The New NPPF – One Month On

As the new NPPF applied as a material consideration from the date of its publication (subject to transitional provisions noted in our last update), we are now seeing appeal decisions published which refer to the new NPPF and grapple with its policies. 

We have highlighted three appeals below where Inspectors have directly referenced how they are addressing the new NPPF in their decisions.

• Appeal ref 6005664: this decision dated 18 August 2026 was issued the day after the NPPF was published. At paragraph 4, the Inspector acknowledges this and sets out his view that there is no need to revert to the main parties on the new NPPF as the new policies for decision-making in it do not substantially alter the national policies in the previous NPPF in a way that would benefit the Council’s or any third party’s cases. The Inspector also states that policy references are to the new version. It is important to note that this approach will not be universal, as shown in the appeals below, as in other circumstances there will be a need to consider the impact of policies which have changed and whether those changes benefit any appeal parties. 
• Appeal ref 6008314: in this decision dated 15 September 2026, the Inspector at paragraph 10 highlights that the new NPPF was published before the hearing opened. The approach taken during the hearing was that the parties were able to address the implications, which the Inspector took into account as part of the determination process. 
• Appeal ref 6007184: in this decision dated 14 September 2026, the Inspector notes the same approach at paragraph 7. In addition, at paragraph 5 the Inspector refers to a previous dismissed appeal for a similar description of development which was determined under an earlier version of the NPPF. The Inspector notes that although it is important to determine similar cases in a similar manner, the material considerations differed in each appeal following the revisions to the NPPF and the introduction of grey belt land. The Inspector therefore determines the appeal on its own merits, and on the evidence before him.

Turning to the interpretation of specific policies, we have noted a couple of high profile decisions below relating to Policy S5(1)(j). This relates to development outside settlements which would address an evidenced unmet need and where the development would either be (i) physically well-related to an existing settlement and be of a scale which can be accommodated taking into account the existing or proposed availability of infrastructure or (ii) comprise major development for freight and logistics purposes which accords with Policy E3.  

• Appeal ref 6005108: in this decision dated 11 September 2026, the Inspector at paragraphs 137-139 addresses Policy S5 as an important material consideration in the overall planning balance. He summarises S5 as defining categories of development which should be approved unless the benefits of doing so would be substantially outweighed by any adverse effects when considered against the national decision-making policies included in the NPPF. He notes that Policy S5(1)(j) undermines the thrust of relevant local plan policies and so only moderate weight is given to the conflict between the appeal scheme and those policies;
• Appeal ref 6005809:  in this appeal decision dated 14 September 2026, the Inspector at paragraph 80 considers the application policy S5(1)(j)(i). He notes that the delivery of up to 249 dwellings of a range of types and sizes on a site largely deliverable within a five year period aligns with the NPPF’s objectives of supporting the delivery of a substantial increase in the supply of homes and attracts substantial weight. The Inspector also notes that the scheme delivers 35% affordable housing, across a mix of tenures. Although this meets rather than exceeds the local policy requirement, it weighs substantially in favour of the scheme which complies with S5(1)(j).

We are continuing to track how the new NPPF is being dealt with in practice, and would be delighted to discuss how it impacts any schemes you are working on.