The planning policy lacuna is being filled – just not by planning policy alone; the words of Tim Partridge, Technical Director (Planning) at tor&co, who has penned the following guest article…
A few years ago, I wrote about what I described as the planning policy lacuna. The phrase came from an appeal decision in Stockport, but it captured a wider feeling across the profession. National policy set broad objectives while leaving important questions unanswered. That gap has not disappeared entirely. But it is becoming increasingly difficult to argue that it still exists.
The more interesting question nowadays is not whether planning policy has changed (it plainly has) but where planners, developers and decision-makers can now seek to find clarification on national policy.
Successive revisions to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) have strengthened support for economic growth. The introduction of grey belt policy, stronger recognition of employment uses such as data centres and gigafactories and the Government’s industrial strategy all point in the same direction. Alongside this sits Invest 2035: the UK’s modern industrial strategy, which places growth and resilience at the heart of Government policy. When paired, these documents paint a much clearer picture of Government priorities than the NPPF alone.
Appeal decisions are reinforcing that picture. Recent decisions on major employment schemes have attached significant weight to wider economic benefits, while others have begun to demonstrate how newer policies, including grey belt, should be applied in practice. While the NPPF says that significant weight should be attached to economic benefits, in respect of policy guidance through appeal, decisions since December 2024 regarding large employment uses – including some by Matthew Pennycook – have additionally referred to ‘very significant’ weight for employment and social needs, and ‘very substantial’ weight to economic benefits.
For practitioners, these decisions are doing more than resolving individual appeals. They are increasingly showing how inspectors and ministers expect national policy to be interpreted.
In that sense, planning policy is no longer contained within a single document. It is emerging through the combined effect of the NPPF, industrial strategy, ministerial priorities and appeal decisions.
What this means for the next two years
This shift is likely to have practical consequences for everyone involved in planning.
Developers promoting employment-led schemes will need to build planning cases that do more than demonstrate compliance with policy wording. Increasingly, successful applications are likely to explain how proposals support national priorities around productivity, investment, supply chains and economic resilience.
Equally, planning authorities and inspectors are likely to continue giving considerable weight to these wider policy signals. The strategic context for decision-making is becoming more coherent, even if it is spread across several documents. That being said, clearer national priorities do not automatically mean easier development.
Clarity does not guarantee delivery
The planning system still faces familiar constraints: local authority capacity, infrastructure delivery, competing land uses and political uncertainty. National policy may now speak more consistently about growth, but local implementation will remain uneven. Faster policy evolution cannot, by itself, remove these practical barriers.
That is perhaps the biggest caveat. Greater policy clarity should improve consistency in decision-making, but it will not eliminate the challenges of delivering development on the ground.
A return to a more familiar model?
Having entered the profession in the late 1980s, I remember a planning system in which appeal decisions often provided much of the practical guidance practitioners relied upon. There is a sense that we may be returning to that status quo.
This feels like more than the normal evolution of planning policy. Government is increasingly expressing planning priorities across a combination of documents, speeches, strategies and decisions, which, together, are filling the planning policy lacuna and shaping the emerging planning framework. Whether that proves to be a strength or a weakness is open to debate, but it does require us as planners to cast our nets wider when interpreting national policy.
What should developers do?
As this broader planning framework continues to evolve, there are several practical steps worth taking:
- Look beyond the NPPF when preparing planning strategies and statements.
- Demonstrate how proposals support wider Government objectives on economic growth and productivity where possible.
- Monitor emerging appeal decisions, particularly where they clarify the application of newer policies.
- Keep evidence and planning narratives under review as Government strategy continues to develop.
For developers, planners and planning authorities alike, understanding national policy increasingly means understanding that wider picture. Those who do will be better placed to navigate the planning system in the years to come.
