Planning matters

In seeking to provide the conditions for long term economic growth, draft policy E1 would require local authorities to “allocate sites to implement the economic vision and strategy and meet existing and anticipated needs over the plan period…and the specific locational requirements of different sectors”[4]. This includes, where a need exists or is anticipated, making provision for: “the expansion or modernisation of other businesses of local, regional or national importance to support economic growth and resilience (including industries such as leisure and tourism which may be of particular importance in certain areas).[5]” Few authorities currently allocate sites for tourism uses. The allocation of major sites to support long-term investment would be helpful but on the whole, provided that authorities provide a positive policy framework, there is no absolute need for allocations for tourism uses. For those areas where tourism is an important part of the economy, recognition of this within the local plan’s vision and strategy is vital.

 

The draft NPPF states that development proposals within settlements should be approved unless the benefits of doing so would be substantially outweighed by any adverse effects, when assessed against the national decision-making policies in this Framework[6]. Whilst there are some limitations to the draft policy, overall, this generally reflects the current position and is a good starting point for such operations.

 

Many tourism operations take place outside settlement boundaries. The introduction of more extensive decision-making policies into the NPPF provides reinforced support for the development of tourism development in locations outside settlements. Proposed Policy S5 states that certain forms of development, such as rural businesses and services, “including tourism”, should be approved unless the benefits would be substantially outweighed by any adverse effects, when assessed against decision-making policies elsewhere in the Framework[7]. The location outside settlements would need to be shown to be necessary. The principle of this emerging policy is welcomed. It will provide explicit support across every authority, barring any local deviations tested through the plan-making process. 

Draft Policy S5 would work in parallel with draft policies E2 and E4. E2 would provide substantial weight to the economic benefits of proposals for commercial development which allow businesses to invest, expand and adapt, especially where this would support the economic vision and strategy for the area. In applying policy E2, draft policy E4 states that the sustainable growth of businesses in rural areas should be supported including through facilities to support rural leisure and tourism (paragraph 1c). This provides a welcome reinforcement for the sector. Together these go further than the current NPPF.

Draft policy E4 goes on to say that development proposals to meet business needs in rural areas may need to be located outside settlements and in locations that are not well served by public transport. In these cases, the decision-making policy says that opportunities to use previously developed land and sites that are physically well-related to existing development should be taken where they exist[8] and the siting and design of development should be appropriate having regard to the character of its surroundings[9]. These are not fundamentally different to the current NPPF.

 

The NPPF definition of “main town centre uses” includes certain tourism uses, including hotels and various leisure, arts and culture developments[10]. 

The NPPF maintains the support for town centre locations, with little overall change proposed to the policy approach for main town centre uses.  These will continue to be directed to existing centres with substantial weight to be given to supporting the overall vitality and viability of centres (Emerging Policy TC2). For proposed main town centre uses not located in an existing centre or in accordance with an allocation, these will continue to be subject to a sequential test which focuses on the town centre, then edge of centre if feasible and only if suitable sites are not available within a reasonable period, out of centre sites can be considered (Emerging Policy TC3). Flexibility on factors such as format and scale continue to be expected by policy while consideration of disaggregation has potentially been re-introduced (removed in the first edition of the NPPF in 2012). Notwithstanding the above, the consultation document does question whether the sequential test should be removed in order to allow greater flexibility to respond to changing patterns of demand. It will be interesting to see what the outcome of the consultation is in due course.

  

Whilst noting the term tourism is not defined in the emerging or the existing NPPF, except for a reference as part of main town centre uses, elsewhere we would expect all aspects of tourism to be covered i.e. attractions, accommodation and associated infrastructure. The visitor economy is also supported by a range of leisure and sporting facilities and destinations. There are separate policies in the draft NPPF for some of these types of uses e.g. sports facilities and therefore specific development proposals do need to be considered in this context.

The greater emphasis on rural tourism is very much welcomed. The emerging NPPF does not provide carte blanche for applicants, however, as other policies in the NPPF (e.g. flooding, landscape, ecology, heritage, transport) will still apply.

The principle of the plan-led system is reinforced through the consultation. Even with a stronger national set of decision-making policies, there will still be a need to ensure that the visitor economy, particularly where this has a significant role in a local area, is embedded within the emerging local and neighbourhood plans. Local authorities will also be considering whether assessments of need and allocations to meet needs for tourism will now have to be given greater prominence in the plan-making process from hereon in[11]. It has always been important for operators, and the wider industry, to engage throughout the plan-making process but perhaps there will now be greater reasons to monitor progress before engagement to ensure that assessments of need and allocations are robustly tested, and the generally positive emerging national policies are not diluted at a local level.

