Manual for Streets

Manual for Streets

Published by Thomas Telford Publishing, Thomas Telford Ltd, 1 Heron Quay, London E14 4JD. www.thomastelford.com
Distributors for Thomas Telford books are
USA: ASCE Press, 1801 Alexander Bell Drive, Reston, VA 20191-4400, USA
Japan: Maruzen Co. Ltd, Book Department, 310 Nihonbashi 2-chome, Chuo-ku, Tokyo 103
Australia: DA Books and Journals, 648 Whitehorse Road, Mitcham 3132, Victoria
First published 2007
Published for the Department for Transport under licence from the Controller of Her Majestys Stationery Office
Queens Printer and Controller of HMSO, 2007
Copyright in the typographical arrangement and design rests with the Queens Printer and Controller of HMSO.
This publication (excluding logos) may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium for non-commercial research, private study or for
circulation within an organisation. This is subject to it being reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context. The copyright of the material
must be acknowledged and the title and publisher specified.
This publication is value added material and as such is not subject to the Public Sector Information Click-Use Licence System.
For any other use of this material apply for a Value Added Click-Use Licence at www.opsi.gov.uk or write to the Licensing Division,
Office of Public Sector Information, St Clements House, 216 Colegate, Norwich NR3 1BQ. Fax: 01603 723000 or e-mail: licensing@opsi.x.gsi.gov.uk.
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
ISBN: 978-0-7277-3501-0
This book is published on the understanding that the authors are solely responsible for the statements made and opinions expressed in it and that its
publication does not necessarily imply that such statements and/or opinions are or reflect the views or opinions of the publishers. While every effort
has been made to ensure that the statements made and the opinions expressed in this publication provide a safe and accurate guide, no liability
or responsibility can be accepted in this respect by the authors or publishers.

Printed and bound in Great Britain by Maurice Payne Colourprint Limited using material containing at least 75% recycled fibre.
Ordnance Survey mapping
All mapping is reproduced from Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of
Her Majestys Stationery Office Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings.
Department for Transport 100039241, 2007.
Cover image Countryside Properties. Scheme designed by MDA

Contents
Foreword
Preface

6
7

Section A
Context
and
process

Introduction

10

Streets in context

Section B
Design
principles

4 Layout and connectivity

Section C
Detailed
design
issues

6 Street users needs

14

3 The design process - from policy to implementation

5 Quality places

50

Street geometry

8 Parking

40

62

78

98

9 Traffic signs and markings

114

10 Street furniture and street lighting

11 Materials, adoption and maintenance
Index

138

120
126

22

Acknowledgements

Project team
Manual for Streets was produced by a team led by consultants
WSP, with Llewelyn Davies Yeang (LDY), Phil Jones Associates
(PJA) and TRL Limited on behalf of the Department for Transport,
and Communities and Local Government.
The core team comprised (all lists in alphabetical order):
Annabel Bradbury (TRL)
Andrew Cameron (WSP)
Ben Castell (LDY)
Phil Jones (PJA)
Tim Pharoah (LDY),
Stuart Reid (TRL)
Alan Young Project Manager, (WSP)
With additional research and assistance by:
Sam Carman (WSP), Tom Ewings (TRL), Una McGaughrin (LDY)
Peter OBrien (LDY), Ross Paradise (TRL), Christianne Strubbe
(Hampshire County Council), Iain York (TRL)
Graphic design by Llewelyn Davies Yeang (Ros Shakibi,
Ting LamTang and Thanh Tung Uong, with artwork
by Alexandra Steed) and overseen by
Ela Ginalska (Department for Transport)
Steering group
The Project Steering Group included:
Bob Bennett (Planning Officers Society), Edward Chorlton
(Devon County Council), Vince Christie (Local Government
Association), Wayne Duerden (Department for Transport)
Louise Duggan (Commission for Architecture and the Built
Environment), Ray Farrow (Home Builders Federation)
George Hazel (Urban Design Alliance), Ed Hobson (Commission for
Architecture and the Built Environment), Gereint Killa
(Department for Transport), Grahame Lawson (Disabled Persons
Transport Advisory Committee), Spencer Palmer (Department for
Transport), John Smart (Institution of Highways and Transportation),
Larry Townsend (Communities and Local Government),
Polly Turton (Commission for Architecture and the Built
Environment), David Williams (Department for Transport),
Mario Wolf (Communities and Local Government),
Philip Wright (Health & Safety Executive)
Sounding board
Further advice was received from an invited Sounding Board
consisting of:
Tony Aston (Guide Dogs for the Blind Association), David Balcombe
(Essex County Council), Peter Barker (Guide Dogs for the Blind
Association), Richard Button (Colchester Borough Council)
Jo Cleary (Friends of the Lake District), Meredith Evans (Borough of
Telford & Wrekin Council), Tom Franklin (Living Streets),
Jenny Frew (English Heritage), Stephen Hardy (Dorset County
Council), Richard Hebditch (Living Streets), Ian Howes (Colchester
Borough Council), Andrew Linfoot (Halcrow), Peter Lipman
(Sustrans), Ciaran McKeon (Dublin Transport Office), Elizabeth Moon,
(Essex County Council), Nelia Parmaklieva (Colchester Borough
Council), Mark Sackett (RPS), Paul Sheard (Leicestershire
County Council), Alex Sully (Cycling England), Carol Thomas
(Guide Dogs for the Blind Association), Andy Yeomanson
(Leicestershire County Council), Emily Walsh (Solihull Metropolitan
Borough Council), Leon Yates (London Borough of Lewisham)

