What's in the new National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)?

Unfortunately, no substantive changes have been made, with the pro-fossil fuel status quo maintained. Despite our objections in October 2024, the new NPPF still references the need for local planning authorities (LPAs) to “plan positively” for oil and gas extraction (para 228). Decision-making should also still apportion “great weight” to the benefits of energy mineral extraction (excluding coal), which is unchanged from before. 

The coal test at para 223 also remains, allowing mining where a proposal is “environmentally acceptable” or, if it’s not, where national, local, or community benefits “clearly outweigh” such impacts. In our opinion, the NPPF’s approach remains too permissive and is out of step with the Welsh government’s more restrictive stance, where only in “wholly exceptional circumstances”¹ can new mines be permitted. 

Finally, coal (shallow and deep mined) as well as conventional and unconventional hydrocarbons remain “mineral resources of local and national importance” in the revised NPPF Glossary (see Annex 2), retaining some residual policy weight in their favour.

Para 161 includes a new reference to a “net-zero future”, rather than a low-carbon future, with planning needing to take “full account of all climate impacts, including overheating, water scarcity, storm and flood risks, and coastal change”. While this is a more positive framing around the need to meet binding carbon budgets, it’s arguably not explicit enough about the societal risks faced if we don’t hit our targets.

Plan-making

The NPPF maintains the need (as required by law) to ensure strategic plan-making includes policies that contribute to climate change mitigation and adaptation (as per a legal duty inserted into the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004²). References to the risks of drought and the future health of communities are also useful in this context.

Decision-making

A useful new change is found in para 163, which includes a similar but arguably less powerful climate change requirement³ linked to decision-making (despite there being no comparable legal requirement for planning decisions to consider climate change, apart from irrationality tests in case law⁴).

Para 163 states:

The need to mitigate and adapt to climate change should also be considered in preparing and assessing planning applications, taking into account the full range of potential climate change impacts.

While the wording “should also be considered” isn’t a game-changer, it represents a positive step towards the much-needed integration of decision-making with binding UK carbon budgets – one of the Committee on Climate Change’s “Priority Recommendations” for government.

Legal commentary from Estelle Dehon (KC) suggests the above wording will require applicants to consider details such as embodied carbon and downstream emissions (regarding Scope 3 emissions) for fossil fuel and polluting projects. Online planning practice guidance – albeit yet to be amended – should further clarify what developers will need to submit in this context.

While Sustainable Drainage Systems and green infrastructure are mentioned as means of “managing risk through suitable adaptation measures” (see para 164), the wider narrative around the need for such climate adaptation measures needs more work, in our opinion.

Regarding plan-making for renewables and the need to identify “suitable areas” for such development, plan-makers now only have to “consider” doing this, rather than being required to – which is essentially a roll-back from July 2024’s draft NPPF wording. The government is likely acknowledging here that many existing local plans simply won’t have identified “suitable areas” due to the now-ended effective onshore wind ban from 2015, and is not wanting to hold back oven-ready applications as a result. It’s worth noting that Friends of the Earth’s own “suitable areas”⁵ mapping is available online and can help strengthen your support for new wind or solar applications in your area.

In terms of decision-making, the good news is that “significant weight” is now apportioned to renewable energy applications. This weight in decision-making applies to the “benefits associated with renewable and low-carbon energy generation”, as well as the original draft wording linked to: “…a proposal’s contribution to a net-zero future” (see August 2024). This is a strengthening of previous wording, allowing the associated benefits of new wind and solar schemes, such as local economic multiplier effects, to also be weighed in favour of new onshore renewable applications (and this still applies to oil and gas minerals⁶). The previous “significant weight” wording (see NPPF 2023) apportioned to the “repowering” of established renewable energy sites is also retained.

This section is a double-edged sword in some respects. Labour’s NPPF 2024 retains the previous (NPPF 2023) wording on apportioning “significant weight” to the need to support energy efficiency and low-carbon heating improvements to existing buildings, both domestic and non-domestic, which is a positive (ie, helping promote the roll-out of heat pumps and domestic solar). However, NPPF 2024 also retains more draconian wording on planning for energy efficiency in new housing, sticking with the revised 2023 Written Ministerial Statement (WMS) wording on Energy Efficiency Standards. This means councils are still not easily able to set higher levels of local energy efficiency policy ambition above Building Regulations/Future Homes Standard except where “well-evidenced” (and subject to other stringent caveats). 

Para 164b states:

Any local requirements for the sustainability of buildings in plans should reflect the Government’s policy for national technical standards.