The introduction of decision-making policies provides a strong starting point. That said, I am left with a number of questions for the industry in relation to the application of these emerging policies:
 

1. What is considered to be a rural business and service for tourism, in relation to draft Policy S5?
    
2. How would a location outside settlements be shown to be necessary? Is there a risk that this could be artificially limited by decision-makers in the absence of further guidance or will they rightly consider the term broadly and on a case-by-case basis?
    
3. Does ‘commercial development’ include tourism development when it comes to applying substantial weight in support of proposals under draft Policy E2. It should.
    
4. What precisely is rural tourism in draft Policy E4? Is it any tourism located outside the settlement boundary or could it be limited to small-scale tourism associated with traditional rural business?
    

We are currently working with operators and industry representatives as part of reviewing the draft NPPF with a view to making representations before the consultation deadline on 10 March 2026. Please do get in touch if you would like further information.

 

In December 2025, the government did something it has not done for many years, proposing substantive changes to the built heritage policies of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Alongside the draft NPPF, an accompanying consultation document sets out the government’s rationale. At its core is an objective of:

 

The consultation commentary acknowledges that heritage policy has become one of the most complex areas for applicants and decision makers to deal with. It notes that existing policies have focused too heavily on addressing harm, and have not provided sufficient positive support for the sustainable reuse of heritage assets in a way that supports growth. The proposed changes are intended to strengthen the ability to bring forward heritage related development.

The broad ambition is a sensible one. The current heritage policies in the NPPF are long in the tooth and although broadly functional, are not without their issues.

 

 

 

At first glance, the heritage chapter in the draft NPPF can appear to be a complete rewrite. In reality, this is not the case. Much of the text has been rearranged, consolidated and tweaked.

For example, Policy HE2 introduces a dedicated section for World Heritage Sites and Conservation Areas, drawing together elements previously found in paragraphs 204, 219 and 220. Policy HE4, securing the conservation and enhancement of heritage assets, consolidates material from paragraphs 202, 209, 210 and 221. Overall, the thinking behind the changes is understandable and, in many cases, will assist with making policy clearer and easier to navigate.

This blog does not attempt a paragraph by paragraph comparison. Instead, it focuses on some of the key themes and what they may mean in practice for applicants and decision makers. In particular, it considers changes to concepts such as ‘less than substantial harm’, ‘great weight’, ‘optimum viable use’, the revised approach to non-designated assets, and whether the stated aim of a more positive stance which supports growth has been realised.

 

The shift towards a more positive tone and a more proactive approach is notable.

Policy HE1 increases the responsibility for local authorities at the plan making stage. It requires councils to identify the main heritage features within the plan area, including those assets most at risk through neglect, decay or other threats, and to set out a positive strategy for their conservation and enhancement, including where these assets can be used to support sustainable growth.

This is not entirely new. Previous versions of the NPPF already required plans to set out a positive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment. However, the revised wording places greater emphasis on identifying solutions for assets at risk, particularly where heritage assets can support sustainable growth. As part of this, authorities will be expected to prepare a borough wide heritage statement and are encouraged to use tools such as design codes and masterplans.

Policy HE2 also states the need for periodic review of Conservation Areas. While this reflects existing statutory duties, the additional policy emphasis may help reinforce the importance of keeping evidence and boundaries up to date, even if progress remains constrained by resources.

Taken together, this more proactive approach could help establish a clearer baseline at plan making stage, providing a better starting point for guiding proposals and decision making. However, this may be challenging for under-resourced authorities, while some authorities already do much of this work.

 A more positive tone is also evident at decision making stage. For the first time, the heritage policies of the NPPF explicitly identify several scenarios in which development “should be approved”. Examples include proposals that would have a positive effect on designated or non-designated heritage assets, or proposals that preserve those elements of the setting of a World Heritage Site or Conservation Area that make a positive contribution to significance.

The unwritten subtext, of course, is that approval remains subject to consideration of all other relevant heritage and planning matters. Nonetheless, these provisions provide helpful policy hooks, emphasising the weight to be afforded to heritage benefits. They also address a tendency in practice for decision making to focus heavily on harm, while positive heritage effects receive less explicit recognition.

Policy HE6(3) also provides, for the first time, examples within the NPPF of “important public benefits”, including securing the long-term reuse of a vacant or underused Listed Building, and enabling energy efficiency and low carbon heating measures. While not exhaustive, this is helpful, and may encourage decision makers to attach more weight to these benefits, which often necessitate some degree of heritage harm.

Taken together, these changes point towards a slightly more positive and proactive policy framework, both at plan making and decision making stages.

