Local consent and consultation for an APS permit

The local decision is not the national permit

A company proposes a self-driving passenger service across two neighbouring towns. It has a vehicle plan, a safety case and a national permit application. It then discovers that the service resembles a private hire vehicle service and both towns have separate licensing authorities. The applicant cannot treat a friendly conversation with one council as local consent for the whole area. It also cannot use one authority's consent as the automated passenger service permit itself.

Part 5 of the Automated Vehicles Act 2024 sets the permit framework. The 2026 APS regulations add procedure and lifecycle rules. The Department for Transport's guidance for local authorities and transport bodies explains three distinct local roles: consent from relevant taxi and private hire licensing authorities for a taxi-like service, consent from relevant franchising bodies for a qualifying bus-like service, and consultation with traffic authorities likely to be substantially affected. Emergency services may also need to be consulted. The national authority decides whether to grant the permit after the applicable steps.

This page owns who consents, who is consulted and how an applicant prepares the local evidence. The APS permit overview owns the wider permit scope and lifecycle. The pilot overview explains the separate vehicle listing and Vehicle Special Order questions. Neither local consent nor consultation proves that a particular vehicle can drive itself safely and lawfully.

The DfT guidance is non-statutory and does not prescribe how every authority should decide. The Act and issued permit control the legal position. The service may cross borders or resemble more than one conventional service, so a qualified transport lawyer should map the exact facts and relevant authorities before filing. This guide does not decide which licensing category applies to a named service.

First classify the passenger service

The consent route depends on what the proposed service resembles. Under section 85 of the Act, a taxi-like or private-hire-like automated passenger service needs consent from each relevant taxi or private hire licensing authority in whose area the service may be provided under the proposed permit. The comparison asks whether the service would require taxi or private hire licensing if a human drove it. The current DfT local-authority guidance and DVSA application route discuss taxi-like and private-hire-like services in England. Do not present this current route as automatically covering the same service in Scotland or Wales. A territorial specialist should review any proposal there.

Section 86 addresses a service resembling a local bus service where bus franchising restrictions apply. The relevant franchising body must consent before a permit can be granted. This can include Transport for London, a franchising authority for a qualifying English scheme or a Scottish body under a qualifying franchising framework. The exact statutory conditions matter. A bus-like service outside a qualifying franchised area does not gain a section 86 consent requirement merely because it has a fixed route, although the national authority may still need to consult substantially affected traffic and emergency authorities and assess other permit matters.

Classification should be based on the service that will actually operate. Record how passengers book, whether fares are charged, whether the service follows a route or timetable, where it picks up and drops off, whether journeys cross authority boundaries and what a human-driven equivalent would be. A company calling its offer an autonomous shuttle has not answered these questions. Likewise, a bus-like service that uses small vehicles is not necessarily a private hire service. The legal definition and facts determine the consent path.

The DVSA APS application service currently describes pilot applications for taxi-like or private-hire-like services in England and bus-like services in Great Britain. Check the current service wording and devolved arrangements before application. The existence of an online form does not resolve every legal question about a mixed or unusual operation.

Map every consenting body and service area

Draw the proposed operating area as a map, not just a list of towns. Include roads, pickup and drop-off points, depots, empty-vehicle movements and any area into which vehicles may be dispatched under the proposed permit. The legal consent question concerns the area in which the passenger service may be provided. A cross-border private-hire-like service can require consent from more than one licensing authority. The DfT guidance expressly gives a two-authority example.

For a bus-like service, identify whether the proposed local service falls within a franchising scheme or framework and whether any exemption applies. If a route crosses a franchising boundary, more than one franchising body may be relevant. Do not infer that the whole county is one consent area because the applicant has one depot or one corporate contract. Check the legal geography with the transport authority and the current scheme documents.

Create an authority matrix with the service model, area, legal reason for consent, named authority, contact, early engagement status, formal request status, decision and conditions. Keep a separate column for traffic authorities and emergency services that are consulted. This prevents a project team from treating all local bodies as if they have the same veto or the same response deadline. The national authority, acting through DVSA for the current scheme, makes the formal request for consent. An applicant's email before filing is useful engagement, but it is not that formal statutory request.

The matrix should also capture uncertainties. A planned route extension might cross a licensing boundary even if no passenger has yet requested a journey there. A franchising scheme could begin or change before launch. A traffic authority may be substantially affected by empty vehicle movements even if no pickup occurs on its road. These are reasons to check with the authority and legal team, not to omit a body from the map.

