The latest revisions to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) were much anticipated from the transport planning industry, with fundamental changes promised. While there has been positive news about other aspects of the NPPF, we question whether enough clarity and change has been provided on vision-led planning and review the most noticeable transport planning perspectives.

Connectivity Tool access

The addition of the DfT’s Connectivity Tool shows that there are aspirations to align closer with what the industry perceives as vision-led. The tool identifies sustainability with reference to access to different facilities by different modes and is available to public sector and private sector stakeholders. If you are a built environment professional, you can request access to the tool by emailing connectivity@dft.gov.uk. 

The NPPF recognises that the tool is not the only method to review the sustainability credentials of a site, given the nuances of different locations and various methods of sustainable transport interventions. 

The journey of ‘severe’ ambiguity 

After years of contesting the definition of ‘severe’, the term remains, albeit spread over two paragraphs and with reference to “capacity and congestion, cumulative impact, highway safety, all reasonable future scenarios, impacts at different times of day, multimodal trip generation, promotion of sustainable modes of travel, and the transport for vision for the development itself.” 

If we are to accelerate vision-led development to support England’s much-needed housing and economic growth, we question whether the proposed reforms are clear enough to achieve this at pace. Questions also remain about how reasonable walking distances should be applied and what is meant by fallback interventions. For example, does this solely relate to sustainable transport? 

However, some of these changes are positive, particularly the impacts of multimodal trip generation. This reflects our own practice, where we apply ‘Flint’ – SLR’s dedicated vision-led planning tool – to understand how many trips can be made by sustainable modes throughout the day for different journey purposes. 

The stronger focus on active travel throughout the NPPF – including 10 references to wheeling – also picks up an important point on the social inclusivity of sustainable modes. 

Policy misalignment 

The overarching view is that the specific policies are not only misaligned with one another, but with the NPPF principles itself. Is it correct that the Promoting Sustainable Transport section refers to impacts on highway capacity at all? 

Despite having its own section, transport policy is also incorporated across multiple sections and is not always aligned with climate, sustainable development and vision-led themes. This can lead to inconsistent interpretation between plan making and application decisions.

The NPPF revisions may take some positive steps towards a planning system that will support development, but from a transport perspective, there will no doubt be an underwhelming feeling associated with the lack of bold change to push and accelerate sustainable development. With transport discussions often cited as a reason for planning permission delays, we question whether these changes go far enough or are simply a continuation of the status quo.  

Read more: CIHT’s response to the proposed NPPF revisions can be found here 

Image: Pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles in Cambridge, UK Credit: Shutterstock