How to assess a sustainable location under the 2026 NPPF

What the August 2026 Framework says a sustainable location is, the official tool for measuring it, the guidance still awaited, and the earlier training and guidance that remain useful.

In short #

  • We have not found a single manual that explains how to assess a sustainable location under the August 2026 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The assessment is put together from the sources below.
  • The test is in policy TR3 of the Framework: a sustainable location limits the need to travel and offers a genuine choice of transport modes.
  • The official measure is the Department for Transport (DfT) Connectivity Tool, which the Framework says should be used alongside other evidence. Its own guidance says it does not give a final judgement.
  • Revised national guidance on transport is promised but had not been published when this page was last checked (6 October 2026).
  • The most direct training material is a Planning Inspectorate (PINS) webinar of June 2025, "What is meant by a sustainable location?". It was written for the December 2024 Framework, whose wording TR3 carries forward.
  • In decisions, the walking route is what most often decides. In the 247 decisions since August 2026 that assess a location, the quality of the walking route was among the decisive factors in 117. Distance counted for the location about as often as against it (58 decisions to 56). The count is on the sub-page What decides a sustainable location.

Every document relied on is listed, with its date and what it was used for, on the sources page. Two more sub-pages look at decisions: What decides a sustainable location counts every factor decision-makers have used, and Service Village Does Not Mean Sustainable looks at how they have treated a settlement's tier in a council's settlement hierarchy.

The test: policy TR3 #

The Framework's national decision-making policy TR3, "Locating development in sustainable locations", says what a sustainable location is:

Development proposals which could generate a significant amount of movement, in the context of the area within which they would be situated, should be in locations that are sustainable (or which can be made so, taking into account planned improvements, including any provided for as part of the development itself). This means the location should limit the need to travel, particularly by private car, and offer a genuine choice of transport modes for residents and users, unless the nature of the development would make this impractical

NPPF, TR3(1)(a) [source]

Three things follow from the wording:

For rural areas TR3 adds:

In rural areas, opportunities to improve walking, wheeling, cycling and public transport and enhance the connectivity of an area should be taken where they exist and can be supported by the development proposed.

NPPF, TR3(1)(e) [source]

Other policies point back to TR3. For example, one of the conditions for development on grey belt land in the Green Belt is:

The development would be in a sustainable location, with particular reference to policy TR3 of this Framework

NPPF, GB7(1)(g)(iii) [source]

The core wording is not new. The December 2024 Framework said:

Significant development should be focused on locations which are or can be made sustainable, through limiting the need to travel and offering a genuine choice of transport modes.

NPPF December 2024, paragraph 110 [source]

That is why training and guidance written before August 2026 is still useful, if read with care.

The official measure: the Connectivity Tool #

TR3 names one tool, and the Framework's glossary defines what it measures:

The Connectivity Tool (Connectivity Tool - GOV.UK) should be used alongside other relevant quantitative or qualitative evidence in assessing the connectivity of particular locations proposed for development.

NPPF, TR3(2) [source]

The degree to which a location provides access to jobs, services, and facilities by sustainable transport modes.

NPPF, Annex B, "Connectivity" [source]

The Connectivity Tool is published by the DfT. The full version is for built environment professionals in the public or private sector. A limited version, Connectivity Tool Lite, shows the scores and is open to anyone without registration.

How to read a score #

The DfT's guidance, Interpreting connectivity scores, is the nearest thing to a manual. Its main points:

The guidance gives a worked example. A site in a small town has an overall score of 57. Nationally that is in the bottom 30%. Compared with other "Rural town and fringe" areas it is in the top 20%. The same number reads as poorly connected or well connected depending on the comparison.

What the score does not tell you #

The connectivity score does not give a final judgement on whether a location is suitable for development, investment or a transport intervention. It is one source of evidence.

DfT, Interpreting connectivity scores [source]

Connectivity Tool does not currently take into account the quality of walking, cycling or public transport routes. This includes aspects such as footway presence, footway width, surface type, and lighting.

DfT, Applying the Connectivity Tool, section 6 [source]

The interpreting guidance also lists the cost of travel, service reliability and crowding, and the needs of different people as things the score does not measure. So a missing footway, an unlit lane or an unreliable bus has to be shown by other evidence. The government's response to the consultation on the Framework confirms that "both quantitative and qualitative evidence can be used in assessing and selecting sites, in addition to the Connectivity Tool" [source].

In decisions, the things the score leaves out are the things most often relied on. In the 247 decisions since August 2026 that assess a location, whether there is a footway was a factor in 143 and street lighting in 122. A Connectivity Tool score was a factor in 27. Where a score was cited it usually mattered: it was among the decisive factors in 16 of them [factors in decisions].

The one distance in the Framework #

The Framework's glossary defines a "reasonable walking distance", but only for named policies:

For the purpose of policies S5, L3, GB7 (relating to land around well-connected stations), this should be considered to be around 800 metres, or around 10 minutes’ walk time if topography, route availability and quality or physical barriers would prevent or discourage walking from up to 800 metres away.

NPPF, Annex B, "Reasonable walking distance" [source]

The same definition gives around 400 metres, or five minutes, for policy HC5 on hot food takeaways. It is written for those policies. It is not a general test of a sustainable location, and TR3 does not use the term.

Decisions have not treated distance as a test on its own either. It was a factor in 134 of the 247 decisions since August 2026 that assess a location, counting for the location in 58 and against it in 56. A benchmark such as 800 metres was applied in 20. Distance was among the decisive factors in 43 decisions; whether the route has a footway was in 98 [factors in decisions].

