NPPF 2026 Decision Framework
The Former Tilted Balance Has Been Replaced
From 17 August 2026, the general national route is set by policies S3, S4 and S5 rather than paragraph 11(d) of the December 2024 NPPF.
The expression “tilted balance” remains useful when reading older planning decisions, appeal decisions, representations and legacy advice. It described the former presumption that applied where relevant policies were absent or the policies most important for determining an application were out of date.
The final August 2026 framework uses a different structure. S3 directs decision-makers to S4 for proposals within settlements and S5 for proposals outside settlements. The precise settlement boundary, site location and proposed use therefore determine the national route at the outset.
The development plan remains the statutory starting point. The national decision-making policies are material considerations, and Annex A explains how materially inconsistent development-plan policies should be weighted.
Do not rely on an older planning statement simply because it says the tilted balance is engaged. Reframe the case against the final S3 to S5 structure and the relevant thematic policies.
Policy S3
Start With the Site’s Relationship to a Settlement
S3 applies the presumption in favour of sustainable development by routing the proposal to the correct location policy.
Within a Settlement
Apply policy S4. Settlement includes cities, towns, villages and other predominantly built-up areas identified by boundaries, equivalent plan terminology or defined criteria. Allocated or permitted land that will form part of the built-up area can also be included.
Outside a Settlement
Apply policy S5. Hamlets and scattered groups of houses are not automatically settlements. The proposal must fall within a listed category or demonstrate the exceptional circumstances in S5(4).
A Split Site
Where land falls partly inside and partly outside a settlement, S4 and S5 are applied to the relevant parts before an overall view is reached. A single red line does not erase the policy distinction.
Policy S4
Development Within Settlements
Development within a settlement should be approved unless the benefits would be substantially outweighed by adverse effects assessed against the national decision-making policies.
A Strong Approval Starting Point
S4 can be important for infill, redevelopment, underused land, vacant buildings and additional development within existing plots. Policy L2 can add substantial weight where the proposal remediates degraded land or makes effective use of vacant, underutilised or previously developed land.
Not an Automatic Permission
Benefits can still be substantially outweighed by harm, and national policies that expressly require refusal remain decisive. Allocation conflicts, recreational land, Local Green Space, biodiversity, Protected Landscapes, flood-storage land, design, access and living conditions can all affect the result.
Policy S5
Development Outside Settlements
S5 lists the development forms that should be approved unless adverse effects substantially outweigh the benefits.
Rural and Infrastructure Uses
Agriculture, horticulture, forestry, specified recreation, minerals, engineering and infrastructure uses are listed, together with rural businesses and services that demonstrate the need for an outside-settlement location.
Buildings, Brownfield and Infill
Qualifying reuse, extension, alteration or replacement of lawful permanent and substantial buildings, redevelopment of previously developed land and limited infilling within groups of houses each have separate routes.
Stations and Allocated Land
Residential or mixed-use development near a well-connected station can qualify where the walking-distance, physical relationship, infrastructure and comprehensive-development tests are met. Land allocated outside settlements is also listed.
Evidenced Unmet Need
S5(1)(j) can support development addressing evidenced unmet need. For housing, a five-year supply failure or Housing Delivery Test below 75% is expressly relevant, but the site must be physically well-related to a settlement and appropriately scaled for infrastructure.
Exceptional Circumstances
A proposal outside every listed category requires exceptional circumstances in which its benefits substantially outweigh all adverse effects, including effects on countryside character and the ability to travel by sustainable modes.
Green Belt Is Separate
S5 does not provide the permission route within the Green Belt or Local Green Space. Policies GB6 to GB8 and HC8 apply first. If development is not inappropriate, the relevant wider balance can then be considered.
Housing Supply and Delivery
What Replaces the Former Housing-Supply Trigger?
Five-year supply and the Housing Delivery Test remain important, but their decision consequence is expressed through Annex D, S5(1)(j) and Annex A.
Evidence of Unmet Need
A failure to demonstrate the required five-year supply or delivery below 75% deems or evidences unmet housing need for the relevant S5 route. It does not make every field suitable and does not apply to land within a settlement in place of S4.
