New Planning Rules Consultation: Have Your Say

✅ KEY TAKEAWAY: Proposed NPPF changes critically impact moorlands. Review our draft response and submit your practical evidence by 10 March to strengthen our official submission to the government consultation.

The Government is consulting on proposed changes to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The NPPF is the core national policy document that guides how planning decisions are made in England and how local plans are written.

In practice, it shapes what gets built, where, and on what terms. It is routinely cited in planning applications, local plan examinations, appeals and (in some cases) judicial reviews.

That makes this consultation directly relevant to MA members. Changes to the NPPF can affect moorland landscapes, access, recreation, gamekeeping and land management operations, rural housing, farm diversification, infrastructure proposals, environmental restoration, and the way risks (like wildfire) are assessed and managed through the planning system.

Our MA draft response - and your chance to comment

We have prepared a draft response on behalf of the Association. The consultation deadline is 10 March, so if you have any comments, evidence, or suggested wording changes, please send them to us at agilruth@moorlandassociation.org before then so we can consider them for inclusion.

We are especially keen to hear from members with:

• recent experience of planning applications, enforcement, appeals, or local plan processes

• examples where policy ambiguity has caused avoidable delay/cost

• examples where cumulative impacts (e.g. enabling works, access tracks, utilities, water) were underestimated

• practical experience of wildfire risk, smoke impacts, and mitigation on the ground

What our response covers - in brief

Our response is intended to be constructive, evidence-led, and practical: supportive of clear national policy, but focused on making sure the final framework is workable in the real world and delivers better decisions.

Key themes we highlight include:

1) Clarity, certainty and “decision-useful” policy

We emphasise that national policy needs to be clear in status and application so local planning authorities, inspectors, applicants and communities can apply it consistently. Where policy relies heavily on annexes, guidance, or undefined terms, it can create uncertainty, delay and inconsistent outcomes.

2) Wildfire risk and smoke as planning issues

We argue that wildfire risk should be treated explicitly as a material planning consideration where relevant - particularly around siting, layout, access for emergency response, water availability, long-term vegetation/fuel management, and the public health impacts of smoke. This is framed as pragmatic climate adaptation and public safety, not as an abstract environmental add-on.

3) The importance of cumulative and enabling impacts

We flag how developments can have impacts beyond a planning boundary - for example through enabling works, grid connections, access routes, construction impacts and cumulative pressures. We are pushing for stronger recognition of these realities so impacts are assessed honestly and mitigations are secured.

4) Clearer maps and local facts to guide decisions

We support moving toward plans and decisions being grounded in clear mapping and locally specific evidence (constraints and opportunities), so policy is applied transparently and avoidable conflict is reduced.

5) Protecting valued landscapes while supporting appropriate rural development

We support the role of planning in enabling appropriate rural housing and rural enterprise, while also being clear that nationally valued landscapes and sensitive environments require sound evidence, good siting and robust mitigation, rather than ambiguity that fuels disputes.

How to send comments

If you have comments on our draft (even short bullet points, local examples, or alternative wording) please send them to us at agilruth@moorlandassociation.org as soon as possible and no later than 10 March so we can incorporate them before submission.

Thanks again to everyone who has contributed evidence and practical examples so far - they make the response stronger, more grounded and more persuasive.