The government published a new National Planning Policy Framework on 17 August 2026. For local planning authorities, the immediate task is larger than updating a policy library: the framework changes how plans are prepared, how housing requirements are expressed and how national policy enters decisions on current applications.
A new structure that matters to decisions now
The 2026 framework separates plan-making policies from national decision-making policies. That distinction is important. The plan-making policies guide spatial development strategies, local plans and other parts of the development plan. The decision-making policies are material considerations for applications and appeals and must be read alongside the adopted development plan.
Planning law still requires decisions to be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The new framework therefore does not erase adopted local policy. It changes the national policy context in which the authority, applicant and Inspector decide what weight to give competing considerations.
For a live proposal, the first job is to identify which provisions are genuinely decision-making policies, which local plan policies remain up to date, and whether any transition or implementation provision affects the route. Treating every paragraph in the framework as if it performed the same legal function would produce a weak assessment.
The practical question is not simply “what does the new NPPF say?” It is “which part applies to this decision, and what local evidence changes its weight?”
Housing need is a minimum starting point
Policy HO1 requires the housing need assessment to establish the overall number of homes needed as a minimum over the plan period, using the standard method in Annex D. Policy HO2 then deals with the housing requirement. That figure should reflect how much of the identified need can be accommodated and may be higher where this is necessary to meet neighbouring needs or support growth linked to economic development or infrastructure.
This makes the relationship between need, requirement and capacity central to plan preparation. An authority cannot rely on a headline need figure alone. It must show how the spatial strategy responds to that need, what constraints affect delivery, and whether a higher requirement is justified by the wider strategy.
For landowners and promoters, this increases the value of evidence that connects a site to a specific gap in the plan: location, deliverability, infrastructure, market role and timing matter more than a generic statement that additional homes are needed.
Housing need is assessed as a minimum. The housing requirement is the policy figure the plan must establish after considering how needs can be accommodated and whether wider growth justifies more.
Small and medium sites have a clearer role
Policy HO6 requires local plans to allocate land for at least 10% of the housing requirement on sites no larger than one hectare and a further 10% on sites between one and two and a half hectares, unless there are strong reasons why those targets cannot be achieved.
This is more than a numerical exercise. Authorities will need a credible pipeline across different site sizes. Their evidence should explain which sites are available, suitable and realistically capable of delivery during the plan period. A list of theoretical opportunities will not be enough if infrastructure, ownership, access or viability prevent development.
The policy creates a clearer opening for smaller land interests, but promotion still needs to be disciplined. A site submission should address the settlement strategy, accessibility, constraints, likely capacity, infrastructure and a realistic route to delivery. It should also explain why the site complements rather than frustrates the authority's overall spatial strategy.
Delivery evidence can change the planning balance
The framework requires authorities to maintain an up-to-date supply of deliverable housing sites. It also retains cumulative consequences when the Housing Delivery Test shows under-delivery: an action plan below 95%, a 20% supply buffer below 85%, and the presumption in favour of sustainable development below 75%.
Those figures should never be used in isolation. The relevant result is the latest published measurement, and the consequences apply from the following day until superseded. A five-year housing land supply assessment is a different exercise: it looks forward at deliverable supply, whereas the Housing Delivery Test looks back at delivery against the requirement over three years.
| Evidence | What it tests | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
| Five-year housing land supply | Whether deliverable sites meet the applicable five-year requirement and buffer | A shortfall can engage the presumption in favour of sustainable development |
| Housing Delivery Test | Delivery against the requirement over the previous three years | Scores below 95%, 85% and 75% trigger escalating consequences |
| Authority Monitoring Report | Plan progress, completions and local monitoring evidence | It helps test whether the authority's claimed trajectory remains current |
Applicants should check the authority's current land supply statement, the underlying trajectory and the latest Housing Delivery Test result. Where a dispute reaches appeal, the quality and date of the evidence may matter as much as the headline total.
What this means for current sites
The new framework creates opportunities, but it does not provide an automatic route to permission. National policies on housing must be read with the policies on sustainable development, design, transport, heritage, Green Belt, flood risk, biodiversity and other constraints relevant to the site.
A persuasive planning case should show how the proposal performs within that whole system. Housing benefit may carry substantial weight, but the decision-maker will still test whether the location is sustainable, whether protected assets are affected, whether infrastructure can support the proposal and whether the design responds properly to local character.
Five checks before fixing a strategy
- Confirm the adopted development plan and identify policies most important to the decision.
- Use the latest housing need, requirement, land supply and Housing Delivery Test evidence.
- Check whether the site is inside a settlement, well related to one, or affected by Green Belt or another designation.
- Test access, design, heritage, landscape, ecology, flood risk and infrastructure early.
- Explain the benefits and harms in the terms used by the relevant national and local policies.
A local strategy is still essential
The framework is national, but planning decisions remain rooted in place. Two sites with similar housing capacity can face very different outcomes because of settlement boundaries, transport connections, heritage significance, landscape sensitivity, flood risk, local plan age or delivery evidence.
That is why a current local policy review should come before design is fixed or an application is submitted. It establishes the policy route, identifies the evidence that may change the planning balance and shows which technical work is proportionate.
Rubix Planning's area pages bring together the relevant local plan, selected performance evidence and local constraints for each authority. For a specific site, those public sources need to be checked against the latest documents and the facts on the ground.
Need to understand how the new framework affects a site or local plan representation? Discuss the planning position with Rubix Planning.