Draft NPPF: Decision-Taking, Discretion and the Changing Role of Appeals

One of the less explicit but most consequential themes running through the draft NPPF consultation is a recalibration of decision-taking. Across housing delivery, viability, thresholds and environmental policy, there is a clear attempt to narrow the scope for discretion and reduce outcomes that are seen to frustrate delivery.

This is reflected in the way the draft NPPF emphasises clarity, standardisation and early resolution of issues through plan-making. The underlying message is that decisions should flow more directly from adopted plans, with fewer opportunities for reinterpretation or renegotiation at application stage. In principle, this strengthens the plan-led system by reinforcing the authority of up-to-date plans.

However, discretion has always played an important role in planning decision-making. Plans cannot anticipate every circumstance, and judgement is often required where policies interact, evidence evolves or site-specific constraints emerge. The risk of a more tightly framed policy environment is not simply that discretion is reduced, but that it is displaced into other parts of the system.

Appeals provide a useful lens through which to view this shift. If plans are clear, realistic and deliverable, a reduction in appeals should follow naturally. But where plans are out of date, overly ambitious or insufficiently flexible, constraining discretion at application stage may increase reliance on appeals to resolve tensions that policy cannot. In that scenario, certainty is not increased; it is deferred.

For decision-takers, the draft NPPF places greater weight on confidence and consistency. Decisions that align with plan objectives and delivery expectations are implicitly encouraged, even where schemes are not perfect. This requires judgement of a different kind, one that focuses on implementation and outcomes rather than strict policy compliance.

The central issue, therefore, is not whether discretion should exist, but where it is exercised. A genuinely plan-led system does not eliminate discretion; it channels it. The success of the draft NPPF will depend on whether it empowers better decision-making at the right stage, or whether it inadvertently shifts complexity and risk into the appeals system instead.

A genuinely plan-led system does not eliminate discretion; it channels it