On 17 August 2026 the government replaced the NPPF with a completely rewritten framework. For trees, the headline is more reassuring than the restructure suggests: protection for ancient and veteran trees has held, a proposal to widen the veteran tree definition was dropped, and trees now have a policy of their own. The effect that matters in practice is indirect. A stronger push for homes and growth, plus a lighter biodiversity net gain regime, will put more development closer to more trees.
The short version
Ancient woodland, ancient trees and veteran trees remain irreplaceable habitats. Proposals that would cause their loss or deterioration should be refused.
A consultation proposal to widen the veteran tree definition did not make it into the final text.
A dedicated tree policy. New streets are generally expected to be tree-lined, with long-term maintenance considered from the outset.
A default-yes approach to housing near stations and within settlements, and a smaller biodiversity net gain footprint for small sites.
A rewrite, not a repeal
The new framework swaps numbered paragraphs for named policies, and separates the policies used to write local plans from the national policies used to decide applications. Those decision-making policies took effect on 17 August, so an application still undecided on that date should be judged against the new text, whichever version it was submitted under.
For tree reports, the practical consequence is housekeeping. Any policy section written before 17 August cites paragraph numbers that no longer exist. The references need updating, and the argument is worth a second look against the new wording. If you have an arboricultural impact assessment drafted before that date for an application that is still live, have that section checked.
Veteran trees: the change that didn't happen
The December 2025 draft proposed rewording the definition of an ancient or veteran tree so that a tree could qualify on any one of its age, size or condition, rather than the combination. Some commentators warned that this would pull far more trees into the strongest protection, with larger root protection constraints on site layouts. The final text kept the existing definition.
That doesn't make veteran trees a minor issue. The final text states the protection for those that do qualify more directly, and Natural England and Forestry Commission standing advice recommends a buffer of at least 15 times the stem diameter, or 5 metres from the canopy edge where that is larger. That is wider than a standard BS 5837 root protection area, which is why it is worth knowing early. You can see the standard figure with our RPA calculator.
One trap: the definition of a veteran tree used for biodiversity net gain is broader than the planning one, so a tree can count under one and not the other.
Tree-lined streets: easy to write, harder to build
The dedicated tree policy keeps the expectation that new streets are tree-lined, puts weight on how newly planted trees are looked after, and leans harder on weaving the trees already on site into the design. Few people argue with the principle. The argument is usually about the engineering. A street tree needs soil volume, a services corridor that doesn't run through its roots, and a species suited to the footway rather than the brochure.
Drainage, utilities, visibility splays and highway adoption all want the same ground as the roots. The designs that work are the ones where those teams talk before the layout is fixed.
Growth, density and the trees in the way
The old tilted balance in paragraph 11 has been replaced by a new set of decision policies, S3 to S5, covering development inside and outside settlements. Alongside them sit a default yes for homes near well-connected stations, with a minimum density of 35 dwellings per hectare, and a new medium development category for sites of 10 to 49 homes and up to one hectare. The direction is clear: more homes on land that is already built up.
Infill, intensification and tighter layouts mean new buildings sit closer to existing trees. None of that overrides tree protection, but it makes the earliest layout decisions count for more.
A constraints plan at feasibility stage shows where a building can go before the design hardens. Where a footprint does need to reach into a root protection area, there are engineering routes, such as screw piles, suspended slabs and no-dig surfacing, that can be worked into the scheme. For a first sense of scale, our RPA calculator gives you the starting figure, and our trees and planning page sets out how the reports fit together.
Biodiversity net gain: a smaller footprint, and a new question
Two changes landed in August. Amendments that took effect on 6 August 2026 introduced an exemption for non-major development on sites of 0.2 hectares or less, provided priority habitats aren't affected. They also withdrew the separate self-build and custom-build exemption and relaxed the expectation that on-site enhancement is maximised first. Then the NPPF itself limited when councils can ask for more than the statutory 10%: only for specific site allocations where it is justified and deliverable.
For many small schemes, BNG drops out. Tree protection doesn't. Tree Preservation Orders, Conservation Area notification and protected species law all sit outside the BNG regime, as does the irreplaceable-habitats test. An exemption from the metric doesn't remove the need for sound tree evidence.
Local plans: whose tree policy wins?
