Where cycle schemes fail LTN 1/20 requirements
Cycle schemes submitted with applications fail LTN 1/20 in the same four places: width, junctions, continuity and shared use. Here is what the guidance asks for and how to record a departure properly.
Most cycle schemes submitted with planning applications fail LTN 1/20 in the same four places: width, junctions, continuity and shared use. The guidance itself is clear about all four, which is why a highway authority or Active Travel England response can be predicted from the drawings before anyone reads the transport chapter. LTN 1/20 compliance is assessed against the design outcomes in the document rather than against a single dimension, so a scheme can meet every width and still fail.
The five core outcomes are that a route should be coherent, direct, safe, comfortable and attractive. Every one of those is capable of being tested on a drawing.
What the guidance sets out to achieve
LTN 1/20 was published by the Department for Transport in 2020 and replaced the previous cycle infrastructure advice. It sets summary principles at the front, then design detail by element, and it comes with two assessment tools: a Cycling Level of Service assessment for links and a Junction Assessment Tool for junctions.
Using those tools is the difference between a scheme that reads as designed and one that reads as drawn. A completed level of service assessment shows the authority that the trade-offs were made deliberately, and it gives the designer somewhere to record why a constrained section falls short.
The guidance also states plainly that cyclists should not be expected to dismount, and that signs telling them to are an admission of design failure rather than a solution.
Width and separation
Widths are the first thing checked because they are the easiest to measure. LTN 1/20 gives desirable minimum widths of 2.0 metres for a one-way cycle track and 3.0 metres for a two-way track, with lower absolute minimums acceptable only over short constrained lengths and at lower flows. Higher flows need more.
Two errors recur. Measuring to the face of a kerb or a fence rather than to the effective usable width, which loses 200 mm or more to edge effects. And applying the absolute minimum along a whole route because one pinch point forced it, when the guidance treats absolute minimums as exceptions over short distances.
Separation from motor traffic is decided by speed and volume together. Painted lanes are not accepted on roads where speeds and flows indicate protected space is required, and light segregation with intermittent units is treated differently from a kerbed track. State the 85th percentile speed and the traffic flow you designed against, with their source and survey date, in the Transport Assessment.
Junction treatment and priority
Junctions are where cycling routes actually fail, and where schemes lose most points. The recurring problems:
- Cycle tracks that give way at every side road, converting a direct route into a series of stops.
- Bus stops placed in the cycle track without a bypass or a shared boarding area designed to the guidance.
- Left-turn conflicts at signals with no early release, hold or separate stage.
- Tight corner radii for cyclists combined with generous radii for vehicles, which speeds traffic up at the conflict point.
- Tracks that end 20 metres before the junction and deposit cyclists into the nearside lane.
Continuity across side roads is the single change that most improves a route. A continuous cycle track and footway across a minor side arm, with the carriageway raised to cross it, states the priority in the geometry rather than in a sign. Where full continuity is not achievable, the Junction Assessment Tool at least documents the compromise.
Surface, gradient and drainage detail
These items are treated as detail and then cause the scheme to be rejected. Loose gravel, block paving with wide joints and tactile surfaces across the running line all reduce comfort and are avoidable.
Gullies and access covers belong outside the cycling path, not within the wheel track. Gradients need to be considered against the length of the climb rather than the maximum figure alone, because a long shallow gradient is harder than a short steep one for most riders. Lighting, sight lines and the absence of enclosure matter for the attractiveness outcome, and they matter more on a route intended for use after dark.
Drainage of a cycle track alongside a carriageway is often left to the highway design and then falls between two designers. Say who is responsible for it.
Shared use as a last resort
The guidance is direct about shared use footways in urban areas: they are generally not an acceptable provision alongside busy roads, because they create conflict with pedestrians and slow cyclists to walking pace.
Shared use can work in specific circumstances. Wide traffic-free routes through parks, links where pedestrian flows are low, and short lengths that connect two properly designed sections. What does not work is converting a 2 metre footway to shared use, adding a blue sign, and describing the result as cycle provision in a travel plan.
