The move to a vision-led approach
Big shifts are happening in the planning space that are shaking up how we think about development. One of the bigger shifts is the move away from the old predict-and-provide mindset and towards a new vision-led approach.
That approach starts from forecast vehicle demand and then works forwards to road capacity, parking and junction design. The risk is that it can “bake in” car dominance, even where the site could be built around a more sustainable assumption.
The latest draft NPPF now defines a vision-led approach as one based on setting outcomes for a development around well-designed, sustainable and popular places, then providing the transport solutions needed to deliver those outcomes. In other words, start with the place you are trying to create, not just the traffic you assume will appear.
If your site is in a sustainable location, it’s no longer enough to show that the junction works and the parking numbers stack up. It should also explain how the site connects to jobs, schools, shops, services and public transport, and whether the layout supports those trips in a realistic way.
If your site doesn’t present sustainable transport modes as a viable solution, with methods to promote cycling, walking and public transport, you may be fighting an uphill battle to get approval. It may no longer be enough to pay lip service to those modes, as has been the case in the past, although how this actually plays out once the latest NPPF comes into effect remains to be tested.
The draft NPPF
The December 2025 consultation on proposed NPPF reforms has attracted a lot of attention, particularly because of the proposed “decision-making policies” that would apply nationally rather than relying only on guidance repeated through local plans.
In transport terms, the draft pushes further towards a vision-led approach in both plan-making and decision-making. In the draft transport chapter, policy TR1 is intended to promote that approach at plan stage, while TR3 would use the same thinking in deciding whether particular locations are sustainably located for development.
That pushes transport planning further towards the question of whether a site is in the right place and can function sustainably, rather than simply whether enough vehicle capacity can be squeezed out of the local highway network. The consultation also proposes a more rules-based, locational approach to development generally, with stronger in-principle support for suitable development in settlements and around certain train stations.
The important caveat is that this is still consultation material, not final policy. So it is not something to overstate in a live planning argument yet. But it is a clear indication of where national policy is trying to go.
A poll of highways and planning consultants on my LinkedIn suggests most practitioners are not yet relying on the draft NPPF in submitted work, but many are actively preparing for it.
What that means for your site is that broad “no severe highways impact” arguments on their own may gradually carry less weight on some schemes if the location and place-making are weak. Equally, for sites in stronger locations, there may be more value than there used to be in showing clearly why the site is genuinely sustainable.
The DfT Connectivity Tool
The DfT Connectivity Tool helps users understand how any location in England and Wales is connected to everyday services by walking, cycling, driving and public transport. DfT says the tool is intended to help professionals understand how sustainably located a place is and what transport interventions may be needed to support it.
This is the first nationally agreed measure of connectivity for England and Wales, combining transport and land use data to score how well people can reach jobs, shops, schools, healthcare and other services. It is intended to help plan and decision-makers locate development in the most sustainable places and identify which transport schemes would be most useful in improving connectivity.
The draft NPPF is explicit that the tool should be used to evidence your development. It proposes that the Connectivity Tool should be used to assess site connectivity and inform site selection in TR1, and also be used in assessing the connectivity of locations proposed for development in TR3.
What that means for your site is that transport accessibility is becoming easier to evidence in a more consistent way. That is useful both ways. It may help support a site that is genuinely well connected, but it may also expose sites where “good access to services” is just a throw away statement.
What does this mean?
All three changes point in the same direction. Transport planning is moving away from being mainly about forecast traffic and residual highway impacts, and more towards a wider question of whether a site is in the right place, whether it can support sustainable patterns of movement, and whether the transport strategy is helping create a good place rather than just accommodate vehicles.
That will not remove the need for visibility assessments, junction design, tracking or parking analysis. But it does mean that on many sites, especially at feasibility stage, a good question is “can we demonstrate this site is accessible?”.
What does that mean for your application? It means the sustainability of the site needs to be evidenced properly. The DfT Connectivity Tool is a useful starting point, but more targeted evidence, including bespoke GIS accessibility mapping and a robust Transport Statement, is more likely to put the planning case on a firmer footing.