What Active Travel England looks for in an application

Active Travel England became a statutory consultee on planning applications in England on 1 June 2023, and for a scheme that crosses the threshold its response is now part of the decision. The trigger is size: residential development of 150 dwellings or more, 7,500 square metres or more of floorspace, or a site area of 5 hectares or more. Below that, the local highway authority is still the body you are dealing with.

What the new consultee looks at is narrower and more specific than a highways review. It is not interested in junction capacity. It is interested in whether somebody can walk or cycle out of your site to the places they actually need to reach, and whether the design makes that pleasant enough to do twice a day.

When the consultation is triggered

The thresholds sit in the amended Development Management Procedure Order 2015 consultation arrangements and are read the same way as other major development triggers.

A scheme that meets any one of the three is caught. Outline applications count, which matters because the design detail that Active Travel England cares about is often reserved, and a reserved matters submission that departs from the illustrative layout can attract a fresh objection.

Schemes below the threshold are not outside the policy. Local plan policy, the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026 edition) and the local highway authority all apply as before, and our note on when a transport assessment is triggered covers the separate thresholds that drive the transport evidence base.

How the assessment is structured

The consultee works from published criteria and scores the scheme rather than writing a free form letter. In practice the response reads as a series of themed findings with a rating, which is useful because it tells you exactly which part of the design failed and by how much.

The themes are consistent across responses. The connections the site makes to the surrounding network. The quality and directness of routes inside the site. Cycle parking, judged on usability rather than count. Crossings and junctions where walking and cycling routes meet vehicles. And the mix of uses and densities that determine whether there is anywhere worth walking to.

Two reference documents sit behind almost every comment. Cycle Infrastructure Design, published as Local Transport Note 1/20, sets the design standards for cycle provision, and Manual for Streets governs residential street layout. If your layout has not been tested against both, the response will say so.

The practical effect is that the assessment is a design review, not a traffic review. That changes who needs to answer it. A transport consultant alone will not fix a layout problem, because the fix is usually in the masterplan.

Connections beyond the red line

This is where most schemes lose marks. A layout can be exemplary inside the boundary and still deliver residents onto a 60 mph rural road with no footway.

The consultee looks at where people are going: the nearest primary school, the nearest food shop, the nearest bus stop or station, the nearest employment. Then it asks whether there is a route to each that a twelve year old or a person using a mobility aid would use. Distance matters less than severance. A 600 metre walk on a continuous footway with a signalised crossing beats a 400 metre walk that ends at an unlit verge.

Delivering off site links is a legal problem as much as a design one. The usual mechanisms are a section 278 agreement with the highway authority for works within the public highway, a section 106 obligation to fund or deliver a link, and a Grampian condition where third party land is involved and delivery cannot be guaranteed. Each takes time. Land assembly for a single footway connection has delayed more schemes than any of the design points below.

Where the site touches an existing right of way, upgrading it can be the cheapest connection available, though the legal route differs from ordinary highway works. And where the connection crosses a trunk road, a different consultee is engaged, as set out in our piece on access to the strategic road network.

Cycle parking judged on quality

Every applicant provides the number of spaces the local standard requires. Very few provide spaces anyone would use.

The criteria that come up repeatedly are practical.

• Location. Cycle parking has to be at least as convenient as the car parking. A store at the back of a block reached through a fire door and down a ramp will not be used.
• Access. No steps, no lifts as the only route, no narrow doorways, and doors that a person holding a bicycle can open.
• Security. Covered, lit, overlooked or access controlled, with stands that support the frame at two points.
• Spacing. Two tier racks packed to the minimum pitch are counted but not used. Sheffield stands at proper centres are worth more than double the number of wall hooks.
• Non standard cycles. A proportion of spaces sized for cargo bikes, adapted cycles and trailers, because standard stands exclude a lot of people.
• Visitor provision. Short stay stands at the entrance, separate from the resident store.

For houses rather than flats, a shed or garage counts only if it is accessible without moving a car and is shown on the plans at a usable size.

Crossings, desire lines and street design

Inside the site, the recurring criticisms are predictable: routes that follow the carriageway rather than the desire line, crossings set back from the junction so that pedestrians walk further, shared use footways where separate provision would fit, and tight forward visibility that pushes cyclists into the middle of the lane on a road designed for 30 mph.

Corner radii are a good proxy for how seriously a layout has been designed. A generous radius lets a car turn at speed across the point where people cross. Tightening it, raising the crossing to footway level and continuing the footway surface across the side road does more for the assessment than any amount of supporting text.

Shared surfaces attract particular scrutiny because they work well at very low traffic volumes and badly above them, which is the point our note on shared surface streets develops.

Lighting is part of this. A route that is direct, overlooked and lit to the relevant standard is used after dark. One that runs behind rear gardens is not, whatever the plan shows.

Responding to an objection

An objection is not fatal and it is not rare. The council must have regard to it, and in practice most case officers will hold the application until it is resolved or will condition the outstanding points.

The response that works is a design change with a drawing. The response that does not is a letter explaining why the existing design is acceptable. Where the point is contested, deal with it in the transport evidence: a Transport Assessment can carry the revised layout, the connection strategy and the delivery mechanism for off site works in one place, and the Travel Plan can secure the measures that depend on occupation rather than construction.

Be realistic about what a travel plan can carry. Measures that rely on behaviour change do not compensate for a missing footway, and a consultee that has flagged severance will say so.

Timing the engagement

The cost of an Active Travel England comment rises sharply with time. At masterplan stage a connection point can be moved for nothing. At reserved matters it costs a redesign of two development parcels and a fresh consultation period.

Three practical steps. First, run the walking and cycling audit before the layout is fixed, not after, and record where the routes to school, shops and public transport actually go. Second, open the off site land negotiations early, because that is the long lead item. Third, where the scheme is phased, show which connections are delivered in which phase, because a link promised in phase four will be challenged.

And keep the illustrative masterplan honest. If the outline layout shows a green link that the reserved matters scheme cannot deliver, the objection arrives late and lands hard.

Enter your postcode on PlanScope to see which reports your site is likely to need.

This is general guidance, not legal advice. Check the position with your local planning authority or a qualified professional before relying on it. PlanScope provides AI-assisted draft reports for planning applications. Reports should be reviewed before submission. We do not guarantee planning approval.