Food production recognised in new planning reforms, but resilience gaps remain

The Government has published a revised National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), setting out how planning decisions will be made across England.

Planning decisions influence everything from access to healthy food and community growing spaces, to farm development and local supply chains. However Sustain believes the revised framework could make it easier for environmentally damaging intensive livestock developments to secure approval, while overlooking key parts of the infrastructure needed to build resilient local food economies.

We take a look at what's in and what's missing from the NPPF.

No new hot food takeaways near schools

The framework retains the national policy on hot food takeaways first introduced in the December 2024 NPPF. It states that proposals for new hot food takeaways should be refused near schools and other places where children and young people gather, unless they are within designated town centres. It also allows refusal where concentrations of takeaways are detrimental to health, pollution or antisocial behaviour.

The policy was first introduced following campaigning to improve food environments by Sustain and many of our members, who have worked with councils across the country to develop stronger planning approaches to unhealthy food environments.

While the revised framework retains protections on new hot food takeaways near schools, it removes the specific reference to "fast food outlets" introduced in 2024. Sustain would have preferred the term to be clarified rather than removed, and will continue working with local authorities and partners to improve food environments.

Greater recognition of food production and food growing

The new NPPF gives stronger recognition to farming and domestic food production than previous editions. It states that substantial weight should be given to benefits for domestic food production, animal welfare and environmental outcomes when considering proposals for agricultural modernisation. It also supports development that improves farm viability, including greenhouses, polytunnels, farm shops and on-farm reservoirs.

The changes could help address planning barriers that have long constrained UK fruit and vegetable production making it easier for growers to invest infrastructure such as polytunnels, glasshouses, packing facilities, and water storage.

Alys Bannister, Sustainable Farming Campaign Manager at Sustain, said:

"It's welcome to see stronger recognition of domestic food production in the planning system. For many growers, securing permission for essential infrastructure such as polytunnels, reservoirs, packing facilities and rural worker housing can be a significant barrier to investment and growth. These changes could help unlock some of that potential, particularly for UK fruit and vegetable production.

"However, without clearer safeguards, these planning changes, alongside the Poultry Sector Growth Plan, could be used to approve and expand intensive farming systems that place additional pressure on rivers, nature and local communities. The Government's own Farming Roadmap recognises that food production, climate resilience and nature recovery must be pursued together. Planning policy should reflect that same balanced approach."

Community food growing also receives greater recognition in the revised framework. For the first time, Green Belt policy explicitly refers to opportunities for allotments and community food production, while wider health policies recognise the role planning can play in supporting opportunities to grow healthier food. Together, these changes strengthen the case for local authorities to consider food growing as part of the planning system, whether through allotments, community gardens, edible landscaping or food-growing spaces within new developments.

Concerns over intensive livestock developments

The stronger recognition of food production is welcome, but it also creates a risk. The framework gives substantial weight to food production without clearly defining what kind of production it means. That means the same policy that could support a low-impact, nature-friendly farm could also be used to justify an intensive livestock unit.

Sustain has warned that this could make it harder for councils and communities to resist large-scale developments that increase pollution, damage nature or place further pressure on already vulnerable river catchments. Intensive livestock units can have major impacts on water quality, air pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, biodiversity and animal welfare. Yet planning applications do not always set out these impacts clearly or fully.

Sustain has also highlighted the need for planning authorities to consider cumulative impacts: the combined effect of multiple developments in one area. Nutrient pollution, air pollution and water contamination build up over time and across landscapes. In areas already under environmental strain, councils need clear powers to assess the total impact of new developments, rather than treating each application in isolation.

We are calling for planning policy to support agroecological and other farming systems that build long-term food resilience, and to recognise that soil, water and nature are as much a part of the UK's food infrastructure as farm buildings, processing facilities and distribution networks.

A missed opportunity for food resilience

While the revised NPPF includes more references to food production, it contains little explicit support for the infrastructure needed to get food from farms to consumers. Across England, farmers and food producers often struggle to access local processing, storage, distribution and marketing facilities. Small abattoirs, food hubs, producer markets and local distribution centres all play a vital role in connecting producers with consumers, schools, hospitals and other local buyers.

Joss MacDonald, Public Affairs Manager at Sustain, said:

"It's encouraging to see the Government recognise the role planning can play in creating healthier food environments and supporting domestic food production.

But food security is about more than producing food. We need planning policy that supports the local food infrastructure, healthy soils and resilient water systems that make food production possible in the long term.

Planning should support agroecological and nature-friendly farming systems that strengthen resilience, not simply reward increases in output regardless of their wider impacts."

Producing more food at home is not the same as building food security. A resilient food system also needs strong local supply chains, healthy soils and resilient water systems. Future planning reforms must support this if we are to withstand climate shocks and global instability.