The August 2026 Framework's design policy, how it enters each kind of decision, and what 345 decisions made under it show.
Development proposals should respond to their context (the history, character and features of their site and its setting), so that they integrate with and enhance their surroundings
NPPF, DP3(1)
DP3(2) adds seven principles to reflect "as appropriate": liveability, climate, nature (including "maintaining and enhancing tree cover"), movement, built form, public space and identity. Then the operative paragraph:
Development proposals should be refused if, without clear justification, they conflict with paragraph 1 of this policy or relevant aspects of the principles in paragraph 2, or with any explicit design standards set out in the development plan (including those in locally-specific policies, guides, codes or masterplans). Substantial weight should be given to compliance with relevant development plan policies when assessing the design quality of proposals.
NPPF, DP3(3)
So DP3(3) can be failed in three ways: a conflict with context (DP3(1)), a conflict with a relevant principle (DP3(2)), or a conflict with an explicit design standard in the development plan, such as a design code, village design statement or space standard. In each case the question is whether there is "clear justification".
DP3 applies to all development, wherever it is. What changes is the balance a design conflict feeds into. Inside settlements and outside them, a failed "should be refused" policy makes refusal the expected outcome:
Fail to comply with one of the national decision-making policies which state that development proposals should be refused in specific circumstances.
NPPF, S4(2)(c), for development within settlements
In applying this policy, the circumstances in which the benefits of approving development proposals are likely to be substantially outweighed by adverse effects include, but are not restricted to, situations where the development proposal would fail to comply with one of the national decision-making policies which state that development proposals should be refused in specific circumstances.
NPPF, S5(2), for development outside settlements, and through S5(5) for Green Belt development found not inappropriate
| Where | The balance | What failing DP3(3) does |
|---|---|---|
| Within a settlement | Approve unless benefits substantially outweighed (S4) | Benefits likely substantially outweighed (S4(2)(c)) |
| Outside settlements | Approve S5(1) categories unless substantially outweighed | Benefits likely substantially outweighed (S5(2)) |
| Green Belt, not inappropriate | Approve unless substantially outweighed (S5(5)) | The same, "applying paragraph 2" (S5(2)) |
| Green Belt, inappropriate | Very special circumstances must clearly outweigh the harm (GB6(2)) | Adds to "any other harm", and is a reason for refusal in its own right |
In the approve-unless balances, DP3(3) turns the starting point round: design harm stops being one adverse effect weighed against the benefits and becomes a likely reason for refusal.
From the 951 decisions in the decisions database made under the August 2026 Framework, to 2 October 2026.
345
decisions addressed DP3
327 appeals, 18 council decisions
93
applied DP3(3) by name
162
found DP3 failed
every one refused or dismissed
3
found "clear justification"
all three allowed
Where DP3 was failed, the scheme was refused or dismissed every time. Where the decision-maker found a design conflict but only weighed it as harm, 17 of 94 schemes were still allowed or approved. Where there was no conflict, 62 of 89 were allowed or approved.
The Framework does not define the phrase. Inspectors have read it in two ways.
I do not find the specific and significant harm to the character and appearance of the countryside to be necessary to achieve the substantial public benefits
Bilsborrow, appeal 6007133, ¶59
while the loss of trees and vegetation at the site is certainly regrettable, I am satisfied that it would be necessary as part of the appeal development such that there would be clear justification for the conflict with Framework Policy DP3
Polegate, appeal 6008314, ¶43
the substantial weight I ascribe to the benefits of the scheme, in respect of de-carbonisation and energy security, would outweigh the minor and localised harm I have identified in respect of the character and appearance of the area. There would, therefore, be clear justification for the harm that would arise
Didcot, appeal 6009340, ¶22
I conclude that the benefits of the scheme would not outweigh the harm that would be caused to the character and appearance of the area, in particular because there is no clear justification for the conflict with paragraph 1 of Policy DP3.
Ware, appeal 6008167, ¶21
Under the first reading, benefits that could be had without the harm are not a justification. Under the second, the phrase works much like an ordinary balance. A decision should say which reading it applies.
Equally, I consider that the substantial benefits are sufficient to provide clear justification for the conflict with Policy DP3 of the Framework, which would only cause limited harm.
Aston Clinton, appeal 6008253, ¶86
Substantial benefits against harm the inspector called limited.
The loss of trees and vegetation was accepted because it was necessary for the development (¶43, quoted above).
Substantial energy-security benefits (Framework W3) against "minor and localised harm" (¶22, quoted above).
In each, the harm was limited or minor and the benefits substantial, or the harm was unavoidable.
Notwithstanding that I attach substantial weight to housing delivery and significant weight to the affordable housing contribution, collectively these benefits do not amount to the clear justification required by Policy DP3(3) to depart from explicit accessibility standards in the development plan.
Islington, appeal 6005590, ¶46
While the benefits I outline above are significant, they do not in my view, provide clear justification to allow development that would harm the living conditions of the existing residents in the manner I have described.
Remenham, appeal 6011062, ¶44
they would represent a very limited increase on such benefits which could be achieved without causing harm
Hackney, appeal 6007927, ¶16
Avoiding the fallback was not a justification, because the fallback
would be the less harmful scheme in terms of the requirements of Framework Policy DP3. As such, the policy gives a clear directive to dismiss the appeal.
South Creake, appeal 6010354, ¶32
those benefits would be modest and they do not, in my judgement, amount to clear justification for the development’s harm to the character and appearance of the host building and area
Southend-on-Sea, appeal 6004873, ¶27
the proposal results in significant harm to the character and appearance of the area and would not respond to its context and would not integrate with or enhance the surroundings, thereby conflicting with paragraph 1 of Policy DP3.
Brenzett, appeal 6007677, ¶27
The same decision found a conflict with DP3(2)(d), because "walking, wheeling, cycling and public transport is not prioritised through the introduction of a car dependent development".
The evidence before me does not clearly justify departing from those key principles and, in those circumstances, Policy DP3 paragraph 3 states that development proposals should be refused.
Woodford Green, appeal 6005325, ¶30
The principle breached there was "maintaining and enhancing tree cover", through the loss of one prominent tree (¶23).
Accordingly, there is a clear conflict with the explicit design standards referred to in Policy DP3(3) of the Framework.
Islington, appeal 6005590, ¶45
Standards applied this way include London Plan accessibility policies (above) and the nationally described space standard adopted in a local plan (Doncaster, appeal 6009127).
Some decisions find a design conflict but never ask whether it is clearly justified, and weigh it as one harm among others. Councils do this too. At Snitterfield, Stratford-on-Avon District Council found significant harm to character and wrote:
In light of NDMP DP3 (3), I afford this harm substantial weight.
Snitterfield, 26/00617/PIP, officer report p.15
The scheme was approved. DP3(3) goes further than weight: it says the proposal "should be refused" unless there is clear justification, which then engages S4(2)(c) or S5(2). A decision that weighs the conflict without asking that question has not applied the policy as written.