National Planning Policy

National planning policy — the shared layer

One place for the two things every companion skill needs from national policy: which edition is current (and the discipline of checking before citing), and the decision-making core that no topic catalogue owns — the statutory starting point, the presumption, and the tests for conditions and obligations.

When to use

• From the companion skills — application-triage (Step 2, establishing the decision framework), policy-compliance-assessment (the national and emerging tiers of its policy table, and the plan-status and presumption tests), policy-representation (verifying every citation before a draft is sent) and the topic representation skills (when mapping deficiencies to national policy): check the edition register here before citing the NPPF/PPG, and take the shared decision-making citations from here rather than restating them per topic.
• Directly — the user asks "what does the NPPF say about …", "is this paragraph number still right", "does the tilted balance apply here".

Two layers, no duplication

This skill owns the shared core and the edition register — the national tier. The local tier belongs to policy-compliance-assessment: identifying and verifying the adopted development plan for the authority, and assessing and scoring a proposal against its policies. Keep the hierarchy the right way up when citing from here — adopted local policies are the council's own and have primacy; the Framework is a material consideration alongside the plan, not above it (though see Annex A(2) in the core below: the August 2026 edition gives "very limited weight" to plan policies materially inconsistent with its decision-making policies). The topic skills' own references/national-guidance.md files own their topic chapters and instruments (ecology's natural-environment policies N1–N6, CIEEM and BCT editions; transport's TR1–TR8, LTN 1/20 and Manual for Streets; heritage's HE1–HE10 and the 1990 Act duties; flood's F1–F9 with Annex F and the climate-change allowances). Don't copy either layer into the other.

The verification protocol — read before citing anything

Never cite an NPPF reference from memory. Editions renumber and restructure: December 2023 → December 2024 shifted several chapters by one, and the August 2026 edition replaced sequential paragraph numbers with coded policies in themed chapters — every pre-August-2026 paragraph-number citation is now stale (crosswalk: references/nppf-crosswalk-2026.md). A representation citing a stale reference loses credibility on the point it most needs it — and a superseded-edition citation is exactly the kind of defect the representation skills criticise applicants for.

Before a draft leaves any companion skill:

1. Check the edition register below, then confirm it is still current at gov.uk/guidance/national-planning-policy-framework (the page's "Updates" tab shows the edition history).
2. Verify each cited policy against the live text — quote the policy, don't paraphrase from memory. (⏳ At verification the August 2026 edition was published as a PDF only, with the HTML "accessible version" pending — check whether the HTML has since appeared; until then the official PDF is the text of record.)
3. If the edition has changed since the register below was verified: re-verify every NPPF citation in the draft, tell the user the framework has changed, and update this register and any affected topic catalogue (with changelog entries).
4. PPG: cite by the paragraph ID (e.g. "Paragraph: 001 Reference ID: 21a-001-…") and the page's "last updated" date — PPG pages revise independently and silently.

⏳ Edition register (verified 18 August 2026 — re-verify at run time)

• NPPF in force: 17 August 2026 edition (published 17 Aug 2026, replacing the December 2024 edition — confirmed on the gov.uk publication page's edition history, and verified against the official PDF, 130 pp). This is the anticipated restructuring: the Framework is now organised as coded policies in themed chapters (PM, DM, S, CC, HO, E, TC, CO, W, M, L, GB, DP, TR, HC, P, F, N, HE, plus Annexes A–F — and the annexes are policy, Introduction para 9) rather than sequentially numbered paragraphs, so every pre-August-2026 paragraph-number citation is stale. The decision-making core below is re-mapped to and verified against this edition (verification 18 Aug 2026). Landing page: gov.uk/guidance/national-planning-policy-framework.
• ⏳ PDF-only at verification. The gov.uk page offered only the official PDF on 18 Aug 2026, with the HTML "accessible version" pending — re-check for the HTML at run time; until it appears, verify quotes against the PDF.
• Topic catalogues: the representation skills' catalogues are being re-mapped to the new policy codes in the same change set as this core — check each catalogue's own verification note before citing from it, and use references/nppf-crosswalk-2026.md for any December 2024 number that still surfaces.
• Past decisions: applications determined before 17 August 2026 were decided under the earlier edition; when reviewing a past decision, cite the edition in force at determination (the crosswalk file maps between the two). Annex A also carries transitional rules for plan-making — some emerging plans continue under the December 2024 text (Annex A(4)–(8)).
• Archived December 2024 edition skills live at ../nppf-2024-12/ — a frozen snapshot of the nine NPPF-dependent skills as written for the prior edition. The rule for offering them:
  • only an explicit request to work under the December 2024 framework triggers the offer — the user asks for "NPPF 2024" / "the old NPPF", deliberately cites old paragraph numbers as the framework to apply, or asks to assess a pre-August-2026 decision "under the framework it was decided under";
  • then ask whether they want the archived edition skills; use them for that task only if they say yes, and state clearly in any output that it cites a superseded framework;
  • an incidental mention of old paragraph numbers (a dated document quoting them, a consultee response, an old officer report) is not such a request — stay on the current skills and translate via the crosswalk;
  • live applications determined from 17 August 2026 use the current edition regardless.
• PPG: web-based guidance suite, revised page-by-page — no single edition; rely on per-page "last updated" dates. ⏳ Expect a lag before PPG pages cross-refer to the new policy codes — verify each page's currency when citing it alongside the new NPPF.

