.

Designing Streets 2002 24/11/06 10:51 Page 1
The 2002
Designing Streets
for People Report
Ideas and recommendations on how to
transform our streets into places…
for people
for business
for pleasure
for shopping
for talking
for movement
…for life
The final report of the

DESIGNING STREETS FOR PEOPLE Inquiry
Designing Streets for People was first

published in 2000
Are the recommendations of the original report gaining acceptance?
Recommendation of the original Walking Response Street Scene Paving

Designing Streets for People Report 2000 in Towns from Audit the way:
& Cities Government Commission CABE
Single point of contact ✪
Street Partnerships and Agreements ✪
Street Excellence Model ✪
Public Realm Strategy ✪ ✪ ✪ ✪
Street Management and Design Codes ✪ ✪ ✪ ✪
Consolidate powers ✪ ✪ ✪ ✪
Simplify legislation ✪ ✪
Economically efficient funding ✪
Economics and social impact of utilities maintenance ✪ ✪ ✪ ✪
Improve skills and resources ✪ ✪ ✪ ✪
Pay special attention to the needs of pedestrians ✪ ✪ ✪ ✪
Placecheck: £5 million awarded for 10 pilot projects
2 T H E 2 0 0 2 D E S I G N I N G S T R E E T S F O R P E O P L E R E P O R T
Contents
C O N T E N T S
Introduction 4
The vision 6
The reality 7
What’s gone wrong? 8
Summary of the proposals 12
The proposals 14
Background 42
ISBN 978 0 7277 3195 1

ISBN 0 7277 3195 5
© The Institution of Civil Engineers, 2002,
Reprinted 2006
Published for the Institution of Civil Engineers by Thomas Telford
Publishing, Thomas Telford Ltd, I Heron Quay, London E14 4JD
Designed by Kneath Associates and printed by Latimer Trend
T H E 2 0 0 2 D E S I G N I N G S T R E E T S F O R P E O P L E R E P O R T 3
Introduction
Streets! We all use them every day. But why are they as they are? Could
they be better places? Can they be better managed and add more to the
quality of life for those who use them, live in them or work in them?
The Designing Streets for People Working Group began its investigation into
the way we plan, design, manage and maintain our streets to try to answer
these questions. During the investigation a number of key documents have
been published including the “Rogers report”, the Government’s Ten Year
Transport Plan and the Urban White Paper. The proposals contained in this
report complement and support these developments.
From the autumn of 2000 to the summer of 2001 the consultation draft
“Designing Streets for People” report has been the subject of extensive
consultation and discussion, and has already had a significant impact. The
Working Group now present the 2002 final report, which looks at actions
needed to improve our street environment over the first 25 years of the new
millennium. Many actions can be taken immediately. Others will take longer.
Good progress is being made in a number of the proposals and progress
reviews will be published from time to time.
The Working Group is grateful to all the individuals and organisations who
submitted evidence to the investigation. Listening to and considering this
evidence has been a key part of our work and has helped enormously.
We believe that the results of our work are worthy of consideration and we
commend them to you.
Edward Chorlton
Chair, Designing Streets for People Working Group
An “Urban
Renaissance”
depends on
the street
being
recognised
as important
About the Designing Streets for

People Inquiry
I N T R O D U C T I O N
The Designing Streets for People Inquiry, which began in 1998, is a
fundamental review of the way we design, manage, and maintain our
streets. It reflects on how the role of the street is changing within the urban
environment, including the impact of increasing car use. It examines how we
design, manage and maintain our streets, and suggests improvements to
better reflect current thinking in:
■ Community empowerment and social inclusion

■ Sustainability
■ Urban Renaissance i.e. the quality of life in towns and cities
■ Integrated transport and land use planning
Its recommendations are based on evidence provided by professionals,

academics, the public and politicians.
To avoid legal complexity, the report has been written in relation to legislation
applying to England, but the proposals are intended to be considered in
terms of the UK as a whole.
The proposed recommendations will help to achieve an Urban Renaissance
as promoted in Government policy such as “Planning for the Communities of
the Future”, “A Better Quality of Life”, the Urban Task Force’s “Towards an
Urban Renaissance”, “By Design”, and the National Strategy for
Neighbourhood Renewal.
The vision—the Street in 2025

T H E
Streets in 2025 are:

V I S I O N
■ Streets where people are proud and happy to live

■ Streets that are liveable, attractive and enjoyable places
■ Streets that provide a dramatic improvement in our quality of life
What do you think of your street?

“It’s pleasant, attractive and interesting”
“It’s safe, clean and quiet”
“It’s somewhere to meet people”
“It functions well: there’s no litter, it’s well maintained, and there are minimal
roadworks”
“Neighbours work together to make improvements”
“There’s variety: peaceful streets, lively streets, streets for business, play
streets, bustling streets, quaint streets…there are streets for anything,
everything and everyone”
How the street is managed:

Community involvement and ownership
Communities are involved in their street. Businesses, retailers, and residents
have a vision for improvement, and are part of a partnership that is
managing the street and actively trying to bring about change.
People have a sense of ownership and pride in their street. They participate
in local governance and are confident that they possess the influence to
bring about improvements.
Co-ordinated management
Behind the scenes is a streamlined and holistic management approach
characterised by a culture of collaboration, innovation, and co-operation to
ensure a high quality of design, development and maintenance.
There are open and simplified processes, and clear responsibilities.
There is minimal bureaucracy: a simple, flexible system of regulation and
guidance. The focus is on community involvement and continuous
improvement.
The reality
T H E
Streets form a huge part of
our lives…
R E A L I T Y
Streets account for about 80% of public space in urban areas and provide
the setting for billions of pounds worth of property. They are routes for
sewage, waste, electricity, communications, gas, and clean water – as well
as people. They provide the focus of local communities and are the basic
building blocks of democracy.
...but they aren’t providing the

quality of experience we want…
Despite their importance, we neglect streets. Local streets have seriously
lacked investment in the years up to the new millennium, and have been
poorly managed. The problems created by this are not just about
appearance and function. Streets have a huge impact on the attitudes and
perceptions of society.
…the consequences of which

are manifold:
■ Only 20% of people are happy with urban life
■ Increasing pressure to develop the countryside
■ Growing dependence on motorised transport
■ Increasing impact of car use on communities
■ The public realm has become a consumer item (i.e. people pick and
choose where they live rather than carry responsibility)
■ Loss of community spirit and a weakening of democracy
What’s gone wrong?

W H A T ’ S
Four reasons why we don’t have

liveable streets
G O N E
1. We have not managed to balance the growth in

traffic with people
W R O N G ?
The increase in traffic and vehicle ownership has been progressive, year on
year. The increase has been accommodated freely through a policy of
“predict and provide”. While there have been some attempts to restrict
traffic growth, it continues to increase, and is forecast to continue to do so.
800
700
Growth in motorised transport
600
(billion vehicle km)
Lack of 500
400
investment 300
Our expenditure on vehicles 200

outweighs our expenditure on
the public realm by over 10 to 1. 100
We are not spending enough to 0

maintain our streets, let alone 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030
manage the balance between Source: Government statistics
people and vehicles through
measures such as traffic
calming, pedestrianisation, The main consequences of increase in vehicle use include:
homezones, or intelligent
transport systems. ■ Streets turning into drive-throughs
■ Congestion affecting the economy and restricting mobility
80
■ Loss of the tranquillity and safety that many people use their vehicles to
70
obtain
60
■ Danger and intimidation of pedestrians
50
£ billion
■ Excess car parking blighting streets

40
30
■ Loss of the public realm
20 ■ Social exclusion for those who have no use of a car
10 ■ Reallocation of space away from residents and local people to vehicles
0 and through-traffic
Highways Vehicles
Source: Government statistics
2. Responsibilities have been divided and

fragmented. People do not feel empowered Residents will
wait for local
W H A T ’ S
a) No one owns the street or has sole responsibility
There are numerous organisations, parties and stakeholders who have an
interest in the street, or need the street to go about their business or daily lives. authorities to
No one has sole responsibility to see that everyone’s interests are balanced,
clean up litter
G O N E
protected or advanced. Instead there is a series of unrelated organisations that
manage the street as a set of unrelated components. There is no single point of
contact for the management of the street or its improvement. This divided or look after
W R O N G ?
responsibility inevitably creates bureaucracy and hinders improvement.
grass verges
b) People feel powerless to make improvements
People know what kind of environment they would like to live in, but few
think that they could bring this about in their own neighbourhood. Many
people will say that it is an impossible task and not worth attempting. Others
will have tried to make improvements only to have been confronted by a lack
of resources, or complex bureaucracy and legislation.
c) Fatalism
We tend to accept streets as
they are. We don’t think they
can be any better. To live and
work in an attractive place, many
people believe that the only
solution is to move.
What are streets for?

