It feels like we see in every new year with a new National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). This time it was a consultation on a draft version of the Framework, which is open until 10th March 2026.
The NPPF underpins all planning policy and decision-making in the UK, and is the government’s way of setting the standards for local plans and decision makers. Until this latest draft was published, the NPPF was largely strategic in focus, setting out principles to guide the plan-making process but not getting involved actual day to day policy.
This new version is a departure from this approach. Though many in the industry are focussing on reforms to Green Belt and the like, as we are fortunate enough to not have any Green Belt in Norfolk or Suffolk, I have summarised the changes that could affect rural planning in our area.
Reforms to Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) to help small sites
The new NPPF builds on earlier consultation documents, and confirms that the government will be bringing in a total exemption from BNG for all sites under 0.2 hectares in size. Details are due to follow this spring, but it looks likely that the exemption will come into effect this year.
The introduction of a new ‘medium’ category of development of up to 2.5 hectares or 10-49 dwellings seeks to unlock opportunities for small and medium sized housebuilders (SME), and BNG will be ‘streamlined’ for this category. This size of development will also be relieved of some of the validation requirements of major schemes.
National development management policies (NDMP)
For the first time, the draft NPPF is introducing development management policies at a government level to ensure consistency across the country. These will be a material consideration in decision-making, and where a Local Plan is inconsistent with the NDMP, the Local Plan policy should be given very little weight.
Accelerating the Local Plan preparation process
Preparing a Local Plan under the current regulations takes at least 4 years. The draft NPPF introduces a new 30-month (2.5 year) process with three key ‘gateways’ to streamline the process.
Nature Restoration Fund
Nutrient Neutrality has stalled some developments for years. The NPPF proposes putting the onus on Natural England to deliver mitigation schemes which developers can then buy into to unlock their development.
Minor reforms to planning for heritage assets
Wording on heritage considerations in the NPPF has remained largely unchanged for years. The NPPF has not re-written the rules on heritage, but it has streamlined the assessment process and clarified some of the more ambiguous wording.
There are now three clear categories of heritage harm: harm, substantial harm and total loss, and there’s even a definition of ‘harm’. The ambiguous ‘less than substantial harm’ definition is gone, and there is now a more positive tone to this section of the Framework, which encourages approval, and lists energy efficiency and low carbon measures as examples of benefits which can outweigh harm to heritage assets.
My thoughts
The standout change in this draft NPPF is undoubtedly the reforms to BNG. It never made sense to expect applications for minor developments like a new access or a single dwelling to go through what is quite an onerous process, entailing Section 106 agreements and expensive surveys.
The new ‘medium category’ for development is a long overdue gift for SME housebuilders and rural development in general, which nearly always falls into this category, and bears the burden of surveys and reports far more heavily than larger developments.
I am sceptical of the streamlined local plan process – it doesn’t seem significantly different to the current process, and the 30-months could easily be exceeded if amendments are needed or issues emerge at any stage of the process.
I welcome the changes to heritage assessments, as the previous wording was ambiguous and rendered it almost impossible to justify a scheme where any level of harm to a heritage asset was possible.
Overall, the draft NPPF seems driven by pragmatism and a genuine understanding of the issues that need to be overcome in order to deliver more homes. That is what we have needed for several years, and I welcome it.