  

Despite this shift in tone, the core decision-making framework remains broadly familiar. That said, there are some notable changes.

The distinction between harm that is substantial and harm that is not substantial remains, although the phrase “less than substantial harm” has been dropped. “Substantial harm” is defined for the first time, as harm which would “seriously affect a key element of the asset’s significance”. This reflects a position that has largely been settled through case law and is set out in current guidance, but its inclusion in policy is nonetheless helpful.

The removal of the “less than substantial harm” label appears intended to move away from confusing terminology, and to encourage clearer articulation of the nature and degree of harm below the substantial threshold. While the policy does not introduce a formal sliding scale below the substantial threshold, the requirement to describe harm more precisely is now embedded in policy rather than guidance.

The draft also replaces the long-established requirement to give “great weight” to the conservation of designated heritage assets with “substantial weight’, a change now expressed in Policy HE6. The consultation document explains that this is intended to improve consistency across the Framework rather than to signal any reduction in the weight to be applied, and a footnote reinforces the continued relevance of the statutory duties.

On one level, this can be seen as a matter of tidying up. However, the wider use of the term substantial weight elsewhere in the Framework, including (for example) in relation to housing delivery, town centre vitality and energy efficiency, may influence how decision makers perceive the relative balance between competing considerations. In finely balanced cases, this could affect outcomes, even if the underlying legal position remains unchanged.

The removal of the concept of “optimum viable use” is also notable. This has historically been used to assess whether works to a heritage asset could be justified by securing its least harmful, but still economically viable use, particularly where assets are vacant or at risk. While useful in some cases, it can be difficult to apply if interpreted in the strictest sense. Its removal may therefore allow greater flexibility where harm is not substantial, and simplify the balancing exercise.

Other changes largely reflect guidance and established practice. There is now an explicit requirement to avoid or minimise harm, and a stated focus on considering the effects on significance rather than the scale of development. It is clarified that World Heritage Site management plans should be considered where relevant.

One area of concern is Policy HE5.4, which requires decision makers to be satisfied that heritage assessments “accurately reflect” effects. This could prove problematic where a robust Heritage Impact Assessment reaches conclusions that differ from an officer’s judgement. It risks encouraging litigation rather than substantive debate, and leaves no room for professional disagreement. This sentence would benefit from refinement or removal.

 

The redrafted policies significantly reduce the distinction between the approach to designated and non-designated heritage assets.

In particular, concepts such as ‘substantial harm’ and ‘clear and convincing justification’ apply across both categories. It is not entirely clear whether the changes represent a genuine increase in protection, or simply a streamlining of policy. The truth is perhaps somewhere in between.

Most notably, Policy HE7 introduces a standalone balancing exercise for non-designated heritage assets. Previously, the effect on such assets was simply to be taken into account within the wider planning balance. The revised policy now requires harm to non-designated assets to be outweighed by the benefits of the proposal. Notably, this refers to “benefits”, rather than “public benefits”, although in practice the distinction may be limited.

The practical impact of this change remains to be seen, but it certainly seems to place greater emphasis on minimising and justifying harm to non-designated heritage assets, and could influence outcomes in some cases.

  

Overall, while there is a lot of ‘red pen’, the effects of the changes are generally subtle. Many clarify existing practice, improve consistency, and make policy easier to navigate, rather than fundamentally altering outcomes. In many cases, the impact will be felt more in how Heritage Impact Assessments are expressed, rather than in the fundamental approach to conservation.

That said, the changes around substantial weight, the removal of optimum viable use, the more explicit recognition of positive effects may influence balancing exercises and decisions at the margins.

The enhanced expectations placed on local authorities at plan making stage could be beneficial, but will be resource intensive.

There is also a clear, if modest, shift in emphasis towards non-designated heritage assets.

Overall, the changes appear evolutionary rather than revolutionary, collectively nudging the framework towards greater clarity and a slightly more positive, proactive approach.

However, the requirement for decision makers to agree with the conclusions of Heritage Impact Assessments, remains a concern.

 

Finally, the consultation document raises the possibility of extending the statutory special regard duties beyond Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas to include World Heritage Sites, Registered Parks and Gardens, Protected Wrecks and Scheduled Monuments.

If implemented, this would introduce a clear legal duty to have special regard to these assets rather than relying solely on policy. While this may not significantly change outcomes in many cases, it would provide greater clarity and consistency and help address some of the unevenness between asset types.

 

Overall, the direction of travel in December’s draft National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) for energy policy is clear. Substantial weight is to be given to renewable and low‑carbon energy development, with an expanded definition that rightly now includes technologies such as energy storage. This is welcome and unsurprising.