Streets are used for many things by many different people. The
activities identified below are a small cross section of all the functions
of a street.
Somewhere to meet and chat
A safe, attractive route to the shops, school,
work, friends - and the rest of the world
Place to sit Attractive view
Somewhere to park the car
Play area Exercise
DIRECT DEMANDS Play
Things people want to do
THROUGH TRAFFIC
Removals
DERIVED DEMANDS Refuse collection
Things people need to have
Delivery of goods Refuse storage
Telephone Fire, Ambulance, Police Gas
Water Electricity
Cable Drainage
Sewerage
A plethora of 3. The knowledge base is prescriptive, complex,

and biased towards vehicles
both
W H A T ’ S
a) Vehicles – not people – are the focus of attention
mandatory Practice, regulations and standards have developed around accommodating

and managing vehicles.
and advisory
G O N E
b) The knowledge base is prescriptive, complex and focussed on
guidance Single Interest Solutions

There is an avalanche of different guidance, laws, regulations, professions
W R O N G ?
exists and specialisms. Much of the guidance is prescriptive, which discourages

innovation. This body of knowledge is structured on narrow professional
lines, and deals with the street as a set of unrelated components that are
managed independently. One profession’s solution is another’s problem. For
example:
■ Utilities which dig the road to maintain underground services, but as a

result increase road maintenance costs, and cause traffic hold-ups.
■ Refuse collection services which are cost effective but blight the street
with bins
■ People who concrete their front gardens to provide off-street parking,
thereby reducing the attractiveness of the street
■ People who drive along a street, and introduce noise, air pollution and
danger to residents.
This single-issue approach to streets leads to a waste of resources and

creates streets that fail to meet our needs.
c) National standards prevail over local distinctiveness

Guidance tends to be copied rather than interpreted, leading to the
replication of standard designs across the country.
d) Practices have been slow to change

Street design and practice follows a long-standing vehicle-orientated
tradition; but needs, technologies and lifestyles have changed. In the 1950s,
utilitarian solutions were acceptable and appropriate, but the same solutions
applied in 2002 are not adequate. It is important to challenge and justify
long-standing principles, and to develop a culture that encourages
experiment and innovation.
e) Practitioners avoid innovation for fear of litigation

Local authorities’ fear of litigation constrains innovation, and leads to slavish
copying of standard designs and practices. Practitioners should instead
manage risk using professional design skills based on robust but flexible
guidance to tailor solutions to individual streets. However, in 2002 there is no
career incentive for those professionals involved in street design to use their
judgement in accepting non-standard solutions.
4. Elements of the legal system are no longer relevant

A street over
a) The Right of Way has prevailed over other rights
a century of
W H A T ’ S
Established legal rights have influenced the way our streets responded to the
growth in vehicle ownership and use. The basic right to pass and re-pass,
which applies to individuals and to classes of motor vehicles, has remained change: the
unchanged for hundreds of years. It stems from a time when exercising the
interests of
G O N E
right had negligible impact on others. The arrival of the car totally
transformed this situation, bringing traffic that was heavy, fast, and frequent.
The impact on our streets, and upon us, has been immense and decisive. motorists
W R O N G ?
In 2002, one individual exercising the right to pass and re-pass, may cause
inconvenience, nuisance or death and injury to others. Yet the underlying have prevailed
philosophy of the legislation remains unchanged. Cities, towns, and villages
have been managed over the past 100 years in a way that has favoured over those of
vehicles. The rights of people who own or occupy property adjacent to the
highway have in practice been subordinate to the right of people to pass residents
and re-pass in vehicles. The right of way has prevailed over any sense of
“right of place”.
b) Some user rights are strong

Some groups have rights to use the streets. For example, utilities have rights
to enter the road to install or maintain their equipment. There are rights
under the General Permitted Development Order for certain types of
development, for example telephone kiosks.
c) Other reasonable user rights are weak

Many activities that take place in the street are covered by weak, or non-
existent, rights. There is no formal right to remain in a street. There is no
right of public assembly. There is no right to have a party in a street – people
must apply for a temporary closure at a cost of several hundred pounds. A
child has no right to play in the street. There is no right to play football in a
street – even though 100 years ago this was a common practice.
Individuals have no right to park their cars in the street.
The rights of people living in or
occupying property that fronts a
street have also been relatively
weak. They exercise a right to
access their property but have no
strong rights against the impact
of increased traffic.
While there are Highways, and
Road Traffic Acts, there are no
Pedestrian, or Public Realm Acts.
Summary of the proposals

S U M M A R Y
A. Give people ownership

A1. Make someone responsible – provide a single point of contact:
ensure there is a single individual or group of people who have
responsibility for the overall improvement and management of the
neighbourhood.
O F
A2. Involve the community – use the Placecheck method: encourage

P R O P O S A L S
communities to use Placecheck to identify problems and opportunities

in their streets.
A3. Empower the community – encourage Street Partnerships:
encourage the adoption of Street Partnerships as a means of appraising
streets and identifying improvements/changes to be made.
A4. Make a commitment to act – encourage Street Agreements:
formalise decisions and actions, and make a commitment to act,
through a Street Agreement.
B. Change management techniques

B1. The Street Excellence Model, a breakthrough in street
management – implement the Street Excellence Model: to facilitate
the management of streets in the interests of the public, and the
coordination of the organisations involved in the public realm.
B2. Co-ordinated plans and policies – implement a Public Realm
Strategy: to co-ordinate the plans and strategies that relate to streets.
B3. Sensible street management – implement a Street Management
Code: to provide better control over what can be done to and in the
street.
B4. Providing quality design guidance – use Design Codes: to provide
flexible direction over what can and should be done to buildings and
adjoining land; consolidate cross-disciplinary knowledge base.
B5. Simplify and broaden the knowledge base – use Knowledge Maps
and simplify guidance.
B6. Street design based on people – create links between the built
environment professions and social/behavioural professions:
to ensure that street design is based on the needs of citizens.
B7. Promote innovation and flexibility – use Evidence-Based Design:
to promote innovation and flexibility.
C. Review of legislation, rights and funding

C1. Balance “right of way” with “right of place” – introduce an Act that
S U M M A R Y
balances rights of way, movement and place: to ensure that people
who are not travelling along a street have at least equal rights with
those that are.
C2. Consolidated legislation – consolidate powers and simplify legislation:
for greater simplicity.
O F
C3. Sensible signage – introduce Simplified Signing Zones: for greater
P R O P O S A L S
clarity and to reduce clutter.
C4. Utilities Works – review the economics and social impact of utilities
maintenance: to cut down on inefficient utilities works.
C5. Adequate funding – economically efficient funding: strive for
economically efficient funding and new methods of financing projects to
combat a lack of funds.
D. Provide the skills and expertise

D1. Higher education – the MBA in Street Management: a proposal to
bring Street Management to higher education.
D2. Streetcraft – streetcraft skills: introduce initiatives to ensure individuals
have quality public realm construction and design skills.
The proposals
T H E
Ten steps that can be taken

immediately to “Design Streets
P R O P O S A L S
for People”
1 Prepare a Public Realm Strategy that sets out a vision for streets
giving people choice in moving around the built environment,
creating safer, cleaner streets, encouraging walking, etc. as part
of meeting people’s needs.
2 Collaborate by working across service and professional boundaries.

Set up a specialist team dealing with the public realm, drawing on
personnel from different professional disciplines. Joined-up thinking can
not only be more creative, it can ensure resources are better deployed.
3 Set up a one-stop shop as a single point of contact with the local

authority dealing with all public realm enquiries. New technology should
be used to ensure that the local authority’s Internet site is user friendly
and delivers e-government.
4 Carry out a Placecheck or Street Audit involving local business and

resident community to identify and clarify issues, both ongoing and
emerging.
5 Appoint a person who has responsibility for championing the design,

management and maintenance of the public realm. This may be an
elected Mayor, other politician or senior manager in a local authority.
6 Pursue excellence in the quality of the built environment, with particular

emphasis on urban design and the public realm. Include objectives in a
Mission Statement or Charter. Trial the Street Excellence Model.
7 Empower the local business and resident community through involving

them in the design process.
8 Educate staff to ensure people at all levels have the necessary

expertise to deal with public realm matters.
9 Challenge why and how services are provided. Are there better ways
of doing things?
10 Establish criteria to provide a rigorous system of continuous

assessment as part of the performance management and the
monitoring process.
A. Give people ownership ...Air Quality? You want the

