The consultation proposes amending the definition of “grey belt” land to remove the reference to footnote 7.

The current definition of grey belt is 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”.

This is to be amended to:

“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 policy GB2.”

The consultation states that this is designed to “enable grey belt to be identified with greater certainty, whilst continuing to ensure that these areas receive the same level of protection as
elsewhere in the Framework”.

Finally grasping the nettle of retail planning

The consultation finally appears to be considering grasping the nettle that is retail planning in a post Class E world, albeit somewhat gingerly, with the following appearing on page 56 of the paper:

“Since the introduction of Class E in the Use Classes Order in September 2020, many traditional high street uses have been combined into a single use class, giving greater flexibility to change between uses both within and outside town centres. This change has reduced the influence of the Sequential Test for retail development, as it means (for example) that some non-retail premises away from town centres can change to a
retail use without requiring permission.

There is also an argument that the sequential test, where it still applies, creates unnecessary inflexibility in where development for main town centre uses can be located (and that reliance could be placed on policies for sustainable transport to make
sure that developments are in suitable locations). On the other hand the test could still play a role in steering new development for town centre uses to locations which best support the vitality and viability of town centres. On balance, we have retained the test in the draft policies that we are consulting on, but welcome views on this approach and the implications of Class E for town centre policy.”

Discouraging local plans from going above and beyond on BNG

Paragraph 2 of proposed policy N2 in the new NPPF actively discourages local planning authorities from setting local plan policies that exceed statutory BNG thresholds.

The proposed wording is as follows:

“Development plans should only set local standards for biodiversity net gain which are in excess of the statutory net gain requirement where this is for specific site allocations, and
is fully justified and deliverable. Any such requirements should not extend to categories of development which are exempt from statutory biodiversity net gain”

The explanation given for this proposed change in the consultation document is that ” Biodiversity net gain plays an important contribution to nature recovery, but needs to be applied in a proportionate and consistent manner across local planning authorities. Reflecting this, requirements which exceed the statutory expectations are proposed to be limited to circumstances in which higher levels of gain can be justified on specific sites being allocated in the development plan, where this would not be on sites that are exempt from the statutory
requirement”.

Relationship with other regulatory regimes

The guidance around how planning relates to other regulatory regimes appears, on a first glance at least, to have been given a re-vamp, with the new policy DM7 reading as follows:

“DM7: Relationship with other regulatory regimes

1. Development proposals should be assessed on the basis of whether they would be an acceptable use of land. Matters which are controlled by separate regulatory regimes may,
   in the context of a particular development proposal, be a material consideration where they have land-use implications. Decision-makers should assume, unless there is clear evidence to the contrary, that those separate regimes will operate effectively.
2. Planning decisions should not seek to duplicate or extend controls imposed by separate regulatory regimes other than where there is a development plan policy in place applying
   optional technical standards for the development proposed (see policy PM13).
3. The parallel processing of planning and other regulatory consents is encouraged where this can help to align and expedite the consenting of development.

Where compliance under a separate regulatory regime requires subsequent changes to an approved development proposal, such changes should be approved unless they would mean the development is no longer acceptable when assessed against development plan and national decision-making policies.”

s.106 Agreements and Planning Conditions

The New NPPF champions the use of template conditions and s.106 agreements. In addition, hidden away in the text after question 24 of the consultation paper, is the following:

“The proper process for modifying or discharging planning obligations is set out in section 106A of the Town and Country Planning 1990 (as amended). However, the Government recognises the practical constraints associated with the existing,
statutory route to modify or discharge planning obligations via section 106A (effected by a ‘deed of variation’). Alongside ongoing work relating to the implementation of Section 73B of the Levelling-Up and Regeneration Act 2023, the government intends to undertake a wider review of the statutory framework for modifying or discharging existing planning obligations. We would therefore welcome views on the efficacy and use of section 106A and section 73, to inform ongoing work to ensure there is an appropriate route that provides confidence to both authorities and developers.”

Further detail on these proposals are set out in the Secretary of State’s letters to Local Planning Authorities, and other stakeholders, which were also published yesterday.

The letters confirm that:

• Section 73 applications that seek to revisit viability issues or reduce s.106 contributions need to be robustly justified and should be scrutinised carefully.
• MHCLG remain committed to implementing Section 73B through secondary legislation.
• The implementation of s.73B will be accompanied by guidance on the appropriate use of the three routes to vary permissions – s73B, s73 and s96A in various circumstances.
• Section 73B is intended to become the key mechanism for dealing amendments to permissions, but it is not intended to allow developers more easily to reduce planning obligations already entered into, including for affordable housing, and Section 73B(5) will affect the extent to which that can be done.

