What the textbooks say
The updated National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) added further emphasis on the role of providing social infrastructure such as schools. This is reflected in the social objective to achieve sustainable development which seeks to ensure that community facilities and public services “reflect current and future needs and support communities’ health, social and cultural well-being”[1].
Policy HC3 outlines that:
“Proposals for housing, employment or other development which would give rise to significant numbers of additional people living in, working in or visiting an area should:
a. Be informed by an understanding of the need for any associated improvements to community facilities and public service infrastructure, whether on or off-site; and
b. Provide for new or improved community facilities and public service infrastructure which are necessary for the development to be acceptable in planning terms, whether by direct provision or a contribution to off-site improvements (which may be through Community Infrastructure Levy payments, where applicable)”.
Policy HC4 identifies that substantial weight should be given to the benefits where “new or improved public service infrastructure or community facilities would be provided”.
The guidance should be read alongside The Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010[2] which requires that any requested mitigation must be in accordance with CIL122. Planning obligations must be:
- necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms;
- directly related to the development; and
- fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.
Provision of new education places through developer contributions must therefore balance the NPPF with CIL122, reflecting an appropriate and proportionate mitigation of impact. If developer contribution requests are not in accordance with CIL they are open to challenge. Contributions must be considered alongside other requirements such as affordable housing in informing scheme viability.
In other instances, a developer may be able to respond proactively to wider latent requirements, school reorganisation plans or future growth set out in Local Plans by making new or enhanced provision a central part of any masterplan which is integral to the placemaking approach. This now has the potential to attract substantial weight in planning decisions, based on the new NPPF.
Education is an inherently local issue, with each Local Education Authority (LEA) organising schools slightly differently. It is therefore essential to consider local characteristics and the wider education landscape, alongside demand from individual sites when considering the best approach to provision and mitigation in the context of the NPPF and CIL 122 test.
Moving goalposts
Department for Education (DfE) projections anticipate a fall in demand for primary and secondary school places over the coming years, even when planned housing development is taken into account. This contrasts to recent years where the issue was one of a growing school age population.
Balancing forecast reductions in pupil demand with the Government’s ambition to boost housebuilding, alongside evolving approaches to education delivery (including the growing influence of AI), presents a complex challenge for education planning. Together, these factors are continuing to move the goalposts for local authorities, developers and education providers.
Given this complex picture, it is important to consider the education mitigation options early in the planning process. Assessing need should take a holistic approach to examining supply and demand within the locality of a site as well as the wider demographic and strategic priorities across the planning area. Mitigation should reflect this local context and be proportionate to the scale of new development.
Building resilience
With these emerging trends in pupil demand, we would expect LEAs to maintain flexibility and resilience across their school estates to adapt to fluctuations in pupil numbers. Resilience to peaks and troughs in demand can be achieved through delivering schools with long-term viability at their core. This means developing infrastructure that can respond to changes not only in capacity but also to emerging factors such as climate change and the impact of AI on how lessons are delivered.
New developments can help enhance education infrastructure and build resilience. Examples include:
- Delivering a new school on-site that aligns with the strategic priorities of an LEA by amalgamating a number of schools and creating places within a more viable location.
- Proportionate financial contributions to deliver additional places at existing schools.
- Helping to improve the long-term viability of existing under-subscribed schools by attracting new residents and generating additional demand. Early identification of situations where LEAs are planning to reduce capacity can help inform an appropriate mitigation strategy and support the long-term sustainability of local provision.
- Building in flexibility for a new school to grow (or contract) in response to future demand, for example from 1 Form of Entry to 2 Forms of Entry.
- Improving access not by delivering schools on-site but by providing new routes to existing provision, through lit footpaths and cycleways.
Identifying and building in appropriate, proportionate and justified mitigation solutions at an early stage will enable developers to consider and respond appropriately to the local education context, understand potential costs and build an evidence base that can be drawn upon in checking any financial contribution that is requested as part of the planning process.
Beyond box ticking
While the substantial weight now attributed to community facility provision within the NPPF gives reassurance to developers seeking to provide a holistic on or off-site response, providing the right education mitigation is about far more than securing planning permission. Education is fundamental to the vitality of local communities. Access to high-quality education is a strong determinant of people’s life chances, with better educated people earning more over time[3] and displaying better health and happiness[4].
The United Nations recognises that access to education “reduces inequalities, drives gender equality, and empowers people to live healthier, more sustainable lives. It is also crucial for fostering tolerance and building peaceful societies”[5]. Research undertaken by the OECD[6] demonstrates that early years education is key to reducing education inequality for children from low-income families.
Lessons for development
Ultimately, education is central to delivering inclusive growth. Getting it right can mean considering impact and mitigation early within the development process, helping to ensure contributions remain proportionate, respond to local needs and support a smoother planning process.
Prioritising how future residents of new developments will access education should therefore be a principal consideration during the masterplanning and strategy forming stage. If education is fundamental to inclusive growth, it should be firmly on the development curriculum from the outset.
This article is part of our Inclusive Growth series. For more information about the role of education in creating sustainable communities, please get in touch with Robert Stott.
12 October 2026
[1] Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (August 2026) National Planning Policy Framework
[2] As amended by the 2011 and 2019 Regulations
[3] Christine Farquharson, Sandra McNally and Imran Tahir (2022) Education Inequalities.
[4] The Health Foundation (2026) Relationship between qualifications and health.
[5] United Nations (2026) Goal 4: Quality Education
[6] Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2024) Educational attainment and labour market outcomes are improving but more is needed on equality of opportunities.
