The chosen example includes policies that tightly control development outside defined settlement boundaries, limiting opportunities to sites that have been specifically allocated through the plan-making process.
The quiet demise of local development management plan policies
25 Aug 26
The new National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) has been heralded as the most significant change in national planning policy in many years.
But what does it mean for the many Local Plans currently, or shortly to go through Examination in Public?
In July, the Planning Inspectorate (PINS) updated that they were currently examining 57 plans across England. On top of these, they expect over 100 more submissions before the end of the year to avail of the transitional arrangements for local plan making and be considered against the 2024 NPPF. However, with the new NPPF and its own National Development Management Policies (NDMPs) now in force, where does that leave the development management policies in these new plans once they are adopted, recognising the provisions of Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004?
Annex A (2) of the new NPPF is clear that ‘Development plan policies (or parts of those policies) which are materially inconsistent with national decision-making policies in this Framework should be given very limited weight.’ While the decision was made by the Government not to make NDMPs statutory, decision makers will still need to consider Annex A (2) when assigning weight to recently adopted local plans.
This leaves a difficult situation where many policies could be found sound when considered against the 2024 NPPF, but might then be rendered effectively useless through the provisions of the 2026 NPPF. To understand what this looks like in practice, we looked at a recent example of an ongoing Regulation 19 Consultation.
The chosen example includes policies that tightly control development outside defined settlement boundaries, limiting opportunities to sites that have been specifically allocated through the plan-making process. Evidently the restrictive nature of policy is entirely at odds with the intent of the new NPPF, not least including the much reported ‘well-connected train station’ through Policies S5 (Principle of development outside settlements) and GB7 (Development which is not inappropriate in the Green Belt).
A similar issue arises with their employment policy which seek to limit new commercial development to allocated employment sites. Such an approach is materially inconsistent with the new NPPF, where Policy E2 which allows greater flexibility where development would meet an unmet commercial need, including where that need is not being addressed through existing allocations.
While we have considered two examples for this article, there are sure to be countless other instances of discord across the plans being examined under transitional arrangements, and we will be closely watching how decision makers navigate these discrepancies.
If you would like to discuss this further and how it may impact your site, please contact Oliver Ricketts
Related insights:
-
Retail wants to grow. Is planning policy keeping up?
01 Sep 26 | Craig Stewart
-
The quiet demise of local development management plan policies
25 Aug 26 | Oliver Ricketts
-
Shaping the next decade of growth: a new chapter for Scotland's Local Development Plans
18 Aug 26 | Maura McCormack
-
Manchesterism in the mainstream - Does the model work?
04 Aug 26 | Justine Entezari