Additional consultation and advice

Additional consultation took place with the following:
Mark Ainsworth (George Wimpey), John Barrell (Jacobs Consultancy),
Terry Brown (GMW Architects), Hywel Butts (Welsh Assembly
Government), David Coatham (Institution of Lighting Engineers),
Mike Darwin (Leeds City Council), Adrian Lord (Arup /
Cycling England), Kevin Pearson (Avon Fire & Rescue Service),
Michael Powis (Nottinghamshire Police), Gary Kemp (Disabled
Persons Transport Advisory Committee), Malcolm Lister
(London Borough of Hounslow)
In addition to those already listed, substantial comments
on drafts of the manual were received from:
Duncan Barratt (West Sussex County Council), Neil Benison
(Warwickshire County Council), Daniel Black (Sustrans),
Rob Carmen (Medway Council), Greg Devine
(Surrey County Council), John Emslie (MVA Consultancy),
Heather Evans (Cyclists Touring Club), David Groves (Cornwall
County Council), Steve Mead (Derbyshire County Council),
Christine Robinson (Essex County Council), Mick Sankus
(Medway Council), Mike Schneider (North Somerset Borough
Council), Graham Paul Smith (Oxford Brookes University),
Fiona Webb (Mid Bedfordshire District Council), Bob White
(Kent County Council)
Case studies
A number of case studies were investigated in the compilation
if the Manual. These are listed below, along with the
individuals who provided assistance:
Beaulieu Park, Chelmsford:
Sarah Hill-Sanders, Chelmsford Borough Council
Chris Robinson, Essex County Council
Charlton Down, Dorset:
Stephen Hardy, Dorset County Council
Ian Madgwick, Dorset County Council
Crown Street, Glasgow:
Elaine Murray, Glasgow City Council
Mic Ralph, Glasgow City Council
Stephen Rigg, CZWG Architects
Darwin Park, Lichfield:
Steve Clarke, Staffordshire County Council
Ian Thompson, Lichfield District Council
Hulme, Manchester:
Kevin Gillham, Manchester City Council
Brian Kerridge, Manchester City Council
Limehouse Fields, Tower Hamlets:
Angelina Eke, Tower Hamlets Borough Council
John Hilder, Tower Hamlets Borough Council
New Hall, Harlow:
Alex Cochrane, Roger Evans Associates
Keith Lawson, Essex County Council
Mriganka Saxena, Roger Evans Associates
Pirelli site, Eastleigh:
Dave Francis, Eastleigh Borough Council
Eric Reed, Eastleigh Borough Council
Queen Elizabeth Park, Guildford:
David Barton, Guildford Borough Council
David Taylor, Surrey County Council
Staithes South Bank, Gateshead:
Alastair Andrew, Gateshead Council
Andy Szandrowski, Gateshead Council

Manual for Streets

Status and application

Manual for Streets (MfS) supersedes Design

Bulletin 32 and its companion guide Places,
Streets and Movement, which are now
withdrawn in England and Wales. It complements
Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing and
Planning Policy Wales. MfS comprises technical
guidance and does not set out any new policy or
legal requirements.
MfS focuses on lightly-trafficked residential
streets, but many of its key principles may be
applicable to other types of street, for example
high streets and lightly-trafficked lanes in rural
areas. It is the responsibility of users of MfS
to ensure that its application to the design of
streets not specifically covered is appropriate.

Manual for Streets

MfS does not apply to the trunk road network.

The design requirements for trunk roads are
set out in the Design Manual for Roads and
Bridges (DMRB).
MfS only applies formally in England and Wales.
The policy, legal and technical frameworks
are generally the same in England and Wales,
but where differences exist these are made clear.

Foreword

Streets are the arteries of our communities

a communitys success can depend on how well
it is connected to local services and the wider
world. However, it is all too easy to forget that
streets are not just there to get people from
A to B. In reality, streets have many other
functions. They form vital components of
residential areas and greatly affect the overall
quality of life for local people.
Places and streets that have stood the test
of time are those where traffic and other
activities have been integrated successfully,
and where buildings and spaces, and the needs
of people, not just of their vehicles, shape the
area. Experience suggests that many of the
street patterns built today will last for hundreds
of years. We owe it to present and future
generations to create well-designed places that
will serve the needs of the local community well.
In 2003, we published detailed research1 which
demonstrated that the combined effect of the
existing policy, legal and technical framework
was not helping to generate consistently good
quality streets. Without changes this framework
was holding back the creation of the sustainable
residential environments that communities need
and deserve.
As a society, we have learned to appreciate
the value of a clear and well-connected street

1 DfT, ODPM (July 2003)

Better Streets, Better
Places Delivering
Sustainable Residential
Environments: PPG3
and Highway Adoption.
London: ODPM.

Gillian Merron MP
Transport Minister

network, well defined public and private spaces,

and streets that can be used in safety by a wide
range of people. We also understand the benefits
of ensuring that the different functions of streets
are integral to their design from the outset. But
we need to do more to recognise the role that
streets play in the life of a community, particularly
the positive opportunities that they can bring
for social interaction. To achieve this we need
strong leadership and clear vision. Importantly, we
need to tackle climate change, and helping and
encouraging people to choose more sustainable
ways of getting around will be key.
Manual for Streets explains how to respond to
these issues. Although it does not set out new
policy or legislation, it shows how the design
of residential streets can be enhanced. It also
advises on how street design can help create
better places places with local distinctiveness
and identity. In addition, it establishes a common
reference point for all those involved in the
design of residential neighbourhoods.
This publication represents a strong Government
and Welsh Assembly commitment to the creation
of sustainable and inclusive public spaces. We
hope that everyone who plays a part in making
and shaping the built environment will embrace
its principles to help deliver places that work for
communities now, and in the future.

Baroness Andrews OBE

Parliamentary Under
Secretary of State
Communities and Local
Government

Tamsin Dunwoody AM
Deputy Minister for Enterprise,
Innovation and Networks
Deputy Minister for Environment,
Planning & Countryside
Manual for Streets

Preface

Manual for Streets (MfS) replaces Design

Bulletin 32, first published in 1977, and its
companion guide Places, Streets and Movement.
It puts well-designed residential streets at the
heart of sustainable communities.

the environment. MfS addresses these points,

recommending revised key geometric design
criteria to allow streets to be designed as places
in their own right while still ensuring that road
safety is maintained.