Where a scheme relies on shared use, say why, give the pedestrian and cycle flows, and show the width. Active Travel England looks at this directly, and our note on what Active Travel England looks for in an application sets out the wider review.
Continuity and the weakest link
A route is used to the standard of its worst point. A 600 metre track built to desirable widths that ends at an unsignalised crossing of a busy distributor road will be used by the people who would have cycled anyway.
So assess the whole journey, not the frontage. That means the route from the site to the nearest school, the station, the town centre and the employment area, with the level of service assessment applied along it. Where the weak point sits outside the application site, the scheme may still be able to fund the fix through a highway agreement, and our note on getting access onto a classified or trunk road approved covers how the adjacent works are handled.
Cycle parking then has to match. There is no point in a well-designed route that arrives at hooped stands in an unlit corner, and the cycle parking quantity, type and position needs to be designed at the same time as the route.
Documenting a departure
Departures from the guidance are expected on constrained sites, and reviewers accept them where the reasoning is on the page. Undocumented departures are what cause objections.
Record each one in a short schedule: the element, the guidance provision, the proposed dimension or arrangement, the reason, the length over which it applies, and the mitigation. Then state whether the departure needs the highway authority's formal agreement, because for some elements it will.
Two practical points. Include the departure schedule in the submission rather than waiting to be asked, because it changes the tone of the consultee response. And keep the monitoring commitments in the Travel Plan consistent with what the route can actually deliver, since a mode share target that depends on an unbuilt off-site link is a target the authority will test at monitoring stage.
This is general guidance, not legal advice. Cycle infrastructure design is work for a suitably qualified transport or highway engineer, and councils expect that. PlanScope provides AI-assisted draft reports for planning applications. Reports should be reviewed before submission. We do not guarantee planning approval.
Frequently asked questions
What widths does LTN 1/20 require for cycle tracks?
Desirable minimum widths are 2.0 metres for a one-way cycle track and 3.0 metres for a two-way track, with lower absolute minimums acceptable only over short constrained lengths and at lower flows. Higher cycle flows need more. Measure the effective usable width rather than the distance between kerb or fence faces.
Is shared use footway acceptable provision?
Generally not alongside busy roads in urban areas, because it creates conflict with pedestrians and slows cyclists. It can work on wide traffic-free routes, on links with low pedestrian flows and over short connecting lengths. Converting a narrow footway and adding a sign is not provision, and reviewers treat it as such.
What are the Cycling Level of Service and Junction Assessment tools?
They are the two assessment tools that accompany LTN 1/20. The level of service assessment scores links against the design outcomes, and the Junction Assessment Tool scores junctions. Completing both shows the authority that trade-offs were made deliberately, and gives the designer a place to record constrained sections.
Why do junctions matter more than link widths?
Because that is where conflict and delay occur, and where routes lose their directness. Giving way at every side road, unbypassed bus stops, left-turn conflicts at signals and tracks that stop short of the junction all reduce use. Continuity across minor side arms, with the carriageway raised, is the single most effective change.
How should a departure from LTN 1/20 be recorded?
In a short schedule listing the element, the guidance provision, the proposed arrangement, the reason, the length affected and the mitigation, with a note on whether the highway authority's formal agreement is needed. Submit it with the application rather than waiting to be asked, because it changes the consultee response.
Do cyclists dismount signs count as a solution?
No. LTN 1/20 treats the expectation that cyclists dismount as a sign of design failure rather than as mitigation. Where a constraint really does prevent continuous provision, the answer is to redesign, to reduce vehicle speeds, or to document the departure with its length and reason, not to place a sign at the pinch point.
Sources and further reading
This article is general guidance about the planning system in England and, where stated, the rest of the UK. It is not legal or professional advice. Check your local planning authority’s validation requirements and take professional advice for your specific site.