# Transport Representation > Evaluate the transport/highways evidence submitted with a UK planning application (Transport Assessment/Statement, Travel Plan, parking schedules, street-layout drawings, and mitigation secured at outline), identify the national and local transport policy/guidance it engages, and draft a concise, well-founded objection (or advise that no sustainable objection exists). England-focused. Not legal advice; no warranty; output requires human review. - Skill: `seagulltwo/transport-representation` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 8 files) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add seagulltwo/transport-representation` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/seagulltwo/transport-representation/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Coding & Dev Tools - License: MIT - Author: SeagullTwo (https://skillmd.com/u/seagulltwo) - Updated: 2026-09-17 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/seagulltwo/transport-representation --- # Transport representation on a planning application Help a member of the public produce a rigorous, credible representation on the **transport/highways** merits of a planning application — the kind a case officer can act on and lift into the officer report. The skill does three things: 1. **Evaluate** the applicant's transport evidence against current policy and design guidance and identify the material deficiencies. 2. **Map** each deficiency to the specific national (and local) transport policy and guidance it engages. 3. **Draft** the representation in clear, precise, concise language — or advise that the evidence is sound and no sustainable objection exists. ## When to use The user has a planning application and wants to object (or find out whether they *can* object) on transport/highways grounds — walking and cycling connectivity, public transport, the Transport Assessment/Statement, trip generation and junction modelling, parking, street layout and inclusive design, or the delivery of transport mitigation secured at outline. Trigger phrases: "object on transport grounds", "is this Transport Assessment any good", "critique this TA / Travel Plan", "the cycling/walking assessment looks thin", "they're watering down the access road" (s73). Not this skill: ecology, heritage, flooding, general amenity — separate matters. This skill is transport only. ## What you need first - The **application reference and council** (and, ideally, the documents). - The **transport documents themselves** — you cannot critique what you have not read. Uploaded, pasted, or already-downloaded files work directly; the companion **planning-document-search** skill is only needed when you don't have them (it retrieves them from the reference + council). Prioritise: the Transport Assessment or Transport Statement, the Travel Plan, parking schedules, the street-layout and visibility drawings, and the **highway authority's consultation response** (often decisive — see the integrity/spine points). On reserved-matters, s.73 or s.96A cases, also the **parent permission's transport conditions and s106 obligations** (what mitigation was secured), its approved layout and access drawings, its officer report, **and every earlier amendment** — the delivery case is measured against the permission **as already varied**, and mitigation is most often lost an increment at a time rather than in one application. Method: the **application-triage** skill's `references/amendment-applications.md`. - The **local plan's** transport and design policies and any local design guide (e.g. a "healthy streets" guide) — cite these alongside national policy. ## The integrity principle and two framing rules (read before drafting) **Only object where the evidence is genuinely inadequate or the impact genuinely unacceptable.** If the assessment measures from the right place, uses current data and current guidance, audits route quality, and the layout delivers the walking, cycling and public-transport provision policy expects, there is **no sustainable objection** — say so. Don't manufacture points from typos when the substance is sound; treat "don't object" as a valid output. Two rules specific to transport: - **Don't fight the settled parts.** On a reserved-matters application, the principle of development and the site access are usually fixed by the outline — don't reopen them. The reserved-matters stage is where the layout *delivers or designs out* the mitigation secured at outline; that is the battleground. - **Pick the winnable test.** Refusal on *capacity/congestion* alone requires evidence of a **"severe" adverse impact** on the transport network (including cumulative impacts), or an **unacceptable** impact on highway safety — NPPF TR6(4), a high evidential bar ("severe" is undefined). Where that evidence *does* exist — construction phase expressly included — TR6(4) directs refusal; but it usually doesn't, so objections are usually far stronger on **sustainable-transport and active-travel compliance, inclusive design, and the adequacy of the evidence.** Aim there. **Classify every point's ask — (A) refuse, (B) don't determine yet, or (C) condition it.** An evidential deficiency is not itself a reason for refusal. For each confirmed point, be explicit about which outcome it supports: **(A)** the evidence *demonstrates* an unacceptable impact (the TR6(4) severe/safety tests, or clear policy conflict) → a refusal reason; **(B)** the evidence is *insufficient* for the Council to reach the necessary conclusion (no route audit, no forecast flows, stale trip data) → the application should **not be determined** until the information is provided; **(C)** the issue can be adequately controlled → ask for the *specific* condition or obligation (Travel Plan securing, cycle-parking details, delivery of the outline mitigation). Most deficiency findings are (B), not (A) — claiming (A) on (B) evidence is the classic credibility mistake. And test every point against (C): if a condition or s106 obligation would lawfully and satisfactorily resolve it, ask for that rather than refusal — over-asking weakens the whole representation. ## Workflow ### Step 1 — Intake and read Gather the documents (above). Identify: the proposal and its **stage** (outline / reserved matters / full / s.73 variation / s.96A non-material amendment — this changes