For too long the focus has been on the

movement function of residential streets. The
result has often been places that are dominated
by motor vehicles to the extent that they fail to
make a positive contribution to the quality of
life. MfS demonstrates the benefits that flow
from good design and assigns a higher priority to
pedestrians and cyclists, setting out an approach
to residential streets that recognises their role in
creating places that work for all members of the
community. MfS refocuses on the place function
of residential streets, giving clear guidance on
how to achieve well-designed streets and spaces
that serve the community in a range of ways.

MfS is clear that uncoordinated decision-making

can result in disconnected, bland places that
fail to make a contribution to the creation
of thriving communities. It recommends that
development teams are established to negotiate
issues in the round and retain a focus on the
creation of locally distinct, high-quality places.
Where high levels of change are anticipated,
designers and other stakeholders are encouraged
to work together strategically from an early
stage. MfS also recommends the use of tools
such as masterplans and design codes.

MfS updates the link between planning policy

and residential street design. It challenges some
established working practices and standards that
are failing to produce good-quality outcomes,
and asks professionals to think differently about
their role in creating successful neighbourhoods.
It places particular emphasis on the importance
of collaborative working and coordinated
decision-making, as well as on the value of
strong leadership and a clear vision of design
quality at the local level.
Research carried out in the preparation of
Manual for Streets indicated that many of the
criteria routinely applied in street design are
based on questionable or outdated practice.
For example, it showed that, when long forward
visibility is provided and generous carriageway
width is specified, driving speeds tend to
increase. This demonstrates that driver behaviour
is not fixed; rather, it can be influenced by

Manual for Streets

Neighbourhoods where buildings, streets and

spaces combine to create locally distinct places
and which make a positive contribution to the
life of local communities need to become more
widespread. MfS provides a clear framework
for the use of local systems and procedures;
it also identifies the tools available to ensure
that growth and change are planned for and
managed in an integrated way. The aspirations
of MfS interdisciplinary working, strategic
coordination and balanced decision making
will only become a reality if they are developed
and applied at a local level. This is already
happening in some places, and the results are
promising this document aims to make the
adoption of such practice the norm.
MfS does not set out new policy or introduce
new additional burdens on local authorities,
highway authorities or developers. Rather
it presents guidance on how to do things
differently within the existing policy, technical
and legal framework.

A
Context and process

Countryside Properties

1
Introduction

Chapter aims
Set out the aims of Manual for Streets.

Promote greater collaboration between

all those involved in the design, approval
and adoption processes.
Summarise key changes from previous
guidance.

1.1

Aims of the document

1.1.1
There is a need to bring about a
transformation in the quality of streets. This
requires a fundamental culture change in the
way streets are designed and adopted, including
a more collaborative approach between the design
professions and other stakeholders. People need
to think creatively about their various roles in
the process of delivering streets, breaking away
from standardised, prescriptive, risk-averse
methods to create high-quality places.

1 Office of the Deputy

Prime Minister (ODPM)
(2005) Planning Policy
Statement 1: Delivering
Sustainable Development.
London: The Stationery
Office (TSO).
2 Communities and Local
Government (2006)
Planning Policy Statement
3: Housing. London: TSO.
3 Welsh Assembly
Government (2002).
Planning Policy Wales.
Cardiff: National Assembly
for Wales (NAfW).
Chapter 2, Planning for
Sustainability.
4 Commission for
Architecture and the Built
Environment (CABE)
(2006) The Principles of
Inclusive Design (They
Include You). London:
CABE. (Wales: See
also Welsh Assembly
Government (2002).
Technical Advice Note 12:
Design. Cardiff: NAfW.
Chapter 5, Design Issues.)

1.1.2
Streets make up the greater part of the
public realm. Better-designed streets therefore
contribute significantly to the quality of the built
environment and play a key role in the creation
of sustainable, inclusive, mixed communities
consistent with the policy objectives of Planning
Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable
Development (PPS1)1, Planning Policy Statement
3: Housing (PPS3)2 and Planning Policy Wales
(PPW).3
1.1.3
Manual for Streets (MfS) is expected
to be used predominantly for the design,
construction, adoption and maintenance of new
residential streets, but it is also applicable to
existing residential streets subject to re-design.
For new streets, MfS advocates a return to more
traditional patterns which are easier to assimilate
into existing built-up areas and which have been
proven to stand the test of time in many ways.
1.1.4
Streets should not be designed just to
accommodate the movement of motor vehicles.
It is important that designers place a high priority

Manual for Streets

Countryside Properties

Explain the status of Manual for Streets

and its relationship with local design
standards and the Design Manual for
Roads and Bridges.

Figure 1.1 Streets should be attractive places that

meet the needs of all users.

on meeting the needs of pedestrians, cyclists and

public transport users, so that growth in these
modes of travel is encouraged (Fig. 1.1).
1.1.5
MfS aims to assist in the creation of
streets that:
help to build and strengthen the
communities they serve;
meet the needs of all users, by embodying
the principles of inclusive design (see box);
form part of a well-connected network;
are attractive and have their own
distinctive identity;
are cost-effective to construct and
maintain; and
are safe.

The principles of inclusive design

Inclusive design:4
places people at the heart of the design process;
acknowledges diversity and difference;
offers choice where a single solution cannot
accommodate all users;
provides for flexibility in use; and
provides buildings and environments that are
convenient and enjoyable to use for everyone.

MfS discourages the building of

1.1.6
streets that are:
primarily designed to meet the needs of
motor traffic;
bland and unattractive;
unsafe and unwelcoming to pedestrians
and cyclists;
difficult to serve by public transport; and
poorly designed and constructed (Fig. 1.2).

11

1.2

Andrew Cameron, WSP

1.1.7
For the purposes of this document, a
street is defined as a highway that has important
public realm functions beyond the movement of
traffic. Most critically, streets should have a sense
of place, which is mainly realised through local
distinctiveness and sensitivity in design. They also
provide direct access to the buildings and the
spaces that line them. Most highways in built-up
areas can therefore be considered as streets.

