In August 2026, the UK Government published its latest iteration of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), which informs decision-making on development proposals.  

Long before this Government came into power, there was criticism of how loose the wording of the NPPF has been and how open to interpretation the rules contained within are. This round of changes represents the second set of ‘major’ alterations since 2024, geared towards making development faster, simpler and more rules-based.  

CIOB responded to the consultation that preceded these changes in December 2025. Our response, which can be found here, highlighted the need for greater clarity on some of the proposed wording and assurances that, while speed of development is important, this does not come at the expense of other regulatory regimes such as those presided over by the Building Safety Regulator (BSR).  

Some of our other recommendations included:  

• Calling for clarification on the role of the Secretary of State to intervene in plan making where a local planning authority fails to make adequate progress. While CIOB supported strategic intervention to ensure relevant, sufficient and up-to-date local plans are in place, we felt greater detail was needed on the circumstances in which intervention would take place.

• We recommended the NPPF includes further detail in relation to large scale residential developments. This would be expressed by establishing a clear skills and materials plan to demonstrate how new towns or strategic developments will be delivered, prioritising locally sourced skills and materials where possible. 

• Strengthening the role of SMEs in meeting housing targets by including an increased quota for sites to be provided by SME housebuilders in local plans. Our recommendations here focused on the size of the housebuilder rather than directly prescribing the size of the site. We have also advocated for quotas in local plans to prescribe that SME housebuilders are given priority if they can demonstrate a local connection to the plan-making area.

• Strengthening wording around climate policies such as proposed policy CC1: Planning for climate change, specifically replacing language such as ‘should’ with ‘must’ as well as recommending that Government amends wording to encourage local authorities to go further and set more ambitious water efficiency standards, should they not conflict with other local plan policies.  

• Strongly supporting the intention to enshrine a specific numerical target for M4(2) standard adaptable housing that can be measured against delivery.   

Looking at the resulting NPPF, we are pleased to see the revised version considers some of CIOB’s recommendations as well as the intentions we raised throughout our response to create a more streamlined and coordinated planning system. 

We were also pleased to see further commitments to give SME housebuilders a way into the development market through proposals for local planning authorities to allocate land to accommodate 10% of their housing requitement on sites between 1 and 2.5 hectares.  

The built environment sector has, by and large, reacted positively to the changes set out in the new NPPF. In its reaction Savills made it clear the new NPPF was welcomed, stating “the revised Framework introduces a clearer distinction between policies for plan-making and those for decision-making, alongside stronger support for housing, economic growth and development in sustainable locations”.

Elsewhere, organisations like Landmark Chambers and BusinessLDN have also welcomed the changes, calling them a “significant policy shift in favour of meeting the government’s target of 1.5 million homes” and “welcome efforts to streamline the planning system”.

We have set out a list below of some of the main changes to the NPPF that will most impact housing delivery. This is by no means an exhaustive list of all changes.    

• A wider use of the “default yes” principle for development around well-connected stations. Including an expansion of the existing presumption in favour of suitably located development to include the top 80 Travel to Work Areas up from the previous top 60.  
• Restructuring the NPPF to provide a clearer distinction between plan-making policies and decision-making policies. This is intended to bring greater structure to the NPPF and more certainty on decision-making outcomes.  
• Emphasis on densification and effective use of land including greater importance on extensions, upward development, infill and redevelopment rather than additional plots for units on residential sites.  
• Introducing a specific site category for strategic sites for developments of 1,500 homes or more such as new settlements, new urban quarters or significant extensions to existing settlements. 
• Greater standardisation and reducing variation on local plan policies.  
• Mandating that at least 40% of new housing within a local plan area meets M4(2) accessibility standards.  
• The introduction of Policy HO13 which emphasises the need to build out homes on land with planning permission ‘without unnecessary delay’. This policy does not prescribe a specific build out period but allows for consideration of whether to impose a planning condition requiring that development begins within a timescale shorter than the statutory default period. 

Whilst it is clear from both industry reaction, and the positive changes made in this revision of the NPPF, that the intention of the changes is to make development easier and more consistent, time will tell if this has a positive impact on delivery numbers.  

Over the last 10 years there have been numerous changes or alterations to the NPPF. We encourage government to allow for enough time to understand whether the changes made in this most recent edition work in practice before once again trying to change the planning system. 

For more information or for views on CIOB’s proposals to improve housing delivery please contact [email protected].