Where draft policy remains weaker, however, is not in ambition but in delivery mechanics. The challenge is no longer whether energy infrastructure should come forward, but how the planning system — and in particular the Local Plan — can genuinely support timely, investable delivery that aligns with grid capacity, development risk and technological change.

The draft NPPF places renewed emphasis on plan‑making as a vehicle for delivering the infrastructure needed to meet energy targets, whether that be 2030, 2035 or beyond. Yet in its current form, it risks only scratching the surface of what is required.

Rather than searching for broad areas suitable for energy development, Local Plans could adopt a site‑specific, evidence‑based allocation process designed specifically for energy infrastructure. Lichfields' Advanced Energy Group describes this as the Integrated Energy Allocation Model.

The model is built around six interlinked components, intended to provide earlier certainty while retaining flexibility and avoiding premature or inefficient planning applications.

 

 

For the Integrated Energy Allocation model to function effectively, alignment with NESO and Distribution Network Operators would be essential. In particular, Local Plan energy allocations would need to be recognised within grid connection processes, potentially through early‑stage, “subject to allocation” agreements.

Guardrails would also be required to avoid over‑allocation and land sterilisation, ensuring that the extent of safeguarded sites broadly aligns with anticipated network capacity and connection availability.

Distribution Network Operators could also choose to promote sites through the Local Plan process. If an allocation is then forthcoming, the connection agreement would run with the land and be available for a developer to secure.

 

If Local Plans are to be genuine delivery vehicles for energy infrastructure, rather than statements of intent, they need mechanisms that reflect how projects are financed, connected and built.

The Integrated Energy Allocation Model offers one way of bridging the gap between policy ambition and delivery reality — providing earlier certainty, reducing wasted effort, and supporting the timely infrastructure needed to meet the UK’s energy targets.

This is not a finished blueprint, but it is a starting point for a more practical conversation about how planning can better support the energy transition.

 

 

 

Let’s begin with the potential benefits of increasing the threshold.

 

The Scottish Government via the ECU has committed to a target of determining most energy consent applications within 12 months if there is no public inquiry, or 24 months if there is an inquiry. However, the Scottish Government does not maintain or publish pre-calculated average timescales for determination of such applications. This limits the ability to directly compare performance against the Scottish Government’s stated targets, although previous analyses by Brodies LLP and RenewableUK has suggested that these timescales are not necessarily being met. 

So, if more projects could be determined LPAs would this result in faster decision making? Local planning authorities in Scotland have a statutory determination period of four months for ‘major’ applications. The actual average decision time is often longer (approximately 10 months in 2024/25 for major electricity generation developments)[2], however this is still an improvement on the timescales when compared with the ECU commitment to 12/24 months.

 

 

Currently the LPA acts as a statutory consultee on applications being considered by the ECU, and our experience is that their response is critical to the determination of the application (not least because an objection from the planning authority currently automatically triggers a public inquiry[3]). However, the local planning authority is ultimately not the decision-maker, which is made centrally on behalf of Scottish Government.

The LPA’s current role as a key statutory consultee to ECU considered applications is naturally resource intensive, they essentially assess each application as they would if they were determining it themselves. The local authority is only partially compensated on a voluntarily basis by the ECU for this (the Electricity Act 1989 allows for a voluntary financial contribution, equivalent to 50 % of the application fee paid). However, if the local planning authority was the decision-maker, they could retain the full fee directly allowing local authorities to better recover their costs and strengthen planning capacity locally.

Increasing the threshold would result in more developments being considered by LPAs. This could help address any perceptions that centralised decisions lead to local views not being fully considered. More localised decisions may also mean that development decisions more successfully reflect local context and any conditions imposed would similarly be attached in full knowledge of local circumstances. 

However, we must not lose sight of the fact that new electricity generation projects are critically important to Scotland’s transition to net zero and greater control of our energy supply. These are matters of national importance and removal of centralised decision making could lead to inconsistent decisions across Scotland and impact on Scotland’s transition to clean energy.

Whilst there are potential benefits to increasing the threshold, consideration of the potential drawbacks of this approach are explored below.

 

 

There is the potential that increasing the threshold is simply shifting the burden from the ECU onto LPAs at a time when they are already stretched and struggling to deal with their planning application workload. That said the ECU consenting process as highlighted above already requires significant input from LPAs and shifting responsibility would be balanced against this.

 

 

Whilst decision-making by planning committees (where most schemes over 20MW would be heard) at the LPA level would empower local democracy, it could also increase the influence of local opposition, making some energy projects harder to approve. There is the potential that local issues may be weighed more strongly than meeting national climate targets, which can feel further removed from local communities. As local councillors are directly exposed to electoral pressure, objection campaigns can also gain more traction. The result could be that schemes are refused that might have otherwise been consented by the ECU, or that similar projects are approved in some local authorities but refused in others. 