Who the manual is for

1.2.1
MfS is directed to all those with a
part to play in the planning, design, approval
or adoption of new residential streets, and
modifications to existing residential streets. This
includes the following (in alphabetical order):
Organisations:

developers;

disability and other user groups;

emergency services;

highway and traffic authorities;

planning authorities;

public transport providers;

utility and drainage companies; and

waste collection authorities.
Professions:

access/accessibility officers;

arboriculturists;

architects;

drainage engineers;

highway/traffic engineers;

landscape architects;

local authority risk managers;

police architectural liaison officers and
crime prevention officers;

road safety auditors;

street lighting engineers;

town planners;

transport planners;

urban designers.
1.2.2
These lists are not exhaustive and there
are other groups with a stake in the design of
streets. Local communities, elected members
and civic groups, in particular, are encouraged to
make use of this document.
1.2.3
MfS covers a broad range of issues
and it is recommended that practitioners read
every section regardless of their specific area of
interest. This will create a better understanding
of the many and, in some cases, conflicting

12

Figure 1.2 Streets should not be bland and

unwelcoming.

priorities that can arise. A good design will

represent a balance of views with any conflicts
resolved through compromise and creativity.

1.3

Promoting joint working

1.3.1
In the past street design has been
dominated by some stakeholders at the expense
of others, often resulting in unimaginatively
designed streets which tend to favour motorists
over other users.
1.3.2
MfS aims to address this by encouraging
a more holistic approach to street design, while
assigning a higher priority to the needs of
pedestrians, cyclists and public transport. The
intention is to create streets that encourage
greater social interaction and enjoyment while still
performing successfully as conduits for movement.
1.3.3
It is important for the various parts of
local government to work together when giving
input to a development proposal. Developers may
be faced with conflicting requirements if different
parts of local government fail to coordinate their
input. This can cause delay and a loss of design
quality. This is particularly problematic when
one section of a local authority for example
the highway adoption or maintenance engineers
become involved late on in the process and
require significant changes to the design. A
collaborative process is required from the outset.

1.4

DMRB and other design standards

1.4.1
The Department for Transport does not
set design standards for highways these are set
by the relevant highway authority.

Manual for Streets

1.4.2 The Secretary of State for Transport is

the highway authority for trunk roads in England
and acts through the Highways Agency (HA).
In Wales the Welsh Assembly Government is the
highway authority for trunk roads. The standard
for trunk roads is the Design Manual for Roads
and Bridges (DMRB).5

1.4.3 Some trunk roads could be described

as streets within the definition given in MfS,
but their strategic nature means that traffic
movement is their primary function. MfS does
not apply to trunk roads.

1.6

1.4.4 The DMRB is not an appropriate design

standard for most streets, particularly those in
lightly-trafficked residential and mixed-use areas.

applying a user hierarchy to the design

process with pedestrians at the top;
emphasising a collaborative approach to
the delivery of streets;
recognising the importance of the
community function of streets as spaces for
social interaction;
promoting an inclusive environment that
recognises the needs of people of all ages
and abilities;
reflecting and supporting pedestrian desire
lines in networks and detailed designs;
developing masterplans and preparing
design codes that implement them for
larger-scale developments, and using
design and access statements for all
scales of development;
creating networks of streets that provide
permeability and connectivity to main
destinations and a choice of routes;
moving away from hierarchies of standard
road types based on traffic flows and/or
the number of buildings served;
developing street character types on a
location-specific basis with reference to
both the place and movement functions
for each street;
encouraging innovation with a flexible
approach to street layouts and the use of
locally distinctive, durable and maintainable
materials and street furniture;
using quality audit systems that
demonstrate how designs will meet key
objectives for the local environment;
designing to keep vehicle speeds at or
below 20 mph on residential streets unless
there are overriding reasons for accepting
higher speeds; and
using the minimum of highway design
features necessary to make the streets
work properly.

1.4.5 Although MfS provides guidance on

technical matters, local standards and design
guidance are important tools for designing
in accordance with the local context. Many
local highway authorities have developed their
own standards and guidance. Some of these
documents, particularly those published in recent
years, have addressed issues of placemaking
and urban design, but most have not. It is
therefore strongly recommended that local
authorities review their standards and guidance to
embrace the principles of MfS. Local standards
and guidance should focus on creating and
improving local distinctiveness through the
appropriate choice of layouts and materials while
adhering to the overall guidance given in MfS.

1.5

Development of Manual
for Streets

1.5.1
The preparation of MfS was
recommended in Better Streets, Better Places,6
which advised on how to overcome barriers to
the creation of better quality streets.

5 Highways Agency (1992)

Design Manual for Roads
and Bridges. London:
TSO.
6 ODPM and Department
for Transport (2003) Better
Streets, Better Places:
Delivering Sustainable
Residential Environments;
PPG3 and Highway
Adoption
London: TSO.

1.5.2
MfS has been produced as a
collaborative effort involving a wide range of key
stakeholders with an interest in street design.
It has been developed by a multi-disciplinary
team of highway engineers, urban designers,
planners and researchers. The recommendations
contained herein are based on a combination of:
primary research;
a review of existing research;
case studies;

Manual for Streets

existing good practice guidance; and

consultation with stakeholders and practitioners.

1.5.1
During its preparation, efforts have
been made to ensure that MfS represents a
broad consensus and that it is widely accepted
as good practice.

Changes in approach

1.6.1
The main changes in the approach to
street design that MfS recommends are
as follows:

13

Andrew Cameron, WSP

Streets in context

Chapter aims
Explain the distinction between streets
and roads.
Summarise the key functions of streets.
Propose a new approach to defining
street hierarchies, based on their
significance in terms of both place
and movement.
Set out the framework of legislation,
standards and guidance that apply to
the design of streets.
Provide guidance to highway authorities
in managing their risk and liability.

2.1

Introduction

2.1.1
This chapter sets out the overall
framework in which streets are designed,
built and maintained.

Streets an historical perspective

Most historic places owe their layout to their
original function. Towns have grown up around
a market place (Fig. 2.1), a bridgehead or a
harbour; villages were formed according to the
pattern of farming and the ownership of the
land. The layouts catered mostly for movement
on foot. The era of motorised transport and
especially privately-owned motor vehicles has,
superficially at least, removed the constraint that
kept urban settlements compact and walkable.
a

2.1.2
The key recommendation is that
increased consideration should be given to
the place function of streets. This approach
to addressing the classification of streets
needs to be considered across built-up areas,
including rural towns and villages, so that a
better balance between different functions
and street users is achieved.