The Recent-Plan Protection
Annex A can prevent a higher current standard-method figure from being treated as unmet need for five years after plan adoption where the authority demonstrates the required supply and delivery exceeds 75%. The exact adoption and monitoring position must be checked.
Development-Plan Weight
How Local Policies Are Weighed Under Annex A
The final framework no longer uses the old “policies most important are out of date” gateway as the general national test.
Development-plan policies or parts of policies that are materially inconsistent with the national decision-making policies should receive very limited weight, unless they were examined and adopted or made against the August 2026 framework. Other policies should not be reduced in weight simply because they predate it.
The planning statement should identify the specific local policy, the current national policy, the nature of any material inconsistency and the consequences for the proposal. A broad assertion that the Local Plan is old is not enough.
Emerging-plan weight is governed by DM4 and continues to depend on the plan’s stage, unresolved objections and compliance with national plan-making policy. Prematurity refusal is restricted to substantial proposals that would prejudice central choices in an advanced plan.
Site Assessment
Build the Planning Case in the Correct Order
A robust 2026 policy case should be traceable from location to policy route, thematic tests, evidence, benefits and residual harm.
Define the Boundary
Use an accurate red line and identify any split between settlement, countryside, Green Belt or other designation.
Identify S4, S5 or GB7
Select the national location route before applying the thematic policies or relying on housing evidence.
Test the Development Plan
Explain compliance or material inconsistency policy by policy, not by the age of the plan alone.
Prepare Proportionate Evidence
Address access, flood risk, ecology, landscape, heritage, design, infrastructure, viability and delivery at the level needed for the present stage.
Quantify the Benefits
Relate housing, affordable housing, regeneration, infrastructure, employment and environmental benefits to evidenced needs.
Reach the Correct Balance
Apply the wording of the relevant national policy and explain why remaining adverse effects do or do not displace its approval direction.
Related Guides
Read the Connected Policy and Evidence Guides
These pages explain the calculations and site issues that can determine which S3 to S5 route is available and whether a proposal remains acceptable.
Five-Year Housing Land Supply
Understand Annex D, buffers, deliverability and the S5(1)(j) consequence.
Housing Delivery Test
See how the 95%, 85% and 75% consequences work under the final framework.
Settlement Boundaries Guide
Establish whether S4 or S5 applies to the land.
Planning Policy and Development Land
Understand the development plan, national decision policies and material considerations.
Building on Green Belt Land
Apply GB6, GB7 and the GB8 Golden Rules.
Is My Land Suitable for Development?
Combine the policy route with access, constraints, infrastructure and deliverability.
Frequently Asked Questions About the NPPF 2026 Presumption
Does the tilted balance still apply under the August 2026 NPPF?
The former paragraph 11(d) formulation is no longer the general current decision route. It remains relevant when reading historic decisions or advice. Current proposals should be framed through S3, S4 or S5 and the relevant national decision-making policies.
Does policy S4 guarantee permission within a settlement?
No. S4 provides a strong approval starting point, but adverse effects can substantially outweigh benefits and some national policies require refusal in specified circumstances.
Can a five-year housing supply shortfall help land outside a settlement?
It can evidence unmet need for S5(1)(j). The land must still be physically well-related to an existing settlement, appropriately scaled for infrastructure and acceptable under all other relevant policies.
Does S5 apply to Green Belt land?
Not as the permission route. Green Belt proposals are determined under GB6 to GB8. Where a proposal is not inappropriate, the wider national policy balance can then be applied.
Are older Local Plan policies automatically given less weight?
No. Annex A focuses on material inconsistency with the national decision-making policies, not age alone. The planning statement should identify the precise inconsistency and its effect.
What should I provide for an initial review?
A location or boundary plan, approximate size, proposed use, planning history and any Local Plan, supply, delivery, access or technical information are usually enough to begin a proportionate review.
Review Your Land Against the Correct August 2026 Policy Route
Send us the site location and boundary for a free initial review of the settlement position, national policy route and principal planning constraints.
Request Your Free Assessment