So, with all the endless excitement around about the new draft NPPF it is worth remembering:
1. Until the a new NPPF is adopted as policy the previous NPPF (December 2023) remains national planning policy albeit that of course the NPPF is only ever a material consideration, and the weight to be attached to it might vary. So a part of the current NPPF not proposed to be changed would carry full weight but it could be said a part proposed to be changed does not;
2. The accompanying Ministerial Statement issued yesterday is, however, itself a material consideration indicating the direction of travel of national planning policy. The Court of Appeal in Cala [2011] EWCA Civ 639 held that [t]he prospect of a change in planning policy is capable of being a material consideration" and that "[t]he weight to be given to any prospective change in planning policy will be a matter for the decision-maker's planning judgment in each particular case. In principle, the means by which it is proposed to effect a change in policy, by new legislation, by amendment under existing legislation, or by administrative action such as the publication of a new [national planning policy], goes to the weight, not the materiality, of the prospective change".
3. The draft NPPF is also a material consideration but the weight to be attached to it is likely to be quite limited as it is still subject to consultation and may change. In Cala at first instance ([2011] 1 P&CR 22) it was said that "emerging national policy, for example in the form of a draft circular or Planning Policy Statement, can also be a material consideration (see Ex p. Kirkman)." In Kirkman ([1998] Env. L.R. 560) Carnwath J. noted that "As to draft Government circulars, in Pye Oxford Estates v. West Oxfordshire D.C. [1982] J.P.L. 577 (D. Widdicombe Q.C.) , the view was expressed that such a draft was not a relevant consideration for a planning decision, because it might never be issued at all or be issued in an amended form. In Richmond L.B.C. v. Secretary of State [1983] J.P.L. 24, Glidewell J. thought that was going too far ... The deciding authority was entitled to look at it, and give it such weight as it considered appropriate but not so as to “wipe out the development plan or any part of it” . Thus, ... draft circulars, may be relevant depending on the circumstances. In practice, however, it is likely to be rare that an authority is held to have acted unlawfully simply by virtue of its failure to have regard to such non-statutory statements."
4. For an example of how Inspectors may deal with all of this, see Appeal Ref : APP/J4423/A/11/2153926, where the Inspector said in relation to the draft of what became the NPPF (2012) "The draft NPPF is subject to public consultation and may change, which limits the weight that can be accorded to it."