2.2

Streets and roads

2.2.1 A clear distinction can be drawn

between streets and roads. Roads are
essentially highways whose main function
is accommodating the movement of motor
traffic. Streets are typically lined with
buildings and public spaces, and while
movement is still a key function, there are
several others, of which the place function
is the most important (see Streets an
historical perspective box).

When the regulation of roads and streets

began, spread of fire was the main concern.
Subsequently health came to the forefront and the
classic 36 ft wide bye-law street was devised as a
means of ensuring the passage of air in densely
built-up areas. Later, the desire to guarantee that
sunshine would get to every house led to the
requirement for a 70 ft separation between house
fronts, and this shaped many developments from
the 1920s onwards.
It was not until after the Second World War,
and particularly with the dramatic increase in car
ownership from the 1960s onwards, that traffic
considerations came to dominate road design.
b

Manual for Streets

Andrew Cameron

Figure 2.1 Newark: (a) the Market Place, 1774;

and (b) in 2006.

15

2.2.2 Streets have to fulfil a complex variety

of functions in order to meet peoples needs as
places for living, working and moving around
in. This requires a careful and multi-disciplinary
approach that balances potential conflicts
between different objectives.
2.2.3 In the decades following the Second
World War, there was a desire to achieve a clear
distinction between two types of highway:
distributor roads, designed for movement,
where pedestrians were excluded or, at best,
marginalised; and
access roads, designed to serve buildings,
where pedestrians were accommodated.
This led to layouts where buildings were set in
the space between streets rather than on them,
and where movement on foot and by vehicle was
segregated, sometimes using decks, bridges or
subways. Many developments constructed using
such layouts have had significant social problems
and have either been demolished or undergone
major regeneration (Fig. 2.2).
2.2.4 This approach to network planning
limited multi-functional streets to the most
lightly-trafficked routes. This has led to
development patterns where busy distributor
roads link relatively small cells of housing.
Such layouts are often not conducive to
anything but the shortest of trips on foot or
by bicycle. It is now widely recognised that
there are many advantages in extending the
use of multi-functional streets in urban areas
to busier routes.

1 Snellen, D. (1999) The

relationship between
urban form and activity
patterns. In Proceedings
of the European
Transport Conference,
Cambridge, 1999. London:
PTRC. pp. 429439.
2 ODPM and Home Office
(2004) Safer Places:
The Planning System
and Crime Prevention.
London: TSO.
3 ODPM (2005) Planning
Policy Statement 1:
Delivering Sustainable
Developments. London:
TSO. (Wales: Welsh
Assembly Government
(2002) Planning Policy
Wales. Cardiff: NAfW.)

2.2.5 Streets that are good quality places

achieve a number of positive outcomes, creating
a virtuous circle:
attractive and well-connected permeable
street networks encourage more people
to walk and cycle to local destinations,
improving their health while reducing motor
traffic, energy use and pollution;1
more people on the streets leads to
improved personal security and road safety
research shows that the presence of
pedestrians on streets causes drivers to
travel more slowly;2
people meeting one another on a casual
basis strengthens communities and
encourages a sense of pride in local
environments; and
people who live in good-quality
environments are more likely to have
a sense of ownership and a stake in
maintaining the quality of their local streets
and public spaces.
2.2.6 Well-designed streets thus have a
crucial part to play in the delivery of sustainable
communities, defined as places where people
want to live and work, now and in the future.3
2.2.7 Lanes in rural areas can provide other
functions than just movement, including various
leisure activities such as walking, cycling and
horse riding.

Figure 2.2 A poor-quality space with a layout where pedestrians and vehicles are segregated. It has not been
a success and the area is now undergoing regeneration.

16

Manual for Streets

2.3

Principal functions of streets

2.3.1
Streets have five principal functions;
place;
movement;
access;
parking; and
drainage, utilities and street lighting.
These functions are derived from Paving the Way.4

Place
2.3.2 The place function is essentially
what distinguishes a street from a road. The
sense of place is fundamental to a richer and
more fulfilling environment. It comes largely
from creating a strong relationship between
the street and the buildings and spaces that
frame it. The Local Government White Paper5
makes it clear that, in creating sustainable
communities, local authorities have an
essential and strategic role.
2.3.3 An important principle was established
in Places, Streets and Movement6 when
planning new developments, achieving a good
place should come before designing street
alignments, cross-sections and other details.
Streets should be fitted around significant
buildings, public spaces, important views,
topography, sunlight and microclimate.

4 Commission for
Architecture and the Built
Environment (CABE)
and ODPM (2002)
Paving the Way: How
we Achieve Clean, Safe
and Attractive Streets.
London: Thomas Telford
Ltd.
5 Communities and Local
Government (2006)
Strong and Prosperous
Communities: The Local
Government White Paper.
London: TSO.
6 Department for
Environment, Transport
and the Regions (DETR)
(1998) Places, Streets and
Movement: A Companion
Guide to Design Bulletin
32 Residential Roads
and Footpaths. London:
TSO.

visual quality; and

propensity to encourage social activity
(Fig. 2.3).
These are covered in more detail in Chapters
4 and 5.
2.3.5 The choice of surface materials, planting
and street furniture has a large part to play in
achieving a sense of place. The excessive or
insensitive use of traffic signs and other street
furniture has a negative impact on the success of
the street as a place. It is particularly desirable to
minimise the environmental impact of highway
infrastructure in rural areas, for example, where
excessive lighting and the inappropriate use of
kerbing, signs, road markings and street furniture
can urbanise the environment.

Movement
2.3.6 Providing for movement along a
street is vital, but it should not be considered
independently of the streets other functions.
The need to cater for motor vehicles is well
understood by transport planners, but the
passage of people on foot and cycle has
often been neglected. Walking and cycling
are important modes of travel, offering
a more sustainable alternative to the car,
making a positive contribution to the overall
character of a place, public health and to
tackling climate change through reductions
in carbon emissions. Providing for movement
is covered in more detail in Chapters 6 and 7.

