The new National Planning Policy Framework, published on 17th August 2026 (NPPF26) maintains both the ‘town centre’s first’ principle and other familiar retail policy tests, including both sequential and impact tests.
Beneath that continuity, however, are significant shifts in emphasis: from protecting existing centres towards actively planning for their adaptation, repurposing and regeneration. NPPF26 broadens the policy ambition for town centres, seeking greater emphasis on diversification (including residential development), intensification, reuse of vacant sites and place-making, alongside a redefinition of town centre boundaries. There are also new policies which the development industry will need to grapple with for pubs and roadside facilities.
NPPF26: a structural overhaul?
Whilst the ‘Ensuring the Vitality of Town Centres’ title remains unchanged, like the rest of NPPF26 the Chapter considering town centres and town centre uses has had a structural overhaul. The familiar paragraphs 90-94 are replaced with Plan-making policies TC1 and National decision-making policies TC2–TC4.
But town centres remain the priority
The Chapter now opens with an explicit objective:
"to promote the long-term vitality and viability of town centres by prioritising them as locations for main town centre uses and allowing them to adapt to changing community and business needs, in a way which reflects their locally distinctive roles and opportunities".
The drafting creates a clear statement of intent from the outset of the Government’s overarching aim: town centres should remain priority locations for main town centre uses, while adapting to changing community and business needs.
For the purposes of the Chapter ‘town centres’ includes "city, town, district and local centres" as defined in the glossary at Annex B.
Plan-Making Strategies
TC1: Planning for town centres offers a stronger, more strategic approach:
Whereas para 90 of the 2024 NPPF required local authorities to take a "positive approach" to "growth, management and adaptation" of town centres, TC1 now requires explicitly that development plans are informed by "a strategy for town centres…".
This represents a more proactive and comprehensive shift in planning for the future role and function of individual centres. However, how this will square with the many resource-challenged authorities remains to be seen.
Hierarchy and Primary Shopping Areas retained
The NPPF24 required policy makers to define both a network and hierarchy of town centres, and within this, both the extent of town centres and Primary Shopping Areas (PSAs).
Whilst the 2025 draft NPPF removed reference to PSAs, the final cut NPPF26 reinstates PSAs in TC1 1(b)(i), reflecting its continuing importance in focussing development through plan-making and in applying sequential and impact tests.
However, the policy brief is now markedly broader than simply defining a hierarchy and shopping areas. Plans should identify areas within centres suitable for "greater diversity and/or intensification of use, including through residential development", as well as areas where infrastructure and public realm improvements are proposed. Indeed, Policy TC1 1 (a) requires plans to consider a full range of potential needs and opportunities for development, including:
"…the scope to accommodate additional floorspace, to broaden the mix of uses beyond main town centre uses (including residential development) where this would not undermine the vitality and viability of a centre, to strengthen or re-introduce markets, to bring vacant sites and premises back into use, and to reduce or expand the boundaries of town centres where appropriate."
Whilst diversification with a broadened mix of uses and recognition of the role of residential in town centre regeneration is not new, where there is change of emphasis is the recognition of the role of ‘repurposing’ in bringing vacant sites and premises back into use – which quite rightly is front and centre of planning for town centres.
The NPPF26 also restores the explicit reference to strengthening or re-introducing markets, given the role they can play in supporting town centre vitality and viability, which was not included in the December 2025 draft.
Notably, NPPF26 also introduces reference to town centre boundaries being reduced as well as expanded where appropriate. In doing so, the policy rightly provides recognition that centres could be expanding or contracting. TC1 1 (c) reinforces the focus on making effective use of existing land, requiring vacant town centre sites and areas suitable for intensification to be considered before boundaries are reviewed to accommodate additional development.
Design, place-making and Article 4 directions
Policy TC1(2), encourages local planning authorities to use of "design guides, design codes and masterplans" to support their vision for, and the development of, town centres. This is a new emphasis on design and placemaking that was not included within the NPPF24 Chapter on ‘Ensuring the vitality of town centres’.
This policy also introduces a policy basis for plan makers to bring in Article 4 directions to remove permitted development rights where it would support the "vitality and viability of centres and their character". This would allow local authorities to restrict permitted development rights where considered necessary. This could be relevant, for example, where authorities seek greater control over changes from Class E uses[1] to residential. The NPPF24 said that Article 4 Directions should:
"where they relate to change from non-residential use to residential use, be limited to situations where an Article 4 direction is necessary to avoid wholly unacceptable adverse impacts (this could include the loss of the essential core of a primary shopping area which would seriously undermine its vitality and viability, but would be very unlikely to extend to the whole of a town centre)".
The current approach to the introduction of Article 4 Directions arguably has a softened test of suitability. This is reflected in the Government’s intention that there will be a more proportionate and flexible approach to the introduction of Article 4 Directions, as stated in its response to the national policy consultation on policy DM10 "removal of national permitted development rights". DM10 also refers to supporting the vitality and viability of town centres, as well as safeguarding against the demolition of local facilities. However, Article 4 Directions should be supported by robust evidence and applied to the smallest area required to mitigate evidenced harm.
