Much of the commentary has centred on housing targets and Grey Belt reform. For universities and colleges, however, the implications lie elsewhere. They sit in the detail: in definitions, in omissions, and in how weight is applied to sector-specific benefits. In short, it’s a lot of tweaks to important and well-established principles that add up to a big change. We’ve looked at some of the biggest changes below.
The “university” omission
One of the most striking features of the draft Framework is what is not there. Policy HC1 places considerable importance on ensuring sufficient provision of education facilities. It refers specifically to early years, schools and post-16 provision for those under 19. Universities and colleges are not referenced in the same way anywhere in the Framework.
Policy HC4 does direct decision-makers to give “substantial weight” to the benefits of new or improved “public service infrastructure”, which includes “education of all types”. However, this support is indirect.
For higher education institutions, the practical consequence is clear. Applications will need to work harder. Proposals must explicitly demonstrate how they function as public service infrastructure and why their benefits justify substantial weight in the overall planning balance.
There is also a broader economic dimension. Universities play a central role in delivering world-leading research, stimulating economic activity and attracting inward investment. The absence of explicit recognition of this contribution is notable.
We consider that the draft NPPF would be strengthened by a clearer acknowledgement of higher education institutions within Policy E1, alongside local businesses. That recognition would better reflect the sector’s contribution to productivity, skills and global competitiveness.
Student housing: clearer tests, stronger expectations
For institutions operating in areas with restrictive local policies, particularly those requiring Purpose Built Student Accommodation to sit immediately adjacent to campuses, the draft Framework introduces a more pragmatic route forward.
Policy HO9 establishes a clearer development management test for PBSA. The key question is accessibility: can residents reach relevant education facilities by walking, wheeling or public transport?
This signals an important shift. A well-connected site along a sustainable transport corridor may now be acceptable in principle. Strict physical adjacency is no longer the primary benchmark.
There is also a firmer expectation in plan-making.
Policy HO5(1) requires local authorities to identify specific sites or set requirements for allocated sites to deliver PBSA where there is evidenced need. This moves beyond broad policy support and places greater emphasis on allocations and deliverability.
Where need is evidenced but unmet, Policy HO7 indicates that this should attract “substantial weight” in the decision-making balance. That increases the importance of robust evidence on need, supply and delivery constraints. The strength of the policy lever will depend directly on the quality and clarity of the need case presented.
For universities and colleges, the message is consistent. The policy tools exist. But they will only be effective where institutions present clear, structured and evidence-led cases that align tightly with the revised Framework.
Notably, there are also significant changes to the heritage approach within the NPPF, which impact on higher and further education estates. You can read more on these changes in our heritage article below.