Lorraine Farrelly

2.3.4 A sense of place encompasses a number

of aspects, most notably the streets:
local distinctiveness;

Figure 2.3 A residential environment showing distinctive character.

Manual for Streets

17

2.4

The balance between place

and movement

Llewelyn Davies Yeang

2.4.1 Of the five functions, place and

movement are the most important in
determining the character of streets.

Figure 2.4 An example of a sustainable drainage system.

Access
2.3.7 Access to buildings and public spaces
is another important function of streets.
Pedestrian access should be designed for people
of all ages and abilities.
2.3.8 Providing frontages that are directly
accessible on foot and that are overlooked
from the street is highly desirable in most
circumstances as this helps to ensure that streets
are lively and active places. The access function
is covered in Chapters 6 and 7.

Parking
2.3.9 Parking is a key function of
many streets, although it is not always a
requirement. A well-designed arrangement of
on-street parking provides convenient access
to frontages and can add to the vitality of a
street. Conversely, poorly designed parking
can create safety problems and reduce the
visual quality of a street. Parking is covered
in more detail in Chapter 8.

Drainage, utilities and street lighting

2.3.10 Streets are the main conduits for
drainage and utilities. Buried services can have
a major impact on the design and maintenance
requirements of streets. Sustainable drainage
systems can bring environmental benefits,
such as flood control, creating wildlife habitats
and efficient wastewater recycling (Fig. 2.4).
Drainage and utilities are covered in Chapter
11, and street lighting is covered in Chapter 10.

18

2.4.2 In the past, road design hierarchies have

been based almost exclusively on the importance
attributed to vehicular movement. This has led
to the marginalisation of pedestrians and cyclists
in the upper tiers where vehicular capacity
requirements predominate. The principle that a
road was primarily for motor traffic has tended
to filter down into the design of streets in the
bottom tiers of the hierarchy.
2.4.3 This approach has created disjointed
patterns of development. High-speed roads
often have poor provision for pedestrian activity,
cutting residential areas off from each other and
from other parts of a settlement. In addition, the
hierarchy does not allow for busy arterial streets,
which feature in most towns and cities.
2.4.4 Streets should no longer be designed
by assuming place to be automatically
subservient to movement. Both should be
considered in combination, with their relative
importance depending on the streets function
within a network. It is only by considering
both aspects that the right balance will be
achieved. It is seldom appropriate to focus
solely on one to the exclusion of the other,
even in streets carrying heavier volumes of
traffic, such as high streets.
2.4.5 Place status denotes the relative
significance of a street, junction or section of a
street in human terms. The most important places
will usually be near the centre of any settlement
or built-up area, but important places will also
exist along arterial routes, in district centres, local
centres and within neighbourhoods.
2.4.6 Movement status can be expressed in
terms of traffic volume and the importance of
the street, or section of street, within a network
either for general traffic or within a modespecific (e.g. bus or cycle) network. It can vary
along the length of a route, such as where a
street passes through a town centre.

Manual for Streets

Andrew Cameron, WSP and Bob White, Kent County Council

Motorway

Movement status

High street

Residential street

Place status
Figure 2.5 Typical road and street types in the Place and Movement hierarchy.

7 New Roads and Street

Works Act 1991. London:
TSO.
8 Traffic Management Act
2004. London: TSO.
9 Department for Transport
(2004) Network
Management Duties
Guidance. London: TSO.
10 Welsh Assembly
Government (2006)
Traffic Management
Act 2004 Network
Management Duty
Guidance. Cardiff: NAfW.
11 The two-dimensional
hierarchy as a way of
informing street design
was developed by the EU
project ARTISTS.
See www.tft.lth.se/
artists/

2.4.7 Highway authorities assess the relative

importance of particular routes within an urban
area as part of their normal responsibilities, such
as those under the New Roads and Streetworks
Act 1991.7 One of the network management duties
under the Traffic Management Act 20048 is that all
local traffic authorities should determine specific
policies or objectives for different roads or classes
of road in their road network. See also the Network
Management Duties Guidance9 published by
the Department for Transport in November 2004
(Wales: guidance published November 200610). This
states that it is for the authority to decide the levels
of priority given to different road users on each
road, for example, particular routes may be defined
as being important to the response times of the
emergency services.
2.4.8 Another way of assessing the
movement status of a street is to consider the
geographical scale of the destinations it serves.
Here, movement status can range from national
networks (including motorways) through to
city, town, district, neighbourhood and local
networks, where the movement function of
motor vehicles would be minimal.

Manual for Streets

Place and movement matrix

2.4.9 Defining the relative importance of
particular streets/roads in terms of place and
movement functions should inform subsequent
design choices. For example:

motorways high movement function, low

place function;
high streets medium movement function,
medium to high place function; and
Residential streets low to medium
movement function, low to medium
place function.

2.4.10 This way of looking at streets can be

expressed as a two-dimensional hierarchy,11
where the axes are defined in terms of place and
movement (Fig. 2.5). It recognises that, whilst
some streets are more important than others
in terms of traffic flow, some are also more
important than others in terms of their place
function and deserve to be treated differently.
This approach allows designers to break away
from previous approaches to hierarchy, whereby
street designs were only based on traffic
considerations.

19

2.4.11 In many situations it will be possible to

determine the place status of existing streets
by consulting with the people living there. Such
community consultation is encouraged.

2.5.3 Parliament and the courts establish

the legal framework within which highway
authorities, planning authorities and other
organisations operate.

2.4.12 In new developments, locations with a

relatively high place function would be those
where people are likely to gather and interact
with each other, such as outside schools, in local
town and district centres or near parades of
shops. Streets that pass through these areas
need to reflect these aspects of their design,
which will have been identified at the
masterplan/scheme design stage.

2.5.4 The Government develops policies

aimed at meeting various objectives which
local authorities are asked to follow. It also
issues supporting guidance to help authorities
implement these policies.

