Designing cycle infrastructure to LTN 1/20

LTN 1/20 changed what a planning application has to show about cycling. Cycle Infrastructure Design, published by the Department for Transport in 2020, sets national expectations for the quality of cycle routes rather than for their existence, and highway authorities now assess layouts against it as a matter of course. A drawing showing a dashed line and a bicycle symbol on a shared footway will be picked up, because the guidance treats shared use in busy places as a last resort rather than a default.

What the guidance changed

Three shifts matter to a designer preparing a layout.

The guidance sets a relationship between motor traffic speed, motor traffic volume and the level of protection cycling needs. Mixing with traffic is acceptable only where speeds and flows are both low. Above that, light segregation or full separation is expected, and the assessment is a design decision rather than a preference.

It discourages combining cycling and walking on shared surfaces where either flow is meaningful, which removes the easiest way of ticking a cycle box on a site plan.

And it introduces assessment tools, the Cycle Level of Service framework and the Junction Assessment Tool, that produce a score. A score invites comparison, and highway officers use it that way.

The five outcomes a scheme is judged on

Routes are expected to be coherent, direct, safe, comfortable and attractive. Those five words carry more weight than they look.

Coherent means the route connects to something. A protected track that ends at the site boundary in a dropped kerb facing a dual carriageway fails this test however well it is built, and the Transport Assessment should show the onward connection rather than stopping at the red line.

Direct means cycling is not sent the long way round to suit vehicle movements. Detour ratios against the equivalent car route are the usual measure, and a route substantially longer than the driving alternative will not be used.

Safe covers conflict, visibility and speed differential. Comfortable covers surface, gradient, width and the number of times a rider has to stop or give way. Attractive covers overlooking, lighting and the general question of whether a person would use the route after dark.

Widths, separation and surface

Width is where most schemes fall short, and the numbers are specific.

Absolute minimums apply over short constrained lengths, not along a whole route, and a design that uses them as the standard case will be challenged. Width is measured as usable width, so a track squeezed between a kerb upstand and a fence needs an allowance for shy distance at each edge.

Separation from traffic can be a kerb, a stepped level difference, a verge or light segregation with units. Each has consequences for drainage, for sweeping and for how the street is maintained, and the highway authority will ask about all three before it agrees to adopt anything.

Surface matters more than architects expect. Block paving and exposed aggregate look better on a visual and ride worse, and a machine laid bituminous surface is what the guidance points towards for main routes. Where a materials palette pulls the other way, resolve it in the design and access statement rather than leaving it to a condition.

Junctions, where most of the risk sits

Most collisions involving people cycling happen at junctions and accesses, so a route that is excellent between junctions and unresolved at them scores poorly.

The treatments the guidance sets out include continuous footways and cycle tracks across side roads so that turning drivers give way, tightened corner radii to slow turning movements, separate signal stages or early release at signalised junctions, and cycle friendly geometry at roundabouts.

For a development access this usually comes down to one question. Does the cycle track continue across the access with priority, or does it stop and give way to vehicles entering the site. The first is what the guidance expects. The second is what most submitted drawings show.

Bus stop bypasses, side road treatments and servicing laybys all need drawing at a scale that shows the detail. A 1:1250 site plan cannot demonstrate junction compliance and should not be asked to.

Cycle parking people will actually use

Provision is judged on location, security and ease of use, not on the count alone.

Ground floor, step free, close to the main entrance, lit, overlooked and behind a controlled door. Stands spaced far enough apart to get a bike in and out with panniers on. Two-tier racks counted honestly, with an allowance for the fact that upper tiers suit fewer users, and a proportion of spaces sized for cargo bikes, adapted cycles and trailers.

Visitor parking goes outside, in sight of the entrance, on Sheffield stands rather than wheel benders. Long stay parking goes inside. A scheme that puts residents' cycle parking in a basement reached by a lift and a ramp with a sharp turn will meet the numerical standard and fail the outcome, and a Travel Plan target on cycle parking occupancy will show that within two years.

Showing compliance on the planning drawings

Highway officers are looking for evidence, not assertions, and the evidence lives on drawings.

1. A route plan showing cycle connections from the site to the surrounding network, with the onward links named.
2. Cross sections through every cycle facility, dimensioned, showing usable width and any buffer.
3. Junction and access details at 1:200 or better, showing priority, radii and give way markings.
4. A completed assessment using the Cycle Level of Service framework or the Junction Assessment Tool where the authority expects it.
5. Cycle parking drawings showing stand type, spacing, access route and door swings.
6. A short statement listing where the design meets the guidance and where it does not.

That last item saves time. Officers find the departures anyway, and finding them listed by the applicant reads very differently from finding them by measuring the drawing. Where the application is a major residential scheme above the relevant thresholds, Active Travel England is a statutory consultee and will review this material directly, so check the current thresholds before assuming the scheme falls below them.

Departures and how to justify one

The guidance recognises that not every site can meet every figure. What it expects is that departures are identified, justified and agreed rather than quietly adopted.

A defensible departure has four elements. A statement of the constraint, which should be physical rather than commercial. Evidence that alternatives were tested, ideally with a drawing of the option that was rejected. The extent of the departure, in metres and over what length. And the mitigation, such as reduced speed limits, additional visibility or a wider footway alongside.

Constraints that carry weight include a retained tree with its root protection area, a listed boundary wall, a level difference, an existing utility corridor and a highway boundary you do not control. Constraints that carry less weight include the number of parking spaces and the position of a sales suite.

Record the agreement. Pre-application discussion with the highway authority, minuted and referenced in the transport documents, is worth more at determination than any amount of retrospective argument. The Transport Statement or assessment should carry it.

This is general guidance, not legal advice. Check the current version of the design guidance and your highway authority's local requirements before relying on it.

Enter your postcode on PlanScope to see which transport documents your scheme is likely to need. PlanScope provides AI-assisted draft reports for planning applications. Reports should be reviewed before submission. We do not guarantee planning approval.