What to know about planning reform in 2026: Insights from Stantec and Pinsent Masons

The purpose of national planning reform in 2026

Across both events, what came through most strongly was the demand for clarity. The sector is ready to adapt, but growth, delivery, and progress depend on a clear transition path so projects can move forward at pace.

At our London event, Rupert Warren KC emphasised his understanding of the Government’s approach: “The focus this time is absolute clarity and delivery. The question is simple: Will this help people understand whether a scheme should be approved?”

From the discussion, we agreed that the Government’s intention for the forthcoming reforms centred around three areas.

• Development and housing: This includes unlocking stalled sites, rebalancing presumption tests, streamlining viability, and driving density in the right places
• Infrastructure: The focus is on aligning plan‑making with strategic utility, transport, and energy needs, while reducing consenting friction
• Sustainability and heritage: The goal is to integrate environmental outcomes and proportionate heritage tests into a coherent, rules‑based approach

Iain Gilbey from Pinsent Masons said the proposed reforms affect housing and infrastructure, with a clear focus on viability considerations and local authority governance. He rightly argued that collaborative working is essential to convert policy intent into delivery. This is especially so between local planning authorities (LPAs), developers, and their funders. 

Key national planning policy changes and why they matter

In Manchester, Stephanie Hall characterised the draft NPPF 2025 as a structural rather than incremental reset. “There are many changes, and it is a complete rewrite in places. The main machinery for what was paragraph 11 now sits in policies S4 and S5 and the two presumptions they create. These policies will no doubt be a focus for the sector.”

At both events, the groups discussed what we felt were some of the most notable changes. These included:

1. Changes to the focus on development within and outside settlements

There is a stronger presumption in favour of approval within settlements, unless harms clearly outweigh the benefits, set out in national policy. For outside settlements, there is a criteria‑based presumption for specified forms of development. These criteria include unmet housing need, logistics need, or sites well‑related to stations. Any non-criteria-compliant forms face a reverse presumption.

The draft NPPF contains broader definitions of settlements than many expected. This is likely to become a key point of debate, particularly at appeal. The group discussed whether the definition of a well-connected site could be simpler. But we also agreed that the changes created strong opportunities for schemes related to logistics, energy, and data centres.

2. Density expectations and rail‑led growth

Well-connected places, especially around stations, can expect an emphasis on an increase in density, with stronger support to make better use of brownfield land.

Our conversations raised a few questions in this area. For example, is a rigid approach to density-setting appropriate? Or should it allow more flexibility for maximising density on an area or site-specific basis?

3. Viability reform and standardised inputs

The draft provides more scope for viability assessment on all sites, including green belt. The emphasis is on local plan viability testing of sites using standard inputs. Any differences to the conclusions of these need to be fully justified at application stage.

The questions will be whether development plan viability assessments can capture the true position, individual site specifics and unknowns, and respond to shifts in market conditions.

4. Plan‑making and strategic direction

A new role for Spatial Development Strategies (SDS) sees a move towards imposition of top-down policies. These are intended to scale-down and reduce the burden of plan-making challenges a local level. This, together with a new fast-track approach to plan-making, is aimed at getting plans in place, filling huge current voids that exist across the Country. The challenges here will be around the role and timing of SDS vs local plans and helping see that the introduction of SDS decreases rather than increases such voids.

“These are significant shifts. The political appetite may shape which of these survive in the final document,” said Rupert Warren KC.

5. Policy weight and the shift towards national decision‑making

It seems that local policies that conflict with national decision-making will carry very limited weight. This means the new framework will influence decisions before local plans can be updated. This creates an inevitable tension with the “plan-led system” and signals a move away from localism and a more centralised policy-based approach.

Some notable changes in the Planning and Infrastructure Act

Here are some insights from our discussions on the Planning and Infrastructure Act. We highlighted how the reforms aim to simplify, speed up, and bring greater consistency to the planning system. Notable changes include:

• Committee and delegation reforms. Mandatory member training. And LPA fee flexibility.
• Streamlined consultee processes and clearer expectations for major or strategic projects.
• Enhanced development corporation powers. More flexible compulsory purchase order mechanism.