Environment Dept. Oh, and
Neighbourhood & Housing. Widening
T H E
pavements? Planning. Traffic calming?
Transport. And Community Safety.
A1. Make someone responsible Adding a bike lane? Planning. Street
P R O P O S A L S
lighting? Neighbourhood & Housing.
Problem Responsibility for streets is split between different individuals, Fixing potholes? Transport. Planting
trees? Planning. And Environment.
organisations, and legislative systems. Utilities (such as water Controlled Parking Zones? Transport.
supply, sewerage, gas, and telephone) and their contractors also Abandoned vehicles? Neighbourhood &
Housing. Homezones? Planning. Oh,
have rights to undertake activities in streets. With so many and Community Safety. Bike Lanes?
different organisations involved, gaps, overlaps and conflicts can Transport. Rubbish collections?
Neighbourhood & Housing. Oh, and the
occur. Each organisation will try to operate in a way that is contractor...
efficient from its own perspective, but this may not be efficient
from the perspective of the wider community.
Proposal A1: Provide a single point of contact –

a neighbourhood manager
Currently there are many different people “in charge” but no one person is
responsible. This could be remedied by introducing single points of contact for
street management and stewardship. The local authority area would be divided
into neighbourhoods, and a single individual or team given consolidated powers
to make decisions and to promote the interests of the community as a whole.
The neighbourhood managers would work in partnership with the community
and local elected members in improving the liveability of the streets, within the
context of the wider strategic objectives of the authority.
Two further proposals would enhance the value of the single point of
contact for street management:
■ Professionals qualified in the wider street management role –

proposals for an MBA in Street Management are set out later in the
report. This would give people the skills necessary to perform the
tasks.
■ Changes in legislation that would enable powers to be consolidated.
For example, to rationalise the respective powers of the Local Authority
and magistrates.
Other suggested models that could be used are:
■ Area-based teams drawn from different professions

Access Community development
■ Services provided by area-based teams: e.g. Road safety Economic development
combining litter collection, grass cutting and graffiti Obstructions Environmental health
removal into a single multi-function team Parking control Single Refuse collection
point of
Licensing of contact
Litter
street activities
Street works control Grass cutting/trees
Street lighting Development control

Community safety Local Agenda 21
A2. Involve the community

Problem Difficulty in generating ideas for improvements, obtaining a
T H E
consensus and guaranteeing commitment on what should be

addressed. Standard solutions copied from guidance, leading to
P R O P O S A L S
loss of local identity.
For information on Placecheck,

Proposal A2: Use the Placecheck method
visit www.placecheck.com
Placecheck, which was originally developed by UDAL (the Urban Design
Alliance), is a method of assessing the qualities of a place, showing what
improvements are needed, and focussing people on working together to
achieve them.
The scope of Placecheck includes personal security, quality of landscaping,
ease of movement, noise, and quality of routes to other destinations within
the area. The audit can be done by professionals, but is best done by the
local community and professionals in partnership. The aim is not merely to
carry out an assessment, but to help the community work together to make
a real difference.
Designed to be compatible with the principles of urban design outlined in the
DTLR publication By Design, Placecheck is based on a series of researched
questions, starting with:
The Changing 1. What do you like about this place?
Streets 2. What do you dislike about it?
Campaign 3. What needs to be improved?
Changing Streets is a campaign By providing questions rather than solutions, Placecheck encourages people
developed by UDAL in to use their judgement and creativity to enhance local distinctiveness.
partnership with BBC London The Placecheck can in turn become an integral part of a Public Realm
Live and TimeBank. It aims to Strategy, as both provide a means of ensuring that community priorities are
create a people’s movement to taken into account in the wider process of street management and
improve streets. stewardship. It can also inform the Local Transport Strategy, and both
The message and the aims of walking and cycling strategies.
the campaign are broadcast by
BBC London Live and people
are encouraged to contact
TimeBank for a Changing
Streets Pack.
The packs contain everything
an individual needs to conduct
The ICE Public Realm Survey
a Placecheck in their street with
their neighbours and
2002 found that:
subsequently to form a working 77% of local authorities think that community involvement is effective.
relationship within the
Consultation costs can be high: around 22% of the total cost of
community. Material is included
implementing a residents’ parking zone is spent on consultation.
to send to the Local Authority,
with the results of the There is much to be done in developing and disseminating best
Placecheck. practice in community involvement/consultation methods.
A3. Empower the community

Problem There is in 2002 no method for a resident of a street to invest ideas, Street
T H E
effort or resources in its improvement. Some community consultation
procedures are overly bureaucratic and do not focus on results. Partnerships –
P R O P O S A L S
Proposal A3: Encourage Street Partnerships
the way of the
Streets have traditionally formed a key part of our communities, but as involvement
in local democracy has waned, the strength of co-operation and support among
future?
In the street of 2025 the
residents in a street has declined. Street Partnerships can potentially be used to
community are empowered to
redevelop active citizenship and involvement in local government.
develop a Vision for their street.
The Partnership would be formed between stakeholders whose objective is the
A Street Partnership is formed
improvement in quality of life afforded by the street. The main partners would be:
between the Local Authority
a) Those individuals or organisations who use or are affected by what and residents. The community
happens in a street develops the Vision through
identifying users, needs, and
b) The Local Authority, an important partner in light of its considerable objectives, attracting resources
powers and impact and monitoring progress. The
c) Professionals able to advise and facilitate the development of a Partnership also provides a
community vision basis for strengthening
community ties.
The partnership could be involved in all aspects of street planning and Street Partnerships reinforce the
design, management and maintenance and link with other initiatives (e.g. role of the street as a basic unit
Neighbourhood Watch), and would be formally constituted to be able to of democracy with potential for
apply for funding in its own right. social and economic progress
Street Partnerships can be formed under existing legislation. In many areas and environmental action,
there are already different forms of community management including encouraging social support
neighbourhood, residents’ or traders’ associations, which act to promote the networks and strengthening the
interests of the local community. There are also parish, town and community.
community councils, which cover larger geographical areas.
Case Study: Methleys

Neighbourhood Action (MNA),
Leeds
The Methleys is an area of Victorian terraced housing in north Leeds. In
1994 residents set up a voluntary group, MNA, whose aim was to redevelop
the only public spaces in the community – the streets themselves.
MNA takes the approach that something only gets done if people get
together to make it happen. With about four core group meetings a year,
to which everyone in the neighbourhood is invited, project teams form
themselves around particular ideas and issues – everything from weeding
the shrubbery to bidding for a Home Zone.
A4. Make a commitment to act

How is a Problem Difficulty in turning community consultation into action.
T H E
Street
P R O P O S A L S
Proposal A4: Encourage Street Agreements

Partnership A Street Agreement can be made between the parties involved in the Street
Partnership. It is a formal “contract” to clarify responsibilities, the
formed? improvements that are to be made to the street (such as the reallocation of
street space to new uses), and the sources of funds.
The Changing Streets campaign
starts with a Placecheck, but The Street Agreement could be voluntary in the case of minor
the final goal is the formation of improvements, or legally binding where funding and maintenance or the
a Street Partnership. The transfer and reallocation of land in or adjoining the street are involved.
process works as follows: The Street Agreement could be highly effective where improvement depends
on the co-operation of the street community, through changing the way they
1. Assess the street using
use the street, allowing private land to be included in schemes to remodel
Placecheck
the street, or enabling the frontagers to fund improvements and higher
2. Turn the Placecheck into an standards of maintenance; or even to take over some of the responsibilities
Action Plan which a local authority might devolve.
3. Form a Street Partnership In terms of the legal framework, further work is needed to develop the
underlying principles, and to determine what current legislation would need
4. Create a Street Agreement
to be revised (if any) to back up Street Partnerships and enable effective
Street Agreements (i.e. in relation to Local Authority liabilities and duties).
The Action Plan is the basis of There is a need for a programme of pilot projects, supporting research, and
the Partnership’s Street possibly new legislation to make Street Agreements a practical option for
Agreement, and begins with the communities.
following questions:
■ What can we do now?

■ What can we do soon?
■ What could we do by the
end of the year?
■ What changes might take a
long time?
B. Change management
techniques
T H E
P R O P O S A L S
B1. The Street Excellence Model – a breakthrough in
street management
Problem Complex structures and systems; many different objectives to
meet and customers to satisfy
Proposal B1: Implement the Street Excellence Model

Introduction
The Street Excellence Model is a development of the EFQM Excellence
Model®. It is a tool that allows local government to:
■ Evaluate current practice as it affects the street scene and public realm
■ Monitor and provide a comparison over time and place
■ Assess processes and procedures
■ Identify actions to remedy gaps and problems
The EFQM Excellence Model® (also known as the Business Excellence

Model) is already used extensively in both private and public sectors as a
way of evaluating and streamlining management activity. It applies the
fundamental principles of good management to any organisation, no matter
what its size or function. Based on criteria developed from analysis of
management in world-class organisations, the model is applied through a
process of self-assessment on an objective basis. Through using the Model,
it is possible to identify the strengths of a particular street or group of
streets, areas for improvement benchmarks for different streets, and “before”
and “after” comparisons following implementation of improvement plans.
The EFQM Excellence Model
Enablers 50% Results 50%
People People
9% results 9%
Key
Leadership Policy & Processes Customer performance
10% strategy 8% 14% results 20% results 15%
Relationships & Society

resources 9% results 6%
Innovation and Learning
STREET EXCELLENCE MODEL
Enablers Results
T H E
Leadership People Processes People results Key performance

results
P R O P O S A L S
• Clarity of leadership • Appropriate staff Establishment of • Effective

at member and skills, awareness and processes to: management • Achievement of
officer level knowledge of vision processes capital and revenue
• Co-ordinate action targets
• Agreed vision and • Integrated officer • Well-trained and
mission statement action across • Monitor activities motivated staff who • Good comparison
relevant agencies and effectiveness in can make a with other authorities
• Co-ordinated achieving vision difference
management and • Innovation • Has met
action • Engage stakeholders • Integrated action performance targets
• Recognition of and community and on all aspects of
• Ownership of vision effective action get their views • Understanding of the maintenance
by stakeholders street and sense of
• Undertake evaluation empowerment • Increase level of
• Communicate to local satisfaction
partners and with quality of street
Policy and strategy stakeholders scene
• Up to date Public Customer results • Effective stakeholder

