New NPPF Development Opportunities for Landowners

Relevant policy: S4 — Principle of development within settlements.

The opportunity: Suitable land within settlements benefits from a positive starting point: development should be approved unless adverse effects would substantially outweigh the benefits when assessed against the national decision-making policies. This can support infill, redevelopment, underused sites and other appropriate residential or mixed-use proposals.

What we look for:

• Land within a settlement as defined by the NPPF. This includes predominantly built-up areas and allocated or permitted development that will become part of the built-up area.
• A suitable use and design that respond to the surrounding area, with workable access and infrastructure.
• A proposal that addresses S4’s safeguards, including protected or safeguarded uses, recreation and green space, biodiversity, landscape, residential plots and land serving burial or flood-management functions.

A housing allocation is not required simply for S4 to be considered. However, the settlement definition needs care: it generally excludes isolated hamlets and scattered housing unless the development plan identifies them as settlements, and excludes villages lying within and defined as part of the Green Belt. Those Green Belt opportunities are considered below.

Relevant policy: S5(1)(j) — Development addressing an evidenced unmet need.

The opportunity: Suitable land outside a settlement may have a stronger development case where it can address an evidenced unmet need. This can include a shortage of housing generally or a demonstrable need for a particular type of development, such as affordable housing.

For residential opportunities, we look for:

• Reliable evidence of unmet need and a proposal that makes a meaningful contribution to meeting it. The policy’s examples include the absence of a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites or a Housing Delivery Test result below 75%.
• A site physically well-related to an existing settlement, unless the nature of the development makes that relationship inappropriate.
• A scale of development that existing or proposed infrastructure can support.

The housing-supply and delivery examples are not the only possible evidence under S5(1)(j). We assess the current needs evidence, the proposed housing mix and any relevant transitional provisions. Where a site lies beyond an undeveloped allocation, its suitability must also be considered if that allocation does not proceed.

This route does not apply to Green Belt or designated Local Green Space. Affordable housing is a potentially valuable benefit, but an offer of affordable homes does not by itself establish that all the policy tests are met.

Relevant policy: L2 — Making effective use of land.

The opportunity: L2 gives substantial weight to the benefits of bringing land and buildings into more effective use. This can support the regeneration of underused property and suitable opportunities to create additional homes.

Sites worth assessing include:

• Despoiled, derelict, contaminated or unstable land where development can deliver remediation.
• Vacant buildings, underused commercial premises and redundant yards, lock-ups, car parks or transport infrastructure.
• Suitable temporary uses of previously developed land while an anticipated longer-term scheme is brought forward.
• Within settlements, sensitive redevelopment, building upwards or appropriate additional development within existing plots.

For development within existing plots, the design must address the street scene, safe access and acceptable living conditions for residents and neighbours. Where residential curtilages are used, L2 generally limits the resulting building footprint to twice that of the existing buildings and requires at least 50% of the existing undeveloped area to remain. Its stated exception allows additional development where it can be accommodated without harm to the area’s overall character, taking account of infrastructure and a sustainable location. The existing-building baseline is the framework’s publication date.

A garden or former agricultural building is not automatically previously developed land under the NPPF definition. We establish the appropriate policy category before assessing what the property could accommodate.

Relevant policy: GB7(1)(h) — Residential or mixed-use development around stations.

The opportunity: The framework provides a specific station route for Green Belt land. A proposal meeting this category is not inappropriate development in the Green Belt. The route does not itself require Grey Belt status or a housing-supply shortfall, which makes it important to assess separately from GB7(1)(g).

All five criteria must be met:

• The development is within reasonable walking distance of a well-connected station.
• It is physically well-related to the station or the settlement containing it.
• Its scale can be supported by existing or proposed infrastructure.
• It does not prejudice proposals for long-term comprehensive development in the same location.
• For major development, it complies with the Golden Rules in GB8.

The station definition, walking-distance assessment and density requirements explained above apply here too. If only part of a landholding meets the walking-distance test, this route applies to that part. We consider how the access, housing mix, green space and infrastructure can work together within a coherent scheme.

The August 2026 framework also provides further opportunities worth considering alongside the main categories above.

Previously developed Green Belt land — GB7(1)(e). Redevelopment, including a change to residential or mixed-use development containing housing, can qualify where it would not cause substantial harm to Green Belt openness. This is a separate category from Grey Belt and can be relevant to suitable redundant commercial sites.

Rural affordable housing and community-led exception sites — HO10. Unallocated land outside settlements may support affordable housing for identified local needs or qualifying community-led development. The policy requires an appropriate relationship to a settlement, a qualifying scale and affordable housing provision, unless the development plan specifies otherwise. Rural need must be supported by a housing-needs survey or other relevant data no more than five years old. A market-housing element may be allowed where essential to deliver affordable homes without grant funding. A Green Belt site also needs an applicable Green Belt policy route.

Brownfield redevelopment and limited infilling outside settlements — S5(1)(d) and S5(1)(e). Qualifying previously developed land and limited gaps within groups of houses can offer opportunities outside defined settlements. These S5 categories exclude Green Belt and designated Local Green Space and remain subject to the policy’s wider assessment.

Station-related Green Belt allocations — GB3(4). Where the development plan’s spatial strategy identifies suitable land around well-connected stations for development, exceptional circumstances do not need to be demonstrated to justify changing the Green Belt boundary. This provides a plan-making opportunity to consider alongside the GB7 station application route.

Other Green Belt land through a Local Plan — GB3 and GB4. Where a council cannot meet identified development needs after examining reasonable alternatives, an evidenced case for a boundary review may arise. We assess whether suitable land could contribute to that strategy, taking account of the release priorities and the need for a sustainable pattern of development.