It was the week before Christmas, and many minds had already turned to other matters when the government chose to publish its latest revision of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Exactly a year ago, it had also slipped out its English Devolution White Paper, containing its contentious proposals for Local Government Reorganisation. It is almost as if ministers were hoping few would notice and, by the time we were through the festivities, our focus would be elsewhere.

This is not the first time this government has chosen to revise the NPPF since the last election. It did so previously, early last year. But this time, the changes proposed to the criteria against which planning applications are to be determined will be more far-reaching.

For example the accompanying consultation document notes “the current Framework uses a number of terms where the government expects weight to be given to particular matters (great, significant, substantial)”, going on to suggest “in general, these are not intended to imply any sort of ‘weighting’ hierarchy, so we are proposing that ‘substantial’ is used throughout the document where positive weighting of this sort is intended”.

Yet, considering the use of those words within the current framework, they clearly imply a “weighting” hierarchy. Indeed, where a document uses different adjectives to qualify the same noun, it is entirely logical to presume the author intended to qualify the noun differently. And although all three adjectives are, as a matter of ordinary English, inherently vague, where all three phrases are used, “great weight” must mean more than merely “substantial weight” and “substantial weight” more than merely “significant weight”.

To quote Google: “In UK planning, 'great weight' signifies a near-decisive factor, often for heritage/landscape protection or meeting key policy goals (like housing), meaning it's hard to overcome unless benefits are truly exceptional. "Substantial weight" indicates a very important consideration, demanding significant justification to override (e.g., green belt harm, economic benefits), but generally carries slightly less near-certainty than "great weight," acting as a strong tie-breaker in complex balances.”

So, given that Google is not hallucinating, the obvious intention can only be to lower the relative importance of those considerations currently given “great weight” to make it easier for development that might otherwise have been refused to proceed.

For us here in the South Hams, it means that “great weight” will no longer “be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in National Parks”, while “great weight” will also no longer be given “to the conservation and enhancement of wildlife and cultural heritage” in our protected landscapes.

Instead, although both will now enjoy “substantial” weight, the wording of the proposed redrafting and replacement of policies 189 and 190 with policy N4 makes it clear that the government is determined to make it easier for development to happen.

Where previously policies to protect the South Devon National Landscape noticeably outweighed the “significant weight” accorded to the “to the benefits associated with renewable and low carbon energy generation”, both will now weigh equally in the planning balance. Further applications for wind turbines and solar parks will almost certainly be forthcoming.

Many will find much else in the revised proposals, out for consultation until 10 March, similarly concerning. However, the government should at least be honest about its intentions. And its explanation as to why it suggests weightings should be worded identically is anything but.