London’s Green Spaces and the New National Planning Policy Framework 2026
The new National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was officially published on the 17th of August and represents a significant change to the planning rules that shape the country.
For Londoners, the capital’s green spaces and Green Belt will be directly influenced by what’s been decided. This is because Policy PM6 of the NPPF requires that other plans, including at the local level, remain consistent with the national policies outlined within the Framework.
So, here are some things you should know.
1. Good news, the updated NPPF is pushing for higher density.
For several years CPRE London have been campaigning for a compact city with Green Belt protections maintained. Well-designed, higher density development can make better use of existing infrastructure and bring homes closer to jobs and services.
We’re pleased to see that policies L1–L3 place a clear emphasis on intensification and proximity to public transport within existing settlements. Policy L1 specifically requires that development plans “identify ways of accommodating as much as possible of the identified need for development in the area on previously developed land”, including “setting minimum residential density standards for town centres and for locations that have a high level of connectivity.”
Importantly, Policy L2 also highlights that “substantial weight should be given to the benefits” where a development proposal would achieve things like “making better use of vacant and underutilised land and buildings (such as: by bringing back into residential use empty homes and other suitable buildings; converting space above shops; redeveloping underutilised retail and business sites; and building on or above service yards, lock-ups, car parks and other transport infrastructure which are no longer required)”.
A planning policy landscape that proactively drives adaptive design through reusing, repurposing or retrofitting existing sites is vital for meeting wider social, economic and environmental sustainability objectives.
CPRE London welcomes this positive direction supporting effective use of land.
2. However, the Green Belt’s still under pressure.
Although the overall message is brownfield-first, the NPPF falls short of fully realising this and allows for weaker protection of Green Belt land. Most significantly, policy GB7 now states that housing and mixed-use development near a well-connected station can be treated as “not inappropriate development” within the Green Belt, provided it meets the policy tests.
A well-connected station is defined in the NPPF as “Railway stations and underground, tram and light rail stops located within a top 80 Travel to Work Area located partially or fully within England by Gross Value Added (GVA) and which, in the normal weekday timetable, are served (or have a reasonable prospect of being served due to planned upgrades or through agreement with the rail operator) throughout the daytime by at least four trains or trams per hour overall, or at least two trains or trams per hour in any one direction.” In addition to Brownfield First Opportunity Areas (BFOAs) and Environmental Opportunity Areas (EOAs), Annex C of the Draft London Plan lists 50 well-connected stations within Green Belt residential Broad Locations of Growth (BLGs), as well as 11 industrial Green Belt BLGs (storage and distribution).
Policies designed to unlock selected sites facilitate a concerning pathway for normalising Green Belt development. The presumption should therefore remain protection, with release genuinely exceptional. For London, this scrutiny matters: our objective is a compact, sustainable city. To effectively keep urban sprawl in check, prevent neighbouring towns from merging and preserve the setting and special character of historic towns, sections of the Green Belt should not be lost simply because brownfield development is harder, slower or less profitable. Economic and procedural barriers to brownfield development, such as high land and construction costs, infrastructure requirements, skill or resourcing gaps, and financing limitations, must be systematically addressed through mechanisms alongside the planning system, rather than by using planning policy to compensate for underlying market and viability constraints.
Before Green Belt release is considered, the NPPF requires authorities to demonstrate that they have examined “all other reasonable options” for meeting development needs. Under policy GB3, this includes making “as much use as possible” of suitable brownfield and under-utilised land, optimising density and assessing whether sufficient suitable sites can be identified outside the Green Belt. Policy L1 also confirms “The extent to which development plans are making as much use as possible of previously developed land and using minimum densities to accommodate their identified development need will be tested robustly when plans are examined.”
Although CPRE London agree with this in principle, wording such as “all other reasonable options” and “as much use as possible” leave considerable room for judgement. Mandatory brownfield targets and comprehensive, up to date Brownfield Registers should be the focus of review. Consistency and stringent standards around how rigorously plan-makers are required to demonstrate that brownfield capacity has been identified, assessed and genuinely pursued must be well established before Green Belt release can be considered, not least justified.
3. Climate resilience is about what happens to water, heat and nature, not just greenhouse gas emissions.
We firmly support that the new NPPF strengthens the role of green infrastructure and nature-based solutions through a range of policies, including CC1 which makes clear that development plans “should take a proactive approach to mitigating and adapting to climate change, supporting the transition to net zero and taking into account the implications of extreme weather and long-term climate trends including overheating, wildfires, drought, flood risk, coastal change, water supply, biodiversity and landscapes.” This includes by “identifying opportunities for green infrastructure provision and nature-based solutions which can safeguard and improve carbon storage, support nature recovery and resilience, and which take account of Local Nature Recovery Strategies in accordance with policy N1.”
However, in some cases the language remains too permissive. Policy N1 says that areas which could become of particular importance for nature should be “taken into account” as “opportunities” to integrate development with environmental restoration, but “should not necessarily preclude” allocating them for development. This creates a notable weakness, with the policy also limiting local authorities’ ability to require biodiversity net gain above the statutory level, except in specific, justified site allocations.
This is significant because the capital’s dense urban environment, extensive hard surfaces and pressure on water and green space make it especially exposed to climate impacts. London’s trees, parks, waterways and green corridors are essential infrastructure that underpin the city’s safety and liveability. Protecting, enhancing and connecting nature recovery areas should therefore be weighted as a stronger spatial constraint, not simply another consideration to balance against development.
What happens next?
The new NPPF 2026 may be published, but we still have a chance to influence how it’s applied in the capital. CPRE London are now in the process of reviewing the draft next London Plan and preparing our response, which we will share with you soon.
Thank you to all our members who helped influence the NPPF throughout the consultation period and beyond. If you are interested in learning more about the new NPPF, and would like to voice your concerns and questions, please register for ‘The NPPF (2026) Explained by CPRE’ webinar, taking place on 2 September 2026, Wednesday, 16:00-18:00.