Under the transitional rules, a local plan policy that is materially inconsistent with a national decision-making policy should be given very limited weight, unless the plan was examined and adopted under the new framework. Plans submitted for examination by 31 December 2026 are still tested against the December 2024 framework.
Many local plans carry their own tree policies: canopy targets, replacement ratios, enhanced buffers. Where those go beyond national policy, expect argument over whether they are materially inconsistent. It is early and there is no settled approach, so it pays to know which local policies your Tree Officer is likely to lean on, and to be ready to justify the design against national policy as well.
How the pressures reach your tree work
Policy stays abstract until it lands on a site. This map shows how the changes above tend to translate into the documents a planning application needs. On a larger screen, hover over any box to follow its flows.
- Growth and density push leads to tighter plots and more pressure on services, levels and hardstanding, which means a constraints plan, an impact assessment and a protection plan.
- Tree-lined streets and retaining existing trees lead to services and levels conflicts, which means an impact assessment, a protection plan and method statement.
- Irreplaceable habitats lead to ancient and veteran tree checks and buffers, which means a survey, constraints plan and impact assessment.
- BNG rule changes change the habitat baseline and net gain route, which feeds the survey and impact assessment.
What this means for you
If trees are anywhere near your plot, start with a survey rather than a drawing. It tells you what is protected, what the layout can and can't do, and whether a TPO or Conservation Area applies. Once the constraints are mapped, the picture is often simpler than it first looks.
Ask for a tree constraints plan before the first sketch layout, and check that any tree report you rely on cites the new framework. Treat service routes, levels and surfacing as tree issues, not only engineering ones.
Build tree constraints into site appraisals before you buy or option land, and confirm which BNG route applies. Where a site holds possible ancient or veteran trees, find out early: the buffer can reshape a scheme.
Five checks before you submit
- A BS 5837 survey informed the layout, not only the application.
- Policy references in the tree reports match the new framework.
- Any trees that could count as ancient or veteran have been identified, with buffers shown.
- Services, levels and hardstanding have been routed with the root protection areas in view.
- The BNG route is confirmed: exempt, medium or major.
Want a second pair of eyes on your site?
Tell us about the project and we'll say which reports it needs, and in what order. One conversation is usually enough to know where you stand.
Common questions
Does the new NPPF apply to my live planning application?
Yes, if the council hadn't decided it by 17 August 2026. The new decision-making policies took effect immediately, so undecided applications should be assessed against the new framework, whichever version was current when they were submitted.
Has protection for ancient and veteran trees changed?
Not in substance. They remain irreplaceable habitats, and the policy states that proposals entailing their loss or deterioration should be refused. A proposal to widen the veteran tree definition was dropped before publication.
My site is under 0.2 hectares. Do I still need tree reports?
Possibly. The new BNG exemption removes the net gain requirement for non-major sites of 0.2 hectares or less with no priority habitats affected. It does not remove tree protection. If trees on or next to the site could be affected, councils will usually still expect proper tree evidence, and TPO and Conservation Area rules still apply.
Should an impact assessment written before August be updated?
If the application is still undecided, the policy section should refer to the new framework. The arboricultural findings usually stand, but the references and the policy argument should be checked.
Does the NPPF apply in Wales or Scotland?
No. The NPPF applies in England. Wales and Scotland have their own national planning policy (Planning Policy Wales and National Planning Framework 4), so check the policy that applies to your site.
Sources
- National Planning Policy Framework, GOV.UK
- CIEEM: what the revised NPPF means for ecology and environmental management
- Local Government Lawyer: the August 2026 NPPF, what has changed from the consultation draft
- Michelmores: the National Planning Policy Framework 2026
- Landmark Chambers: Government publishes new NPPF 2026
- Local Government Association: changes to the NPPF, August 2026
- R-LA: NPPF 2026, step forward or more mess?
- Part 3 With Me: what architects need to know
- Foot Anstey: new BNG exemptions from August 2026
- Planning Portal: changes to BNG exemptions in 2026
- Freeths: from consultation to publication
- Natural England and Forestry Commission: ancient woodland, ancient trees and veteran trees standing advice
General guidance, not legal advice. Policy references are drawn from the published framework and professional commentary at the date above; always check the current text and local policy for your site.
