Published19 August 2026Updated19 August 2026
The New NPPF Is Here: What the 2026 Rewrite Means for Your Project
The government rewrote the National Planning Policy Framework from scratch, and the half that governs decisions applied the day it landed. Stronger support inside settlements, national numbers for garden development, and old local plan policies carrying less weight. Here's what's in it.
The government has rewritten the National Planning Policy Framework from top to bottom. It landed on 17 August 2026, and the half that governs decisions applied from that day. No grace period. No easing in.
The NPPF has been amended six times since 2012. Amended, patched, argued over in court, then patched again. This isn't that. This is a full rewrite: 130 pages, numbered policies with reference codes, and a deliberate split between the rules councils use to write local plans and the rules they use to decide applications.
The second set is the one that affects you, because it took effect the moment it was published. Live applications, appeals sitting in a queue, schemes you submitted in June: all of it is now weighed against a framework that didn't exist when you pressed send.
For a lot of Midlands projects that's good news. For a few it changes the argument. Here's what's in it.
The Framework Split in Two, and Half of It Applies Today
The old NPPF read like an essay. Seventeen chapters of narrative that everyone quoted selectively and nobody agreed on. The new one reads like a rulebook: coded policies grouped by theme, with plan-making policies and national decision-making policies kept firmly apart.
Plan-making policies tell your council how to write its Local Plan. That's a slow burn. Derby, Nottingham, Lichfield and Solihull will each work through it over the next few years, and the arguments will be long.
National decision-making policies are a different animal. They apply to planning decisions now, everywhere in England, without waiting for a single Local Plan to catch up. They're written to be consistent from council to council, which is a change in itself. One of the quieter frustrations of working across four planning authorities is watching the same scheme collect four different answers.
There's a sting in the tail for older plans. Where an existing development plan policy is materially inconsistent with the new national decision-making policies, it should carry “very limited weight” unless that plan was examined against this Framework. A good number of Midlands local plans are older than the government's patience. If your scheme was refused on a policy the new NPPF has quietly overtaken, that refusal is worth another look.
Inside a Settlement, the Default Answer Is Now Yes
Policy S4 is the headline. Development inside a defined settlement should be approved unless the adverse effects substantially outweigh the benefits when assessed against national policy.
Read that twice, because the wording does real work. The old test asked whether a scheme was acceptable. This one asks whether it's bad enough to refuse. Different question, and it shifts the burden from the applicant to the objection.
Earlier versions of the NPPF leaned hard on brownfield land. S4 casts wider: suitable sites inside settlement boundaries, whatever their history. If you own an awkward plot in Allestree, a tired yard in Lichfield, or a wide corner in Wylde Green, the starting position has moved in your favour.
It isn't a blank cheque. “Substantially outweigh” still leaves a council room to refuse a scheme that stares into next door's bathroom, floods the lane, or looks like it was designed by fax. But the tone of the conversation has changed, and so has who has to do the persuading.
Your Garden Is Now National Planning Policy
Policy L2 is the one most homeowners will feel.
It tells decision-makers to give substantial weight to schemes that create extra homes or floorspace through intensification. The list is specific:
- Airspace above existing buildings
- Mansard roofs and filling gaps in a roofline
- Taller buildings on suitable street corners
- Redevelopment of underused plots
- Additional units within a residential curtilage
That last one is the big one. A residential curtilage is your garden, in plain English. And for the first time the NPPF puts national numbers around what's reasonable inside it
- Development shouldn't exceed twice the footprint of the existing buildings
- At least 50% of the currently undeveloped part of the curtilage should stay undeveloped
- More is possible where you can show it can be accommodated without harm
Two things to hold on to. Those figures aren't permissions. Nobody gets to drop a house at the bottom of the garden because a percentage says so. Access, privacy, daylight, external amenity space, drainage, infrastructure and the character of the street are all still live, and any one of them can sink a scheme on its own.
But they are a national baseline you can point at. Until now, a garden plot argument was fought entirely on local policy and officer opinion, which varies by council and occasionally by week. Now there's a number in the Framework itself. That's a better place to open a conversation than a hunch.
If you've got a long garden, a double plot, a bungalow with roof space nobody has touched since 1974, or a corner site with two frontages, this policy is aimed squarely at you.
Outside the Settlement Boundary, There's Finally a Route
Policy S5 deals with what happens beyond the line on the map, and it's more generous than anything the NPPF has said before.
Supported in principle: reusing, extending, altering or replacing existing buildings. Redeveloping previously developed land. Limited infill within a group of houses. Rural business and tourism proposals. Residential and mixed-use schemes near well-connected stations.
Then there's the pressure valve. Where a council can't demonstrate a five year housing land supply, or scored below 75% on the Housing Delivery Test, development outside settlements can come forward to meet that evidenced shortfall. Several Midlands authorities have been wobbling on one or both measures for years. The Housing Delivery Test results were published the same day as the Framework, which was not an accident.
The catch: a proposal still has to be physically well related to an existing settlement, unless the nature of the development means it has to sit somewhere else. A field in the middle of nowhere remains a field in the middle of nowhere.
For anyone sitting on a redundant rural building, this reads alongside the Class Q route rather than replacing it. Two doors into the same room, and the right one depends on the building.
Homes Near Stations Get a Default Yes
The government wants housing near trains, and it has been unusually specific about it.
Where a residential or mixed-use scheme sits within reasonable walking distance of a well-connected station, the answer should be yes. “Reasonable walking distance” now has a definition: around 800 metres, or around ten minutes' walk where topography, route quality or physical barriers make 800 metres unrealistic.