2.4.13 Once the relative significance of the

movement and place functions has been
established, it is possible to set objectives for
particular parts of a network. This will allow the
local authority to select appropriate design
criteria for creating new links or for changing
existing ones.
2.4.14 Movement and place considerations are
important in determining the appropriate design
speeds, speed limits and road geometry, etc.,
along with the level of adjacent development
and traffic composition (see Department for
Transport Circular 01/2006;12 Wales: Welsh Office
Circular 1/199313).

2.5

12 Department for Transport

(2006) Setting Local
Speed Limits. Circular
01/2006. London: TSO
13 Department for Transport
and Welsh Office (1993)
Welsh Office Circular
01/1993. Road Traffic
Regulation Act 1984:
Sections 8185 Local
Speed Limits. Cardiff:
Welsh Office.
14 UK Roads Board
(2005) Highway Risk
and Liability Claims
A Practical Guide to
Appendix C of The Roads
Board Report Well
Maintained Highways
Code of Practice for
Highway Maintenance
Management, 1st edn.
London: UK Roads Board.

Policy, legal and technical context

2.5.1
There is a complex set of legislation,
polices and guidance applying to the design
of highways. There is a tendency among some
designers to treat guidance as hard and fast
rules because of the mistaken assumption that
to do otherwise would be illegal or counter to a
stringent policy. This tends to restrict innovation,
leading to standardised streets with little sense
of place or quality. In fact, there is considerable
scope for designers and approving authorities to
adopt a more flexible approach on many issues.
2.5.2 The following comprise the various tiers
of instruction and advice:
the legal framework of statutes, regulations
and case law;
government policy;
government guidance;
local policies;
local guidance; and
design standards.
20

2.5.5 Within this overall framework highway and

planning authorities have considerable leeway
to develop local policies and standards, and to make
technical judgements with regard to how they
are applied. Other bodies also produce advisory
and research material that they can draw on.

2.6

Risk and liability

2.6.1
A major concern expressed by some
highway authorities when considering more
innovative designs, or designs that are at
variance with established practice, is whether
they would incur a liability in the event of
damage or injury.
2.6.2 This can lead to an over-cautious
approach, where designers strictly comply with
guidance regardless of its suitability, and to the
detriment of innovation. This is not conducive to
creating distinctive places that help to support
thriving communities.
2.6.3 In fact, imaginative and context-specific
design that does not rely on conventional
standards can achieve high levels of safety. The
design of Poundbury in Dorset, for example, did
not comply fully with standards and guidance
then extant, yet it has few reported accidents.
This issue was explored in some detail in the
publication Highway Risk and Liability Claims.14
2.6.4 Most claims against highway authorities
relate to alleged deficiencies in maintenance.
The duty of the highway authority to maintain
the highway is set out in section 41 of the
Highways Act 1980,15 and case law has clarified
the law in this area.

Manual for Streets

2.6.5 The most recent judgement of note

was Gorringe v. Calderdale MBC (2004), where
a case was brought against a highway authority
for failing to maintain a SLOW marking on
the approach to a sharp crest. The judgement
confirmed a number of important points:
the authoritys duty to maintain covers
the fabric of a highway, but not signs
and markings;
there is no requirement for the highway
authority to give warning of obvious
dangers; and
drivers are first and foremost responsible
for their own safety.
2.6.6 Some claims for negligence and/or
failure to carry out a statutory duty have been
made under section 39 of the Road Traffic Act
1988,15 which places a general duty on highway
authorities to promote road safety. In connection
with new roads, section 39 (3)(c) states that
highway authorities in constructing new roads,
must take such measures as appear to the
authority to be appropriate to reduce the
possibilities of such accidents when the roads
come into use.
2.6.7 The Gorringe v. Calderdale judgment
made it clear that section 39 of the Road Traffic
Act 1988 cannot be enforced by an individual,
however, and does not form the basis for a
liability claim.
2.6.8 Most claims against an authority are
for maintenance defects, claims for design faults
being relatively rare.

15 Highways Act 1980.

London: HMSO.
16 Road Traffic Act 1988.
London: TSO.
16 Disability Discrimination
Act 2005. London: TSO.
17 Disability Rights
Commission (DRC) (2006)
Planning, Buildings,
Streets and Disability
Equality. A Guide to
the Disability Equality
Duty and Disability
Discrimination Act 2005
for Local Authority
Departments Responsible
for Planning, Design and
Management of the Built
Environment and Streets.
London: DRC.

2.6.9 Advice to highway authorities on

managing their risks associated with new
designs is given in Chapter 5 of Highway Risk
and Liability Claims. In summary, this advises
that authorities should put procedures in place
that allow rational decisions to be made with
the minimum of bureaucracy, and that create an
audit trail that could subsequently be used as
evidence in court.

Manual for Streets

2.6.10 Suggested procedures (which accord

with those set out in Chapter 3 of MfS) include
the following key steps:
set clear and concise scheme objectives;
work up the design against these
objectives; and
review the design against these objectives
through a quality audit.

2.7

Disability discrimination

2.7.1
Highway and planning authorities
must comply with the Disability Equality Duty
under the Disability Discrimination Act 2005.16
This means that in their decisions and actions,
authorities are required to have due regard to
the six principles of:
promote equality of opportunity between
disabled persons and other persons;
eliminate discrimination that is unlawful
under the 2005 Act;
eliminate harassment of disbled persons
that is related to their disabilities;
promote positive attitudes towards disabled
persons;
encourage participation by disabled persons
in public life; and
take steps to take account of disabled
persons disabilities, even where that
involves treating disabled persons more
favourably than other persons.
2.7.2 Those who fail to observe these
requirements will be at the risk of a claim. Not
only is there an expectation of positive action, but
the duty is retrospective and local authorities will
be expected to take reasonable action to rectify
occurrences of non-compliance in existing areas.
2.7.3 The Disability Rights Commission (DRC)
have published a Statutory Code of Practice
on the Disability Equality Duty and they have
also published specific guidance for those
dealing with planning, buildings and the street
environment.17

21

Llewelyn Davies Yeang

The design process

from policy to
implementation

1. Policy review

Chapter aims
Set out the design process in broad
terms and reinforce the importance of
collaborative working.