The decision-making core (verified against the 17 August 2026 edition — verification 18 August 2026)

The statutory starting point. Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004: applications must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise (see also s.70(2) TCPA 1990). The NPPF restates this in its Introduction, para 3 ("Planning law requires that applications for planning permission be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise"), and describes itself as "a material consideration of critical importance" (Introduction, para 1) whose decision-making policies "should be read alongside the policies in the development plan" (para 3). The Introduction "does not contain substantive policy" (para 4) — the operative rules are the coded policies and the annexes. Two edition-change cautions: (1) the Framework no longer says the presumption "does not change the statutory status of the development plan" (old para 12 has no direct successor — the statutory position itself is unchanged, and footnote 2 to the Introduction confirms the Framework "does not displace the statutory obligations" including s.38(6)); and (2) Annex A(2) now directs that development plan policies "materially inconsistent with national decision-making policies in this Framework should be given very limited weight" unless the plan was examined and adopted against this Framework — so while plan primacy holds as statute, national policy now claws back weight from conflicting plan policies far more aggressively than before. Check Annex A(2) before resting an objection on an older adopted policy that pulls against the new Framework.

The presumption in favour of sustainable development — S3–S6. This replaces the old paras 10–11 "tilted balance"; the mechanism has genuinely changed, not just renumbered. S3(1)(c) keeps the plan-led limb: in all locations, proposals "that accord with both an up-to-date development plan and the decision-making policies in this Framework should be approved without delay". But the old para 11(d) trigger (most-important policies absent or out-of-date) is gone. The presumption now turns on location relative to a settlement (defined in the Annex B glossary — built-up areas including allocated/permitted land, per the development plan's boundaries or criteria):