This is a blow to local planning authorities wanting to be more progressive in setting higher efficiency standards for housing (eg, Passivhaus or similar), which would essentially save consumers money on heating bills in the long term⁷. However, the retained wording could be deleted if the WMS is struck down by an ongoing Court of Appeal case being brought by RCA and Leigh Day. We’ll keep you updated where we can.

It is worth noting that a lot of heavy lifting in delivering new electricity⁸ and renewables infrastructure will be done by (further changes to) the Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIP) regime. Labour’s 2030 Clean Power Action Plan details how National Policy Statements will be updated in due course, as well as other reforms such as allowing onshore wind proposals – over 100MW – back into the NSIP regime⁹ and the publication of a new Strategic Spatial Energy Plan at the end of 2026¹⁰. This is in addition to the designation of “critical national priority” renewable energy and grid infrastructure and their consideration in a streamlined Development Consent Order (DCO) process – as previously announced by DESNZ¹¹.

While NPPF 2024 provides more positive framing for Net Zero grid infrastructure linked to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 system, it’s likely more applicable to lower-lying “distribution” lines compared to larger, longer-distance transmission networks (most likely to be consented under the NSIP regime). Nevertheless:

Para 87 states: "Planning policies and decisions should recognise and address the specific locational requirements of different sectors, including making provision for:

a) clusters or networks of knowledge and data-driven, creative or high-technology industries; and for new, expanded or upgraded facilities and infrastructure that are needed to support the growth of these industries (including data centres and grid connections).” [our emphasis]

Data Centres: Unfortunately, the above NPPF 2024 wording also means that councils need to “make provision” for more data centres in their plans, while decision-making should recognise their “locational requirements” (eg, grid capacity). This represents a growing concern for Friends of the Earth; especially considering the amount the tech sector is expected to contribute to the UK economy moving forward – and suggestive that more applications for such are likely to be called-in for government scrutiny (and approval). The rise of AI, especially with the government’s recent AI announcement, will mean an accelerated demand for server capacity, despite the well-known electricity and environmental (regarding water network) pressures these sites can put on local areas, both on their own and cumulatively across the UK.

While the relevant NPPF chapter remains mostly the same as before (regarding maintaining the mitigation hierarchy and stance on irreplaceable habitats, etc.), para 187 introduces specific requirements for plan- and decision-making to “minimise impacts on biodiversity”, including to “incorporate features which support priority or threatened species, such as swifts, bats, and hedgehogs”. A small but useful amendment, although unlikely to substantially impact general species decline in the UK.¹²

Para 192 also ensures policies linked to the protection and enhancement of habitats and biodiversity in plans extend to habitat “creation” (regarding Local Nature Recovery Strategies).

It's worth noting that while provisions to deallocate parts of the green belt to “grey belt” (see housing section below) include some caveats and protections for nature, the overall risk to the green belt is likely to be heightened from a nature perspective.

Para 175 introduces a potentially more permissive approach to assessing flood risk (regarding sequential testing) for new development, which is worthy of some note, especially in terms of how we manage development in flood-prone areas in the context of our ever-changing climate. Usually, developments proposed in areas of flood risk (or over a certain size) would be required to undertake a “sequential” test: to ensure no areas of lesser flood risk are available and to justify why those haven’t been chosen; as well as an “exceptions” test: to demonstrate an exception to policy. New para 175 seems to bypass some of the sequential requirements to an extent, although the actual implications may need exploring further:

The sequential test should be used in areas known to be at risk now or in the future from any form of flooding, except in situations where a site-specific flood risk assessment demonstrates that no built development within the site boundary, including access or escape routes, land raising or other potentially vulnerable elements, would be located on an area that would be at risk of flooding from any source, now and in the future (having regard to potential changes in flood risk).

While the government’s response to the NPPF consultation states this change will “maintain standards of flood protection”, we await further commentary from flood risk experts on this matter, as to real implications at the coalface. Other Strategic Flood Risk Assessment requirements for plan-making and exceptions tests for applications in high-risk areas seem to remain in play, however.

Major changes to the quantum of housing delivery, both in respect of plan- and decision-making, especially in historically protective policy designations such as the green belt, have dominated the overall narrative linked to NPPF reform in recent months. Many of the changes are quite technical (eg., changes to the “Standard Method” calculation on housing need, and how the annual increased 370,000 target is going to be spread across England, as well as caveats for grey belt deallocations). However, we have summarised some of these key changes below, as there could be associated nature and climate implications.

