The Transport Committee of the Greater London Authority Council met on Tuesday 8 September 2026 to discuss the Draft London Plan. Key topics included the Sustainable Access Measure (SAM), the safeguarding of industrial land, transport infrastructure requirements, and the role of car clubs. The Committee also heard from guests including Seb Dance, Deputy Mayor for Transport, and representatives from Transport for London (TfL).

Sustainable Access Measure (SAM)

A significant portion of the meeting was dedicated to discussing the Sustainable Access Measure (SAM), a new tool intended to replace the Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) for assessing transport connectivity in relation to housing density and development. Concerns were raised about SAM's potential to increase density in already well-connected areas, potentially exacerbating crowding and de-prioritising investment in local bus services.

Seb Dance, Deputy Mayor for Transport, acknowledged that SAM is intended to guide density to the best-connected locations in London and that it will contribute to modal shift, though it may not achieve the full 80% target alone. Lucinda Turner, Director of Spatial Planning at TfL, explained that SAM is a tool to support the Optimisation Framework, which aims to increase housing density in areas with good transport connectivity. She also noted that while SAM itself does not directly include crowding metrics, other strategic tools do, and that factors like land availability and site-specific constraints will ultimately influence density levels.

Concerns were also raised about the exclusion of cycling from the SAM calculation, with Assembly Member Neil Garratt highlighting that cycling has a significant modal share, particularly in inner London, comparable to buses. While TfL acknowledged this and committed to developing a cycling version of SAM in the future, it was stated that the current measure was not yet ready to adequately incorporate cycling.

Accessibility for disabled Londoners was another key concern. TfL confirmed they are committed to engaging further with disability organisations and enhancing SAM to incorporate accessibility metrics, including step-free access and accessible toilets, though specific timescales for this are yet to be confirmed. An Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA) specifically on SAM was not conducted, though an EqIA was done on the Draft London Plan as a whole.

Safeguarding of Industrial Land

The Committee discussed the Draft London Plan's approach to safeguarding industrial land. Lucinda Turner explained that the Plan continues to protect the majority of industrial land, recognising its importance for employment, infrastructure, and London's economy. However, a key difference from the existing Plan is the introduction of a targeted approach to releasing some industrial land, subject to strict criteria, where it is particularly well-connected by public transport and suitable for housing delivery. This approach aims to balance the need for industrial land with the need for housing.

Concerns were raised by Assembly Member Bassam Mahfouz regarding potential reductions in industrial land in Ealing, an area with strong transport connections, and a perceived shift towards road-based transport in favour of rail for freight. TfL representatives stated that areas identified for release in Ealing are those better connected by public transport, and that sites with strong freight connections, rail freight, or water freight are generally excluded from release proposals. The Plan also aims to protect clusters of industrial land with high-capacity road connections suitable for heavy vehicles, river connections, and railheads.

Transport Infrastructure Requirements

Funding for major transport infrastructure projects needed to support housing delivery was a significant concern. Seb Dance, Deputy Mayor for Transport, expressed hope that the new devolution agenda could bring more certainty to funding. He highlighted the DLR extension to Thamesmead as a key project with Government agreement on next steps, potentially unlocking 16,000 to 25,000 homes. He also pointed to the Elizabeth line as an example of successful collaboration between Government and City Hall on funding.

Lucinda Turner clarified that the housing targets in the Draft Plan assume existing transport plus the DLR and Great Northern Inners, not further major projects. The 850,000 housing target cannot be delivered in ten years without significant new transport infrastructure, and TfL has stated this will take longer to plan, deliver, and fund. Schemes like the West London Orbital, Bakerloo line extension, and further metroisation of rail services are crucial for unlocking housing in a sustainable way.

Assurances were sought regarding housing not out-pacing transport capacity. TfL mentioned the use of Grampian conditions, which limit development until transport infrastructure is confirmed, citing Old Kent Road as an example where development is capped until confidence in the Bakerloo line extension is secured.

Crossrail 2 was discussed, with Seb Dance confirming it is not on the current delivery plan due to a lack of funding, but its option is being safeguarded for future generations. Extensions to the Elizabeth line to Ebbsfleet and a second phase of the DLR extension to Belvedere were noted as not being on the list of 14 major interventions but were not being precluded.

Car Clubs

The provision of active charging for car club spaces and the policy of on-street provision were debated. Keith Prince AM questioned why active charging provision had been removed from the Draft London Plan, and why on-street provision was mandated. Lucinda Turner explained that on-street provision is preferred due to viability issues with providing charging within developments, such as basements. She acknowledged that exceptions might be made for site constraints but reiterated the policy's promotion of on-street infrastructure.

Concerns were raised that the one-size-fits-all approach does not work for London's varied nature. Elly Baker AM highlighted the missed opportunity of not integrating car club spaces within developments, arguing it makes accessible car clubs more difficult and impacts servicing and deliveries. She also questioned the assumption that developments would be car-free.

TfL acknowledged the role of car clubs and stated support for their provision, excluding from the most connected areas (SAM5). They are seen as important for boosting connectivity and providing alternatives, especially in new developments and the Green Belt. TfL agreed to take back the issue of 'on-street only' provision for consideration.

Regarding electric charging for car clubs, TfL confirmed it is a key part of their EV infrastructure strategy and that levy funding is available. They agreed to provide further detail and investigate potential competition rules that might prevent electric charging provision for car club bays.

Other Matters

The Committee also noted the minutes of previous meetings, informal meetings, and actions taken under delegated authority. A letter from the Chair to the Secretary of State for Transport regarding TfL's submissions to the Government's Structures Fund was also noted.

The meeting concluded with the Committee noting its work programme and the date of its next meeting on 8 October 2026.