Reflections on the proposed NPPF Changes

James Beverley is an associate partner at leading property consultancy Fisher German.

He is a Chartered Town Planner and a Member of the Royal Town Planning Institute, with over a decade of professional planning experience in the private and public sectors.

James specialises on the promotion of strategic scale development including residential and employment land, including engagement with emerging Local Plans and Neighbourhood Plans and the submission of planning applications.

He represents a wide range of clients, including landowners, land promotors and housebuilders, for both regional and national firms.

Fisher German delivers an exceptional range of services to an enviable client base across a national office network.

As we stand on the threshold of significant reform to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), it is both an exciting and challenging time for the planning profession.

At this juncture, it remains difficult to predict exactly how much of the proposed changes will be reflected in the final published version.

History tells us that political consultations often result in diluted outcomes, especially when met with resistance. The infamous ‘mutant algorithm’ episode of 2020 serves as a stark reminder, though the political landscape has shifted since then, and we are yet to see similar levels of opposition under the current Government.

Change, when thoughtfully managed, can be a catalyst for progress. Yet uncertainty tends to breed delay, a reality Labour will be acutely aware of given the risk it poses to their ambitions for a fundamental shift in housing delivery. The need to avoid unnecessary delay is paramount if manifesto pledges are to translate into tangible outcomes for communities across the country.

The Government’s proposal to introduce substantial amendments to the NPPF at this stage is a bold move.

Such seismic shifts inevitably cause disruption, particularly for applications already in the pipeline. The new NPPF will take effect immediately upon publication, requiring both officers and applicants to rapidly assess the implications for current and speculative proposals, many of which have been prepared under the ‘tilted balance’ principles.

The recognition of viability as a central concern in development is clear. By streamlining the process for modifying affordable housing obligations, the Government may be taking an unpopular but pragmatic approach, one that prioritises housing delivery in the face of complexity and challenge.

Should the proposed NPPF changes be enacted, the fundamentals of opportunity in development remain unchanged. Locations with acute housing need, especially those where demand has risen sharply since 2024, will continue to offer scope for innovation, particularly where supply has persistently lagged behind.

The most compelling new opportunity lies in the Government’s approach to sites near well-connected railway and tram stations.

Essentially, the draft NPPF proposes that land adjacent to train stations with a reasonable level of service, in key travel to work areas, are essentially a default ‘yes’, with the Council needing strong reason to say ‘no’.

This applies in rural areas and the Green Belt, thus can create new high growth corridors – akin to the original Metro Land around London when the London Underground was first developed.

I think it has clear potential, but there needs to be integrated planning with train companies so coordinated rail-based growth can be fully supported by continued services or increased and improved services to meet a rising demand.

The Government has reaffirmed its commitment to supporting small and now, medium-sized sites, as part of the drive to bolster SME housebuilders.

There is currently a requirement for Council’s to deliver 10% on small sites and my experience is most plans do not do this.

There is a further risk that the SME market will not deliver this, which means we risk translocating supply from the large housebuilders to the smaller, which may reduce delivery if they can’t step up.

The SME market does need support and diversifying supply should lead to better market absorption and provide new, bespoke products.

My view would be to incorporate the 10% small sites allowance (and now potentially a further 10% medium), and ensure that this is taken from the windfall allowance before reducing large sites which the market also desperately needs.

The planning landscape is shifting, and with it comes both challenge and opportunity.

The Government has set a massive target of creating 1.5 million new homes in this parliamentary term and it is vital there are no barriers to planning if this is to be achieved.