Guidance still to come #

National planning practice guidance sits beside the Framework and explains how to apply it. The government has said it will revise the guidance on transport:

the government will revise national planning practice guidance on transport to provide further information on the vision-led approach and to address points raised in consultation. This will include clarification on when the vision should be established and how authorities may set local thresholds for significant movement.

MHCLG, NPPF consultation: government response, August 2026 [source]

The last point matters for TR3, which applies to proposals that could generate "a significant amount of movement". Until the guidance arrives, decisions differ on it. The size of the scheme, or the movement it would generate, was a factor in 37 of the 247 decisions since August 2026 that assess a location: it counted for the location in 19, against it in 9, and was raised and set aside in 9 [factors in decisions].

The revision had not appeared when we retrieved the guidance on 6 October 2026. Travel Plans, Transport Assessments and Statements still carried the revision date 6 March 2014 on every paragraph, and did not mention the vision-led approach or the Connectivity Tool. On 8 September 2026 the Transport Planning Society's policy lead for development and land use called it the "still-awaited accompanying new Planning Practice Guidance on Transport", being prepared by the DfT with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) [source].

Training: the Planning Inspectorate webinar #

On 4 June 2025 PINS held a public webinar, "What is meant by a sustainable location?", presented by a planning inspector. The PINS webinars page links to the recording and the slides. PINS describes it this way:

this webinar covered how the 2024 National Planning Policy Framework’s new vision-led approach to transport planning affects development proposals

PINS, webinars page, Webinar 6 [source]

The slides are short notes, not policy. They give these working figures under the heading "What is a sustainable location?":

They do not treat the figures as the answer. Routes need to be convenient, clear and legible, and comfortable and safe: adequate footways, not traffic dominated, lit and well maintained. The slide on making the assessment asks for "Options – not circles on a map", and for qualitative information on the quality of routes and the realism of alternatives. The questions the slides suggest asking of each mode are:

The conclusion is that there is no formula:

So - what is a sustainable location? It will be a matter of planning judgement

PINS, Sustainable locations webinar slides, "Conclusion" [source]

The slides add a warning: "Remember retrofitting sustainable transport is difficult – if not impossible".

Read it with two cautions. The webinar predates the August 2026 Framework, so its paragraph numbers (109, 110, 115 to 117) are those of the December 2024 Framework, and it says nothing about the Connectivity Tool's place in TR3(2). And it is training, not policy.

The Inspector Training Manual #

Inspectors also work from an internal Inspector Training Manual. We have not found it published, but PINS has released it in response to Freedom of Information requests. PINS says the Manual "does not constitute Government policy or guidance and does not seek to interpret Government policy" [source]. We do not hold a copy, so we cannot say what it advises on the location of development, or whether it has been updated for the August 2026 Framework.

Guidance published before the 2026 Framework #

None of these was written for TR3. They give distances and methods, and the first three agree with the PINS slides on the starting point: about 800 metres, or ten minutes, on foot to everyday services. Two of them add 400 metres to a bus stop.

SourceWhat it says
Active Travel England (ATE), Standing Advice Note, June 2024A mix of local amenities within an 800 metre walking and wheeling distance, "using well-designed routes"; most buildings within 400 metres of a high-frequency bus stop or 800 metres of a rail, light rail or tram stop.
Manual for Streets, 2007, paragraph 4.4.1A range of facilities "within 10 minutes’ (up to about 800 m) walking distance of residential areas". It adds: "this is not an upper limit".
Sustrans, Walkable neighbourhoods, 2022Recommends accessibility standards "based on 800m walking and wheeling distances to key services, and 400m to bus stops".
Chartered Institution of Highways and Transportation (CIHT), Planning for Walking, 2015"Across Britain about 80 per cent of journeys shorter than 1 mile are made wholly on foot".

Measure the route, not the straight line #

ATE's advice is specific about how to measure:

Trip lengths to key amenities should be derived from isochrone maps using an appropriate point within the application site, rather than straight-line distances from site boundaries or main access points.

ATE, Standing Advice Note, June 2024, paragraph 2.5 [source]

ATE also publishes a planning application assessment toolkit, a spreadsheet for gathering evidence on the walking, wheeling and cycling merits of a proposal. Sustrans surveyed how councils measure access to services when allocating sites. It found that "fewer than half of responding LPAs use a distance at or below 800m as the maximum acceptable distance for accessibility" (LPAs are local planning authorities), and that many measure in a straight line [source].

Settlement hierarchies #

Councils also assess whole settlements, placing each in a tier of a settlement hierarchy by auditing its services, facilities and public transport. Wokingham Borough Council's assessment of September 2024 is an example of the method. It chose judgement over arithmetic:

A scoring system has not been used, as it was considered that it could lead to an over-simplistic assessment.

Wokingham Borough Council, Settlement hierarchy assessment, September 2024, paragraph 4.13 [source]

A tier describes the settlement, not the site. In the 247 decisions since August 2026 that assess a location, the settlement's tier was a factor in 80 and among the decisive factors in 8 [factors in decisions]. Our page Service Village Does Not Mean Sustainable sets out how decisions have treated the difference.

In decisions #

How inspectors and councils apply the test is the best evidence of what it requires in practice.

Figures are recalculated each time the page is built. The corpus includes letters decided under earlier versions of the Framework. The factor counts come from our notes on each decision, checked against the decision texts; the method and its limits are on the sub-page.