The new house rules. How the updated NPPF rewrites the rulebook

Eight months since the last draft, this week's updates to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) are more than a fine-tuning of policy, but a significant and fundamental shift to how planning in England operates.  

So, what do you really need to know about the revisions made to the NPPF?  

The updated NPPF doesn't only have a new feel, but a new look. Instead of broad thematic chapters, the revised NPPF almost looks like a rulebook. Policies are split into Plan-Making Rules and National Decision-Making Policies. Gone are over 200 paragraphs, with 130+ succinct numbered policy codes instead, which read close to a local plan in itself, with definitive language taking centre stage over vague narratives.  

That structural change matters more than it sounds. Local plan policies inconsistent with the national decision-making policies now carry limited weight. 

The old “tilted balance” has gone. The phrase does not appear in the new document at all. 

In its place, a simpler rule. If a site is inside a settlement, the council should approve it unless the harm substantially outweighs the benefits. That is a higher bar for refusing than before, and it now applies whether or not the local plan is up to date. 

Outside settlements it works as a list. Only certain kinds of development are acceptable in principle. If your scheme is on the list, you are in the game. If it is not, you are not. 

Housing shortfalls work differently too. If a council cannot show five years of housing land, or scores under 75% on the Housing Delivery Test, that counts as proof of unmet need. It gets a scheme through the door outside a settlement - but it no longer tips the whole balance in your favour automatically. 

The NPPF is a guide for setting councils to a high standard, under-delivering housing really isn't an option anymore. Sites can no longer be "maybe's", they must be a set deliverable that is actively being actioned. 

Placemaking efforts around transport hubs has also seen a significant policy change, with residential and mixed-use development within a reasonable walking distance of railway stations also seeing an increase of favourability. 

This is the headline change, and the detail matters more than the headline did. The new rules back new homes near stations that are well connected. Three numbers to remember. 

800 metres. That is what counts as a reasonable walk to a station - roughly ten minutes. 

Four trains or trams an hour. That is the minimum service for a station to count as well connected. The top 80. The policy only applies in the top 80 travel-to-work areas in England. The draft said the top 60, so more places qualify than people expected. 

The minimum density is 35 homes per hectare, down from the 40 proposed in the draft. 

One catch, and it is a big one. These rules do not apply in the Green Belt. Green Belt sites near stations go down a separate route, with extra conditions attached.  

The government has not backed down here. Grey belt - poorer quality green belt land that can be built on - arrived in December 2024 and it stays. 

The definition is simpler now. Grey belt is green belt land that has either been built on before or does not strongly serve the main purposes of the green belt. A list of exceptions has been dropped, so things like heritage and flood risk no longer rule land out at the definition stage. In practice, more land will qualify. 

The trade-off has not changed, but there are some golden rules. Build on released green belt land and you pay for it: infrastructure, green space, and affordable housing. In most cases at least half the homes must be affordable, unless you can show the site does not stack up financially. 

A medium site now means 10 to 49 homes. 

The government had planned to let developers on these sites pay cash instead of building affordable homes. After a strong pushback - the National Housing Federation warned it would cost around 32,000 affordable homes over ten years - that plan has been dropped. 

Watch out for one thing being reported wrongly. Permission in principle for medium sites is not live. The government has only said it is “minded to proceed”. 

Pubs and music venues are now harder to convert. You have to show there is no realistic chance of keeping the pub going, backed by at least twelve months of marketing evidence. 

On big sites, 40% of homes must meet accessibility standards. 

And fewer applications need sign-off from outside bodies - though Sport England, the Gardens Trust and the Theatres Trust all keep a say. This is a trim, not an abolition. 

For combined authorities, local councils and planning officers, the NPPF revisions may make their brows furrow.  

The changes mean immediate resource pressure in now apparent, especially in trying to align what may be outdated local plans with the new national codes laid out.  

When strapped local authorities are navigating high workloads, lacking resource and budget restrictions - not to mention the definitive changes that may be apparent through Local Government Reorganisation – it will take a stiff upper lip to cut through the noise and actually deliver effective housing in line with expectations set.  

There is also the question of which rules apply now. As planning applications characteristically take months, or years to move from design through to approval, the rule revisions within the NPPF create a grey area. There is a clash between the older rules and the new. From when a scheme has been submitted to when the planning decision will be made.  

Andy Burnham's government is the puppet master, tightening strings and loosening others. 

As long as councils have done their homework, have land in their back pockets and have the ability to adapt and overcome – the waters won't be so treacherous as the journey continues to the infamous 1.5 million homes target.  

It really matters what happens now. As with any policy shift, its impact is dependent on its longevity in practice. There's no telling just yet whether the huge policy shift in this NPPF revision will help or hinder England's housing industry and delivery, so I guess we'll wait and see.  

There is no doubt that local authorities will need increased support where possible to make the most of the revisions. Whether it's understanding what the changes actually mean for your planning applications or the delivery of your sites, Cartwright's growing planning and development team can help.  

With exciting new appointments on major schemes, our expert team has the knowledge to help clients navigate the changes. Get in touch to discuss your plans and how we can support you.