Hot Topic Highlight - National Planning Policy Framework Update August 2026
Building a Better You
Property Elite’s sole aim is to build better property professionals - supporting your career every step of the way, whether you are an AssocRICS or RICS APC candidate or a MRICS or FRICS Chartered Surveyor simply seeking engaging CPD.
We provide a wide range of training and support, so why not find out more on our website about how we might be able to support you? We work with candidates across all RICS APC and AssocRICS pathways, routes to assessment and geographic regions.
Don’t forget to sign up online for your free 15 minute AssocRICS or RICS APC consultation, including a review of your referral report if you have been referred. You can also book your bespoke training or support services directly through our eShop.
Not sure about signing up? Make sure you read what our recent successful candidates have to say in our Testimonials.
What is this blog about?
On 17 August 2026 the hotly anticipated National Planning Policy Framework 2026 (NPPF) was published bringing about the biggest change in form and content since the first NPPF document was released back in 2012. The provisions of the new NPPF came in to force immediately.
This blog offers a summary of some of the main changes and how this might be relevant to RICS APC candidates involved in planning and development work.
Thanks go to Planning Consultant, Francesca Laugharne MRTPI, for writing this blog.
What has changed and what do surveyors need to know?
The new NPPF 2026 follows an extensive consultation on a range of changes proposed in December 2025 as part of an ongoing process of planning reforms by the Labour Government in recent years. It introduces a more rules-based approach to planning decisions and the Government says it strengthens national support for appropriately located development.
Key Changes
1) Plan Making Policies and Decision Making Policies
The NPPF 2026 has been written with much clearer distinction between plan-making policy and decision-making policy. For the first time the NPPF introduces a set of national decision-making policies. These are procedural and thematic. The NPPF is clear that the ‘plan-led’ system remains paramount.
However, Appendix A clarifies that ‘Development plan policies (or parts of those policies) which are materially inconsistent with national decision-making policies in this Framework should be given very limited weight. The only exception to this is where they have been examined and adopted or made against this Framework’.
For now, this means that specific adopted Local Plan policies which do not accord with the national decision making policies, will be superseded until such time as a new plan tested against NPPF 2026 is adopted.
When assessing a development proposal, it is important to distinguish between policies concerned with plan preparation and the national policies that apply directly to decision-making.
2) Big changes to numbering!
The original NPPF was arranged with continuous paragraph numbering (e.g. NPPF paragraphs 47, 48, 49...). That meant that whenever there were updates and revisions to the document, it required wholescale renumbering. In this new iteration of the NPPF each policy has its own number and its paragraphs/sub-paragraphs are numbered within that policy. This is intended to make individual policies easier to reference and enable additions with less administrative implications.
Professionals should get familiar with the new format and policy numbering which should now be a more permanent fixture.
3) Paving the way for Spatial Development Strategies (SDS)
There is a new Policy PM1 (the first Policy Making policy) which states the requirements for Spatial Development Strategies prepared by the Strategic Planning Authorities and the London Mayor. Spatial development strategies should set a positive vision for future growth and change at a sub-regional scale and provide a clear spatial framework for investment and growth, including for new housing.
They should have a timeframe of at least 25 years and include broad locations for growth and regeneration, including new settlements, major urban extensions, major cross-boundary development and other key locations with the potential for significant new homes, jobs and other development. They can suggest areas for Green Belt review and consider strategic infrastructure needs, as well as nature conservation and protection of the historic environment.
Policy HO2 states Spatial development Strategies should establish a housing requirement and set pitch and plot requirements where a need has been identified, for each local planning authority within the strategy area. These figures should not be retested as part of local plan preparation unless there has been a significant change in circumstances which affects the overall requirement and its distribution to each local planning authority area.
Where a SDS is not in place, local plans should establish the housing requirement figure and pitch and plot requirements for their area, taking account of any relevant emerging SDS.
Appendix D of the NPPF sets out how housing need should be calculated using the standard method, how land supply should be assessed, and the Housing Delivery Test applied.
4) Updated approach to the Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development/ the ‘tilted balance’ – the ‘default yes’
Under the previous NPPF, the test was:
No relevant policies / most important policies out of date (for applications involving the provision of housing including where the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites) → tilted balance under paragraph 11(d) – Planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.
The 2026 approach set in Policy S3 instead establishes differing approaches within Policy S4 (development within settlements) and Policy S5 (development outside settlements). The new approach does not only apply to housing: depending on location and development type, it can apply to other forms of development.
Under new Policy S4 within settlements development is now afforded a ‘default yes’ and should be permitted unless ‘the benefits of doing so would be substantially outweighed by adverse effects’ and other policies.
Outside of Settlements under policy S5 the NPPF now sets a range of supportable development opportunities including:
‘Development which would address an evidenced unmet need (including, but not limited to, development proposals involving the provision of housing where the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites or scores below 75% in the most recent Housing Delivery Test27), and where the development would:
i. Be physically well-related to an existing settlement (unless the nature of the development would make this inappropriate) and be of a scale which can be accommodated taking into account the existing or proposed availability of infrastructure; or
ii. Comprise major development for freight and logistics purposes which accords with policy E3.’
The term physically well related to an existing settlement would seem to be a matter for interpretation and will no doubt be tested by appeals and case law in the near future.