Brownfield first

As a starter for 10, para 125c strengthens the brownfield-first approach for development, which means the focus for housing should be on previously developed land (PDL)/brownfield first. Planning policies and decisions should...:

…give substantial weight to the value of using suitable brownfield land within settlements for homes and other identified needs, proposals for which should be approved unless substantial harm would be caused, and support appropriate opportunities to remediate despoiled, degraded, derelict, contaminated or unstable land.

This is a positive start and would normally mean a greater concentration of housing on more sustainable sites in our largest towns and cities, as well as PDL in other areas; although, in our opinion, some of the government’s amendments to green belt policy (further below in the section "The green belt and the grey belt") negate the overall effect of this change.

The Standard Method (and Mandatory Housing Targets)

The government has again tweaked the formula and application of the Standard Method¹³, with some London boroughs needing to do a bit more of the heavy lifting in respect of delivering a revised national annual housing target of 370,000(ish) “homes”¹⁴. That said, the overall uplift figure (introduced by Michael Gove in 2023) for the largest 20 urban areas¹⁵ is also gone.

Whether all councils, especially those with existing statutory constraints (eg., Habitats or other national heritage, landscape, or ecology designations, etc.), can identify a larger quantum of homes remains¹⁶ to be seen, with some having already criticised the government’s new targets.

(Un)intended outcomes

In order to achieve what are, for many, much higher housing targets, we may also see a greater reliance on permitted development rights (regarding change of use from commercial to residential without planning permission) to hit them. Labour shows no signs of rolling back what are controversial back-door policy mechanisms to deliver new but often substandard and poorly located “homes”. Recent accusations have been made by other NGOs that the government is continuing to allow the “next generation of slums” to be delivered. This is principally due to the unsustainable locations of many out-of-town office blocks and the inefficient and poorly adapted living spaces that result. Add to this that there are no requirements for: affordable housing; needing to be built to enhanced energy efficiency standards; on-site energy generation; or developer contributions towards local education or health provision under the PDR system.

In very basic terms, the thrust of the government’s key changes is that all Green belts located around 14 of England’s towns and cities (and which cover 13% of the UK landmass) will be more vulnerable to housing and commercial development together with associated nature and climate impacts. A more detailed summary to how grey belt links to plan making and decision making, is given below.

• All green belts¹⁷ located around 14 of England’s towns and cities (and which cover 13% of the UK landmass) will be more vulnerable to housing and commercial development, together with associated nature and climate impacts¹⁸.

• Despite green belt reviews being historically part of the plan making process, they are more the exception than the rule. Now, in reverting back to 2012 text, where councils cannot meet their housing need, NPPF para 146 states:

  “…authorities should review Green Belt boundaries in accordance with the policies in this Framework and make alterations to meet these needs in full, unless the review provides clear evidence that doing so would fundamentally undermine the purposes (taken together) of the remaining Green Belt, when considered across the area of the plan.”

  In our 2025 context, however, reviewing “…in accordance with policies in this Framework” now also requires consideration of grey belt¹⁹. Basically, where housing need is not being met by a local authority, more parts of the green belt can be up for grabs, as long as the purposes of its designation²⁰ are not “fundamentally undermined” – something which, while easier to assess on a strategic local plan basis, is much harder to monitor on a case-by-case basis (ie., how do you assess cumulative impacts to the green belt’s purposes linked to hundreds of separate applications for grey belt housing release?).

• While para 148 provides a new sequential approach to strategic green belt release (regarding plan-making), other green belt locations also remain a possibility for housing (and other types of) development where justified:
  “Where it is necessary to release Green Belt land for development, give priority to previously developed land, then consider grey belt which is not previously developed, and then other Green Belt locations.”
• In the government’s defence, it has specified some planning caveats to identifying “grey belt”: any such release needs to be made in “sustainable locations” (although that term is vague) and would not undermine green belt purposes.

• Major development on sites released from the green belt (regarding grey belt) or via applications should also be subject to “Golden Rules”:

  i) ensuring a bespoke amount of affordable housing;

  ii) “necessary” improvements to local or national infrastructure²¹; and

  iii) provision of new, or improvements to existing, green spaces that are accessible to the public. New residents should be able to access good-quality green spaces within a short walk of their home, whether through on-site provision or access to off-site spaces. (para 156).

