NPPF AND DEVELOPMENT The new NPPF in practice - a fresh look at land and development potential

Mary-Jane O’Neill

Mary-Jane is Head of Planning Consultancy (London & South) at Lambert Smith Hampton. She has over 20 years of private sector planning consultancy experience, working predominantly in London and the south of England, in all areas of the planning process, strategy and law, working on a wide variety of development schemes, planning inquiries and strategic land. Over the last two decades, Mary-Jane has been involved in the planning and project management of large-scale major regeneration schemes, managing large consultancy teams, and working with public and private sector clients to develop strong working relationships with public sector authorities and consultees.

Mary-Jane’s recent experience at NPPF planning inquiries, “reinforced by a growing number of early appeal decisions, suggests that the new NPPF creates significant opportunities, but also some important new challenges.” She explains the different routes to considering development. 

The revised National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), published on 17 August 2026, represents considerably more than another periodic update to national planning policy.  It introduces separate policies for plan-making and decision-making, changes the approach to development within and outside settlements, places greater emphasis on development around well-connected stations, and develops the Green Belt and grey belt regime.  The delayed 2024 and 2025 Housing Delivery Test (HDT) results were also published alongside it.

I have already had the unusual experience of giving planning evidence at two inquiries either side of its publication.  The first had closed before the new NPPF was published, requiring the parties subsequently to reconsider their cases against the new policies.  At the second, which opened shortly after publication, the new NPPF was central to the planning case.  That experience, reinforced by a growing number of early appeal decisions, suggests that the new NPPF creates significant opportunities, but also some important new challenges.  For landowners, asset managers and valuers, it is worth asking: would we reach the same conclusions about the development potential of our land today that we reached a year ago?

New routes and different balances

The statutory starting point remains the development plan. What has changed is the national policy framework within which decisions are made.  The route through the new NPPF depends partly on where land sits.  Development within settlements is principally considered through Policy S4; development outside settlements through S5; while Green Belt land has its own policy framework, including grey belt.  This matters because the planning balance can operate differently.  In some circumstances, development should be approved unless its adverse effects substantially outweigh its benefits.  In others, including development outside settlements, which does not fall within one of the categories identified in S5, permission should only be granted exceptionally where the benefits substantially outweigh the adverse effects.

For land outside settlements, S5 provides several potential routes, including previously developed land, allocated sites, development around certain stations, and development addressing evidenced unmet need.  For housing, a five-year housing land supply shortfall or HDT result below 75% is expressly identified as evidence of unmet need.  Need alone is not enough as development must also satisfy requirements including its relationship with a settlement and the availability of infrastructure.  For landowners, the important question is therefore no longer simply “is the land allocated?” but “which policy route now applies?” 

Stations move up the agenda

The new approach to stations is particularly relevant, creating potential opportunities both within and outside settlements.  Within settlements, the Framework promotes higher-density residential development around qualifying stations.  Minimum densities within reasonable walking distance of a well-connected station are generally 35 dwellings per hectare, increasing to 45 dwellings per hectare around the most frequently served stations, unless an alternative approach is justified.

That potentially changes the way low-density assets, including surface car parks, depots and under-utilised operational land, should be assessed.  “Reasonable walking distance” is around 800 metres or a 10-minute walk, subject to the actual route and local circumstances.  A “well-connected station” is defined by reference to service frequency and its location within one of the country's principal Travel to Work Areas.  There are opportunities outside settlements too.  S5(1)(h) provides a specific route for residential and mixed-use development within reasonable walking distance of a well-connected station, subject to requirements concerning physical relationship, infrastructure and longer-term comprehensive development.  The distinction is important, as within settlements, the opportunity may be greater density; outside settlements, the right station may provide a new policy route to development.  Proximity to stations should therefore form part of portfolio reviews.

Green Belt and grey belt

Green Belt holdings may also warrant a fresh look.  The concept of grey belt remains important within the new policy regime.  Grey belt does not simply mean unattractive or previously developed Green Belt land, nor does grey belt status equate to planning permission or development value.  It does mean that historic assumptions about Green Belt holdings should not necessarily be carried forward without review.  For landowners, an updated assessment can therefore help inform decisions about retention, investment, promotion or disposal, while recognising that other planning and environmental constraints continue to apply.

Early indications from appeals

It remains early days and appeal decisions are necessarily site-specific, but some useful themes are emerging.  Housing decisions at Spring Hill, Oxfordshire (6005809), Bere Hill, Whitchurch (6006893), Aston Clinton (6008253) and Buntingford (6008238) have reached different conclusions on matters including unmet need, landscape harm, and what it means to be “physically well-related” to a settlement.  The contrasting Aston Clinton and Buntingford decisions demonstrate particularly clearly that proximity alone does not determine that relationship.

Other decisions broaden the picture.  At Polegate (6008314), land outside the local plan development boundary was nevertheless found to be within a settlement for the purposes of the new NPPF, meaning S4 applied.  At Halves Lane, Yeovil (APP/E3335/W/26/3377482), S5 was applied to rural business development, but substantial economic benefits did not overcome character and landscape harm.  The practical lesson is simple, do not assume that a settlement boundary, development type or proximity to existing buildings determines which route through the new Framework applies.

What should landowners consider?

For landowners and estates teams, I see five immediate considerations.

1. Revisit previous assumptions.  Settlement-edge land, Green Belt holdings, previously developed land and assets around stations may warrant a fresh planning review

2. Check the latest housing position.  HDT results, five-year housing supply and evidence of housing need can materially affect development prospects.  The new Framework also prescribes substantial weight for housing which contributes towards evidenced accommodation needs

3. Look beyond the red line.  Roads, vegetation, topography, footpaths and how people actually move between a site and settlement can be as important as the boundary on a plan

4. Investigate infrastructure early.  Electricity, water and wastewater, transport and social infrastructure may determine the scale and timing of development.  What could theoretically be upgraded is not necessarily what will realistically be available when required

5. Don't forget the constraints.  Housing need does not erase landscape, ecology, heritage, design or transport harm. Grey belt does not mean automatic permission, and an older local plan does not automatically become irrelevant.

A timely portfolio health check

The new NPPF does not mean that every constrained landholding has suddenly acquired development value.  It does mean that some longstanding assumptions deserve to be tested again. 

My experience so far is that the opportunities can be significant, but the evidence needed to establish them matters more than ever.  For property professionals, the practical question is not simply “could this land be developed?” It is “what is the current policy route, what evidence do we need to establish it, and is our existing asset strategy based on a planning assumption that is still sound?”  Planning risk has not disappeared.  It has become more nuanced, making an up-to-date understanding of the land, policy and evidence increasingly valuable.