8/20/2026 9:41:15 AM | 3 minute read

The new NPPF: what does the 'Default Yes' around transport hubs really mean?

Get in touch

Owen Dugmore

Executive

Get in touch

Owen Dugmore

Executive

We know Andy Burnham loves a bus. From the new NPPF, it looks like his government has become rather fond of trains too.

Development around well-connected transport hubs is hardly a new planning concept. National policy has long encouraged growth in sustainable locations with good access to public transport. What is new, however, is the extent to which the revised National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF, as if you didn't know already) strengthens that support through the introduction of a ‘default yes’ approach and new density expectations around transport hubs.

The policy is intended to accelerate housing delivery in sustainable locations and encourage more intensive development around existing transport infrastructure. It reflects a clear intention to direct a greater proportion of future housing growth towards railway, tram and underground stations and to make more effective use of highly accessible land.

For local planning authorities, developers and landowners alike, the implications could be significant, not least because some of the most contentious debates around future housing growth may increasingly centre on Green Belt and grey belt sites located within station catchments.

Default Yes

Whilst not a formal term within the NPPF itself, the phrase reflects the substantially stronger presumption in favour of residential development around well-connected transport hubs introduced by the revised NPPF. Put simply, it seeks to make it easier to bring forward housing in locations with strong public transport connections. The Government's intention is that railway, train and underground stations should play a larger role in delivering new homes, reflecting their accessibility to jobs, services and infrastructure. The key questions are which stations qualify as ‘well-connected stations’, what density expectations apply to development around them, and what this could mean for Green Belt and grey belt sites located within station catchments.

Well-connected stations

The concept of a ‘well-connected station’ is not new. Previous iterations of the NPPF already included a definition based on Travel to Work Areas and minimum service frequencies, albeit within a footnote. The revised framework updates that definition as follows:

‘Well-connected station: Railway stations and underground, tram and light rail stops located within a top 80 Travel to Work Area located partially or fully within England by Gross Value Added (GVA)72 and which, in the normal weekday timetable, are served (or have a reasonable prospect of being served due to planned upgrades or through agreement with the rail operator) throughout the daytime by at least four trains or trams per hour overall, or at least two trains or trams per hour in any one direction.’

Whilst the service frequency requirements remain largely unchanged, the expansion from the top 60 to the top 80 Travel to Work Areas broadens the number of locations capable of benefiting from the policy.

Density expectations

Whilst the ‘default yes’ shift is catching the headlines (including my own), the introduction of minimum density expectations around well-connected stations may prove just as important.

The revised NPPF provides that development around well-connected stations should achieve a minimum density of 35 dwellings per hectare, rising to 45 dwellings per hectare where service frequencies are particularly high. The policy also makes clear that these minimum densities should be exceeded where possible and that land should be used efficiently.

This shifts the focus beyond simply identifying where housing should be delivered. For sites around well-connected stations, the question may increasingly become not only whether development is appropriate, but whether enough development is being proposed. Schemes that underutilise these locations may therefore face increasing scrutiny where opportunities exist to accommodate additional housing.

What about Green and Grey Belt sites near stations?

One of the most interesting consequences of the revised policy is its interaction with Green Belt and Grey Belt land.

It is important not to overstate the position. The ‘default yes’ does not remove the existing policy protections afforded to Green Belt land and the major Green Belt and Grey Belt reforms were introduced through earlier planning reform rather than this latest NPPF.

However, where Green Belt or grey belt sites fall within the catchment of a well-connected station, the position becomes more nuanced. Such sites may now benefit from a combination of factors discussed above: a stronger presumption in favour of development around transport hubs, a broader definition of what constitutes a qualifying station and clearer expectations regarding the density of development that should be accommodated in highly accessible locations.

Taken together, those changes are likely to increase the focus on station-adjacent Green Belt and grey belt sites as authorities consider how housing needs should be met. The debate may become less about the existence of a Green Belt designation and more about whether a site represents a sustainable, accessible and suitably dense opportunity to deliver new homes.

For any queries on the new National Planning Policy Framework, please contact me.

"There will be a default 'yes' for homes within reasonable walking distance of well-connected stations, alongside new minimum expectations for how much housing should be built in these areas."

www.gov.uk/...