Use early engagement to shape the application

The DfT guidance encourages an applicant to speak early with consenting authorities. Early engagement sits outside the formal statutory consent period. It gives a licensing or franchising body time to understand the service and raise local concerns before the application is fixed. The applicant can discuss policy alignment, pickup locations, parking, empty cruising, charging, accessibility, passenger support and disruption. The authority may discuss how it plans to assess consent, while retaining discretion under the law.

Bring enough detail for a useful discussion. A one-page concept note should state the vehicle type, intended service, area, hours, passenger group, fare or booking model, proposed stops, fleet size, local support, emergency contact and expected launch period. Mark which details are provisional. Ask what local transport plans, franchising rules, accessibility priorities or taxi policies the authority wants the applicant to address. Record feedback and the changes made. A meeting with positive comments is not a promise of consent.

The guidance describes an intended two-step process: early discussions followed by the formal consent decision after DVSA's request. Negotiations that alter the service are best handled before the formal request. Once the formal request is sent, the authority responds to the application as submitted. An applicant should therefore settle material geography, stops and operating model before treating the consent clock as a project schedule. If it changes the plan afterward, a specialist should assess whether another request or permit variation is needed.

Engage traffic authorities and emergency services early too, even though the national authority has the formal consultation duty. A traffic team can identify roadworks, bus priority, kerb use and congestion issues. Police, fire and ambulance services can identify how to stop, access and recover a vehicle. The applicant should not imply that an informal meeting replaces the statutory consultation. Its benefit is better evidence and fewer surprises when the national authority seeks views.

Understand the six-week consent mechanism

Sections 85 and 86 of the Act establish a six-week period after the appropriate national authority requests consent in writing. A consenting authority may give or refuse consent. If it does not respond within the relevant period, or refuses without giving written reasons, the Act can treat consent as given. The legal effect depends on the precise statutory conditions. An applicant should never start its own six-week countdown from its introductory email or treat silence as permission to operate. DVSA or the appropriate national authority must still make the permit decision.

The DfT local-authority guidance says the formal decision is a binary response. If consent is refused with reasons, the national authority cannot grant the permit on the proposed basis. The guidance says there is no specific statutory appeal against a local consenting authority's refusal in this process, though a dispute may be pursued through other appropriate procedures. The applicant should seek legal advice on a refusal, especially where it believes the authority misunderstood the service or acted unlawfully. This page is not a dispute procedure.

If consent is given, the national authority continues its wider assessment. It may still refuse the permit or attach conditions. It also has consultation duties and must evaluate the proposed service. Local consent is necessary in the relevant categories but is not sufficient for the entire grant. The applicant should retain the written decision and map it to the exact service area and application version. A consent to a limited area should not be represented as approval for expansion.

A schedule should use the actual request date, the authority, the service version and the response date. Because the legal rule operates through the national authority's request, the applicant may need confirmation from DVSA about when a request was made and how any deemed consent was recorded. The project team should not self-certify a deemed result and tell passengers that service is authorised. Only an issued permit establishes the national permission.

Consultation is different from consent

Section 87 requires the appropriate national authority to consult traffic authorities it considers likely to be substantially affected if the permit is granted. It also covers emergency services likely to be substantially affected. The DfT guidance says DVSA will carry out this consultation on behalf of the Secretary of State in the current scheme. These bodies provide views for the permit decision. They are not automatically consenting authorities under sections 85 or 86 merely because they are consulted.

A traffic authority may also happen to be a consenting body through another role. Keep the capacities separate. Its licensing office might consent to a private-hire-like service while its traffic office comments on junctions, roadworks or kerbside space. A single organisation can therefore provide different responses under different statutory provisions. The DfT guidance says section 87 consultation remains a distinct step even where the traffic authority is also involved in consent.

Give consultees practical information. Map the route and alternative routes; explain stops, empty movements, vehicle speed, how a blocked road is handled, remote support, incident contact and recovery. Emergency responders may need information about vehicle access, electrical hazards, how to immobilise it and who can move a damaged vehicle. The relevant first-responder guidance can inform those discussions. A generic statement that the automated vehicle obeys road rules does not answer local traffic or emergency questions.

The national authority considers consultation responses when deciding whether to grant a permit or attach conditions. That is different from a consent veto. An applicant should record concerns, mitigation and who approved any amended plan. If a consultation identifies a new road hazard, it may also affect the vehicle safety case or operating domain. The project should reconcile all relevant documents rather than treating consultation as a public-relations step.