Realm Strategy engagement
• Community
• Quality Street satisfaction with • Confidence, viability
Improvement Plan management of and vitality
(QUASIP). street • Public and private
• Integration into other • Feeling of safety and investment
policy/strategies, well-being in street
e.g. local plans
• Ease of access to
• Clear performance key responsible staff
indicators
• Street fulfills function
Partnership
and resources Impact on society
• Quality Street • Contribution to the
Partnerships image of the area
• Integrated bidding • Ability to attract
for funding investment
opportunities
• Empowered
• Neighbourhood/Estate community
Action Partnerships
• Closer community
• Street audits / ties
inventory
• Street attractive to
• Street management visit
codes and
agreements • Contributes to
sustainability
The Model explained

Although no single organisation or business is responsible for all aspects of
T H E
the “street”, the analytical processes involved in the EFQM Excellence
Model® can still be applied to good effect. It is assumed that the Local
P R O P O S A L S
Authority takes the lead and is the “organisation” for the purposes of this
process.
The concept is to apply the principles of the EFQM Excellence Model® to the
street scene, to obtain a coherent framework for assessing the strengths,
opportunities and methods for improvement of the street. The model can
also evaluate the performance of the Local Authority in delivering its
responsibilities for policy formulation, design, maintenance, co-ordination,
customer care, and involvement of stakeholders in schemes that affect the
public realm. It can therefore be linked to Best Value processes, Investors in
People and benchmarking. Key indicators can be identified for evaluating
performance, not just within an organisation, but also in comparison with
others. The Model rigorously considers both inputs and outcomes.
The framework put forward, if agreed as an approach, will need to be fully
worked up and refined through pilot work. This would be undertaken in
conjunction with the British Quality Foundation to ensure that it is wholly
consistent with the principles of the Model.
A Street Excellence Model (SEM) is not a plan or strategy in its own right but
a way of thinking about and assessing existing policies, practices and
results. It has the potential, through the identification of meaningful and
robust performance measures and outcomes, to take on board the
necessary characteristics and processes identified elsewhere in this report in
achieving the street of the future. Amongst others, these would include
people-orientated design, fitness for purpose, sustainability, proper
maintenance standards, co-ordinated planning and management, and
collaborative working. Use of the model would help local authorities address
the need for a renewed emphasis on people and community involvement
(including Community Plans) and on high quality design. The SEM has the
added benefit of challenging the historic mind-set underlying current practice
and of securing continuous improvement and performance measurement.
Using the Street Excellence Model

This section shows you how to undertake a self-assessment of the
T H E
organisation and management of the street through a series of questions. A

number of key aspects of the EFQM Excellence Model® have yet to be
P R O P O S A L S
worked up for the SEM, e.g. sub-criteria, indicators, scoring.

Prior to the self assessment it is essential that those who are the
responsible parties have been clearly defined and agreed, and also the
“customers”, “people”, and “society”.
Criteria 1: Leadership
For the evolution and maintenance of quality streets it is essential that there
is clear leadership within the responsible organisation. In addition, the
organisation needs to understand what it is trying to achieve.
The organisation should therefore assess its leadership actions using the
following questions:
■ How is the leadership of street management and maintenance

organised?
■ How are all the stakeholders involved in developing the vision for the
future role and function of the street?
■ How actively are those responsible for the street involved in addressing
the future?
■ How motivated are key players in maintaining and enhancing the quality
of the street?
■ How do the leaders facilitate development of a vision and mission
statement?
■ How do the leaders identify action plans for implementation of vision?
■ How do the leaders ensure action is taken to effect implementation?
■ How are the various service responsibilities of the organisation being co-
ordinated?
Criteria 2: Policy and strategy

Excellent organisations have a clear sense of direction and ensure a
consistent development framework, which is owned by all relevant parties.
The key questions are:
■ Is there a clear and agreed strategy and policy framework?

■ Are all stakeholders actively engaged in promoting the development
framework?
■ Have clear performance indicators and targets been established for the
street and its management?
■ Has the street policy been incorporated in the appropriate wider policy,
maintenance and management frameworks?
■ Has the street policy been reviewed and updated?
■ Has the street policy been communicated to all key stakeholders?

■ By what methods have the street policies been communicated to the
T H E
stakeholders?
■ Are effective linkages made to other policy areas in terms of
P R O P O S A L S
implementation?
Criteria 3: People
People are critical to good organisations and management, and no less so in
respect of the street. In the context of the SEM the people are the staff who
work for organisations which impact on the “street”.
■ How are all the staff whose work has an impact on the street being
made fully aware of the strategy and action plan for the street and the
need for a holistic approach?
■ How are you ensuring that the right staff are involved in delivering the
service and that they possess the necessary skills?
■ Have the staff received effective training to deliver their service to the
street?
■ Is the right range of skills available?
■ How effective are the communication systems with the local
communities and staff?
■ How are the staff encouraged to act in a broad team?
■ How are the staff encouraged to be involved in innovative and creative
activities and behaviour?
■ How are the staff rewarded, recognised and cared for?
Criteria 4: Partnership and resources

The wide variety of organisations and people that interact with the street
makes the development of partnerships critical to managing change and
improving the quality. Improving and maintaining the street also demands
resources from a wide variety of sources and these need to be identified and
co-ordinated.
■ Have the key potential partners been identified including, for example,
landowners, leaseholders, and former public utility companies?
■ Have their potential contributions been identified?
■ What arrangements have been established to enable the partners to
contribute effectively?
■ What sources of finance have been identified?
■ How are the financial programmes and expenditure being co-ordinated?
■ Have the opportunities for new partnerships been identified?
■ What impact will new technology have?

■ Has a street audit been undertaken to assess assets and liabilities?
T H E
■ Is all the necessary information being gathered and effectively

disseminated?
P R O P O S A L S
■ Is there a clear inventory of assets?

■ What arrangements have been made with other agencies that are
responsible for aspects of the street scene and public realm to co-
ordinate activity?
■ Is effective use being made of IT technology?
Criteria 5: Processes
Given the range of potential stakeholders both within and outside the
responsible body, the availability of effective systems and processes for
managing and maintaining the street is paramount.
Key questions are:
■ What systems are in place for co-ordinating action across departments

and organisations that impact on the street?
■ What systems are in place for mapping and analysing all relevant
information?
■ What process monitoring arrangements are in place?
■ What systems are in place for checking the implementation of agreed
actions and their quality?
■ What processes are followed to identify the need for remedial action?
■ What systems are in place for getting customer and other stakeholder
views?
■ What systems are in place for informing stakeholders of decisions and
actions and getting their support or involvement?
■ What process has been instituted to co-ordinate all aspects of design in
the street?
■ How are customer relationships managed and enhanced?
Criteria 6: Customer results

A key test of the quality of the street and the way it is managed is the
perception of those who use it.
The questions to be asked include:
■ What do the users of the street think about its ability to perform its
functions?
■ What is their view of the maintenance of the street?
■ How easy do they find it to access those responsible for its
management and maintenance?
■ What is the evidence of the “popularity, vitality and viability” of the

street?
■
T H E
What are the nature and level of complaints about the street?
■ Do the users feel comfortable and safe using the street?
P R O P O S A L S
■ How do the users of the street define the direct and indirect indicators
of improvements in the street?
■ Have the users been involved in the process (which ones)?
■ What indicators are used internally to monitor, understand, predict and
improve the performance of the street management organisation and
predict the perceptions of the street users?
Criteria 7: People results

“People” are defined, in this context, as all the individuals employed by the
service and all others who are in one way or another, directly or indirectly,
responsible for parts of the street. It is essential that they feel that they can
contribute effectively to the management of the street and its improvement.
■ Do all service deliverers have a clear understanding of what they should

be doing and how it inter-relates with other “service deliverers”?
■ Do the service deliverers believe they can make a difference?
■ How well do the various service deliverers co-operate?
■ Is the management process effective?
■ How well motivated are the individuals involved?
■ Do the service deliverers understand the vision for the street?
■ How effective has staff training been in relation to delivering the service?
■ How effective has collaboration with other services been in service
delivery? What lessons can be learned?
■ What are the key direct and indirect results?
improve the performance of the service deliverers and predict their
perceptions?
Criteria 8: Society results

The qualities of the street affect the quality of the neighbourhood, the local
area and in aggregate the country. It is important that the street contributes
effectively to the overall quality of life and its sustainability. This section deals
with the view of the street from the outside world.
■ What do the local and wider communities think about the street’s ability
to perform its functions?
■ How well does the street contribute to the image of the area?
■ Does the street function effectively in respect of the wider area?

