National Decision Making Policies
A key introduction in the new Framework is the 79 National Decision Making Policies (NDMPs). These are intended to operate more as distinct rules than as general guidance. The NDMPs also indicate how much weight the Government expects a particular consideration to be given. This is a significant development but does not take the decision away from the decision maker. The NDMPs, and the weight they suggest, are the starting point. They should be applied but not over relied upon as the Government has chosen to refrain from giving them statutory footing to still afford discretion to decision makers.
NDMPs and the Development Plan
The new Framework changes the relationship between national policy and the local development plan in two ways:
- New local plans must not include policies which duplicate, substantively restate or are inconsistent with the NDMPs.
- Existing development plan policies which are materially inconsistent with the NDMPs should be given very limited weight.
This challenges the traditional primacy of the local development plan. It was criticised during the consultation as an attempt to impose a “one size fits all” approach.
Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 still requires decisions to begin with the development plan and the NPPF acknowledges this. But practical tensions with the NDMPs are expected and contentions are likely to be raised regarding the phrase “materially inconsistent”.
Emerging Plans
The position is especially complex for emerging plans. The transitional arrangements provide that plans submitted for examination by 31 December 2026 will be examined under the former NPPF and plans submitted after that date must comply with the new Framework.
Emerging policies may be given weight according to their stage of preparation. The more advanced the plan, the greater the weight. However, the more objections, the less weight may be given. Many emerging plans are likely to be materially inconsistent with the new Framework. How much weight should be given to emerging plans is likely to become one of the most debated planning issues over the coming months.
Statutory Consultees
The Framework also addresses delay caused by consultees. Decisions should not be held up to secure advice from a statutory or internal consultee beyond their statutory deadlines, unless there is insufficient information to make the decision; there are public safety risks from proceeding without the advice; or more detailed advice may enable an approval rather than a refusal. The aim is to stop consultees being the cause of delay. Whether it will lead to faster decisions is yet to be determined in practice.
Planning Obligations
The Government is proposing to introduce model standardised conditions and standard planning obligations. The Framework states that where national model planning obligations are relevant to the development, they should be used unless there are strong reasons for using a different condition.
The new wording provides a strong mandate against departing from them, therefore continues the theme of centralisation that runs through this Framework.
A Change from the Draft NPPF
A notable change from the draft version of the NPPF has been identified. Where a policy sets out a list in the form of sub-paragraphs, all of those sub-paragraphs now apply unless the text indicates otherwise. The usual signal is the word “or” at the end of one or more of the sub-paragraphs.
In practice, this means the new policies need to be read extremely carefully as a missed “or”, or the lack of one, could change whether a proposal meets the test.
What’s ahead?
The 2026 NPPF is intended to give greater certainty and consistency but many of its provisions require further judgement and interpretation. We expect the weight given to national and local policy to be the subject of considerable contention in the months ahead. We will continue to monitor the upcoming decisions and appeal outcomes applying the new Framework.