Briefing for Parliamentarians on proposed reforms to the NPPF and other changes to the planning system

Summary

On the 10 March 2026 the Government closed their consultation on the proposed reforms to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and other changes to the planning system. The proposals are arguably the most significant revisions since the NPPF’s inception in 2012, with a reworking of format, language and the introduction of new national policy.

Following provisions for spatial development strategies (SDSs) as set out in the Planning and Infrastructure Act, the NPPF now contains strategic planning in national policy. The NPPF also contains new, non statutory, national decision-making policies to support development management with a new rules-based approach to determining applications.

To inform our response to Government proposals, the Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI) conducted nine roundtables across our English regions, alongside five meetings with our England Policy Committee, engaging with over 200 members across the private and public sector.

Below is a summary of key themes emerging from our consultation response to support Parliamentarians in their work around the proposed NPPF revisions. Our consultation response can be read in full here. If you have any questions or would like to discuss further with our policy and public affairs team, please get in touch at publicaffairs@rtpi.org.uk.

Managing a successful transition

The accompanying NPPF consultation document acknowledges that transitional arrangements will be needed. Throughout our member engagement, the need for clear transitional arrangements and central Government support was a recurring ask. The RTPI has previously highlighted issues that local planning authorities experience when adapting to changes to national policy, often resulting in delays, particularly for local plan preparation. We therefore cannot ignore the need to identify and prepare for the wide-ranging effects that could potentially derive from such an ambitious set of reforms within the NPPF, particularly given the range of scenarios and outcomes that could manifest from the transition in different localities and regions. When this significant policy change is coupled with the complexities of local government reform happening in tandem, it is evident that there is more for the Government to consider in how it will be supporting the planning system, in particular local authority planning teams, in managing this transition and ensuring short and long-term economic prosperity. Areas to further consider within the transitional period include:

·       Support for local plans currently at the later stage of preparation and ensuring that, once adopted, they will still have relevance with the new Framework, thereby supporting effective decision-making.

·       The consequences of the intended removal of Supplementary Planning Documents (SPDs) given their pragmatic solution to developing policy in lieu of up-to-date and adopted plans. Their removal runs the risk of creating uncertainty through a policy vacuum in the transitional period.

·       Understanding the context of the reintroduction of strategic planning alongside local government reform. Clarification is needed for the sector on how the new local plan and SDS system will operate. Consideration is needed for how local plans will flow from adopted SDSs, how both sets of plans might be prepared in tandem or if a local plan is adopted in advance, how it will feed into SDS preparation. The inter-relationship of these plans throughout the different stages of their process will be key to the success of the new plan-led system.

For the RTPI and our members, there are clear ways in which the Government can aid the transition to this new plan-led approach and ensure the successful implementation of policy reform. These support mechanisms include:

·       Ensuring the statutory status of chief planning officers through Government support for the tabled Chief Planner Amendment to the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. The statutory status of this role will undoubtedly support this transition. With local government reform, local authorities needing to have organised and meaningful input into SDSs, and an enhanced position for the planning system in delivering a new tier of strategic planning to aid investment and growth, there has never been a more pressing need for clear authority and leadership within planning teams.

·       A financial stimulus provided by Government will help support local and strategic authorities and other key stakeholders in plan-making. There may also be a more targeted need for support for areas which are progressing more slowly through the devolution agenda, potentially because of ongoing local government reform. A central resource, akin to that of the Advisory Team for Large Applications Service (ATLAS), holding specialist teams to support plan-making and delivery in key policy areas that could be deployed to support both strategic and local planning, would also be welcomed and would aid the transition in a more even manner across the country.

·       For quick, effective, implementation of this new Framework to support the Government’s growth agenda, it will be vital that a comprehensive skills development and training programme for planning services be provided. This will be particularly needed in the case of development management teams as they must immediately consider the new rules-based approach to decision-making as applications are submitted.

Spreading growth evenly

As set out above, the transition to the new system will likely occur unevenly across the country and, without support, could create or exacerbate regional inequality. However, further to this, there are also a number of other factors within the proposed NPPF which may result in a drive for economic growth. The proposed NPPF features additional weighting being given in decision-making for development proposals in settlement boundaries, supportive framing around the reuse of previously developed land, a more positive approach to sustainably repurposing heritage assets and the targeting of residential development as part of town centre regeneration.