Regulations will need to be made to enable these changes to come into force. Those will first be subject to consultation during 2026.

“The Planning and Infrastructure Act contains some of the most operationally significant changes we’ve seen in years, from consultee reform to committee processes. They’re designed to speed things up, but the planning system will only see the immediate benefits if planning authorities start preparing for those changes now in advance of Regulations coming into force,” said Michael Pocock, partner, Pinsent Masons.

Transition periods and application: Key timelines and actions

As we looked ahead to the transition period, we set out practical advice to help the built environment sector prepare for the legislative and national planning policy changes.

The consultation on the draft NPPF remains open until 10 March. It is the first meaningful consultation milestone in 2026. This is the moment to review the proposals; respond to the consultation; and begin aligning projects with the new policy vision, approach, and national policy tests. During this stage, it’s important to assess live and upcoming schemes, prepare draft representations, and brief internal teams on the direction of policy.

Once the final NPPF is published later in 2026, new national planning policy will start to influence decisions straight away. This is especially true where local policies conflict with national guidance. Planning statements, appeal strategies, and risk registers will need quick updates to reflect the new policy approach and weighting that officers, determining committees, planning inspectors, and the Secretary of State will apply.

It’s important to note that the shift to a 30‑month plan‑making cycle will require LPAs to refresh evidence bases, review viability considerations, and test deliverability. For land promoters, this is the time to engage early. It will help shape emerging allocations, densities, and growth locations while the evidence base is still forming.

Infrastructure and consultee reforms will follow a staged rollout, with secondary legislation and planning practice guidance confirming when each change takes effect. Teams will need to stay alert to these updates. They should map consultee dependencies and build extra time into project programmes to avoid bottlenecks.

Finally, the introduction of SDS will advance at different speeds across regions. This uneven rollout makes planning essential. Scenario‑testing how SDS might interact with existing local plans will help teams anticipate risks and understand how major sites may be affected.

A key challenge is the timing mismatch between SDS and local plans. Because both will progress at different speeds, there is a real risk of gaps in decision-making or stalled plan updates. A twin-track approach will be essential, engaging early in SDS scoping while continuing to feed into local plan work. Using statements of common ground can also help lock in shared principles and reduce uncertainty.

Said our Greg Dickson, regional practice lead: “For regions already grappling with supply, infrastructure constraints, and plan‑making pauses, the reforms bring both challenge and opportunity. What matters now is understanding how the changes will land locally. That’s because the challenges and opportunities will not be the same everywhere.”

Navigating viability in national planning policy

We see that the role of viability in planning for development is reinforced. But is it clear? Does it go far enough to respond to market conditions and demands?

Standardised viability inputs set at the plan-making stage may not always reflect dynamic market conditions. To mitigate this, teams will need to:

• Push for flexible review mechanisms
• Provide strong evidence on site typologies
• Stress test affordable housing and infrastructure requirements across a range of scenarios

We also see the value in bringing viability work forward. By shaping realistic viability assumptions at the plan-making stage, teams can avoid later disagreements. This also gives LPAs a clearer basis for setting deliverable policies and contributions. Early viability thinking helps both applicants and authorities plan with more confidence.

Staying ahead in a shifting national planning policy landscape

As the planning system continues to evolve, it will be essential to keep pace with the NPPF updates, the rollout of the Planning and Infrastructure Act, and the wider direction of national policy. The next 12 to 18 months give organisations across development, infrastructure, and local government a real chance to get ahead. They should engage early, forge partnerships, and reassess portfolios through the emerging policy approach.

If the reforms are implemented well, the new framework has the potential to create a more predictable, coordinated, and delivery-focused planning system. Our joint briefings with Pinsent Masons were designed to help our clients stay ahead of these changes. Our teams are ready to provide support to navigate the transition with confidence.