Another notable addition in Policy S5 is part e, which allows for ‘limited infilling within groups of houses’ in the countryside. Again, there would seem to be much potential for argument around where and how this can be applied.
5) Station-led growth and higher density development
Policy S5 Development outside settlements expands and strengthens opportunities for station led development. The policy provides support for ‘residential and mixed-use development close to well-connected stations within the top 80 Travel to Work Areas by GVA, subject to minimum service-frequency criteria. The Government has not published a definitive list of qualifying stations; whether a particular station meets the definition is for the decision-maker to determine.
The policy criteria require that development be:
i. within reasonable walking distance of a well-connected station (applying the definitions in the glossary at Annex B);
ii. physically well-related to the station or the settlement within which the station is located;
iii. of a scale which can be accommodated taking into account the existing or proposed availability of infrastructure; and
iv. Not prejudice any proposals for long-term comprehensive development in the same location.
Policy L3 sets minimum density requirements and states ‘where development proposals for residential or mixed-use schemes are within reasonable walking distance of a well-connected station (usually around 800m / 10min walk), a density of at least 35 dwellings per hectare should be achieved within the net developable area of the site. Higher densities – of at least 45 dwellings per hectare – should be achieved where the service frequency is at least twice that of the minimum required for a well-connected station (at least 8 trains per hour).
Within settlements the policy states that all development should seek to increase built density where this can be achieved without being inappropriate.
6) Points to note on the Green Belt
The grey belt is here to stay. The NPPF2026 retains the concept of grey belt (which is part of the designated Green Belt land that makes a limited contribution to Green Belt purposes and/or is lawful previously developed land). Policy GB7 notes that development of grey belt land is not inappropriate development in the Green Belt and not required to demonstrate very special circumstances (subject to criteria).
Policy support for development around well-connected stations also applies in the Green Belt. Proposals for residential or mixed use development will be supported and not inappropriate within the Green Belt subject to the same criteria as elsewhere outside of settlements without needing to demonstrate exceptional circumstances.
Greater emphasis is now paced on Green Belt Assessment as an important part of the evidence base for plan-making where changes may be required to accommodate development. Appendix E of the NPPF provides guidance on what should be included in Assessments and how to assess grey belt. Assessments should identify grey belt land as part of the process.
7) The latest stance on Viability
Viability is now primarily a plan-making exercise. The NPPF 2026 position is that viability should principally be assessed and established during the plan making process. Local plans should set realistic requirements for affordable housing, infrastructure and other contributions, informed by viability evidence. This stance has been part of Planning Practice Guidance since December 2025.
The aim is that once those requirements are established, developers can secure the land for an appropriate price rather than routinely renegotiating policy requirements at application stage.
Therefore, where up-to-date policies set out the contributions expected from development, an application that fully complies with those policies should be assumed to be viable. The price paid for land is not a justification for non-compliance. This is particularly important from a land valuation/ development appraisal perspective.
The guidance is explicit that the price paid for land cannot be used to justify failing to comply with planning policy. Landowners and purchasers are expected to take the cumulative cost of policy requirements into account when agreeing the land price.
Policy DM5 Development Viability lists circumstances where a viability assessment may be used to justify departure from policy on affordable housing or contributions. However, this is expected to be the exception rather than the rule and only used where exceptional circumstances have come into play.
Conclusion
This is a selection of changes but a full review of the new NPPF document and wide ranging online commentary is recommended.
In the meantime, it is worth considering how these changes could impact your practice and projects:
New spatial presumption → The question becomes where is the site and what type of development is proposed? In addition to whether there is evidenced unmet need. (S3/4/5)
Brownfield / urban intensification → Greater support for redevelopment, infill, upward extensions and higher-density development could change the development capacity of existing urban sites (S4)
Station-led development → Particularly significant for land values: minimum density expectations and a “default yes” approach around qualifying stations create potential for higher-density development opportunities around the top 80 TTWAs by GVA.
Density → Consider whether existing appraisals based on historic densities remain appropriate. The NPPF pushes LPAs towards minimum densities in well-connected locations.
Green Belt / grey belt → Reassess potential for land promotion and residual land value. Grey belt and station-related Green Belt policies create new routes to development, but with substantial policy requirements.
Viability → NPPF retains a stronger framework around viability evidence, while also making clear that the price paid for land cannot be used to justify failure to meet policy requirements.
How can we help?
Don't leave it too late to book your submission feedback and review, APC question pack, e-mock interview or 1-2-1 mentoring. We also provide revision quizzes, revision guides and a CPD Webinar Package.
We offer a range of short and long-term support packages in our eShop, including our popular Monthly Mentoring and Kick Start packages. These can include an RICS APC or AssocRICS Counsellor in certain circumstances.
Head to our blog archive to access even more free CPD and AssocRICS and RICS APC training and support.
Download your free AssocRICS and RICS APC resources, including e-books and revision quizzes.
Find out more about our bespoke AssocRICS and RICS APC training and support, before booking your free 15 minute consultation.
Not sure about signing up? Make sure you read what our recent successful candidates have to say in our Testimonials.
Stay tuned for our next blog post to help build a better you.
N.b. Nothing in this article constitutes legal, professional or financial advice.