Home › Posts › Woolly Words: What the updated National Planning Policy Framework means for Acoustics (Insight)

Woolly Words: What the updated National Planning Policy Framework means for Acoustics (Insight)

September 04, 2026

On Monday 17th August 2026 the new National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was published. The Institute of Acoustics – which I am a member of – was heavily involved in discussions with the Government. This release has replaced the previous version from 2024 and, in particular, paragraphs 187 and 198, which had related to pollution but specifically acoustics, noise and vibration.

In general, the latest version of the NPPF shows that the current government is keen to push developments through to fruition. In theory, the overall changes to the NPPF should make it easier to develop sites close to transport hubs, such as bus and train stations. Land should also be easier to develop within the Grey Belt and the framework is generally looking at methods to speed up the delivery of new homes, which are so desperately needed across the UK. To be clear, I support these new developments wholeheartedly but they do need to be carried out pragmatically.

So, what does that mean for the role of a humble acoustician? In my opinion, not a huge amount. The updated document is still referring to many similar noise-related topics but, at first glance, it has expanded the importance of acoustics, which I enthusiastically support. However, I still think that the document is too woolly, and that there are too many uses of the words “could” and “should” and not enough decisive words such as “must” and “shall”, although it is only a guidance document and not legally binding. Maybe they will appear in the next version?

To be clear, I am not averse to the use of words like should and could. In fact, they are powerful words in their own right and acoustic consultants use the terms daily. When we design something to suit a particular acoustic environment, based on our assumptions (manufacturer’s data, build quality etc), the designs will work. It’s other uncertainties which mean we must use the words that express obligation rather than advice. It is these same uncertainties, across all disciplines, that could result in unnecessary arguments during the planning stages.

Anyway, I digress.

Relevant updates

The following policies are directly relevant to environmental acoustic assessments within the latest version of the NPPF:

P1: Planning for Clean and Safe Places

Policy P1 requires new development sites to avoid generating pollution (including noise), and developments should actively minimise pollution and mitigate in order to achieve this. Sub-point a) iv) includes wording suggesting that existing businesses and services should not be adversely impacted by planning applications, which is another way of referring to the Agent of Change from the previous version. Hopefully, this will help to protect the ever-dwindling numbers of live music venues, pubs and clubs across the UK from unintended outcomes of new developments nearby, potentially leading to noise complaints – amongst other forms of complaints. It will also mean that any developments near to industrial sites or transport hubs should have mitigation built into the designs, to protect future residents from noise and vibration emanating from these existing noise/vibration sources.

Sub-point b) of Policy P1 is also an interesting one because reducing noise levels is key. The policy goes further than the usual targets and objectives; striving to reduce noise levels over and above them, suggesting that this could refer to BS 8233, BS 4142 and the World Health Organisation guidelines.

P3: Living Conditions and Pollution

Policy P3 refers to living conditions and pollution control and how these relate to proposed developments. This is all about protecting future occupiers from noise, alongside other forms of pollution. Sub-clause 2) d) of Policy P3 requires the developer to “mitigate and reduce to a minimum” potential impacts arising from noise, to ensure that the development does not result in a significant observed adverse effect. I have put this in bold, as it relates back to the Significant Observed Adverse Effect Level (SOAEL), bringing the document in line with the Noise Policy Statement for England (NPSE).

Now that the latest version of the NPPF has started referring to SOAELs, compliance increases the need to quantify adverse and significant adverse impact. This alters our role, requiring greater levels of engagement earlier on during a development’s lifecycle.

P4: Impact of Development on Existing Activities

I mentioned the Agent of Change earlier. Policy P4 is dedicated to protecting the impact of new developments on existing activities. This is a real improvement from the previous revision; however, I believe the wording is still woolly. It’s the use of my bugbear words again…

“Existing businesses, community facilities, public services and defence and security activities ‘should’ not have unreasonable restrictions placed on their current or permitted operation as a result of development being approved after they were established.” Why does this not say “must” instead of “should”? Surely this should not be optional? I appreciate that the NPPF is not legally binding, but still – common sense must prevail.

Sub-point 2 of Policy P4 suggests that if an existing activity could have a significant adverse effect on a proposed new development, the development proposals should identify the nature of the potential impact and be able to demonstrate that suitable mitigation can be provided.

Surely though, as acousticians, this is what we need to comply with already, and have been for nearly 60 years now? BS 4142 was first released by the British Standards Institution in 1967. Although this does not necessarily relate to all activities, the principle remains the same – in my opinion.

There are also very specific policies which also relate to noise, but these are solely related to defence and public safety (Policy P6), mineral and mining developments (Policy M4), and ports and airports (Policy TR7). These were not omitted in previous versions, merely covered under generic wording.

Next Steps

Moving away from the noise-related policies for now, what needs to be undertaken to move our industry forwards? Simple…

  • Acoustic consultants need to update their reporting templates, considering how the latest updates apply on a project-by-project basis, and align reports with the wording in the existing ProPG.
  • Planning officers need to alter their mindset to encompass these important updates.
  • Clients also need to realise and understand the importance of controlling noise (along with other forms of pollution) from and to their development sites from the outset.

Summary

So, to summarise my thoughts on the new version of the NPPF:

  • A clear drive to make the planning process easier. 😊👍
  • Reflecting the terminology used in other guidance documents and British Standards in the NPPF. 😊👍
  • The use of SOAEL terminology underlines the importance of consistent terminology. 😊👍
  • In my opinion, the NPPF should use “will” and “shall” throughout. This comes from central government and is guidance to local authorities to inform their planning application processes. If they don’t have the authority to stress these points, then who does? ☹️

About ‘Insight’

‘Insight’ is our way of discussing ongoing challenges and issues facing our industry. These posts will be separate from our usual news and project updates and identified via the ‘Insight’ tag. Our thought pieces will range from discussions on regulations and legislation, to laws and governance, and national strategy through to local policy.