What changed in the 2026 NPPF compared with the 2024 version?
The short answer
The biggest structural change is that the principle of development is now a list of specific routes rather than one balancing exercise. Numbered paragraphs were replaced by lettered policy codes, so paragraph 143 became policy GB2 and paragraph 84 became HO11. Inside a settlement the answer starts as yes. Outside one you have to fit a listed route, but there are more routes than before.
Paragraph numbers are gone
Every reference you have seen for years has moved. Paragraph 11's tilted balance is now spread across S3, S4(1) and S5(5). Paragraph 143's Green Belt purposes are GB2. Paragraph 84's isolated homes are HO11. Paragraph 79's rural exception sites are S5(1)(f) and HO10.
This matters practically: an objection or a consultant's report citing paragraph numbers is now citing something that does not exist. The argument underneath may still be sound, but the document looks dated.
Inside a settlement, the answer starts as yes
S4(1) says development within settlements should be approved unless the benefits would be substantially outweighed by adverse effects. There is no list of categories to satisfy and no hurdle to clear first. The burden sits with the council.
The carve-outs are narrow: substantial harm to an allocation or to protected open space, the loss of burial ground or flood storage land, and failure to comply with one of the policies that says in its own text that proposals should be refused.
Outside a settlement, there are more doors
S5(1) lists the forms of development that can be approved outside settlements. For housing the relevant ones are reusing an existing building, redeveloping previously developed land, limited infilling within a group of houses, exception sites, land around a well-connected station, allocated land, and addressing an evidenced unmet need.
They are alternatives rather than a hierarchy, so claim every one the facts support. Only one has to work.
Two genuinely new things to watch
Near a well-connected station there is now a minimum density of 35 homes per hectare, rising to 45 where the service is at least twice the minimum frequency. Failing it means a refusal in its own right, which catches schemes that assumed a station was purely good news.
And grey belt has settled into a proper test. Green Belt land that does not strongly serve one of three specific purposes is much easier to develop than it was.
See it work
This scenario is already set up in the policy test. Change any answer and watch what moves.
Open this scenarioRelated
Reflects the National Planning Policy Framework (2026), published 17 August 2026. This page last reviewed 21 August 2026. Read the framework.