■ Is the street attractive, comfortable and safe for people to visit?
T H E
■ Is it easy to attract outside investment to the street?

■ How well does the street contribute to all aspects of sustainability?
P R O P O S A L S
■ What are the key direct and indirect indicators of its contribution to the
“quality of urban life”
■ How are the resources of the local communities being enhanced?
■ Are the local communities empowered to become involved?
■ How are the local communities rewarded for their involvement?
improve the performance of the service deliverers and predict the
perceptions of society?
■ Is the community’s perception of the street improving?
Criteria 9: Key performance results

The management of the street needs to achieve the aims and desires of its
users, the community and its management organisation. It is important to
assess how successful the process has been and identify problem areas
and deficiencies so that effective remedial action can be taken.
■ Have the capital and revenue targets for street works been achieved?
■ How do the results compare with other authorities?
■ Have the performance targets on street maintenance (e.g. litter, re-
instatements, safety, footway and carriageway maintenance, etc.) been
achieved?
■ Was the performance of any key results less or more than expected,
and if so, why?
■ Does the street function more effectively and look better?
■ What are the key direct and indirect indicators of performance in the
short, medium and long term?
■ What do the partners think about the operation of the partnership?
■ How effective do the financial stakeholders feel their involvement has
been, and what improvements can be made?
B2. Co-ordinated plans and policies

Problem Numerous strategies that overlap or conflict through lack of co-
T H E
ordination. Plans are sometimes created – and then lost and
forgotten before they are implemented.
P R O P O S A L S
Proposal B2: Implement a Public Realm Strategy
A Public Realm Strategy (PRS) integrates the various plans and strategies
that have an effect on the street. Prepared by local authorities, the PRS
would be a single consolidating strategy dealing with the provision, design,
management, funding and maintenance of public spaces, including streets.
A PRS could specify a clear network/hierarchy of streets and open spaces
based on accepted standards and interpretation of local need.
Though not a legal requirement, preparation could be encouraged in PPGs
and District Auditor processes, and adopted as Supplementary Planning
Guidance. The PRSs would also assist with the cross-cutting approach
advocated in the local strategic partnerships.
A PRS is a tool for improving collaboration and integration. The PRS would
be prepared by the Local Authority and Highway Authority in conjunction
with communities, local businesses and public utilities/contractors. The PRS
would emphasise spatial integration, drawing from both the Local Plan and
Transport Plan as well as providing a framework for locally developed street
visions and street agreements. It could form an integral part of urban design
frameworks for urban centres (see “By Design”) and identify functions for
street spaces, including the scope for reallocating space from vehicles to
people, and associated local design guidance. It would also link with
Community Plans in taking account of diverse needs, lifestyles and cultural
traditions. The ICE’s
Integrated transport planning highlights the importance of walking (see
“Encouraging Walking”) and cycling in their own right, as well as forming a stage
Local
of all journeys by public transport. The PRS could show how street design can
make these modes of transport safer, more convenient and enjoyable to users.
Transport and
Public Realm
Survey 2002
Community
Plan
Structure Plan/
UDP Part I
found that 8%
Local Transport
Plan
Local Plan/
UDP Part II/
LDF
of local
Greenspace
Strategy
Community
Safety Strategy
authorities
Public Realm
Strategy have
Urban Forestry
Strategy
Best Value
Performance Plan introduced a
Local Biodiversity
Action Plan
Road Safety
Strategy
Public Realm
Cycling
Strategy
Walking
Strategy Strategy
Street features B3. Sensible street management

Banners Bus shelters Bus stops Problem Some features, activities and functions in the street are rigorously
T H E
CCTV cameras Cycle racks controlled and regulated, while others have a great impact on the street
and are very loosely controlled. Excessive controls block innovation,
Direction signs Direction signs Festive
P R O P O S A L S
(Pedestrian) (Vehicles) decorations

creativity and local distinctiveness; absence of controls leads to the
rapid deterioration of carefully thought out street improvement schemes.
Flower basket Fountains
poles
Illuminated Illuminated Lighting Proposal B3: Implement a Street Management Code

bollards advertisements
A Street Management Code would provide guidance on street features and
Litter Information activities such as:
bins boards
Non-direction Non-illuminated Pedestrian ■ Street cleansing

signs bollards guard rails
■ Location of street furniture
Pedestrian Planters
crossings ■ Landscape
Seating Sculptures Signal
■ Required standards for repair or reinstatement of the highway
equipment ■ Policy on dropped kerbs
Street Street ■ Parking
lighting maps
■ Litter control standards
Street name Traffic
plates surveillance ■ Development permitted under the General Permitted Development
cameras Order, such as telephone kiosks
Tourist ■ Street cafés, carnivals, street parties
information Trees
boards
The aim of the Code is to co-ordinate, in the wider interests of the
Cable TV Data cables Electricity community, the activities of the different organisations involved in the street,
Gas Telephone
by clearly (but flexibly) specifying what can be done, how and where.
Drainage Sewerage Water The Code would be drawn up by a partnership between the Local Authority
and wider community interest groups. In essence the GPDO rights would be
removed, but restored for activities conforming to the Street Management
Code. Organisations proposing works consistent with the Code would not
require permission. If the organisation wished to depart from the Code they
would need approval.
The Code would ensure that owners and managers take account of the wider
street scene when making decisions, with consistently good quality street works.
It would apply to statutory undertakers, trade bodies, and local authorities.
Street Management Codes would give organisations better guidance on how
to go about their business without compromising the attractiveness or the
functioning of the street.
It is important to avoid creating a bureaucratic system that would be time-
consuming and costly to administer. The need for some activities to be
licensed (e.g. street cafés) may be an unnecessary administrative burden.
Under the Street Management Code approach, provided café proprietors
complied with the Code, they would not need to apply for a separate licence.
In the short term, greater consideration of these issues could be linked to
Best Value in terms of practice review, and could be integrated into evolving
guidance on standards and Considerate Contractor Schemes. The impact of
Street Codes could be increased by changes to the legal framework.
B4. Providing quality design guidance

Problem Streets should be interesting places, with buildings and adjacent Case Study:
T H E
land contributing to the street scene. Unfortunately many streets
are sterile and bleak, with features such as buildings with blank London’s
P R O P O S A L S
walls, high fences, and gardens converted into parking lots.
Spatial
Proposal B4: Use Design Codes
It is important that the “comings and goings” to and from buildings takes
Development
place in streets themselves, so that the street provides a stage for public life.
Neglect of this relationship can lead to inefficient use of street space,
Strategy
The benefits of good design are
buildings which face away from the street (producing “dead” frontages), an
acknowledged in the Greater
absence of street life, and inappropriate building form and scale. A
London Authority’s “London
suggested method of addressing this issue is by using Design Codes.
Plan”, with a commitment to:
Design Codes are a short set of rules developed with the involvement of the
local community that provide guidance for: ■ Prepare a set of design
guidelines
■ Use of the public realm
■ Produce a public realm
■ Design, function, and maintenance of transitional space strategy to improve the look
■ Good integration of buildings and streets and feel of London’s streets
■ Buildings fronting onto streets (e.g. incorporating high frequency of ■ Promote community
entrances and windows) involvement and design-led
change
Concise, positive and helpful to landowners, Design Codes can be applied
to both existing areas and proposed developments, and can stand The Strategy affirms that design
alongside the Street Management Code. is critical to the success of
Manchester’s City Development Guide and Hulme’s Design Guide are London as a place to live, as
examples of Design Codes. well as to do business.
Case Study: Glasgow City

Centre Public Realm Strategy
A comprehensive design strategy for Glasgow’s city centre was published
in 1995 for the treatment of streets and public spaces in central Glasgow.
A guiding principle of the strategy is to improve spaces for pedestrian
use, whilst providing accessibility to public transport and other essential
vehicles. Detailed design guidelines cover the physical elements of the
streetscape, while management regimes lay down ground rules for skilled
interpretation by designers. Boldness, simplicity of style and elegance are
fundamental characteristics of the design guidelines.
Whilst design details may vary from project to project, common materials
have emerged for use in paving, kerbs and trims, and the use of setts.
Street legislation – B5. Simplify and broaden the