A franchised route example

Suppose a bus-like automated service will run between a rail station and a hospital in a franchised area. The applicant proposes a fixed route with frequent stops. The bus franchising body may need to consent under section 86. The traffic authority may need to be consulted under section 87 if substantially affected. Emergency services may also be consulted. The national authority still decides whether to issue the APS permit. Separately, the vehicle must satisfy the current pilot's listing, order, registration, insurance and technical requirements.

Now suppose the service adds a route across the boundary into another franchising area. The existing consent and permit may not cover that new service. The operator should stop treating the original local response as a blanket approval. It should map the new franchising body and traffic authorities, review the permit's area and conditions, seek the relevant variation or new decision and update passenger and emergency plans. The vehicle may be technically capable of the road, but service permission can be narrower than technical capability.

If the same route is outside a qualifying bus franchising scheme, section 86 consent may not be required. It would be a mistake to conclude that no local engagement matters. Traffic and emergency consultation may still apply, and local transport plans, road space and passenger access remain operational concerns. The applicant should document why the franchising consent rule does or does not apply, rather than omit the question.

A cross-border taxi-like example

Imagine an app-based service that picks passengers up in one English licensing area and may drop them in another. The applicant should map where the service may be provided under the proposed permit and identify each licensing authority whose consent is required. The DfT guidance explains that a cross-border service may require consent from both. A project team cannot secure one favourable response and assume the second authority is irrelevant because most trips begin in the first town.

Early discussions may reveal that one authority is concerned about pickup space near a station and another about empty cruising near a school. The applicant can revise stops, operating hours or dispatch rules before the formal consent request. Record which application version each authority saw. Once DVSA asks for formal consent, the decision applies to that submitted service. An applicant should not quietly switch to a different area or service model after consent is obtained.

The current public DVSA scheme addresses taxi-like or private-hire-like pilot services in England. A proposal in Scotland or Wales needs territorial legal analysis of the appropriate national authority and current implementing route. Do not make a country-substitution page that pretends the English procedure is identical. The service facts and current law should drive a tailored review.

Keep the decisions aligned during operation

An issued APS permit may specify area, service, vehicles and conditions. Keep the permit, local consent responses and consultation outcomes linked to the same service version. If a new road, stop, service type or fleet configuration is proposed, ask which decisions are affected. The answer may include a permit variation, fresh local consent, further consultation, a vehicle-order review or a safety-case update. The APS overview covers the general variation and renewal route; this guide keeps the local decision in view.

Create a concise change record: what changes, why, which authorities and emergency services are affected, which existing consent or permit covers the old service, what new decision is needed, and when operation may begin. A customer-facing route map must match the authorised area. If dispatch software can offer rides outside it, the operator needs a control to prevent those journeys. A policy in a folder is weaker than a tested limit in the booking and operations workflow.

Monitor local concerns after launch. A pickup point may cause obstruction, a route may conflict with roadworks, or a passenger support problem may affect local confidence. The operator should have a channel for the authority to raise concerns and a documented process for responding. That does not mean the authority can rewrite the permit through an informal email. If a formal change is needed, follow the statutory and permit process. Keep operational feedback and legal decisions clearly labelled.

A practical consent and consultation register

The register is an applicant's control, not a substitute for DVSA records, statutory decisions or an issued permit. A row marked consent pending should not be presented to operations as service approved. Retain the correspondence and decision document behind each entry.

Where Complys may fit

A permit applicant may want one place to track authority contacts, service versions, decision letters, conditions and review dates. Complys can be assessed for those document and workflow needs in a product demonstration. This article does not claim that Complys identifies the legally required authority, sends statutory consent requests, performs DVSA consultation, obtains a permit or geofences vehicles. Any specific feature claim needs a current product-owner demonstration before publication.

Use a two-authority example in the demonstration. Ask how the team can link each local response to the correct application version, keep traffic consultation separate, show an unresolved decision and retrieve the evidence when a route changes. If the booking platform or national permit service remains outside Complys, state the handoff. The AV software overview addresses the broader buying question. The AV checker is a nonbinding regime pointer, not a local-consent determination.

The next step is a service classification and map of every relevant authority, followed by early discussions and an application that accurately reflects the intended operating area. A transport lawyer should review the statutory route, and the applicant should let the national authority conduct the formal consent and consultation steps. Good preparation makes the local issues visible; only the final national permit authorises the service within its terms.