New NPPF Published: Key Changes from the December 2025 Consultation and What Comes Next

This revision is the eighth re-write of the national framework and represents to biggest shake up in policy since the first publication of the NPPF in 2012. Developers, landowners, local planning authorities and other stakeholders will very quickly need to review, understand and apply consider the revised NPPF as it is now capable of carrying significant weight in plan-making and decision-making. However, those involved in the development industry in England will now hope that the publication of this new policy framework will bring about a period of much needed stability and greater certainty.

So, let’s have a look at some of the headlines: 

Plan-Making

There is now a clearer distinction between those policies relating to decision-making and plan-making with rules-based policies being introduced for the first time. 

There have been some changes made to the consultation version with regards to plan-making which are important for all to note.

The consultation version proposed that replacement spatial development strategies should be adopted within ten years of the existing plan's adoption. The published NPPF instead requires preparation of a replacement or substantially altered development strategy to commence no later than 7 years after adoption. This seems to provide local planning authorities with greater flexibility over the precise timing. 

Similarly, the consultation version proposed that local plans should generally cover a period of at least 15 years. The final NPPF adopts a less prescriptive approach, requiring plans to cover a minimum period of 10 years, whilst allowing longer plan periods where necessary to support major infrastructure delivery or strategic development objectives.

However, it is important to note that the revised NPPF also confirms that local plans cannot be inconsistent with national policy. Importantly, where an existing local plan policy is materially inconsistent, either in whole or in part, that policy is to be afforded only "very limited weight". This represents a stronger and more explicit position than that suggested in the consultation draft and is likely to have significant implications in areas operating under older development plans. There is therefore a stronger incentive for local planning authorities to update their plans promptly, or risk that their local policies which are inconsistent with the NPPF will only be given limited weight in decision-making.

The NPPF also introduces a requirement for local planning authorities to utilise online tools, methods and templates provided by the Secretary of State when preparing plans, signalling a move towards a more standardised and digitised planning system (which suggests there will be some to use).

Viability

One of the most significant departures from the consultation draft concerns viability. The consultation proposed the inclusion of standardised viability inputs within the policy framework itself. That approach has not been carried forward.

Instead, viability assessments will continue to be undertaken in accordance with the Viability Planning Practice Guidance (PPG), which will remain the source of guidance on standardised inputs. The Government has also indicated that further guidance on viability review mechanisms will be published in due course. 

For developers and local authorities alike, this retention of flexibility may be welcomed given concerns raised during consultation regarding the risks of overly rigid national assumptions.

Crucially, developers will not be required to comply with local plan requirements in planning applications where scheme costs were not considered in the local plan viability assessment.

Presumptions in Favour of Development

The titled balance tests are probably worthy of their own standalone article, and I am sure someone has one coming. They’re also a provision worth reading in full at S3 to S5.

In summary, within settlements, development should be approved unless adverse impacts substantially outweigh the benefits. Outside settlements, development falling within specified categories identified in S5 is to be granted permission unless adverse impacts substantially outweigh the benefits. In these circumstances, the balance is expressly tilted in favour of granting permission. Examples of development falling within S5 include rural businesses and services, agriculture, brownfield land, infilling between groups of houses, residential development within reasonable walking distance of a well-connected station. 

Transport-Oriented Development and Density Requirements

The Government has retained and refined its commitment to higher-density development around public transport hotspots with default approvals now being given to development near to well-connected stations. The consultation draft proposed more ambitious density requirements. The final NPPF takes a moderated approach, requiring:

• A minimum density of 35 dwellings per hectare for residential or mixed-use developments within reasonable walking distance of a well-connected station.
• A minimum density of 45 dwellings per hectare where service frequency is at least twice the minimum threshold for a well-connected station.

The framework states that these densities should be exceeded wherever possible to optimise land use efficiency and that proposals failing to meet these minimum requirements should be refused.

Also, the definition of a "well-connected station" has also been expanded beyond that proposed in the consultation and now applies across the top 80 travel-to-work areas in England – which will perhaps offset the above reduction in density requirements.

It is hoped that this flexibility in terms of density will allow development across a wider range of areas and markets to be better supported by the policy.

Grey belt 

The Government has retained its Grey Belt policies with relatively little change from the consultation version, including the removal of the cross-reference to ‘footnote 7’ which included other protected areas. The Government response to the consultation provides that they consider these areas already benefit from sufficient protection and so the cross-reference was unnecessary, albeit this point had received substantive negative feedback during the consultation process. 

Affordable Housing 

Footnote 29 requires major residential developments on land released from the Green Belt to deliver at least 50% affordable housing unless doing so would render development unviable.

In addition, where development involves the reuse of vacant buildings, affordable housing contributions should be reduced proportionately to reflect the gross floorspace of existing buildings. However, this exception will not apply where buildings have been abandoned or where the site has been released from the Green Belt.

Settlement Gaps and Infilling 

Policies safeguarding gaps between settlements are now expected to be used only where genuinely necessary to maintain separate settlement identities and physical separation. Such designations should be no larger than necessary and should not apply to Green Belt land. We can therefore expect to see settlement boundaries facing much closer scrutiny.

The framework also introduces a new exception relating to residential curtilages. Development involving residential curtilage land may be supported where it occupies no more than twice the footprint of existing buildings and retains at least 50% of the undeveloped area, unless greater development can be accommodated without harming the overall character of the area.

Consultation 

The revised NPPF places greater emphasis on engagement with infrastructure providers and registered providers of social housing during the preparation of development proposals.

Connectivity

It also establishes ambitious national connectivity objectives, including:

• Higher-quality standalone 5G coverage across all populated areas by 2030.
• Nationwide gigabit-capable broadband coverage by 2032.

Rights of Way

The framework strengthens protections for public rights of way. Whereas previous policy focused on maintaining the network, new policy requires development proposals to protect and enhance it.

Safety, Design and Inclusive Placemaking

Reflecting broader Government priorities, the NPPF now contains additional references to the creation of places and access routes that are safe for women and girls.

While not a fundamental policy shift, these changes reinforce the growing emphasis on inclusive and context-sensitive placemaking within the planning system – albeit without much clarity for decision makers on what safer spaces for women and girls may look like. 

What Is Still to Come?

The Government's consultation response makes clear that publication of the revised NPPF is not the end of the reform programme. Further changes and guidance are expected, including:

• Guidance on viability review mechanisms.
• A review of the statutory framework governing the amendment of planning obligations, particularly where reduced affordable housing provision is sought.
• A suite of national model planning conditions, anticipated before the end of the year.
• Draft standard template section 106 agreements for medium-sized sites.
• New Planning Practice Guidance on neighbourhood plan preparation.
• Guidance on assessing the housing needs of specific groups, including older people and disabled people.
• Guidance on the use of commuted sums to address circumstances where registered providers have limited appetite for taking on small numbers of affordable housing units.

Conclusion

The newly published final NPPF broadly follows the direction established in the December 2025 consultation but introduces several important modifications. With several key areas of guidance still awaited, it looks like we’re going to have a busy time ahead keeping up to date on the impact of the latest changes. 

The published policy has been largely welcomed by the industry, although it is widely acknowledged that the framework is only one part of the wider reform required to deliver the much-needed development and infrastructure across the country. This is one step in the right direction but now the Government needs to continue to focus on sustainable solutions to all of the practical barriers to delivery.