A complex picture knowledge base
T H E
Litter & refuse Litter abatement notices Problem There is a large quantity of subject-specific
Environmental Protection issued by Magistrates
Act 1990 under EPA 1990 1982 guidance: practitioners often find it extremely
P R O P O S A L S
Code of practice on difficult to keep abreast of the most recent

litter and refuse
regulations. Too much information in a single
Fly posting Eyesores & subject narrows the focus.
Town & Country untidy land
Planning (Control Untidy Land Orders
of Advertisements) under S215
Regulations 1992
Proposal B5: Use Knowledge Maps and simplify
Vehicle Controlling access Parking on Guidance
obstruction by vehicles a grass verge It is important that professionals are aware of good
S37 Highways Act Traffic Regulation Orders not an offence
1980 S1 Road Traffic unless an practice and the latest guidance in public realm design,
Regulation Act 1984 obstruction, or co-ordination and management. A growing list of
prohibited by
specific local act guidance documents and legislation has evolved to
inform practitioners. Separate guidance exists on
Parking on Driving along
the footway the footway design, layout, air quality, water run-off, noise, access,
not an offence unless an S72 Highways Act 1835 mobility, surveillance, safety, landscaping and so on. The
obstruction, or prohibited Only enforceable
by specific local act by police focus is on specific aspects of the street rather than the
street as a whole.
Advertising within Rights exist under
the highway Road openings by a variety of
Permits issued under statutory undertakers legislation especially Knowledge Maps
S115 Highways Act New Roads &
1980 Streetworks A Knowledge Map is as the term implies, a map of
Act 1991 current knowledge in a subject, providing the user with
Vending stalls Shop advertising an overview of the knowledge available, and guidance
S115E Highways boards on where to obtain the information.
Act 1980 not covered by legislation
unless obstructing highway A Knowledge Map could be created for streets. It
Licensed obstructions Charity collections Street events would need to identify the key legislation, regulations
skips, scaffolding, police, factories etc. Highways Act, and and guidance that relate to the design and management
materials, hoardings (Miscellaneous Provisions) Health & Safety
Highways Act Act 1916/Charities Act 1992 at Work Act of streets. It would allow practitioners to complement
their detailed knowledge of a specific aspect of the
Highways Winter
maintenance maintenance street, with a broad overview of how the street operates
Highways Act 1980 Highways Act 1980 as a whole.
Licensable street Street trading “Consent streets”
events Local Government can be declared Simplifying guidance
Only applies to private Miscellaneous under the Act to
land where access Provisions allow more flexible The extent of guidance available is a problem in itself.
is restricted Act 1982 control There needs to be a drawing together of the main
Street cafés Street trading
practice, references and legislation that impact on the
Highways amenities Licence under S20 street.
licence under Licensing Act 1964
S115E Highways Act 1980 issued by Magistrates This is a substantially greater challenge. It involves de-
Noises on the street Air pollution Air pollution duplication of guidance, regulations and instructions. It
Alarms: S80 EPA 1980 from traffic from sites or could entail fewer prescriptive regulations and greater
Other sources: Control (to be filled in) premises Clean Air
of Pollution Act 1974 Act 1993 emphasis on outcomes.
Statutory Nuisances Abatement notices The purpose of the knowledge base and system of
can be issued by the Local Authority guidance and regulations is to inform, guide and
which it is an offence to ignore
subsequently create quality and sustainability in the built
environment. The system as it stands is too complex to
work effectively.
B6. Street design based on people

Problem A lack of understanding of people’s perceptions and needs. Perception is
T H E
truth
P R O P O S A L S
Proposal B6: Create links between the built environment professions,
and social and behavioural professions People’s perception of their
The education of practitioners involved in the built environment tends to environment and their
focus on the study of buildings, infrastructure, materials, technologies and community determines the way
past development patterns or practices. The study of the people who they use it and feel about it.
occupy the built environment is neglected.
There are distinct disciplines that address these issues, including:
Example: The Chicago
Alternative Policing
■ Environmental psychology
Scheme
CAPS is a scheme set up in
■ Evolutionary psychology
1994 that enables Chicago’s
■ Sociobiology communities to work with
■ Sociology police to visually improve an
area e.g. removing graffiti and
There is potentially much to be gained by encouraging the transfer of fixing broken windows. Over the
knowledge between these disciplines and the built environment professions. six years to 2000 the scheme
has cut property crime levels by
40%.
B7. Promote innovation and flexibility

Visibility Problem A system based on guidance, regulation and code compliance is
T H E
currently (2002) practised, often based on historical rather than

splays current needs. This practice leads to copying rather than design.
P R O P O S A L S
Visibility splays greatly influence

the streetscene. Guidance on Proposal B7: Use Evidence-Based Design
dimensions for visibility splays Many current policies and principles that apply to streets started off as
is given in Places, Streets and balanced, relevant and rational, but can become dogma if not challenged
Movement; but the rationale and adapted as needs change. As an example, current practice dictates that
behind the figures is not given. greater visibility or certainty reduces accidents. But a counter-argument is
that greater visibility or certainty actually increases casualties by enabling
There is therefore no basis for a higher speeds. Similarly, the “common-sense approach” can lead to
professional to understand, undesired results. For example, if one sign is safe, then two signs must be
interpret, or question the twice as safe. But the net result can be a complex array of signs that
guidance. However, if the overloads drivers with information and serves to confuse rather than to
scientific justification behind the inform.
figures was published, the
Public liability claims are on the increase, and local authorities are sometimes
guidance could be understood
uneasy about adopting novel designs or practices that have not previously
and applied to local
been published in a book.
circumstance.
Government has encouraged a flexible approach to design through
publications such as Places, Streets and Movement, but there are other
areas of guidance and regulation which are both detailed and prescriptive,
and can hinder tailored design solutions.
The idea of Evidence Based Design (EBD) follows the example of evidence-
based medicine to provide a consolidated, robust, tested and transparent
system of guidance. It puts an emphasis on trained professionals interpreting
guidance to provide the best solution for individual streets. It is certainly
quicker to copy a standard design, but it is not necessarily cheaper or as
functional as a solution tailored for local circumstances.
EBD asserts that the evidence, science or reasoning behind practices and
standards should be:
ICE Public Realm Survey 2002 ■ Challenged and justified

asked local authorities... could ■ Made easily available to aid understanding and interpretation
the design of highways be
improved? ■ Regularly reviewed to ensure that the guidance is relevant to modern
needs
■ Regularly reviewed to ensure that practices recommended are fit for the
intended purpose
No
Yes
Use of Evidence-Based Design (EBD) would help to overcome the following

problems: This is a typical road on a
modern residential estate.
T H E
■ Using unchanged street standards and practices despite changes in Is its purpose to form part of
technology, intensity of use and need the community, or to provide
P R O P O S A L S
■ Difficulty in addressing the overall purpose of a street due to single access for the largest vehicle
focus solutions ever likely to be encountered?
■ Difficulty or lack of incentives for local authorities to innovate in street

design
■ Tendency to adopt a risk-avoidance approach involving strict and
inflexible adherence to traditional standards and copying of designs
Integration with Best Value

Elements of the Best Value process could be applied to the guidance
framework. There are two elements to be challenged:
1. Challenging the need or purpose which a practice addresses

This highly efficient refuse
2. Challenging whether the practice is fit for purpose collection system has the
unwanted effect of blighting the
street. Once again the service
has been specified to meet a
single function – this time
minimum cost and the
consequence has been to the
detriment of other functions the
street performs.
Dutch Evidence-Based traffic
calming
In the Netherlands, a form of traffic calming is practised that is wholly
unlike its UK counterpart. Instead of adding street furniture, humps, lines
and signs to slow traffic down, most vestiges of traffic architecture are
removed.
The result of this seemingly risky type of engineering is that drivers and
pedestrians are forced to rely on eye contact to negotiate junctions. The
results show that traffic flow increases and accidents have fallen. Similar
pilot schemes in the UK are producing impressive results, even though
the method goes against traditional road safety practices.
A highway is both a route and a

place:
C. Review of legislation, rights
and funding
T H E
P R O P O S A L S
C1. Balance “right of way” with “right of place”

Problem Streets are multifunctional: they provide the setting for properties
and human interaction, space for underground services, and are
part of the road transport system. Legislation biased towards
route (n) vehicle movement has overwhelmed the interests of other
1: a travelled way highway users, such as frontagers, pedestrians or children.
2: a line of travel
3: an established or selected Proposal C1. Introduce an Act that balances rights of way, movement
course of travel or action and place
There are three clear “rights” when talking about streets:
■ Rights of way
■ Rights of persons or organisations using the highway as a place
■ Rights of people occupying property adjoining the highway
Current legislation emphasises the role of the street as a right of way, and
protects an individual’s right of passage, but does not recognise the rights or
interests of the community around the street to the same degree.
Many of the recommendations in this report can be implemented in the
short-term, but the legal basis is fundamental. The evolution in highway
legislation over the twentieth century has been primarily to do with motor
vehicles, and therefore traffic considerations have been the main determinant
of street design. Even though wider needs such as environment and access
place (n) are now recognised, outdated legislation is still enforced.
1: a physical environment There is concern that the legal and philosophical framework governing
2: a particular region streets is impeding the achievement of liveable towns. The legislation needs
3: a centre of population, or to be changed to reflect the role that streets perform as the key part of the
location public realm, rather than just the transport function. This means reviewing
the rights of individuals using streets in order to broaden and integrate a
design criterion to give priority to people walking, sitting, cycling or using
street cafés or playing.
In 2002,
legislation
treats the
highway as a
route rather
than a place
C2. Consolidated legislation

