National Planning Policy Statement (NPPF) – the new horizon

Discover: the purpose of the NPPF; the revisions we asked for; any improvements made in response to our asks; the potential weaknesses in the new NPPF; other changes in the new NPPF; and what happens next.

What is the NPPF?

The NPPF is a government document that outlines plan-making policies and how decisions on development should be made in England. It is a framework used and referred to by anybody making planning applications and decisions.

It provides policy that local authorities should use when they make their development plans, as well as national decision-making policy for planning proposals, applications and appeals.

The NPPF will often reflect the priorities of the government in play. There has been emphasis in recent years on economic growth via increased housing building. We can see that the new version of the NPPF is designed to fast-track building, supposedly to boost economic growth.

Consultation on a new draft of the NPPF was opened in 2025. We highlighted our concerns with that draft of the framework, with the hope that revisions would be made in order to protect the countryside and our precious green spaces. The new version of the NPPF was finalised and published in August 2026.

What revisions did we ask for?

During the last consultation period, we flagged these issues with the NPPF as it stood then:

• No attention paid to overstretched water and sewage systems, especially within the context of adding new homes to this infrastructure.
• No serious considerations given to climate change resilience.
• Inadequate provision of affordable housing and homes for social rent.
• No clear protections for valued landscapes outside of nationally designated areas.
• No care paid to the intrinsic value of the countryside.
• The erosion of public scrutiny and local decision-making, and minimum scrutiny from Planning Officers themselves.

Thanks to all who joined our letter-writing campaign to Sussex MPs, calling for these gaps to be remedied.

Did any of these improve?

In short – no, not really. Here’s the breakdown:

We said: no attention paid to overstretched water and sewage systems, especially within the context of adding new homes to this infrastructure.

The new NPPF showed: there was no headline reform in the 2026 NPPF that significantly strengthened planning controls related to water resources or scarcity, wastewater infrastructure or sewage treatment capacity.

We said: no serious considerations given to climate change resilience.

The new NPPF showed: climate adaptation is not a headline reform in the new NPPF, despite the government’s message on climate resilience to be met through strategic planning arrangements. The policy emphasis is on housing delivery and economic growth, with no substantive policy geared towards climate change resilience.

We said: inadequate provision of affordable housing and homes for social rent.

The new NPPF showed: whilst affordable housing is a key policy objective within the NPPF, we still see no meaningful delivery mechanisms to truly back that up. There is still no national requirement for a specific percentage of affordable housing, nor a national requirement for a particular proportion of social rented housing.

We said: no clear protections for valued landscapes outside of nationally designated areas.

The new NPPF showed: the strongest government protections continue to be focussed on nationally designated landscapes. The new NPPF has not introduced a new category of protection for locally valued, undesignated countryside.

We said: no care paid to the intrinsic value of the countryside.

The new NPPF showed: the new NPPF look to prioritise economic development and housing growth. The clause allowing for fast-tracked development around transport hubs is a shining example of the focus on development at all costs, rather than recognising the value of the countryside.

We said: the erosion of public scrutiny and local decision-making, and minimum scrutiny from Planning Officers themselves.

The new NPPF showed: the government claim that the NPPF creates a more rules-based planning system, with local plan and public examinations to continue. But the NPPF centralises decision-making and makes it harder for local people to choose what goes where. National policies will trump local choices.

In a nutshell: whilst the new NPPF contains stronger emphasis on affordable housing delivery, it has not really addressed any of our core concerns. It continues to prioritise housing delivery and economic growth to the detriment of the environment and countryside.

What are the potential weaknesses in the new NPPF?

Aside from the gaps that we’ve already identified, the new NPPF is riddled with holes.

The new framework sets out ambitious deadlines for preparing and adopting local plans, but lacks adequate mechanisms to ensure that local authorities can meet these targets.

There is not adequate provision on how competing objectives should be managed. For example: housing delivery vs. environmental protection.

The NPPF does not give specific guidance on evidence-based requirements for processes, such as specifying methodologies or percentage thresholds.

The framework often refers to “substantial weight” or “balanced judgment” without clear metrics. How policies are weighted are going to be a key – and probably controversial – element to watch, going forwards.

Infrastructure funding or delivery is not guaranteed, despite the NPPF hoping for development plans to align with infrastructure provision. We know that our infrastructure is already creaking – without fast-tracked housing thrown on top with no extra provision.

The NPPF supports biodiversity net gain (already a slightly contentious subject in of itself) but also allows for local standards to exceed statutory requirements for specific allocations. This could lay the way open for environmental damage.

Neighbourhood plans are supported by the NPPF but restricts their ability to reduce development below centrally imposed strategic requirements. This is particularly troubling to any resident who would want to challenge developments in their community.

And whilst the NPPF claims to encourage early and ongoing public engagement with plans, there are no enforceable minimum standards for consultation.

What else has changed in the new NPPF?

The NPPF itself is a huge document. For an excellent breakdown of all changes, we recommend reading this Planning Geek guide which gives a complete breakdown of all changes, comparing the new version to the previous.

They also have a great summary of the biggest changes here.

What happens next?

This new version of the NPPF is now in play. It is being used to judge planning decisions across Sussex.

We expect to better understand how the NPPF – and elements within it such as tilted balance and environmental considerations – will be applied as time goes on. We need to see how the NPPF is ‘used’ by decisionmakers over the course of decisions and appeals. This will give us a better understanding of how Planning Inspectors are interpreting and applying the new framework when determining the fate of the Sussex countryside.