• In terms of decision-making (ie., regarding planning applications for grey belt release), while the traditional “very special circumstances” (VSC) test still exists²², the new NPPF states that “grey belt” release is “not inappropriate development”²³ where:
  a. The development would utilise grey belt land and wouldn't fundamentally undermine the purposes (taken together) of the remaining Green Belt across the area of the plan;
  b. There is a demonstrable unmet need for the type of development proposed;
  c. The development would be in a sustainable location…
  d. Where applicable, the development proposed meets the “Golden Rules” requirements (see above). [our emphasis]
• The new approach considering applications in the “grey belt” is a big change; radically amending the status quo and encouraging ad-hoc “grey belt” housing (and commercial) development in former green belt designations and in a much less strategic decision-making context. In this sense, it could lead to adverse cumulative impacts on the defining purposes of the green belt (eg., to limit sprawl and preserve openness, etc.).
• Whether the “Golden Rules” are robust enough or go far enough to deliver truly sustainable development in more rural and, by their nature, less sustainable locations (regarding likely car-dependent locations with limited other infrastructure, etc.) is, however, doubtful in our view.

We note two recent planning appeals (one for a minor housing scheme and another for battery storage) have already been allowed because of these grey belt policy amendments – with many more to come. While Friends of the Earth supports new housing development in recognition of the “crisis”, delivery needs to be made sustainably, in the right places, and with brownfield options in our larger urban areas explored first. We do support some housing in the green belt, but usually for affordable housing (eg, exception sites) or where limited, well-evidenced strategic green belt deallocations have been justified at the plan-making level, considering no other option being available.

This ad-hoc “grey belt” release policy is, however, more likely to undermine an established and otherwise effective policy. Even while it may deliver more housing (and other types of²⁴) permissions, it does so by increasing the potential for further environmental and climate harm, while we might also not see all the consents granted being built out anyway, due to the many other issues – aside from planning – getting in the way of housing developers building sites out.

We expect more appeals and legal challenges to planning decisions over the next few years as a result, especially on the interpretation of whether green belt purposes are being undermined. This could lead to further delay in a system under fire for holding back investment, rather than speeding up the delivery of the 1.5 million homes Labour has bound its fortunes to in election mandate.

Local planning authorities have already been under the cosh to get their local plans submitted for examination before the 2026 Levelling Up and Regeneration Act (LURA) local plan deadline. Those submitted after would:
i) have been subject to the new streamlined local plan 30-month preparation timeframe²⁵, and ii) to new National Development Management Policies, set by the government, which take precedence in plan-making²⁶.

There are always transitional arrangements when a new NPPF comes into force. With such substantial changes to the “standard method” (and increased housing targets), it feels like more pressure has been added to ensure those draft plans which are either being consulted on before submission (Reg 19) or have been submitted for examination (ie., Regulation 22) can still comply with such a large increase in housing numbers.

A new three-month deadline (until 12 March 2025) is now in place for councils to work out if they now comply with a new 80% housing threshold target requirement introduced in December 2024’s NPPF. So, for example:

1. If your council’s draft plan was at its final publication stage (Reg 19) in, say, October 2024, and its housing target is within 80% of the 2024 increased standard method housing figure, the plan is considered compliant and can proceed to examination under the older 2023 NPPF.
2. If the Reg 19 consultation is before March 2025, and its draft housing target is less than 80%, the plan is not considered compliant, and your council will have 18 months (from 12 December 2024) to proceed to examination, albeit with a new higher housing figure, and would be examined under the new NPPF 2024 framework (regarding grey belt and other allowances).
3. However, the real stick/bind is if your plan is at examination now or in the next few months, where: if your plan is submitted for examination (Reg 22) now or before March 2024, and has a housing requirement of less than 80% of the revised 2024 standard method, despite the plan not being compliant, it continues to be examined by the Inspectorate. However, your council needs to then begin a new plan under the new (LURA) plan-making system as soon as it is adopted to address the shortfall in housing need.

While the government wants all councils to have local plans in place to guide housing (and other types of) development – as do we, as local plans are subject to formal community consultation and lead to evidence-based and more sustainable allocations for housing (etc.) – the government’s NPPF changes could bring serious disruption to a plan-making system already in a state of flux (regarding forthcoming LURA 2023 local plan provisions²⁷) and struggling to adopt local plans.

Compliance with the higher housing targets feels like pot luck, and for those councils with plans submitted for examination that aren’t within the 80% threshold, the temptation might be to pull their plan from examination, rather than waste time (and resources) going through examination hearings and then have to start the whole process from scratch under the newer LURA 2023 system (and subject to unknown NDMPs and needing to submit that new plan under a streamlined 30-month timeframe).

