Revised National Planning Policy Framework published: what it means for ecology and environmental management

On

On 17 August 2026, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) published a revised National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) for England. The revision has been described by some commentators as the most substantial rewrite of the document since it was first introduced in 2012. It follows a consultation on proposed reforms that closed at the end of last year and attracted around 20,000 responses, including a detailed submission from CIEEM.

The new Framework strengthens the presumption in favour of development, introduces a “default yes” for housing within reasonable walking distance of well-connected stations, and supports the government’s ambitions for AI Growth Zones and data centre development. Alongside these growth measures sit a number of changes with direct relevance for ecologists and environmental managers, which we have summarised below.

Biodiversity Net Gain

The revised NPPF introduces new limits on when local planning authorities can set biodiversity net gain (BNG) requirements above the statutory 10% minimum. Under the new wording, higher local standards will only be justified where they apply to specific site allocations and can be shown to be fully justified and deliverable.

This confirms a direction of travel signalled at consultation stage, despite a mixed response from stakeholders. Some respondents supported the change on cost and consistency grounds, while others, including nature NGOs, argued it would constrain local ambition and reduce BNG’s contribution to wider nature recovery. Councils that have gone further than the 10% minimum and used that ambition to leverage additional private investment in nature recovery are likely to be most affected.

Local Nature Recovery Strategies

Local Nature Recovery Strategies (LNRS), the spatial strategies for nature established under the Environment Act 2021, are given greater prominence in the new Framework’s plan-making and decision-making policies, with climate and habitat policies now explicitly requiring their consideration. However, LNRS content is not itself a decisive material consideration capable of blocking development, and sector commentary has been clear that this is an incremental step rather than statutory protection.

Grey belt, protected landscapes and irreplaceable habitats

The new NPPF confirms an amended ‘grey belt’ definition that removes the exclusion previously protecting land such as designated wildlife habitats and areas at risk of flooding or coastal change from grey belt status. This is a change carried through despite significant opposition during consultation.

Elsewhere, the government has partially reversed course. Wording on major development in Protected Landscapes (National Parks, National Landscapes and the Broads) has been strengthened back to “should be refused” rather than the softer “should only be supported if” tested during consultation, restoring a strong presumption against major development in these areas.

Irreplaceable habitats also receive more explicit recognition and protection in the final text, with the NPPF stating that “development proposals which would entail the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats (such as ancient woodland and ancient or veteran trees) should be refused”.

Not every ask was met, however. The definition of ancient and veteran trees remains unchanged from the current NPPF, despite stronger protections having been consulted on, and chalk streams, upland hay meadows and floodplain meadows have not been added to the list of irreplaceable habitats. The revised NPPF definition includes ancient woodland, ancient and veteran trees, blanket bog, limestone pavement, sand dunes, salt marsh and lowland fen.

Swift bricks

For the first time, the NPPF sets out an expectation that development proposals should incorporate integrated nest boxes (swift bricks) “unless there are compelling technical reasons” preventing their use or making them ineffective. This is a first for national planning policy, though some conservation groups have already characterised the qualified wording as offering limited practical certainty for swifts and other cavity-nesting species.

Climate resilience

The new climate change chapter (chapter 5, policies CC1-3) requires development proposals to take account of both current and future climate impacts over a scheme’s lifetime. For the first time, national planning policy explicitly recognises wildfire as a risk to be addressed through design, reflecting a summer marked by heatwaves, drought and wildfire damage to homes and natural habitats.

Homes near stations

The default presumption in favour of housing near well-connected stations was among the most widely trailed elements of the reforms.

Responding to publication, Jason Reeves, CIEEM’s Head of Policy, welcomed the ambition to fast-track quality homes around transport hubs, but cautioned against treating it as a green light to sideline nature: “A ‘default yes’ to development mustn’t become a default write-off for nature that’s essential for flood protection and cooling our streets in heatwaves. That’s why early professional ecological input will be fundamental to ensuring these homes are resilient and fit for the future. Nature isn’t a blocker to development, it’s an insurance policy that must not be overlooked.”

Safety for women and girls

A notable and welcome first for national planning policy is the explicit inclusion of women and girls as a group whose safety should be considered in the design of places. The revised NPPF references women and girls in three places:

  • Public space policy: which expects public spaces to be safe, secure, inclusive and accessible for all ages and abilities, “including for groups such as women and girls“;
  • Street and route design policy: which asks that the arrangement of streets and routes help create places that are safe, inclusive and attractive for all users, “particularly for women and girls, for other groups who may be vulnerable to crime or the fear of crime, and for those with limited mobility“; and
  • Design policy on malicious threats and hazards: which requires development proposals to identify safety risks and proportionate mitigation for occupiers and users, applying “especially where particular groups may be vulnerable to crime, or to the fear of crime – such as women and girls“.

Planning and gender-informed design specialists have broadly welcomed the change as a significant, if partial, step forward noting that it does not go as far as explicitly referencing the government’s Violence Against Women and Girls (VAWG) Strategy, but marks a shift away from a gender-neutral approach to national planning policy.

For ecologists and environmental managers, it is a reminder that green infrastructure, habitat design and landscape strategies sit within a wider place-making agenda where perceived safety, natural surveillance and inclusive design are increasingly explicit policy considerations.

How this compares with what CIEEM called for

CIEEM’s consultation response, coordinated by our England Policy Working Group and Strategic Policy Panel, called for the NPPF to go further in a number of areas. Comparing the final text against that response, the picture is mixed:

  • Cross-boundary cooperation and Local Nature Recovery Strategies: CIEEM called for development to be aligned with LNRSs, backed by an overarching Land Use Framework. The final NPPF gives LNRS a stronger role in decision-making, a step in the right direction, although, as above, this stops short of the statutory protection some stakeholders wanted.
  • Green Belt and Grey Belt: CIEEM argued that Green Belt policy should evolve to support habitat restoration and ecosystem services, with additional protection for ecologically important Green and Grey Belt land. The removal of the exclusion for designated wildlife habitats from the grey belt definition moves in the opposite direction to CIEEM’s ask.
  • Renewable energy and green infrastructure: CIEEM supported the push for renewable energy provided that it does not come at nature’s expense, and called for stronger protection of carbon-sequestering habitats. The revised NPPF gives substantial weight to renewable energy and net zero benefits; whether nature recovery is given equivalent weight in practice, as CIEEM asked for, will depend on how these policies are applied through decisions and guidance.
  • Public sector and ecological capacity: CIEEM’s response highlighted serious capacity constraints within local authorities and environmental agencies as a barrier to delivering nature recovery goals, and called for sustained investment. The published NPPF does not, in itself, address funding or capacity, which is a gap that will need to be addressed elsewhere if the NPPF’s stated ambitions for nature are to be realised.

Read the revised NPPF at: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/national-planning-policy-framework