Changes to National Planning Policy Framework threaten protections

Published: 5 March 2026

Why it’s important to get the words right when it comes to National Park planning protections

Our National Parks provide us with numerous benefits including drinking water, carbon storage and opportunities to enjoy dark skies and wide open landscapes. Many of these benefits result from the additional planning protections that these areas have been afforded for decades. Now those protections are under threat as part of Government proposals set out in a consultation on proposed changes to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). 

Weakening the planning protections for National Parks is not only a threat to the social and environmental benefits these areas provide, but the economic growth the Government is so keen to deliver could also be at risk if the special qualities of these areas are damaged.  Tourism, farming, and other related businesses in National Parks make a significant contribution to the economy – tourism alone generates £6.5 billion annually – and many of these businesses rely on the high-quality environment for their success. 

National Parks are, of course, living and working landscapes but the challenge is to ensure that the range of benefits that they provide is not compromised by insensitive change, unsympathetic land use or irresponsible development. It is therefore essential that national planning policy provides strong support for the protection and improvement of these areas. 

The highest levels of protection

The current National NPPF makes it absolutely clear that Protected Landscapes (including National Parks) have the highest status of protection, but this important wording is missing from the proposed new version.  

To make matters worse, whereas currently the policy states that great weight should be given to conserving and enhancing these areas, in the proposed new wording this has been amended to “substantial weight”. This may seem like a small change but the proposed new NPPF also requires “substantial weight” to be given to many other factors such as the economic benefits of proposals for commercial development and mineral extraction. This will make it very hard for decision-makers to balance competing priorities and poses a significant risk that the protection of National Parks will be outweighed by pressure for development.  

The combination of these two changes represents a significant weakening of the existing policy and we want to see the words “have the status of protection” and “great weight” retained in the revised NPPF to ensure that the additional protections for these areas are absolutely clear. 

A presumption for refusal 

Another well-established part of the existing planning protections is the major development test (MDT). The current wording for the MDT makes it absolutely clear that planning permission should be refused for major developments in National Parks and National Landscapes except in exceptional circumstances and where it can be demonstrated they are in the public interest. This strong presumption against major development plays a key role in preventing insensitive change and inappropriate development in the National Parks.  

We’re therefore very concerned that the Government is proposing changing the wording of this test to state that proposals “should only be supported in exceptional circumstances”. While this may appear to be saying the same thing as the existing wording, we’re very concerned about this change from a presumption for refusal to qualified support, particularly because it is one of only two places in the draft NPPF where the word “refused” has been removed.  

Furthermore, proposed changes elsewhere in the document mean that those policies which include the word “refused” have a special significance when resisting certain types of development. There is a risk that these changes could lead to development which is currently unacceptable being allowed. It is absolutely essential that the existing wording of the major development test is retained.  

A clear reference to the Protected Landscapes Duty

Our final key concern relates to the lack of clear reference to the Protected Landscapes duty which requires public bodies, including local planning authorities “to seek to further the statutory purposes”. As we’ve set out in a previous blog this important new duty fits well with existing planning decision-making processes. But the proposed wording does not even mention the duty let alone set out its requirements clearly. 

Instead there is a strong emphasis on mitigating or compensating for any harms caused to the statutory purposes rather than trying to avoid those harms in the first place. This is contrary to the intention of the legislation to strengthen the level of protection given to Protected Landscapes. The final NPPF must include a specific reference to the requirements of the Protected Landscapes Duty.