We explored the July 2024 draft transport changes to the NPPF in a previous blog post. The changes now made in the December 2024 version have rowed back from a radical departure by focusing on rational planning judgement when a decision-maker is presented with (a potentially greater number of) tested scenarios.
Predict and Provide Gives Way to Vision and Validate
The emphasis on vision-led transportation assessment is a big potential shift from the world of Predict and Provide to the Decide and Provide approach. Rather than providing highway network capacity improvements to protect the convenience of car-based trips, this approach emphasises:
- defining the vision;
- using scenarios as pathways towards that vision, rather than a prediction of what will happen in the world as it is;
- demonstrating that the ‘best’ forms of access (e.g. active travel and shared travel) can be achieved; and
- adopting uncertainty analysis rather than concreting specific solutions.
This is overdue and will unlock far better outcomes but requires mechanisms to validate whether the vision is being achieved over time (and remedied where necessary). That can lead to amorphous funding requests and so is not without its own challenges.
Severe Impacts
The July 2024 draft made a seemingly modest change:
Development should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe, in all tested scenarios.
Whilst a definition of severe was absent from the July draft, the introduction of “in all tested scenarios” provided an incentive for applicants to test scenarios properly, but also to control the application of the precautionary approach – providing a route to approval where one transport scenario showed that severe effects were unlikely.
The final set of changes sensibly rowed back from this:
“Development should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network, following mitigation, would be severe, in taking into account all tested reasonable future scenarios.”
What will these changes mean in practice? Are the amendments an improvement on the draft text?
1. “following mitigation” –
Whilst the introduction of this wording might appear to be a significant, the practical implications are likely limited. The pre-existing wording, which was in place in the 2023 NPPF, already accounted for “residual cumulative impacts” within the testing parameters.
“Residual cumulative impacts”, in this context, can be taken to mean the impacts of development that are present despite proposed mitigation measures and therefore surely the consequences of the development must be severe after those measures have been considered. Whilst the introduction of the wording makes this undisputable, it was already interpreted in this way.
2. Do we have a definition of “severe”?
No. Whilst there were several calls for a definition to be provided, the new NPPF does not provide this. However, as with various other qualitive concepts in the NPPF, this will continue to come down to planning judgement by the decision maker. Although, the decision maker’s ability to make an informed decision may well be improved by the measures introduced and discussed below.
3. “taking into account all tested reasonable future scenarios” –
Initially, the amendments to the wording concerning ‘scenarios’ doesn’t seem to provide much clarity until you look at the NPFF glossary, where you can find a definition of “all reasonable future scenarios”:
“a range of realistic transport scenarios tested in agreement with the local planning authority and other relevant bodies (including statutory consultees where appropriate), to assess potential impacts and determining the optimum transport infrastructure required to mitigate any adverse impacts“
What does this mean? It has been suggested that this wording may encourage a move away from the strict assessment of transport scenarios where there are potential adverse impacts of development. We have previously looked at examples of schemes being refused permission based on insufficient highways assessments and the risk of negative impacts.
Whilst the definition highlights the need to mitigate adverse impacts, it encourages collaboration to find “the optimum transport infrastructure” in doing so. This could mean that developers and LPAs accept that there may be some adverse impacts on the highway network, at least in part, in favour of adopting new transport infrastructure (facilitating modal-shift) and a focus on a new “vision-led” approach to transport planning in order to create “well-designed, sustainable and popular places” that meet set outcomes for a development.
This new approach that the government is looking to encourage is further bolstered by a new paragraph 190(a), which states that transport considerations must be “an important part of early engagement with local communities.” We have previously discussed that lending insufficient attention to highways matters can easily lead to a development being stopped in its tracks. The new NPPF only highlights the need to front-load investment, modelling, and local consultation on these topics if developments are to have a chance of being granted permission.
The amendments arguably do not change much (in terms of simply requiring all realistic scenarios to be understood and recommending refusal where it is judged that in light of the scenarios impacts likely to be severe). As with any policy change, there is a risk that new complexities creep in. Some care will need to be taken to be clear, for example, that the scenarios tested are (as a matter of planning judgement) both ‘realistic’ and adequate. This will head off claims that the judgement on severity was undermined by failing to assess all realistic scenarios – as now required – and technical gunslinging on whether particular scenarios were realistic (and either should have been considered or excluded).
What’s next?
Developers will need a “vision” for their future schemes when it comes to sustainable transport planning. The new NPPF has shifted the balance further towards sustainable transport and modal shift. However, the national shift may not always marry up with an LPA’s own Local Plan and “vision” for its locality. What will happen when these come into conflict?
In response to the government’s consultation, updated planning practice guidance in this area has been promised. Watch this space for a further update as the government looks to provide some clarity on how these proposals will apply in practice.