Problem There exists a complex mosaic of legislation that governs the Potential
T H E
design, management and use of the street.
review of
P R O P O S A L S
Proposal C2. Consolidate powers and simplify legislation
In 2002 there are a range of control mechanisms (e.g. the General Permitted
legislation
Development Order (GPDO), Traffic Regulations, Street Works Act, licensing
procedures) that affect the street scene but are administered through
could result in:
different systems. To achieve the objective of bringing all works and ■ The removal of certain rights
development within an integrated system of control and co-ordination, these
■ Amendment of the GPDO
should be reviewed and consolidated through Street Management Codes.
■ Modernisation of the Street
Street Management Codes would incorporate national performance
Works Act
measures as established through the SEM process, as well as local
specifications developed involving the community. Feasibility studies and ■ Development and works
further research/pilots would be needed in order to review existing controls being required to conform to
and develop new procedures. an integrated set of Street
Management or Stewardship
Codes
Proposal for a review of

legislation
This report recommends a fundamental review of the philosophy and extent of Growth of regulations,
the Highways Act and ancillary legislation affecting streets and the public realm. guidance, UK and EU standards
and statutory controls has been
■ Ensure that the overall public interest is served in street design, significant, especially since the
management and use arrival of motor vehicles.
■ Enshrine fundamental human rights in the legislation Paving the Way, CABE, 2002
■ Consider drawing a distinction between roads and streets in terms of
the legal framework 60
■ Impose on operators and utilities a duty of care and stewardship
50
■
Total no. of controls
Remove historical anomalies (e.g. legal parking on the footway)

■ Standardise licensing procedures 40
■ Clarify responsibilities of local authorities and users 30
■ Balance the right to pass and re-pass with other rights 20

■ Establish the rights of those owning or occupying property adjoining 10
the street in relation to those of people using the street as a highway
■ Establish rights for people using streets for other purposes, e.g. 0
1700 1800 1900 2000
playing Year
■ Formalise pedestrian priority on residential/shopping streets Utilities

Public health
■ Impose on motorists a duty of care for the safety of pedestrians and Street furniture
Public order
cyclists Traffic
C3. Sensible signage

Problem Regulations governing the procedures and placement of signs are
T H E
an example of how rules can undermine efforts to achieve an

attractive street scene. The current, prohibitive approach (a sign
P R O P O S A L S
for each place where parking is prohibited, for example) leads to a

cluttered streetscape, and is of questionable value.
Proposal C3. Introduce Simplified Signing Zones

The legal basis for signing needs to be revised, either as part of the revision
of the Highways Act or in separate legislation to enable Simplified Signing
Zones. These would be areas where waiting restrictions, speed limits,
priorities and other specified controls are set without the need for signing.
Simplified Signing Zones might utilise markings in the highway, and positive
demarcation (i.e. indicate where parking is permitted). Further investigation
and demonstration projects would help to determine the most simple and
effective system. In addition, the Highway Code should be revised to
include as much as possible so that all signage can be avoided in some
areas.
C4. Utilities Works

Problem Maintenance and installation by an ever-growing number of “Local
T H E
utilities can lead to disruption on streets, damage to the road and
trees, and interference with other street activities. In 2002 each authorities
P R O P O S A L S
utility (e.g. gas, electricity, telephone, cable TV) digs its own
trench for its supply cable or pipe. appear
Proposal C4. A review of the economics and social impact of utilities
powerless to
maintenance prevent utility
Introduce a formal planning and mapping system for underground
services. Some streets are virtually full in terms of the array of pipes, works
culverts, cables and conduits beneath them. Accurate recording of the
location and depth of underground services would streamline their spoiling the
management.
streetscape”
Introduce better controls over emergency openings. Where Paving The Way, CABE, 2002
underground infrastructure is allowed to deteriorate, emergency repairs take
over from planned maintenance. In 2002, utilities can make emergency
openings with no formal requirement for advance notification. There is also
concern about the proportion of emergency openings: the regulator should
monitor this as one of the key measures of the infrastructure condition. The
cost of repairing leaks and collapses and other failures can often shift onto
the community.
Require synchronised utility infrastructure renewal. This is where

several utility companies renew or maintain their installations on a single
stretch of road, at the same time.
Consider alternative ways of managing underground services. There

are many ways of doing this, including:
■ Giving greater control to public authorities over underground services

■ Bringing the management and maintenance of underground services in
a street under the control of a single agency or organisation, to
encourage co-ordinated maintenance and renewal
■ Ensuring that the public interest is included in the objectives of utilities
and the contractors who undertake work on their behalf
The same requirements should be applied to organisations responsible for

maintaining the road.
Alternative technologies
“Combined ducts”, where a number of different utilities use the same duct,
are used throughout Europe (including a limited number of cities in the UK).
Although expensive to build, once installed, future costs are very much
reduced and disruption to traffic flow is eliminated.
There is also scope to use trenchless technology, including directional drilling, to
introduce or renew underground services with minimum disruption.
C5. Adequate funding

Involving the Problem Lack of funds to undertake improvements to streets, lack of funds
T H E
to maintain the street environment to the same quality as private

private sector estates, no mechanism for the street community to invest in the
P R O P O S A L S
improvement of the street.

In some private estates residents
pay a management company to
manage some of the activities
Proposal C5. Economically efficient funding
traditionally undertaken and
Generally speaking, capital funding is easier to obtain than revenue funding.
funded by the Highway Authority.
Unfortunately it is the revenue funding needed for maintenance and “refreshment
Examples include upkeep of
of features” in the public realm that has the greatest bearing on the appearance
footways, street sweeping, grass
of streets. High quality schemes are often implemented, only to deteriorate as a
cutting or closed circuit television
result of insufficient funding for maintenance. Local authorities have very limited
security systems.
funding resources; sometimes too small even to enforce standards. Highways
The same model could be maintenance funding has suffered from a long-term decline, although the
applied to streets. One question introduction of the Ten Year Transport Plan has improved the situation.
to be resolved is how the Local
To achieve a higher quality of streetscape than is in existence in 2002,
Authority would offset council tax
substantially higher levels of revenue funding will be required. Possible
charges in recognition of the
funding mechanisms that have been put forward include:
residents paying for the upkeep
of the street. ■ Earmarked central government funds or credit approvals for qualifying
schemes; for example by using the Street Excellence Model
■ Using existing Local Authority funding routes (e.g. local transport plan,
revenue from workplace parking schemes, or road user charging)
■ Area-wide loans or bonds
■ Achieving funding through Business Improvement Districts
■ Grants through implementing Street Agreements
■ Privatisation of streets (or use of private street legislation)
■ Residents’ Association model (i.e. the street community assumes
responsibility for certain street functions, with the Local Authority
providing contingent funding)
The ICE Public Realm Survey Local Public
T H E
2002 asked local authorities... Service
P R O P O S A L S
Agreements
Would you choose PFI on the basis of it
being the most economic solution?
25% (Local PSAs)
Do you have problems A Local PSA is an agreement
72%
with revenue funding? between a Local Authority and the
Does the funding system need Government. It sets out the
improving or streamlining? 71% Authority’s commitment to deliver
specific improvements in
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% performance, and the
Government’s commitment to
reward these improvements. The
agreement also records what the
Government will do to help the
authority achieve the improved
performance.
Local PSAs focus on the issues of
greatest importance to the Local
Authority. They work alongside
Best Value, Local Strategic
Partnerships, the Neighbourhood
Renewal Strategy, and other
measures specific to particular
services, all contributing to
delivering better services locally.
D. Provide the skills and expertise

T H E
D1. Higher education

P R O P O S A L S
Problem Deficiencies have been identified in two main areas of the 2002
regime – at a professional level, the bringing together of traditional
disciplines, and at a practical level, the skills of those who
implement schemes
Proposal D1. The MBA in Street Management