what is still open and what "deliver the mitigation" means); the transport receptors and destinations (schools, shops, centre, stops, network); whether an **outline mitigation package** exists to be delivered; and whether the **highway authority** has objected, said "no objection", or asked for more information. Read the highway authority's response first. **On an amendment, read the chain before evaluating anything:** the question is what this change, and the accumulated changes, do to the mitigation the parent permission secured — not the principle or the access, which the parent settled. ### Step 2 — Evaluate against the deficiency catalogue (function 1) Work through [`references/deficiency-catalogue.md`](references/deficiency-catalogue.md) against the documents. For each candidate deficiency, confirm it is **actually present** and **material**, and capture the *specific* evidence — the document, author, date, and the paragraph/table/figure. Quote the assessment's own words (and where its scope promises something its body never delivers). Grade findings (decision-critical vs minor) and lead with the decision-critical. Apply the integrity principle; drop anything you cannot evidence. Key cross-cutting tests: Are distances measured **from the dwellings**, not the site access? Are walking benchmarks within **guidance**? Is there a **route-quality audit** and **external connectivity**? Is cycling tested against **LTN 1/20** with **forecast flows**? Is **public transport** actually assessed? Is trip generation on **current data** and representative comparators? Is **cycle parking additional** (not double-counted)? Is **inclusive design** addressed? Does the layout **deliver the outline mitigation**? And has the **LPA** been asked to assess sustainability itself, rather than defer to the highway authority's remit? ### Step 3 — Map to policy and guidance (function 2) For every confirmed deficiency, attach the precise instrument from [`references/national-guidance.md`](references/national-guidance.md) — the NPPF's sustainable- transport policies (Chapter 15, TR1–TR8) and the TR6(4) refusal tests, PPG, Manual for Streets and the Design and Placemaking PPG (the design guidance the NPPF now points to), LTN 1/20, Inclusive Mobility, Active Travel England's role, the Equality Act duty — plus the **local plan** transport/design policies and the outline conditions/obligations. Cite specifically, never "best practice" in the abstract. Verify a citation you are unsure of rather than guessing. ### Step 4 — Draft (function 3) Draft to [`references/house-style.md`](references/house-style.md) and [`references/objection-template.md`](references/objection-template.md): header → RE line (note the application stage) → opening (consultation status; material considerations; on RM/s73 state you don't reopen principle/access) → framework list → numbered conclusion-headed points (quoted evidence, why it matters, the ask and its timing) → numbered **Summary of requests** (include "officers to assess sustainability directly and record it in the report") → optional "if minded to approve" safeguards → objection sentence → sign-off. Keep it concise; lead with the decision-critical points; aim at the winnable tests. ### Step 5 — Check before sending - Every point is evidenced from the documents or cited guidance; nothing asserted. - Quotes are accurate and referenced (§/Table/Figure). - It reads as material considerations, not "congestion" complaint (unless severity is actually evidenced). - On RM/s73, it accepts the settled principle/access and targets delivery. - Consultant-/campaign-specific framing excluded unless the user asked and it is defensible on this application's own facts. - Requests are concrete and correctly timed to the stage. - Every point is classified **(A) demonstrated harm / (B) insufficient evidence / (C) conditionable** — and no point asks for refusal where a condition or obligation would lawfully and satisfactorily do. - Deadline: note if consultation has closed; representations remain material while the application is undecided. - **Hand back to a human, with the two warnings:** the draft must be read and checked by a person before submission, and submitting it puts a **public document in the user's name** on the council's portal — confirm they're content with the content and the personal details included. ## Reference files - [`references/deficiency-catalogue.md`](references/deficiency-catalogue.md) — the evaluation checklist: recurring, defensible grounds, each with the tell, why it matters, what it breaches, and the ask. - [`references/national-guidance.md`](references/national-guidance.md) — the policy/guidance catalogue, with citations, to map deficiencies to instruments. - [`references/house-style.md`](references/house-style.md) — how a strong representation reads. - [`references/objection-template.md`](references/objection-template.md) — skeleton + annotated worked example. ## Scope and limitations - **Not legal advice, and no warranty.** This helps a lay objector marshal evidence and cite policy; it is not a substitute for a solicitor or a transport professional, guarantees no outcome, and is provided "as is" with no warranty of accuracy or fitness for purpose. - **Human review is necessary before submitting.** A person must read the draft, check every quote and citation against the actual documents, and confirm the points are correct and fair for this application. Do not submit skill output unread. - **A UK planning representation is a public document in your name.** Comments and objections are normally published on the council's planning portal, typically including the submitter's name (and sometimes address), and kept on the record. Tell the user before they submit and let them choose what personal details to include. - **England-focused.** The NPPF, PPG and most design guidance cited are England; devolved policy differs in Wales/Scotland/NI — flag when the application is outside England and adjust the citations. - **Evidence-bound.** Every point stands or falls on the submitted documents and the cited guidance. Do not invent flows, distances or survey results; where information is missing, that *absence* is itself the point ("no forecast flows are presented"), argued as such. - **The honest answer is sometimes "don't object."** Treat that as a valid, valuable output.