Datacentres and onsite energy generation

These provisions are in Annex A of the consultation paper. I am not going into them in detail, but the general idea seems to be to use provisions in the soon to be Planning and Infrastructure Act, and secondary legislation, to extend the NSIP regime to data centres and co-located energy generation projects.

Viability Guidance

The proposed changes to policies on viability are in Annex B of the consultation paper and in policies PM12, DM5 and GB8 of the revised NPPF .

• Policy PM12 – deals with developer contributions and the use of post-consent review mechanisms
• Policy DM5 – looks at the “limited circumstances” in which viability concerns may justify the provision of a non-policy compliant level of contributions or affordable housing; and
• Policy GB8 – sets out the Golden Rules

I am a solicitor, and not a viability expert, so I will leave the detailed analysis of these proposals to those more qualified – but the general thrust seems to be a move to greater use of standardised inputs in viability assessments and an ambition to tighten up or restrict the circumstances in which viability assessments would be considered appropriate.

At the same time, MHCLG has today updated the national planning policy guidance on viability, with these amendments having immediate effect.

The amended sections are “001, 002, 009, 010, 021, 022 and 030”, with paragraph 9 appearing (at least to me) to be entirely new.

The previous version of the guidance can be found here.

At first glance the revised guidance does not appear to make it any easier to justify reductions in contributions on viability grounds, nor is there any change to the embargo on viability assessments on grey-belt sites.

There is, however, new policy guidance on the role of viability evidence in decision-making and a reminder that “Any viability assessment should reflect the government’s recommended approach to defining key inputs as set out in National Planning Guidance.”

Changes to Site Size Thresholds

The proposed changes to site size thresholds are in Annex C of the consultation paper – although the annex does cross-reference other parts of the consultation paper at various points.

At a very high level, MHCLG are proposing to:

• Introduce a new category of “medium development” which is to be defined as residential schemes of 10-49 homes (inclusive) on sites with an area of up to 2.5 hectares.
• Lighten the policy burden on medium development sites by revising the NPPF to:
  • Amending the national policy guidance on information required to support planning applications to make it clear that information requests need to be proportionate to the scale of development proposed (see proposed policy DM2 on page 27 of the consultation).
  • Including a new policy (HO6) requiring LPAs to allocate sufficient land to meet at least 10% of its housing need on sites no larger than one hectare, and a further 10% on sites of between one and two and a half hectares; and
  • Allowing medium sites to meet affordable housing requirements by way of an off-site contribution (rather than through on-site delivery) whenever the relevant developer chooses to do so.
• Working with PAS to produce a template s.106 Agreement for medium development sites
• Amend the small development exemption from the Building Safety Levy to include medium development sites, and a wider range of development types more generally; and
• Extending the scope of Permission in Principle to include sites suitable for medium development under the new threshold approach.

Changes to BNG for Small Sites

Whilst this is not in the consultation, Matthew Pennycook’s speech this afternoon did confirm the outcome of DEFRA’s consultation on BNG and small sites, that ran earlier in the year.

Given the importance of this announcement, I have set the relevant section of the speech out in full below:

“Finally, having considered carefully the responses to the consultation undertaken by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs earlier this year, I can confirm that the Government will exempt smaller developments of up to 0.2 hectares from biodiversity net gain and introduce a suite of other, simplified requirements to improve the implementation of BNG on small and medium sites that are not exempted. DEFRA will also rapidly consult on an additional targeted exemption for brownfield residential development, testing the definition of land to which it should apply and a range of site sizes up to 2.5 hectares.”

The consultation paper adds the following detail on timing (taken from annex C)

“The Government has set out its intentions for applying BNG easements and exemptions for different categories of site, and will set out details outside of this NPPF consultation in the New Year”

So any amendments to secondary legislation under the Environment Act appear to be scheduled for 2026.

New funding pot for LPAs with lots of outstanding residential planning applications

And finally…. MHCLG has announced an extra “£8 million in development management funding this financial year to help local planning authorities with high economic growth potential and high volumes of major residential schemes at the post-outline stage. “

Details of the scheme can be found through the above link.

And if that were not enough, it looks as if the Planning & Infrastructure Bill will become the Planning & Infrastructure Act on Thursday… which is something else to look forward to!

Merry Christmas!

*I asked Santa. He was VERY clear on the point.

**yes, there is a first time for everything. Considered and informed commentary on the various aspects of the proposals will follow once we have had a chance to well…. consider them and inform ourselves.