The challenges facing urban areas in 2002 demand that public and private
sectors must work together and develop a more responsive partnership
approach in meeting the needs of communities. Managers working in the
urban realm need to have a holistic approach to street design and planning
with a good understanding of how all the elements work together.
A new cross-disciplinary postgraduate qualification (MBA) in Urban Street
Management is advocated to ensure that practitioners are aware of the wider
issues, policies and linkages, think across traditional organisational boundaries,
and understand the complexities of legislation and funding sources.
MBA in urban street management:

proposed syllabus
Understanding streets
■ History and interrelationship of social development, technology, and the patterns and mechanisms of the
development of streets and the wider built environment
■ Street activities – understanding the requirements of the different groups that are involved in, around or
under streets. This includes economics, personal security, delivery, aesthetics, supply chain management,
and covering all types of street in urban areas
■ Streets and the future – changes and opportunities facing streets
■ Implementation of Local Public Service Agreements in relation to street management
Operational Skills
■ Street design
■ Street law/powers – highways, traffic, utilities, environmental health, licensing, planning, etc.
■ Contracts, procurement, Best Value
■ Finance of streets
■ Communication and consultation
■ Forms of community governance
■ Street management – Street Excellence Model
D2. Streetcraft
Problem Poor quality work, shortage of suitably skilled people.
The ICE
Public Realm
T H E
Survey 2002
P R O P O S A L S
Proposal D2. Streetcraft skills
The quality and standard of workmanship in the public realm is often
criticised as a major detractor from the street environment, with more and
more footway repair and enhancement schemes carried out by generalist
found
personnel. Improved training opportunities in “streetcraft” are proposed to
revive traditional masonry and pavior skills.
extensive
A Modern Apprenticeship for street masons/paviors should be created, skills
which would build on the NVQ system. Local Authority contracting
procedures should be revised to ensure high specifications (e.g. SCOTS shortages
Natural Stone Surfacing Good Practice Guide) and associated training
programmes are incorporated into any major scheme.
MBA in Urban Street

Management: Who’s it aimed at?
Course target:
Individuals who have a qualification in a related discipline (for example,
environmental health, civil engineering, planning, landscape architecture,
architecture, planning, surveying or economic development)
Format for the course:

The course could be provided on a correspondence or part-time, day
release basis to enable individuals to continue their work. Ideally, the
course would be provided by a syndicate of universities to ensure good
geographical coverage.
Background
B A C K G R O U N D
How and why Designing Streets

for People was produced
There is a wealth of evidence that people and professionals are unhappy
with the liveability of the UK’s streets and public realm. An Urban Design
Alliance working party was established in 1999 to review how streets can be
“designed for people”. Its objective was to develop pragmatic actions that,
implemented over the next 25 years, would achieve a real change in the
quality of our urban environment, thus improving the quality of life in towns
and cities.
Surveys undertaken, evidence gathered

Work began with a survey of local authorities, followed by extensive
evidence provided by practitioners and academics involved in the field.
Analysis
First proposals were developed and published in June 2000 for consultation:
■ New management tools

■ Proposals for planning and regulation
■ New models for community involvement/neighbourhood democracy
■ Changes to the underlying knowledge base and the way it is used
The proposals excluded standardised design solutions. A fundamental

principle of this report is that design solutions are to be produced by
properly trained professionals tailoring solutions to meet local circumstances.
Final report
The final report has been published after a period of consultation on the
proposals. Many of the actions proposed require neither change to
legislation nor new funding. While the proposals generally stand alone and
are not interdependent, they are inter-linked and involve concerted action by
a wide range of organisations and professions.
A review of how streets can be designed for people

For our streets to improve, organisations and people must move in the same
direction to achieve long-term holistic improvements. This includes officers
and contractors in national and local government, professions, public
utilities, cable TV companies, businesses, chambers of commerce and many
others. It is recognised that untried approaches may need to be proven
through demonstration or pilot projects within a clear and structured
framework, and with agreement to waive legislation to minimise the fear of
litigation.
Streets will only attract people and investment back to urban areas if:
■ People and their communities become the focus of the street
B A C K G R O U N D
■ All involved adopt positive attitudes to making broad improvements
■ Responsibilities for implementing and maintaining streets are integrated
and holistic
■ Criteria and standards for street design and maintenance are aligned
with wider policies
■ Revised and new legislation is introduced to facilitate improvement
The report aims to bring the “community plan” concept to life in the context
of designing, maintaining and improving the street.
URBAN DESIGN ALLIANCE (UDAL)

Urban Design provides a means of improving the quality of people’s lives
through the creation and subsequent maintenance of liveable and
sustainable environments.
All of the UDAL members share the belief that urban design can make our
cities, towns and villages more liveable and enjoyable places, and recognise
that urban design is a subject that crosses many professional boundaries
and must therefore be a shared responsibility. UDAL aims to work with all
parties concerned with the built environment; including central and local
government, communities, business communities, property developers and
investors.
The original DSfP Working Group

Institution of Civil Engineers Edward Chorlton, Devon County Council (Chair)
B A C K G R O U N D
Robert Huxford, Elinor Goodchild, Paul Selby

Landscape Institute Peter Piet, Moore, Piet and Brookes
Urban Design Group Barry Sellers, LB Wandsworth
Royal Town Planning Institute Meredith Evans, Leicester City Council
Expert Consultant Lynda Addison, Addison & Associates
DTLR observers Ray Gercans, Wayne Duerden
Report Drafting Support Jean Fraser, Addison & Associates
Illustrations Mel Tayler
Written contributions:
J Romanis, Worcestershire County; P A Ash, Gloucester City; D Mulrenan,
North Somerset; Danny Purton, Harlow District; Richard Moffat, Midlothian;
Lorraine Du Feu, Gloucester City; Barry Louth, Chelmsford Borough; Chris
Smith, Runnymede Borough; M J McSorley, Sefton MBC; Angus Bodie,
Renfrewshire; C D Wilson, London Borough of Kensington and Chelsea; C D
Briggs, Tunbridge Wells Borough; Robin J C Wood, Blackpool Borough;
John Flower, Neath Port Talbot County Borough; Roger Gill, South Bucks
District; P J Barrett, Oldham MBC; M Ainley, Rutland County; Iain
Wolstenholme, Aberdeen City; John Rigby, Exeter City; David Young, City of
York; Jeff Lander, Chichester District; Stephen Clarke, Staffordshire County
Formal presentations:
Chris Hollins, Boots Plc; Angus Bodie, Renfrewshire Council; Dr Janet
Rowe, University of West of England; Mike McSorley, Sefton Metropolitan
Borough Council; Stephen Clarke, Staffordshire County Council; Chris Smith,
Runnymede Borough Council; Lynn Sloman, Transport 2000; Professor
Michael Hebbert; Don McIntyre, Freight Transport Association; Bert Morris,
AA; Sue Sharp, DETR Mobility Unit; Ben Plowden, Living Streets; Steven
Norris (former Minister for Roads and Transport), Road Haulage Association
Additional contributions were received from:

Jason Consultants (http://www.jasonconsult.com)
Special thanks:
The working group gratefully thanks the CSS – The County Surveyors’
Society – in supporting this study.

.

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

.

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Designing Streets 2002 24/11/06 10:51 Page 1

The final report of the

Designing Streets for People was first

Recommendation of the original Walking Response Street Scene Paving

Placecheck: £5 million awarded for 10 pilot projects

What’s gone wrong? 8

Summary of the proposals 12

ISBN 978 0 7277 3195 1

About the Designing Streets for

■ Community empowerment and social inclusion

Its recommendations are based on evidence provided by professionals,

The vision—the Street in 2025

Streets in 2025 are:

■ Streets where people are proud and happy to live

What do you think of your street?

How the street is managed:

...but they aren’t providing the

…the consequences of which

What’s gone wrong?

Four reasons why we don’t have

1. We have not managed to balance the growth in

Our expenditure on vehicles 200

We are not spending enough to 0

■ Excess car parking blighting streets

Source: Government statistics

2. Responsibilities have been divided and

What are streets for?

A plethora of 3. The knowledge base is prescriptive, complex,

a) Vehicles – not people – are the focus of attention

mandatory Practice, regulations and standards have developed around accommodating

b) The knowledge base is prescriptive, complex and focussed on

guidance Single Interest Solutions

exists and specialisms. Much of the guidance is prescriptive, which discourages

■ Utilities which dig the road to maintain underground services, but as a

This single-issue approach to streets leads to a waste of resources and

c) National standards prevail over local distinctiveness

d) Practices have been slow to change

e) Practitioners avoid innovation for fear of litigation

4. Elements of the legal system are no longer relevant

b) Some user rights are strong

c) Other reasonable user rights are weak

Summary of the proposals

A. Give people ownership

A2. Involve the community – use the Placecheck method: encourage

communities to use Placecheck to identify problems and opportunities

B. Change management techniques

C. Review of legislation, rights and funding

D. Provide the skills and expertise

Ten steps that can be taken

2 Collaborate by working across service and professional boundaries.

3 Set up a one-stop shop as a single point of contact with the local

4 Carry out a Placecheck or Street Audit involving local business and

5 Appoint a person who has responsibility for championing the design,

6 Pursue excellence in the quality of the built environment, with particular

7 Empower the local business and resident community through involving

8 Educate staff to ensure people at all levels have the necessary

10 Establish criteria to provide a rigorous system of continuous

A. Give people ownership ...Air Quality? You want the

Proposal A1: Provide a single point of contact –

■ Professionals qualified in the wider street management role –

Other suggested models that could be used are:

■ Area-based teams drawn from different professions

Street lighting Development control

A2. Involve the community