Planning Policy

The government’s Planning and Infrastructure bill, including within it the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), received Royal Assent in December 2025. It brings urgent concerns about housing in Cornwall. It has been said that the NPPF is simply a response to the powerful developers‘ lobbying for standardised planning policy across the whole country. It takes no account of special regional diversity. It covers urban, brownfield, ‘green belt’ and all kinds of greenfield land with the same broad brush. It takes no account of any special significance of the landscape in a rural context though it does offer some disappointingly loose protections for National Landscape land.   

So now the NPPF underpins all land use planning in England, including in Cornwall. The government asserts that It is designed from the ground up to promote sustainable development, which means promoting development. The ‘sustainable’ part is sometimes elusive, even perhaps debatable.

The NPPF was re-published on 12 December 2024 and took immediate effect on decision-making, with transitional arrangements for plan-making. It has the explicit goal of boosting house building, rolling in previously agreed changes and introducing new ones. The key elements of the update included  a stronger emphasis on delivering housing, including new methods for assessing need, a sharpened ‘brownfield first’ approach, and adjustments to the treatment of onshore wind and the release of Green Belt land.[1]

Alongside the update, additional consultations were launched such as proposals to build-in a presumption in favour of development on brownfield land, as already proposed in March 2024.[2] These changes have transformed the planning landscape and have created a potential ‘open season’ for those wishing to push through development opportunities that previously would not have been agreed.

Finally, two wider policy tracks now strongly interact with the NPPF. One potentially conflicting and dampening development lies in the mandatory Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) Requirements, set out under the Environment Act 2021. These requirements were applied to small sites as well as large developments from April 2024 onwards.[3]  

The overarching policy initiative, the Planning and Infrastructure Bill (2024–25) is intended to accelerate both infrastructure projects and house building. It will streamline the planning process, explicitly removing barriers to development, and this means fewer steps in the planning process, fewer opportunities to block schemes, and a greater role for ministers in prioritising schemes. It significantly weakens the role of local democracy and local priorities.

Practically, for example, this includes contentious elements such as removing the right to consult with those affected by compulsory purchase but it also implements innovations such as removing the need to produce paper reports, which are likely to be broadly welcomed. Planning Appeals, for example, will still be possible. Much of the bill relates to electricity generation, distribution and storage, and is intended to address significant issues with Britain’s energy infrastructure.

It is perhaps with energy that the most fundamental changes are taking place. Crucially, solar and onshore wind projects now fit within the same plan regime as any other type of energy initiative, and this means that a streamlined planning process applies, and again, the presumption is that these should progress, and progress quickly. In order to focus on infrastructure the government intends to create over 150 Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs), the up to date list of which may be found on the NSIP search facility. These presently include major road schemes, large solar farms, transmission lines, hydrogen plants, offshore wind, and rail projects. This is generally to be welcomed, but there is the obvious risk is that ecological issues may be overridden.

There are other innovations, such as those intended to support local authorities in recouping planning administration costs, but those are outside the scope of this article.[4]

CPRE and other environmental and climate change campaigners point out that the NPPF weakens environmental protections. Furthermore, without doubt, in the broad scheme of things, the tilt in favour of development in general and housing in particular, does reduce the ability to challenge planning decisions and elevate the risk that ecological issues will be ignored or circumvented. The changes inherent in the policy do give those making plans more opportunities to propose, promote and secure planning applications, and they also change the nature of the interaction with the Planning Inspectorate, whose role is clearly to support development both implicitly and explicitly. Placed as it is (in Bristol) at a safe distance from Cornwall, the inspectorate is never inclined to side with local opinion – or indeed to take account of the existing rules for nature and landscape protection in Cornwall’s particular context. 

Whilst the government’s proposals for ‘brownfield-first’ presumptions might appear to favour brownfield development, the general trend to favouring development, and streamlined (i.e. quicker) processes will in fact mean fewer and briefer opportunities to challenge. Moreover, there is rational and serious concern that this established presumption in favour of development may extend to greenfield development proposals. In practical terms, it removes much of the ability of local councils to determine an appropriate settlement density, which is one of the few tools available to protect the character of each given area.[5]  It also weakens any local campaigns before they even get started and leaves them easy to override.

Crucially, the greenfield – brownfield distinction is itself being eroded, as government pushes for the release of ‘lower-quality’ farmland, now surreptitiously being referred to as ‘grey belt’, although the ‘grey belt’ concept is contentious and does not command public support.[6]  As our own research indicates, England has land for about 1.48 to 1.49 million homes, over half of them already with planning permission. This demonstrates that a brownfield-first approach can reduce pressure on semi-natural and agricultural greenfield land if policy is enforced.[7]  In addition, conservation groups say that this will normalise piecemeal erosion of peri-urban habitats, which are often crucial for species movement and public access, in the absence of binding nature-recovery mapping within local plans. In all, the grey-belt concept should be treated with healthy suspicion.  

Moreover, for Cornwall specifically, the notion of ‘lower quality’ land is problematic: much of our farmland is, by the standards of high-productivity agribusiness, less productive, being either upland, coastal, bordering small settlements, or in valleys. It does not permit the use of the large-scale agribusiness machinery of today. In this context, solar farms are also problematic since, unlike East Anglia for example, Cornwall has few flat areas where solar farms can be sited without visual impact. A top-down policy approach such as the bill sets out does not recognise these distinctions. Similarly, many of Cornwall’s urban settlements are located on river catchments, and the presumption in favour of development works against the principles set out in Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) safeguards.[8]  This is very much an issue for Cornwall’s protected sites including Goss Moor, Carine Common, Crowdy Marsh, the Fal, Helford, Bostraze/Leswidden, the Lizard, Newlyn East, North Cornwall Coast, Penhale, the Camel, St Austell Clays, Tamar Estuaries Complex, Falmouth Bay to St Austell Coast.

CPRE faces emerging challenges within this new policy landscape: how to respond to a more rapid planning cycle, how to provide high quality evidence, and how to influence outcomes before the window closes. Moreover, the task is becoming more complex, more nuanced. How best should we monitor the cumulative effects of new housing on ecological networks and biodiversity, as well as on public services? And how should we position ourselves to protect Cornwall’s most critical environments? Without doubt, CPRE’s expert role is now more important than ever.

For more in-depth discussion of the planning and house-building policy issues specific to Cornwall, see:

• Cornwall’s Housing Crisis: Will Labour’s National Planning Policy Framework Help?
• Housing Strategy & Delivery

Notes:
[1]  The December 2024 NPPF PDF (amended 7 February 2025 to correct cross-references) is the current baseline policy document.
[2]  Debate on Reform of the Planning System March 2024.
https://letstalk.cornwall.gov.uk/planning-for-our-future
[3] Biodiversity Net Gain, DEFRA, 2023, 2025.
[4] Guide to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, MHCLG, 2025.
[5] LGA Response to the NPPF Consultation, 2024.
[6] Government Response to Consultation, 2025, specifically, see Question 23.
[7] CPRE “State of Brownfield”, 2025.

Interim policy statement from Cornwall Planning:
https://www.cornwall.gov.uk/media/4vgdpzic/interim-policy-statement-final-april-2025.pdf

Baseline report:
https://democracy.cornwall.gov.uk/documents/s191421/Local%20Plan%20Update%20-%20Appendix%201%20-%20Draft%20Baseline%20Report.pdf

Draft plan:
https://democracy.cornwall.gov.uk/documents/s191423/Local%20Plan%20update%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20Draft%20Engagement%20Plan.pdf