Here we are again: talking about a connectivity metric that is given disproportionate power in planning decision-making.

Who is SAM?

The draft London Plan (DLP) [1] introduces SAM – the Sustainable Access Measure – and embeds it in the Optimisation Framework [2] and the basis for car-parking standards.  A higher SAM score will support greater density, tightening the expectation that development should minimise parking and make efficient use of land.  SAM also features in the tall building location criteria and aspects of industrial land policy.

SAM measures travel times to jobs, services and amenities by public transport and on foot.  TfL developed it to “provide a granular, pan-London metric which reflects the ability of a typical Londoner living in a given location to meet their regular travel needs by sustainable, space-efficient modes alone.”

Interestingly, SAM is absent from the Green Belt policy PV7 – for which applicants are to assess connectivity on a case-by-case basis (we’ll write more on this next time).

SAM is not PTAL…

SAM appears to have been designed to complement rather than replace PTAL.  PTAL measures the time taken to walk to and wait for public transport in order to ‘access’ the public transport network, whereas SAM reflects whole journey times to various destinations and includes journeys made entirely on foot.  SAM is intended as a London-wide comparator, showing how well connected a housing site is – or how car-reliant a neighbourhood may be – relative to others across London.  PTAL, by contrast, should be used to compare access to the public transport network within the local area.  Although both measures use the same 100m x 100m grid, their scales are not directly comparable.  Confused yet?

… nor the Connectivity Tool

TfL is clear that SAM should be used in London, and not the Department for Transport’s Connectivity Tool.  This is because SAM is calibrated on London-specific data, unlike the Connectivity Tool which is based on national average travel patterns.

The Connectivity Tool indexes scores across England and Wales against the best-connected location – Aldgate in London – so everywhere else scores lower.  TfL, acknowledging that London is a special case requiring different treatment, has therefore developed its own tool…

Maybe we should take out London from the Connectivity Tool?!

SAM doesn’t cycle

That’s right…  In London, our special case, where cycling makes up the highest proportion of journeys by mode in England and Wales, and where cycle infrastructure is arguably the best in the country, cycling is not included in the connectivity metric.

Apparently, cycling is excluded because it would skew the results – you can get a long way across London in the modelled time cap, and it would gloss over gaps in infrastructure.

If cycling does not count in London, where does it!?

The murky world of connectivity metrics

We love the details, and as we dig into the purpose and development of SAM, it starts to feel like another tool to muddy the waters of clear decision making.

SAM provides a more meaningful way of assessing transport impacts as, put simply, it measures access to opportunities, not merely proximity to a stop or station. Yet there are familiar limitations – it doesn’t account for severance, gradients, interchange quality, crowding, personal safety, service reliability or the actual experience of a journey.

By linking that score to density and parking, the DLP raises the stakes.  SAM may provide a clearer starting point, but consent may still turn on the grey areas: how the score is applied, how local conditions are evidenced, and whether the proposed density and parking approach forms part of a coherent strategy.

For applicants, this is likely to make consent harder where parking is important to the proposal.

The challenge is most acute for employment and industrial proposals, where servicing, shift patterns, accessibility needs or operational vehicles do not fit neatly within a car-light narrative.  For these sites, the case will need to extend beyond the number of spaces.  It will need to critically assess whether alternatives are genuinely available and demonstrate that car parking can be provided without compromising density, public realm or Healthy Streets outcomes.  This is essential if London is to achieve the industrial growth it needs.

We are well versed in these challenges

We are not here to argue with SAM.  We help our clients prepare robust accessibility and connectivity strategies by combining the tools with local evidence, pragmatism and professional judgement. Brought in early, that perspective can inform land appraisal, density, access, parking and servicing before key design decisions become fixed.

[1] The DLP consultation runs to 15 October 2026, and TfL has explicitly asked for feedback on SAM itself.

[2] DLP § 2.24 – The Optimisation Framework provides a recommended net residential density range (in habitable rooms per hectare) that is expected for different settings and SAM levels within London.

If you have spent any time navigating the UK planning system recently, you will know that getting a development scheme off the ground can feel like trying to steer an oil tanker in a canal. The planning landscape has become increasingly complex, heavily politicised and policy-heavy. For private developers and planning consultants, one of the biggest friction points is almost always the same: transport.

As soon as a new development is proposed, the immediate knee-jerk reaction from local communities and elected members is typically, “What about the traffic?” It is a highly contentious issue that can stall a project for months, if not years, if it is handled poorly. But what if you could look at your development proposal through the exact lens of the local authority highways officer reviewing it? What if you knew exactly what information they needed to satisfy an anxious planning committee, before they even asked for it? For Dom, a Partner at iTransport, that is not a hypothetical exercise — it is his daily strategy. iTransport is an independent transport specialist working with developers, planning consultants and public bodies on development and infrastructure schemes across the UK. Over the years, the firm has built an exceptional track record of getting complex transport planning issues resolved. Their secret weapon? A deep, company wide understanding of how local government actually works, driven by senior experts who have spent years sitting on the other side of the table.