• Within settlements — S4(1): proposals "should be approved unless the benefits of doing so would be substantially outweighed by any adverse effects, when assessed against the national decision-making policies in this Framework". This pro-approval balance applies regardless of plan status — a materially stronger presumption than before. S4(2) lists circumstances likely to tip it: substantial adverse impact on allocations or safeguarding, or on the protective policies for recreational land (HC7), Local Green Space (HC8), biodiversity/geodiversity (N6), Protected Landscapes (N4) and residential curtilages (L2(1)(d)); loss of cemetery or flood-storage land; or — the successor to the old "footnote 7 disapplication" — failure to comply with "one of the national decision-making policies which state that development proposals should be refused in specific circumstances" (S4(2)(c)).
• Outside settlements — S5: only the listed categories of development should be approved (S5(1): agriculture/forestry/infrastructure and similar; rural businesses where the location is necessary; reuse/extension/replacement of existing buildings; previously developed land; limited infilling; exception sites; traveller-accommodation need; station-adjacent residential; allocated land; and S5(1)(j) development addressing an "evidenced unmet need" — expressly including housing where the authority "cannot demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites or scores below 75% in the most recent Housing Delivery Test", provided it is physically well-related to a settlement and of an infrastructure-compatible scale). Each is subject to the same "substantially outweighed" balance and the refusal-policy override (S5(2)); anything outside the list needs "exceptional circumstances" (S5(4)); isolated homes are dealt with under HO11 (S5(3)). Green Belt and Local Green Space are excluded from S5 altogether — use GB6–GB8 and HC8 (S5(5)).
• The old footnote 8 housing triggers survive but do different work: lack of a five-year supply (Annex D paras 8–9, with 5%/20% buffers) or an HDT result below 75% (Annex D para 12(c), which deems an evidenced unmet need to exist) no longer engages a general tilted balance — they qualify housing for the S5(1)(j) gateway outside settlements (and the grey-belt gateway, GB7 with footnote 41). Annex A(3) adds a shield: with a five-year supply, HDT above 75% and a plan adopted within five years, a standard-method figure exceeding the adopted requirement does not count as unmet need.
• The old footnote 7 asset list survives nearly verbatim as footnote 24 to policy S1 — but that is a plan-making policy. For decisions, its work is done by S4(2)/S5(2) plus the specific refusal policies (e.g. N6 habitats sites/SSSIs/irreplaceable habitats, GB6 inappropriate development, HC8, F6–F7 flood, HE6(5) substantial harm to designated heritage assets, TR6(4) transport).
• Neighbourhood plans — S6: for housing proposals, conflict with a neighbourhood plan made within the last five years that allocates to meet its housing requirement will normally mean the benefits are "substantially outweighed".

Which of S4/S5 governs, which S5 gateway (if any) is claimed, and whether a specific refusal policy overrides the balance is often decisive: check it before framing any objection strategically, and split part-in/part-out sites per S3(2).

Emerging plans — DM4(1). Weight according to (a) the stage of preparation, (b) the extent of unresolved objections, and (c) the degree of compliance with the Framework's plan-making policies (the closer, the greater the weight). DM4(2)–(3) carry the prematurity tests (refusal on prematurity only where the proposal would predetermine decisions central to an advanced-stage emerging plan, with reasons stated).

Planning conditions — DM6(1)–(3). Conditions should only be attached where they are "(a) necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; (b) relevant to the development and to planning considerations generally; (c) sufficiently precise to make them capable of being complied with and enforced; and (d) reasonable in all other respects" — the old six tests re-expressed as four (the two "relevant to" limbs merged, as are "enforceable" and "precise"; the substance is intact, but quote the four-limb wording, not the old six-test formula). New in this edition: conditions must not require payments of money or the giving-up of land (DM6(2)); national model conditions should be used where relevant, and pre-commencement conditions avoided unless clearly justified (DM6(3)). The objector's two uses are unchanged: a condition that fails a test can be challenged; and a condition cannot be necessary under DM6(1)(a) if it papers over a fundamental evidence gap — "conditions are not a substitute for adequate assessment" anchors here.

Planning obligations — DM6(4). Obligations "should only be used where it is not possible to address potential unacceptable impacts through a planning condition", with national model obligations preferred. Edition change: the NPPF no longer restates the three tests of CIL Regulation 122(2) — but they remain the law, and still govern every obligation: necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms, directly related to the development, and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to it. Cite the regulation itself, not the Framework, for the three tests.

How this feeds the A/B/C discipline (see the representation skills, and the companion planning-balance skill which weighs the assembled case): outcome (A) usually means conflict with the development plan and/or a failed NPPF test with the balance against approval; outcome (B) means the decision-maker cannot yet lawfully strike that balance; outcome (C) lives inside the DM6 / CIL reg 122(2) tests — the ask must itself pass them.

Reference

• references/nppf-crosswalk-2026.md — December 2024 paragraph → August 2026 policy code crosswalk for every NPPF citation this repo used, with substantive changes flagged. Use it for retrospective work on pre-August-2026 decisions and as a re-verification aid.

Scope and limitations

• Not legal advice, and no warranty. A reference layer for lay representations; not a substitute for a solicitor; provided "as is". Human review required before relying on any citation.
• England-focused. The NPPF/PPG are England; the devolved nations have their own frameworks — flag and adjust when outside England.
• Time-sensitive by nature. Everything here decays at the next NPPF revision — the verification protocol is the skill; the register is only a snapshot.