Decision Making and Determining Applications
New: ‘substantial weight’ for beneficial proposals
TC2 introduces an important change for decision-making. "Substantial weight" should be given development that supports town centre vitality and viability, including through diversification, intensification and residential accommodation (subject to consistency with any site-specific development plan policies).
Substantial weight should also be given to improving or retaining access to local shops and facilities providing day-to-day services.
This provides stronger policy support for town centre regeneration and repurposing schemes than the previous NPPF24 and should be a welcome boost for those looking to invest in town centres.
Out of Centre Development
Sequential test — new sustainable transport emphasis, ‘flexibility’ in format and scale retained
Policy TC3 notes the sequential hierarchy remains unchanged; main town centre uses should be located sequentially, in town centres, then edge of centre and only then out of centre locations.
Whereas previously preference was given to accessible sites which are well connected, the drafting now goes further and explicitly refers to sites that are accessible and well connected by "sustainable transport modes"[2]. This arguably adds a more explicit sustainability dimension to the considerations of the sequential test, and could be an important consideration for planning applications going forward.
The December 2025 drafting, suggested a much more radical approach to the sequential assessment, including suggestion of disaggregation / the potential to split proposed developments across "multiple sites". This drafting has not been carried forward, instead the flexibility of format and scale from NPPF24 is maintained. This will clearly be a welcome by those concerned the more rigid approach suggested in the draft could deter economic investment.
Edge of centre – definition refined
For retail purposes, the glossary (Annex B) now refers to sites within 300m from the primary shopping area and,
"if no primary shopping area has been defined in the development plan, it should be regarded as a location that is well-connected to, and up to 300 metres from, that part of the town centre within which retail uses predominate – measured from its outer edge".
In essence, this provides clarity on how to measure whether a site sits at an edge of centre location.
An unchanged Impact Test
The impact test, set out at TC4 remains unchanged[3]. Retail and leisure proposals outside town centres that exceed the relevant locally defined threshold, or the default 2,500sqm threshold where no local threshold exists, remain subject to an impact assessment.
The assessment continues to focus on impacts on investment and on town centre vitality and viability, including consumer choice and trade.
Other key points for the sector:
-
More protection for public houses - Policy HC6 introduces additional protections for ‘local shops’ and public houses recognising the role they play in community facilities. Loss of these needs to be justified, including through demonstrating commercial viability and 12 months marketing evidence. Equivalent or better reprovision can justify a loss. This follows the July announcement that pubs, clubs and live music venues will receive a further 20% cut to their business rates bills from April 2027[4].
The challenges facing the pub sector was explored in this recent Lichfields blog, which considered pressures of planning for pubs in London. In such a challenging sector, there is a question of whether a protectionist approach like Policy HC6 is right. Would it be better to have greater distinction between pubs of historic and cultural value? On the face of it, certainly, Policy HC6 does not appear to adequately recognise or plan for the need for many public houses to adapt and evolve – which is perhaps an opportunity missed.
-
Roadside Facilities – Roadside facilities receive greater recognition. Policy S5 explicitly recognises such facilities as acceptable in principle outside settlement boundaries, subject to the requirements of Policy TR5.
Policy TR5 provides positive support for new and expanded roadside services where they would meet an unmet need or improve access to electric vehicle charging and alternative fuels. The policy is however silent on the retail and food and drink elements of roadside facilities, despite these often forming an integral part of their offer. Nevertheless, the policies provide useful national policy support for roadside facilities, which is welcomed.
-
Hot food takeaways – Policy HC5 broadly maintains the previous NPPF24 wording, providing guidance on the location of hot food takeaways. Linked to the new policy, Annex 2 provides some clarification on what a ‘reasonable walking distance’ from potentially sensitive receptors could be, identifying that this should be considered to be around 400 metres, or around five minutes’ walk time if topography, route availability and quality or physical barriers would prevent or discourage walking up to 400 metres.
Conclusion
NPPF26 retains the town centre first principle and core retail tests of the NPPF24 but significantly broadens the policy expectations for those planning for town centres’ future – from developing a strategy and identifying opportunities for intensification, to using design and masterplanning to shape evolution. Whilst town centre policies emphasise adaptation, diversification and repurposing; there is also a more protective approach to public houses and Article 4 directions, for example. Town centres continue to be pulled in different directions – towards both adaptation and protection. The challenge will be working with local planning authorities to achieve overall growth, buoyed by and with reference this stated overarching Government aim.
If you would like to discuss how Lichfields can assist with your town centre project or help you navigate the new NPPF town centre policies, please get in touch.
Footnotes
[1] Class E uses as defined in the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended by the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2020)
[2] ‘Sustainable transport modes’ is a defined term “Any efficient, safe and accessible means of transport with overall low impact on the environment, including walking, wheeling, cycling and public transport”. The consultation responses explains that for policy TC3 it means access to edge-of-centre and out of centre locations by non-car modes.
[3] Paragraph 94 of the NPPF24 contained the same requirements.