What the above all means is that, rather than providing more hope and stability for councils wanting to get a robust statutory local plan in place soon (with housing allocations and more policy certainty), the plan-making landscape feels even more uncertain; especially as the new LURA plan-making provisions have still not been set out by the government. Add to that the fact that many councils only went through a similar transitional process last year – as the last NPPF was only published in December 2023 – and you have a lot of confusion and frustration.

In the interim, while a host of draft plans are either amended to conform with higher housing targets or pulled to await the new LURA plan-making system (eg, to save money/resources), what we are likely to get is:

• More applications for speculative development being submitted: as para 11d NPPF 2024 still “tilts” the balance in the developer’s favour in many instances – including with more likely to become “out of date”.
• More government “call-ins” on larger housing and commercial applications: the former to try and meet Labour’s housing target, the latter in the name of promoting economic growth; and
• An aggrieved local electorate: as, while plan-making stalls, developers are essentially “green-lighted” to apply for permission in a wider range of sensitive and potentially less sustainable locations (ie, parts of the green belt).

¹ (and subject to other tests such as the “well-being of future generations” and ensuring a “sustainable Wales”).

² Section 19(1A) – via the Planning Act 2008. NB: A very similar test from the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act 2023 is also applicable to other plans (minerals and waste, strategic, neighbourhood, et al.).

³ The plan-making requirement is a legal duty; this is an amendable policy requirement for decision-making (regarding applications).

⁴ As in, it would be “irrational” in law not to include consideration of climate mitigation as a material consideration when deciding X or Y planning application (and certainly so in the case of coal mines and other fossil fuel extraction projects).

⁵ Subject to our own exclusion and constraints methodology.

⁶ Excluding coal.

⁷ Despite some residual increase in building costs overall, if at all in some instances: Cost-effective Passivhaus

⁸ Eg., long-distance overground transmission networks, substations, and possibly undergrounding where required in National Landscapes.

⁹ 100MW onshore wind schemes rejoin NSIP regime

¹⁰ Strategic Spatial Energy Plan: commission to NESO

¹¹Which itself aims to continue work instigated by the last government in early 2023 into NSIP reform and speeding up consenting: Nationally Significant Infrastructure: action plan for reforms to the planning process

¹² See Wildlife Trusts report

¹³ The calculation/formula by which housing targets are formulated (based on variables such as local housing need, recent delivery, etc.).

¹⁴ NB: “homes”, not houses, as the latter definition is too restrictive and excludes flats and those many “homes” likely to be converted under permitted development rights from office blocks in urban areas.

¹⁵ As recently introduced by the last Conservative government.

¹⁶ With most needing to identify an additional 5% supply buffer to encourage a mix of sites (or in some cases 20% where they have either failed to deliver against housing targets or their adopted plan was set against older NPPF standard method targets).

¹⁷ A spatial, rather than nature or landscape designation, aiming to restrict urban sprawl and encourage the use of brownfield sites in urban areas – see footnote 19 below.

¹⁸ Due to their unsustainable location and closer proximity to protected nature sites (eg., SSSIs, NNRs, etc.).

¹⁹ A concept not around in 2012.

²⁰ Five purposes: 1) to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas; 2) to prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another; 3) to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment; 4) to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; 5) to assist in urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.

²¹ “Necessary” likely linked to similar tests in planning case law and the five tests for setting planning conditions.

²² A stringent test to screen what types of development are considered “appropriate” in the green belt (such as small extensions or agriculture and forestry developments). If it is deemed inappropriate, it would need to pass the very special circumstances (VSC) test.

²³ To provide some context, even applications for renewable energy (eg., wind and solar), which deliver environmental and climate mitigation benefits (eg, helping the UK meet its carbon budgets), can be considered “inappropriate” under green belt policy and are required to demonstrate VSCs (although they can be given permission in this designation as they make significant contributions to the UK’s binding carbon budgets).

²⁴ Think data centres and commercial development types.

²⁵ The Levelling Up and Regeneration Act arrives

²⁶ Although the government has still not announced the scope of such NDMPs.

²⁷ Regarding Environmental Outcomes Reporting replacing Environmental Impact Assessment and Strategic Environmental Assessment, and National Development Management Policies replacing parts of the NPPF sooner rather than later.

²⁸ Although the ability of the big six housing developers to build out a much-increased number of housing consents is also questionable in light of recognised skills gaps, infrastructure hold-ups, as well as market incentives for developers to limit the supply of dwellings actually on the market at any one time (regarding saturation rates) – see the Letwin Review (2018).

²⁹ Traditionally comprising affordable housing rates of up to 100%.