Density expectations come attached. At least 35 dwellings per hectare across the net developable area of the site. At least 45 where the service frequency is double the minimum required for a well-connected station.
The policy covers the top 80 travel to work areas by economic output, widened from the 60 proposed at consultation. That's a broad net and the Midlands' urban centres sit inside it, but check the published list against your specific station before you bank on it.
If you're holding land within a ten minute walk of a station in Derby, Nottingham, Tamworth or Solihull, this is the most useful paragraph in the document.
What Didn't Change
Green Belt policy is kept separate and it survived intact. Grey belt is still there from the 2024 changes, now with a national methodology so assessments stop varying wildly between authorities. Stronger support for development inside settlements doesn't override Green Belt rules, and an extension in the Green Belt still can't be a disproportionate addition to the original building. If you're in the Green Belt around Solihull or south Derbyshire, your test hasn't moved.
Design quality still counts. So do the setting of heritage assets, flood risk, biodiversity net gain, daylight, privacy and amenity space. Every one of those remains material, and every one can still outweigh the benefits of a scheme the Framework otherwise supports. A default yes is a starting point, not a finishing line.
Renewable energy in the Green Belt got a clarification: solar farms and similar count as inappropriate development and need “very special circumstances”. Anyone who has sat through a parish council meeting about a solar field will know why that sentence appeared.
The Quieter Changes That Save You Time and Money
A decent chunk of the new Framework is about how councils handle applications rather than what they approve.
Councils should ask for the minimum information needed on non-major proposals, keep validation requirements proportionate, consult specialists only where there's a reason to, avoid running past statutory consultee deadlines, and stop loading permissions with pre-commencement conditions. They're also told not to strip out national permitted development rights without clear justification.
Anyone who has been asked for a full transport statement to build a garage will appreciate the sentiment. Whether it survives contact with a stretched planning department is another question, but it is now written down, and written down is a useful thing to be able to quote.
One change points the other way. Policy DM8 says that where there's evidence unauthorised development was intentional, that carries substantial weight against a retrospective application or an enforcement appeal. Build it first and ask later was always a poor plan. It's now a worse one.
What To Do About It
If you have a live application, it's being determined against the new Framework whether or not the case officer has mentioned it. Read the officer report when it arrives, and say something early if a relevant policy has moved under their feet.
If you were refused in the last couple of years on a policy the new NPPF has overtaken, the maths on an appeal or a resubmission may have changed. Old local plan policies that are materially inconsistent with the new national ones carry “very limited weight” now, and that cuts both ways.
If you shelved a project because an officer told you local policy ruled it out, dig it back out. Garden plots, backland sites, roof extensions, infill gaps, awkward corner plots and redundant rural buildings all sit in the parts of the Framework that moved.
And if you're starting fresh, this is a better week to start than most.
We read these documents so you don't have to. JSA Architects works across Derby, Nottingham, Lichfield, Solihull and Sutton Coldfield, and we've spent 20 years learning which arguments land with which planning department. 97% of our applications get approved, including the Osmaston Road application where we argued a new block would improve the setting of a Grade II listed house next door, and the planning officer agreed.
If you want to know what the new NPPF means for your site rather than for the country, start with a conversation. We'll tell you straight whether it helps you or not.
Areas We Cover
JSA Architects Across the Midlands
We work with homeowners, developers, and landlords across the Midlands. Fees, planning authorities, and project types vary by location — find local insight and project examples for your area:
Architects in Derby → — Quarndon, Kirk Langley, Duffield, Allestree, Darley Abbey, Mickleover, Littleover
Architects in Nottingham → — The Park Estate, West Bridgford, Edwalton, Mapperley Park, Wollaton, Bramcote
Architects in Lichfield → — Shenstone, Little Aston, Four Oaks, Streetly, Aldridge, Walsall, Tamworth, Whittington
Architects in Solihull → — Knowle, Dorridge, Hampton in Arden, Shirley, Dickens Heath, Olton
Architects in Sutton Coldfield → — Four Oaks, Wylde Green, Boldmere, Mere Green, Streetly, Little Aston
faq's
Common Questions
The new National Planning Policy Framework was published on 17 August 2026. Its national decision-making policies applied immediately, including to applications and appeals that were already in the system.
The split between plan-making and decision-making policies, paired with a default yes for development inside settlement boundaries under Policy S4. A scheme inside a settlement should be approved unless the adverse effects substantially outweigh the benefits.
It helps. Policy L2 gives substantial weight to additional homes within a residential curtilage, with national parameters of no more than twice the existing footprint and at least 50% of the undeveloped area left undeveloped. It is not an automatic permission: access, privacy, daylight and local character still apply.
Yes. The national decision-making policies apply to decisions taken from 17 August 2026 onwards, including applications submitted before that date and appeals still awaiting a decision.
Where an existing development plan policy is materially inconsistent with the new national decision-making policies, it should be given very limited weight, unless that plan was examined against this Framework.
No. Green Belt policy remains separate and largely unchanged, and an extension still cannot be a disproportionate addition to the original building. Grey belt assessment now follows a national methodology, and renewable energy schemes in the Green Belt are confirmed as inappropriate development.
Around 800 metres, or around ten minutes' walk where topography, route quality or physical barriers make 800 metres impractical. Residential schemes within that distance of a well-connected station should be approved, at a density of at least 35 dwellings per hectare.
Articles