This doesn’t mean local delegation is wrong, but might require additional measures such as sufficient resourcing, further training for local councillors and planners where required, and perhaps a framework for decision making setting out clearly what are material considerations. Potentially a National Scheme of Delegation or a clearly set out referral process could be put in place to ensure a consistent approach across the country.

Without a National Scheme of Delegation or some other form of referral such as applications proposed for refusal over 50 MW trigger a national review, increased local opposition could result in more refusals at a local level. These refusals could result in more appeals being made, shifting the burden from the ECU to the Planning and Environmental Appeals Division (DPEA) and ultimately back to Scottish Government. Appeals are lengthy processes and, combined with the original application and determination timeframes, can present notable delays to any development that might ultimately be approved.

 

The Scottish Government is consulting only on increasing the MW threshold however there are alternatives that could improve the consenting process. MWs measure electrical output, not planning impact and for this reason, we consider three key alternatives to MW thresholds alone being the factor that determines where consent decisions should be made.

 

The Scottish Chief Planner's letter dated August 2020 confirmed that BESS schemes should be treated as ‘electricity generating stations’ in terms of Scottish legislation. This is even though, strictly speaking, they do not generate electricity, and instead store and releases power already generated elsewhere. Wales, in 2025, took a similar stance by including BESS within the national level consenting. We have another blog that looks at this matter in Wales specifically. This position is in contrast with England where BESS developments were removed from the requirement to obtain a Development Consent Order (‘DCO’) as Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (‘NSIPs’) in December 2020, regardless of their MW capacity.

Statistics provided by the Scottish Government as part of their consultation show that of the renewable electricity generation projects being considered by the ECU in Q2 of 2025 more than a third were BESS projects (45) and more than a half were for wind (74). By removing some, if not all BESS projects from the energy consent process, this would allow the ECU to consider proposals where the impacts are more likely to be considerable (such as large wind farms), rather than BESS proposals where the impacts are typically more localised.

 

 

Whilst there is simplicity in having one MW threshold for all generating stations, this approach may no longer be suitable for current renewable energy projects. Not only has England removed the threshold for BESS entirely in terms of NSIPs, but they have also increased the threshold for solar to 100 MW. This approach reflects the nuances of different types of renewable energy developments and their impacts.

The existing system treats MWs as having equivalence across all types of development. However, two projects with the same MW output could have radically different impacts, particularly in the case of wind farms where height will drive impact far more than the MWs produced. As technology advances greater MWs will for some technologies be achievable on smaller footprints. These matters should all be a consideration.

 

 

Introducing additional metrics that would trigger an energy consent application could assist in tackling the varying impacts of different types of renewable energy applications. Perhaps it is time to consider the size of the site rather than the capacity of the development in MWs when setting thresholds. Furthermore, MW limits are quite often dictated by grid connections, not the ability of a site to generate.

Set out below is an illustration of how wider factors could be considered in determining thresholds and who determines what applications – ECU or LPA. Of course, there are other potential approaches to allowing a wider number of factors to be considered when determining the route to consent.

In this illustration, where a proposal meets all three criteria in the ‘Local Authority’ column of the table below it would be considered under the terms of the Town and Country Planning Act by the LPA. Where a proposal meets the capacity criteria and either the site size or height criteria (or both) under ‘Energy Consent Unit’ column, it would be considered under the Electricity Act by the ECU.

 

 

A 50 MW onshore wind farm was once considered large, and the existing legislation is focused around a very different time in terms of renewable energy technology. Today, a range of renewable projects of up 150 MW are commonplace. As technology improves, projects will be able to increase in MW output without significant changes in their physical or environmental impacts. The existing thresholds increasingly capture projects that might now be considered as routine infrastructure rather than being truly nationally significant.

Using just MW capacity alone to determine the route to consent or otherwise brings with it the potential to limit the efficient use of land in that it potentially places a restriction on efficiency of technology and innovation. Technology is evolving and currently consented BESS and Solar projects in particular could increase their MW output from the same footprint in the future, but this is restricted by MW thresholds.

As we have set out, there are alternatives to just increasing the MW capacity thresholds which is worth further exploration. If the legislative and consenting system is to be fully modernised and made fit for purpose thresholds and additional trigger tests should be considered for different development types driven by their likely local/national impact not by MW output alone.

Responses to the consultation are due by 27 March 2026. If you’re interested in making representations to the Scottish Government and would like to discuss this further, please do get in touch with Lichfields.