Planning Reset 2026 — What the draft NPPF reforms could mean for delivery teams

If you’ve felt planning moving from “critical path” to “programme risk”, you’re not imagining it. Government is consulting on proposed reforms to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and related changes, with a closing date of 11:45pm on 10 March 2026.

This matters to everyone in the built environment, not just planners, because planning policy sets the rules of engagement for land, design, viability, procurement strategy, and ultimately whether projects start (or stall).

What’s in scope (and why it’s relevant beyond planning)

The consultation is broader than a simple NPPF tidy-up. It also seeks views on:

• Data centres and onsite energy generation (relevant for industrial/logistics, infrastructure, MEP, and sustainability teams)
• Standardised inputs in viability assessments (relevant for developers, cost managers, funders, and local authorities)
• Reforming site thresholds (relevant for housing delivery, regeneration, and development management)

The likely “day-to-day” impacts project teams should be ready for

1. Faster or slower? Expect a transition period either way Even positive reform creates short-term uncertainty while authorities interpret updated policy and applicants recalibrate strategy.
2. Viability will be under a brighter spotlight If viability inputs become more standardised, it could reduce “argument fatigue” — but it also raises the bar on early cost certainty and evidence.
3. More emphasis on energy + infrastructure readiness Whether you’re delivering housing, commercial, or industrial, the direction of travel is clear: energy strategy, grid constraints, and onsite generation are no longer “nice to have” add-ons.
4. Planning becomes a leadership competency The teams that win in 2026 won’t just be technically strong — they’ll be able to manage stakeholder expectations, maintain a clean audit trail, and make decisive trade-offs early.

A simple “Planning Reset” checklist for February

• Are your schemes stress-tested against programme risk from planning conditions?
• Do you have an agreed viability narrative (and supporting cost evidence) before submission?
• Is your energy strategy credible, deliverable, and aligned with procurement timing?
• Do you have the right senior leadership in place to manage public, political, and technical scrutiny?