What to make of the 2026 NPPF ?

The National Planning Policy Framework published in August 2026 will be an important material consideration in both the making of plans and taking of planning decisions. Arguments will now ensue about both the meaning of the revised text and the purpose of the changes. Many if not most of the 29k Chartered Planners and a good number of surveyors, architects and builders/developers will need to get their heads stuck into the document and develop plausible and workable interpretations including those that would benefit their clients. But this Blog is mainly for the public with occasional opportunities to engage with the system that is and is very likely to remain frustrating and opaque. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6a8334c03bd75b81e2329ac4/National_Planning_Policy_Framework.pdf Over the years this Blog has attempted to encourage and assist readers to build arguments in favour of development that would reduce carbon emissions and make good use of the existing housing stock. The new NPPF says many good things about both these issues but so did its predecessors, and the planning system continued to be complicit in support of urban growth that increased emissions specifically in the abuse of the ‘presumption in favour of sustainable development’. How else has the urban domain become less sustainable since the original NPPF published in 2012? So the 2026 NPPF states that: “Development plans should take a proactive approach to mitigating climate change and supporting the transition to net zero, in accordance with the objectives and provisions of the Climate Change Act 2008,” and that, “the objective …is to meet development needs through sustainable patterns of development… to support the transition to net zero by 2050 and to shape places in ways which are more resilient to the effects of climate change.” There is nothing about the real or potential conflict between “growth” and the radical reductions in carbon emissions or nature recovery that are also required. It can say, “Take advantage of opportunities to reuse existing structures and materials,..” and “Support good access to facilities in order to limit the need to travel, whether through the development’s location, through development densities which improve catchment populations for local services…” but no reference to inefficient use of the housing stock through under-occupation. Development of gardens is encouraged but not the more efficient use of houses. “The underlying objective of the policies in the NPPF is to support the delivery of a substantial increase in the supply of homes by ensuring that a sufficient amount and variety of land can come forward where needed.” The potential for residential subdivisions is completely overlooked in favour of support for strategic sites such as new settlements, new urban quarters or significant extensions to existing settlements. So planners are tasked with the allocation of sufficient land for new build housing while applying this national policy guidance which also encourages, “...sustainable patterns of movement… [to be].. prioritised, [with] opportunities …taken to improve walking, wheeling, cycling and public transport, and infrastructure is provided to support the transition to zero-emission vehicles;” And locations for housebuilding. “Should be capable of supporting a sustainable community, with sufficient access to services and employment opportunities within the development itself …,or in larger towns to which there is good access by sustainable transport modes;” Fearful that this guidance would disqualify most greenfield development, including green/grey belt sites, planners are told not to expect, “...an unrealistic level of self-containment…”. From memory, research going back to the 1980s suggested that settlements of less than about 25,000 residents would lack a ‘realistic level of self-containment’ that included towns with mainline railway stations. The 2012 NPPF of 52 pages was heralded as a simplification of planning advice. Since then we have had to grapple with about 8 updates of little or no consequence (ie reducing homelessness, preventing biodiversity loss or reducing carbon emissions). We now have 130 pages to test the patience of those required (ie paid) to operate the system and others who would like to see the planning system achieve the fundamentals of sustainable development.

Another chapter in the Upper Heyford story

In October 2023 I thought that the planning fiasco that determined the future of the former Cold War air base at Upper Heyford in Oxfordshire UK had reached a point where the story could be told and the subsequent ripples would be irritating but not significant. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ao76pbJEXou76QQTZzq7howyq76BZUqh/view?usp=sharing I could not have been more wrong. In late 2025 the owners made a planning application for 9000 houses as a pre-emptive strike to gain support from the New Towns Taskforce set up by the Labour Government that had became increasingly aware that building 1.5m new homes a year would not be achievable. And the identification of Upper Heyford was then picked up by the Oxfordshire Growth Commission in its attempt to stoke the construction fire. In normal times there would be close to zero chance of development at scale being allowed on the best preserved remains from the Cold War that is a conservation area including listed buildings and scheduled monuments. But, having pointed out the devastating effect the development would have on this site of pre-eminent heritage value, Historic England advise Cherwell District Council that it understands the need for more housebuilding! 'Normal times' clearly include compromise and hipocracy, dissembling and dissimulation. The fact that neither the New Towns Taskforce nor the Growth Commission consulted Historic England might have made no difference if heritage counts for so little. Even remembering that it is the Cold War that is being represented at Upper Hayford and there seems to be a certain amount of ignorance being displayed about this seismic event. It also transpires that Historic England managed to advise Cherwell District Council on the best preserved remains in Europe, that are also a significant part of US heritage, without reference to the international conventions on heritage and culture agreed at Paris, Granada and Valetta. If these conventions do not apply to a largely intact Cold War air base they might as well be scrapped. On 6 January there was an opportunity to see Emma Squire and Ian Morrison Historic England's CEO and Director of Policy respectively giving evidence to the Culture Parliamantary Select Committee on the subject of 'built heritage' claiming that the UK is taking a leading role in the international responsibilties for protecting heritage assets and capital. No mention of the relevant conventions and how they are being ignored. No mention of the World Heritage Sites in the UK where the status is being threatened. And no mention of the recommendation of the 2011 Panel considering applications for inclusion on the WHS tentative list where the Cold War is un®epresented. No mention of the research that required to see whether Upper Heyford should be included in what they envisaged would be a trans-national designation. Unfortunately I cannot report on the outcome of the current application that seems to be undecided, or the decision of the Labour Government on what new towns should be designated. But comments can still be made via and Cherwell Planning Portal on application number 25/02190/HYBRID and representations to Matthew Pennycook MP the housing and planning minister on how heritage value should sometimes take precedence over housebuilding. Historic England and the Council members and officers are already sharing space in the hall of shame for those whose job it has been to protect Upper Heyford from the degradation it has suffered over the last 30 years. It is quite conceivable that their institutions and the planning system will be further discredited by an approval of this monstrous development. As a last gasp to forestall or prevent this from happening Historic England has been asked to confirm to Cherwell DC that its letter was flawed by its failure to advise on the effects of the relevant international conventions, that the new town taskforce and growth commission should not be relied on and, finally, that HE understands that it should belatedly be doing the research required by the 2011 Panel into the potential of a World Heritage Site designation. Manwhile I will summon the energy to describe this latest chapter of Cold War denial as an addendum to the e-book.