NPPF check

Policy sandbox

0 of 8 answered

Change anything and the assessment on the right updates immediately. Nothing is saved, and the address bar holds your scenario so you can send it to someone.

Where does the site sit?

Green Belt takes precedence over everything else. The glossary excludes villages lying within and defined as part of the Green Belt from the meaning of settlement, so such a village is not a settlement for S4 purposes. A settlement also includes land already allocated or permitted that will form part of the built-up area once complete.

Land and buildings

Each tick opens a different limb. Claim every one the facts support: they are alternatives, not a hierarchy.

What kind of housing is proposed?
Scale of development

Major for housing is 10 or more homes, or a site of 0.5 hectares or more. Either limb is sufficient. Strategic is a defined term: phased, masterplanned, significant infrastructure.

Evidenced unmet need

S5(1)(j) is open wording: any evidenced unmet need can qualify. GB7(1)(g)(ii), through footnote 41, is closed: for housing it means only a five year supply shortfall including any buffer, or a Housing Delivery Test result below 75%. The same phrase, two different reaches.

Is the site within reasonable walking distance of a station?

Reasonable walking distance is around 800 metres, or around 10 minutes' walk time where topography, route availability and quality, or physical barriers would prevent or discourage walking from up to 800 metres. Where only part of the site is within that distance, the station limbs and the density floor apply only to that part.

Design quality

DP3 attaches weight to design quality generally, and is not confined to isolated sites. Separate from the HO11(1)(e) route.

Constraint screen

Tick anything engaged, not merely nearby. Ten of these policies state in their own text that proposals should be refused; the rest weigh against. The L3 density floor is handled by the station chain above.

Scheme quantum

Fills the major threshold and the density calculation. Net developable area excludes spine roads, attenuation and open space.

Awaiting input

Start with question 1.

The gateway policy depends entirely on where the site sits.

Based on very little so far. Answer more and this gets sharper.

04Constraint screen

None engaged. Re-run once technical work is in: density and transport catch schemes late.

05Weight ledger

Only weights the Framework directs, at the strength the answers support.

ConsiderationPolicyWeight
Any development plan policy materially inconsistent with this FrameworkcheckA prompt rather than a finding. Identify the specific policies and the specific inconsistency: the tool cannot read your development plan. Most restrictive rural housing policies now sit here.Introduction / Annex AVery limited

06Interpretation register

Undefined language this case would turn on.

substantially outweighedS4, S5, GB7
Undefined, and the whole balance turns on it. Materially higher than the old significantly and demonstrably formulation, with nothing in the Framework saying how much higher.
very limited weightIntroduction / Annex A
What a materially inconsistent development plan policy now gets. Not zero, and the quantum is for the decision-maker case by case, which is where most restrictive rural housing policies now sit.

Assessed against the National Planning Policy Framework (2026), published 17 August 2026, using ruleset 1.0.0 and interpretation revision 2026-08-18.

This is a sandbox, not an assessment

Everything above comes from the answers on the left. It has not looked at a map, a local plan, or the planning history of any particular site. If you have a real piece of land, the assessment starts from its boundary instead, and fills in what it can from the data.

Assess an actual site