The Vision Remains Blurred - Questions Raised by the 'Vision-Led' Approach

Isn’t it just good planning?

Taking a ‘Vision Led’ approach to planning is not a new concept. Creating a clear vision for a new development and then imbedding those principles within the design is what might simply have been referred to as ‘good planning’ in old money.

Even the recent, more explicit application of the term to transport planning is not a wholly new invention. Ultimately, it is a collaborative approach to planning new developments. One that aims to create better places by prioritising people, designing for sustainability and health, and encouraging community involvement.

What is new; however, is that the concept is now enshrined in national planning policy as a result of the recent changes to the NPPF. This is ultimately to be commended, but it does raise some interesting points for debate which will no doubt play out over the next months and years.

This article does not aim to review ?those changes (we have all now seen enough of those!) but to consider some of the main questions arising from the NPPF from a transport perspective, and how we can even begin to answer them.

Whose vision is the correct one?

Different stakeholder groups are likely to have different visions for their areas and opinions will likely differ as to what represents a ‘good’ transport vision. More often than not, local resident groups and parish councils will deride the idea that people may actually cycle to the school or town centre. Local Authorities may seek to impose their own uncosted vision on the development and developers may consider it all to expensive or problematic to deliver.

The ideal scenario here is obviously that this is worked through with all parties before reaching a consensus, but will that be the reality? Whose vision is correct and are all opinions equal? Will visions substantially differ across the country and in different authority areas. As yet, nobody really knows.

The NPPF has pivoted away from ‘beauty’, another term which could never come to an agreed definition. The replacement is now ‘well-designed’, with some expectation for local design codes for areas of significant development activity, but these are expected to focus mainly on elements outside of transport, so it seems optimistic to expect too much clarity from that direction.

It is likely that ahead of any firm guidance, it will be critical to generate a vision and to consult on that point as early as possible in the process. Lately, it seems that if the proposal in question is a larger housing development, then the vision that overrules all will be determined by the Inspectorate, guided by the Governments big new housing target, and with an unusual number of sites being called in by the Secretary of State.

How are we defining "all reasonable scenarios"?

Paragraph 116 states that development should only be refused on highways grounds if:

"There would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety or the residual commutive impact would be severe, taking into account all reasonable future scenarios."

A pessimistic highways authority (and there? are still more than a few out there) may well consider that a reasonable scenario is that no or limited mode shift will ever occur.

This paragraph does therefore somewhat beg the question of how many reasonable scenarios are there that should be tested? At what point is agreement reached, and will it still lead to increasing highway capacity unnecessarily in a “what if” belt and braces style approach, thus undermining the sustainable strategy? This also remains to be seen and leads swiftly to the next question, which forms the other side of the coin.

What happens if the Vision-Led approach fails?

If the right vision is implemented and has been given the correct level of appraisal and commitment, it should have every chance of being successful, but what if it isn’t? What if assumptions around the ‘reasonable future scenarios’ for bus use or cycle hire schemes prove to have been optimistic or existing council-funded services are withdrawn before the scheme can be delivered? Developments take time to complete, and as we’ve seen in the last few years, goalposts can move suddenly and significantly.

Who is responsible for acting and funding future corrective measures? It would seem that S106 mechanisms with relevant triggers may be appropriate, but if so, how long should they be held for? Is the responsibility solely that of the developer or is it for all stakeholder groups to ensure a successful development legacy?

When can we expect some answers?

The last two questions are the hardest to answer at present. It seems unlikely that new supporting policy will come forward too quickly. With many authorities being sent back to work on new local plans, an expected deluge of applications pushing up towards the inspectorate, and with more policy needed to fill out the wording of the NPPF in more context, the powers that be will have their hands full. Given that there is also a skills shortage, not least within Local Authorities (and as there’s no deadline for delivery, some potential for procrastination amongst a minority of authorities who aren’t enamoured with the changes), the NPPF presents an enormous challenge to the wider planning environment.

New guidance on the ‘vision-led’ approach is expected to come forward with the nebulous release date of ‘Spring 2025’, which may provide answers to some of the above. However, with the push for housing sites and new opportunities for application, it is likely that many sites will be moving ahead of finalisation of policies at regional and local levels. In that case, we should anticipate an element of ‘working in the void’, at least in the short-to-medium term.

Damian Tungatt

Director