# National Planning Policy Nppf 2024 12 > ARCHIVED - December 2024 NPPF edition (superseded 17 August 2026). Use only when the user explicitly asks to work under the pre-August-2026 framework and has confirmed they want the archived skills; outputs must state they cite a superseded framework. The shared national-policy layer for the England planning skills: verify the current NPPF/PPG edition before citing anything, and supply the decision-making core — s.38(6) and the development plan's primacy, the paragraph-11 presumption ("tilted balance") and its footnotes, emerging-plan weight, and the tests for planning conditions and obligations. Used by the triage and representation skills; also answers direct "what does the NPPF say / is this paragraph current" questions. England-focused. Not legal advice; no warranty; output requires human review. - Skill: `seagulltwo/national-planning-policy-nppf-2024-12` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 4 files) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add seagulltwo/national-planning-policy-nppf-2024-12` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/seagulltwo/national-planning-policy-nppf-2024-12/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Coding & Dev Tools - License: MIT - Author: SeagullTwo (https://skillmd.com/u/seagulltwo) - Updated: 2026-09-17 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/seagulltwo/national-planning-policy-nppf-2024-12 --- # 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. The topic skills' own `references/national-guidance.md` files own their **topic chapters and instruments** (ecology's Chapter 15 map, CIEEM and BCT editions; transport's Chapter 9, LTN 1/20 and Manual for Streets; heritage's Chapter 16 and the 1990 Act duties; flood's paragraphs 170–182 and the climate-change allowances). Don't copy either layer into the other. ## The verification protocol — read before citing anything **Never cite an NPPF paragraph number from memory.** Editions renumber: December 2023 → December 2024 shifted several chapters by one, and the pending revision (below) restructures the entire document. A representation citing a stale paragraph 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](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/national-planning-policy-framework) (the page's "Updates" tab shows the edition history). 2. **Verify each cited paragraph against the live text** — the gov.uk HTML is the quickest source; quote the paragraph, don't paraphrase from memory. 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). This is the anticipated restructuring: the Framework is now organised as **coded policies in themed chapters** rather than sequentially numbered paragraphs, so **every pre-August-2026 paragraph-number citation is stale**. Live text: gov.uk/guidance/national-planning-policy-framework. - **⚠ Repo-wide re-verification in progress.** The decision-making core below and the topic catalogues in the representation skills were verified against the **December 2024** text and have not yet been re-mapped to the new policy codes — until that is done, treat every NPPF reference in this repo as a pointer to the *concept*, and verify the current code and wording against the live text before citing (protocol above). Applications **determined before 17 August 2026** were decided under the earlier edition; when reviewing a past decision, cite the edition in force at determination. - **PPG**: web-based guidance suite, revised page-by-page — no single edition; rely on per-page "last updated" dates. ## The decision-making core (⏳ verified against the December 2024 text — re-map to the August 2026 policy codes before citing) **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 at **para 2** and **para 48**, and para 2 confirms the Framework itself "is a material consideration in planning decisions" — influential, but not above the plan. **Para 12**: the presumption in favour of sustainable development "does not change the statutory status of the development plan as the starting point for decision-making." **The presumption / "tilted balance" — paras 10–11.** For decision-taking, para 11(c): approve development that accords with an up-to-date plan without delay. Para 11(d) — the tilted balance — applies only where there are **no relevant development plan policies, or the policies which are most important for determining the application are out-of-date** (footnote 8: including where no five-year housing land supply can be demonstrated, or the Housing Delivery Test result was below 75%). Even then, permission should be *refused* if **footnote 7** assets provide a clear reason to (habitats sites, SSSIs, Green Belt, Local Green Space, National Landscapes, National Parks/Broads, Heritage Coast, irreplaceable habitats, designated heritage assets, areas at risk of flooding or coastal change) — the "footnote 7 disapplication" — or if adverse impacts would **significantly and demonstrably outweigh** the benefits. Whether the tilted balance is engaged, and whether footnote 7 switches it off, is often decisive: check it before framing any objection strategically. **Emerging plans — para 49.** Weight according to (a) the stage of preparation, (b) the extent of unresolved objections, and (c) the degree of consistency with the Framework. **Planning conditions — para 57.** Conditions should be kept to a minimum and only imposed where they are "necessary, relevant to planning and to the development to be permitted, enforceable, precise and reasonable in all other respects" — the **six tests** (PPG "Use of planning conditions"). Two uses for an objector: a condition that fails a test can be challenged; and a condition cannot be *necessary* if it papers over a fundamental evidence gap — "conditions are not a substitute for adequate assessment" anchors here. **Planning obligations — para 58.** Obligations must only be sought where they meet the three tests of CIL Regulation 122(2): **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. **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 para 57/58 tests — the ask must itself pass them. ## 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.