The Gamekeeper Turned Poacher
Before joining iTransport in 2017, Dom spent nearly a decade within West Sussex County Council. He worked his way up through the ranks to manage the County Highways Development Management Team, overseeing development proposals across the region. If there is a town, village, or country lane in West Sussex, Dom knows it like the back of his hand. This “gamekeeper turned poacher” background has proven invaluable to iTransport’s clients. “Having that Council background gives you a much broader understanding of the bigger picture,” Dom explains. “You quickly learn that transport planning is about far more than just the technical analysis, numbers and traffic models. It is fundamentally about people, policy and balancing competing priorities.” When Dom was a local authority officer, he regularly encountered private consultants who treated council requests as obstruction or unnecessary bureaucracy. But when he evaluated iTransport’s submissions from his council desk, he noticed something different. “I was always struck by iTransport’s integrity and professionalism,” says Dom, “they understood that when a council officer asks for additional details, they aren’t trying to be difficult. They are gathering the precise evidence they will need when they stand in front of a planning committee to justify a positive recommendation. I saw iTransport always acting as an effective, reliable bridge between the developer and the council.”

Thinking Like an Officer
The collaborative philosophy Dom spotted all those years ago, still defines how iTransport operates today. Instead of fighting local authorities, iTransport works with them. Because many of the firm’s senior leaders share a public sector background, they can anticipate an officer’s perspective in the earliest stages of a project, rather than waiting for objections to derail an application down the line. This dynamic is especially crucial given the current resourcing pressures facing local authorities. Council officers are juggling tight budgets, political sensitivities and ever-shifting national frameworks. Naturally, their primary objective is to interpret policy, manage community expectations and secure infrastructure improvements that benefit the wider public. On the other side, private consultants operating in multi-disciplinary teams are focused on development economics, architectural design, landscaping and commercial viability. These two worlds frequently clash. “As a council officer, I remember thinking, ‘Why can’t this developer just fund the off-site cycle path I’m asking for?’” Dom recalls. “But having crossed over to private consultancy, I now understand the bigger picture of scheme viability. It isn’t that the developer doesn’t want to build the cycle path; it’s that they are already funding a critical flood alleviation scheme, heritage preservation, or affordable housing. My job now is to put myself back in the officer’s shoes, pre-empt their concerns and find a commercially sensible solution that keeps everyone happy.”

Diligence in Action: The Bolney Case Study
This balanced approach was perfectly illustrated during a recent project in Bolney, Mid Sussex. During the public consultation stage for a proposed residential development, local residents raised serious concerns about the village’s highly limited existing bus services. A traditional, adversarial approach might have seen the consultant push back, citing network capacity models to prove that the development didn’t strictly require public transport upgrades to achieve compliance. But Dom chose collaboration instead. Drawing on his long-standing working relationship with the regional bus operator, Dom picked up the phone. Together, they co-created a practical sustainable transport strategy tailored to the development. The resulting solution successfully increased the local bus frequency, introduced brand-new stops directly serving the village and provided modern waiting infrastructure. It was a total win-win. The local community received a major infrastructure upgrade, the council met its sustainable travel policy objectives and it remained a highly cost-effective option for a client who was genuinely committed to sustainable development. Unsurprisingly, planning permission was granted and the client was absolutely delighted.

Navigating an Ever-Changing Landscape
The world of transport planning is evolving rapidly. National policy has fundamentally shifted away from old-school calculations of “how many cars can we fit on this road” toward active travel, public transport and the modern “Vision and Validate” methodology. However, individual local authorities across the UK are adopting these changes at completely different speeds. What works perfectly for an ultra-progressive, sustainable-focused urban council might be entirely rejected by a rural authority that is still catching up to the curve. This variance makes every single piece of work entirely unique. The strategy required to unlock a site might fail in another. Success requires an advisor who is agile, highly diligent and capable of seamlessly adapting to differing council expectations while holding onto the core principles of robust transport engineering. Because iTransport remains a highly focused, independent specialist, our senior team members are completely immersed in the day-to-day realities of transport policy. They don’t dilute their focus by trying to be a “one-stop-shop” for every engineering discipline; instead, they focus exclusively on what they do best: unlocking planning consents and solving complex infrastructure riddles.

A Simple Invitation
Ultimately, transport planning shouldn’t be a game of heads-or-tails or a courtroom battle with local government. It is a process that yields the best results when built on transparency, meticulous preparation and mutual respect. When asked what he would say to a potential client if he had just a one-floor lift ride to explain the firm’s ethos, Dom keeps it incredibly simple and refreshingly conversational: “I’d want them to know that they can genuinely pick up the phone with a complex transport problem and our team will be excited to roll up our sleeves and help them find a solution.”