Recommendation 26

The short-term nature of funding for active travel is also problematic and this was a recurrent theme in the submissions that we received from stakeholders.60 The Local Government Association told us that “uncertainty over the level or duration of funding 54 Qq 32, 61, 70, 75; C&AG’s Report, para 3.15 55 Public Accounts Committee, Financial sustainability of local authorities, Fiftieth Report of Session 2017-19, HC 970, 4 July 2018 56 C&AG’s Report, para 20 57 C&AG’s Report, para 3.18, Figure 12 58 ATE0007, Written evidence submitted by Leicester City Council 59 Qq 73, 74; ATE0007, Written evidence submitted by Leicester City Council 60 ATE0007, Written evidence submitted by Leicester City Council; ATE0003, Written evidence submitted by Local Government Association; ATE0006, Written evidence submitted by Sustrans; ATE0012, Written evidence submitted by Liverpool John Moores University; ATE0001, Written evidence submitted by Walking and Cycling Alliance Active travel in England 17 makes it extremely challenging for councils to build in-house capacity to plan and deliver a pipeline of projects, with proper time for engagement and design that can deliver the greatest benefits and value for money”.61 The NAO found that funds were often provided through one-year settlements and that the lack of long-term investment certainty was undermining the ability of local authorities to plan strategic, integrated, networks. There is a risk that local authorities may prioritise funding for schemes which are easiest to deliver within a funding window rather than those with higher strategic value.62 For example, Leicester City Council told us that to deliver within the annual bidding cycle for active travel investment, local authorities may prioritise schemes for ease of construction, or expectations of smoother consultation and engagement pathways, over strategic need.63 The Local Government Association also told us that year-on-year instability of funding was not conducive to delive