The introduction of SDSs as a new subregional tier of planning is another example of the intent for strategic growth, with the ability to identify key infrastructure investment need and utilise the additional planning powers, being brought forward through the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, to deliver.

There is an opportunity for the NPPF to go further in ensuring that new policy and powers do not exacerbate existing regional inequalities but rather ensure that all regions can emerge successful following the implementation of this Framework and have an equal opportunity for growth.

In particular, policies S5(1)(h), L3(3) and GB7(1)(h)(i) and (ii) outline the Government’s intentions to prioritise development close to well-connected railway stations. Whilst well intentioned, there is more to consider when ensuring that there are not unintended consequences of these policies in terms of amplifying existing regional inequalities. There is considerable discussion over what factors go into deciding whether a railway station is considered to provide a high level of connectivity to jobs and services and the resulting implications for different geographies across the country. This will result in significant variation in the geographic areas in which these policies will be engaged. Similarly, we have some questions on the decision made to draw productivity assumptions using the Gross Value Added of travel to work areas (TTWAs), given the age of the data, collected in the 2011 census over 15 years ago. There is significant regional impact with this data, and given its age, it may not capture areas which have achieved recent increases in economic productivity, or on the other hand areas that have seen a decline.

In prioritising developments close to well-connected railway stations, a proposal which certainly has its benefits in terms of sustainably locating new development, we do not want to run the risk of areas missing out on significant investment and growth opportunities due to the factors which are currently being proposed to determine “well-connected”. There is also a need to monitor and evaluate the impact of any such approaches over time.

Applying standardised approaches in a country of great variation needs to be carefully considered. For example, the Government has proposed additional upstreaming of development viability considerations at the local plan stage, alongside a rollout of more standardised inputs. However, if such an approach were to be taken forward, there would have to be an appropriate amount of flexibility to enable different regions, sub-regions, and areas within local authorities to be able to identify the need for variation, given the economics behind development varies so dramatically across the country, across regions and within local authorities themselves. If this were not to occur, it could potentially disadvantage particular areas with less buoyant development markets.

To deliver long-term transformative change that will benefit constituents in all parts of the country, the Government must match its own ambitions with a thorough understanding of how policy implementation will affect different geographies and work towards ensuring that in the implementation and delivery of these policies, all areas, regardless of where they are located or whether they be rural or urban, are supported in growing sustainably and strategically.

Clarification, delineation and harmonisation

The proposed NPPF makes a number of amends to existing policy, as well the separation of plan-making policies and national decision-making policies, in addition to a whole new layer of planning being brought forward through SDSs. Overall, here is a need for clarity, delineation and harmonisation throughout the document, particularly when considering comparable policy areas.

Clear definitions within this new Framework will undoubtedly benefit its effective implementation. A “reasonable walking distance”, what constitutes a “built-up area” and the proposed glossary definition of “settlement”, are some of the phrases where a strengthened, clear and unequivocal description would better support the application of policies that refer to them.

Throughout our response we note the need for clearer delineation between the different spatial tiers of the new plan-led system. Those being neighbourhood plans, local plans and spatial development strategies. As it currently stands, throughout the document, many policies refer to “development plans”, meaning all three types of spatial plans. What will be vital to implementation is a clear understanding of what is expected at each spatial level. For example, policy DP1 on a strategy for design would tend to be far more appropriately dealt with by local or neighbourhood plans, however due to the use of “development plans” in the phrasing of the policy, it appears to apply to every spatial tier of planning. A clearer identification and delineation between the different the plans within the different spatial tiers will ensure policies are approached at the right level and with the proportionate amount of detail.

Whilst delineation between the development plans will be needed, this doesn’t negate the need for necessary harmonisation throughout the document. There should be a clear thread of planning and place-making drawn through the spatial tiers of the new plan-led system into decision-making. The “purpose of the planning system” outlined in the introduction of the proposed framework should be that guiding thread referenced throughout policies in the aim “to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development by managing the use of development of land in the long-term public interest”. Policy areas referenced in in SDSs and local plans should be aligned with topic areas covered within national decision-making policies, including economic development and climate change. This harmonisation and reference to policies throughout the document will help to establish the flow of appropriate evidence bases through strategic and local plans into decision-making.