2. Objective setting
3. Design

Demonstrate the advantages of local

authorities following a Development Team
approach and emphasise the benefits of
the developer engaging with the team at
an early stage in the design process.

5. Planning approval

Look at the key principles within the design

process, and the use of design codes.

6. Implementation

Recommend a new approach to street

and safety audits.

3.1

Introduction

3.1.1
The life of a scheme, from
conception to implementation and beyond,
can be broken down into seven key stages,
as shown in Fig. 3.1.
3.1.2
This seven-stage process is generally
applicable to all schemes, from large new
developments, through to smaller infill schemes
and improvements to existing streets. The key
aspects are that:
design decisions reflect current policies;
policies are interpreted on a case-by-case basis
and are used to define objectives; and
scheme designs are tested against these
objectives before approval is given to their
implementation.
The process is a general one and
3.1.3
should be applied in a way appropriate to
the size and importance of the proposal.
For example, the design stage refers to the
desirability of preparing a masterplan for
large schemes. This is unlikely to be the case
for smaller developments and improvement
schemes for existing streets which are likely
to be less complex, and, in some cases, a
scheme layout is generally all that is required.

Manual for Streets

7. Monitoring
Figure 3.1 The seven key stages in the life of
a scheme.

3.2

Integrated street design

a streamlined approach

3.2.1
The developers design team needs to
engage with several departments within the
local planning and highway authorities in order
to identify all the relevant issues. It is therefore
recommended that planning and highway
authorities, together with other public agencies,
such as those responsible for waste collection
and drainage, coordinate their activities to
ensure that they do not give contradictory
advice or impose conflicting conditions on the
developer and the design team (Fig. 3.2).

Llewelyn Davies Yeang

Introduce a user hierarchy where

pedestrians are considered first in the
design process.

4. Quality auditing

Figure 3.2 Multi-disciplinary collaborative planning

helps identify all the relevant issues.

23

Case study

Walsall: the Development Team approach

Walsall Council has successfully run a Development

Team for some years. Developers submitting
major planning applications benefit from
meetings with officials representing a broad range
of disciplines. They cover Highways, Pollution
Control, Housing Services, Building Control,
Development Control, Ecology, Landscape and
Arboriculture (officials for these disciplines are
always present), and Leisure Services, Education
and the Environment Agency (officials for these
disciplines are brought in as required).

3.2.2 Local authorities should enable developers

to engage effectively with individual departments
by establishing a single point of contact. Some
local authorities have created development teams
so that all council departments with an interest in
street design work together during the design and
approval process (see Walsall case study box).
Authorities that have adopted a similar approach
for larger schemes include North Somerset
District Council and Oxfordshire County Council
in association with the District Councils. This has
clear advantages when dealing with large or small
development proposals. The same approach can
be adopted by local authorities internally when
considering improvements to existing streets.
3.2.3 The benefits of an integrated approach
applies to all stages in the process, up to and
including planning how the street will be
maintained in future.

3.3

From a list of available time slots at least 10 days

in advance, applicants book a meeting with the
Development Team, submitting their preliminary
proposals at the same time. This gives ample
opportunity for initial consideration of the
application, including site visits if necessary.
At the meeting, developers presenttheir
proposal to the Development Team where they
receive initial comments and advice.
The Teamprovides a formal,written, fully
considered responsewithin three weeks.
Significant advantages of this approachare
that thedevelopers canplan their presentation
to suit their development programme and the
Team can offer advice on key elements of the
proposal at an early stage, thus minimising the
need for costly changes later on.
3.3.2 Consultation with the public (including
organisations representing particular groups)
is not shown as a single, discrete stage. Public
consultation should take place at appropriate
points in the process. The timing and number of
public consultation events will vary depending
on the size and complexity of the scheme.
Where schemes are significant because of
3.3.3
their size, the site or other reasons, local planning
authorities and developers are encouraged to
submit them to the Commission for Architecture
and the Built Environment (CABE) for Design
Review at the earliest opportunity.1 Design Review
is a free advice service offering expert, independent
assessments of schemes.
3.3.4 Table 3.1 shows how the process can be
applied. It should be noted that these steps are
indicative and will vary in detail from scheme
to scheme.

Steps in the design process

3.4

1 Communities and
Local Government (2006)
Circular 1/06 Guidance
on Changes to the
Development Control
System. London: TSO.
paragraph 76.

3.3.1
The seven-stage process will need to be
tailored to particular situations, depending on the
type and complexity of the scheme. It is therefore
recommended that, at the outset, a project plan
is drawn up by the developer and agreed with
stakeholders. The plan should include a flow chart
diagram and an indication of the level and scope
of information required at each stage.

24

Stage 1: policy review

3.4.1 Street designs should generally be

consistent with national, regional and local policy.
The process begins with a review of relevant
planning and transportation policies, and the
identification of the required key design principles.
3.4.2 The starting point for the review of local
policy is the Local Development Framework. The
Local Transport Plan will need to be considered
and authorities may also have prepared a Public
Manual for Streets

Table 3.1 Indicative steps in the design process for new developments and changes to existing streets
Key stages

Key activity/outputs

Responsibility

Large
development

Small
development

Changes
to
existing
streets

1. Policy review

Review national, regional

and local policy context

Design team

Review Local Transport Plan

Design team

Review Public Realm

Strategy

Design team

Review any Street Design

Guidance not included in
the Local Development
Framework

Design team

Prepare Development
Brief

Planning and
highway authorities

Agree objectives

All

Carry out context

appraisal

Design team

Develop proposed
movement framework

Design team

Prepare outline
masterplan or scheme
layout

Design team,
working closely
with other
stakeholders

Develop street character

types

Design team

Design street network

Design team

Produce detailed
masterplan or scheme
layout

Design team
3

Produce design code

Design team

4. Quality
auditing

Carry out particular

audits required to
assess compliance with
objectives

Prepared by design
team, considered
by planning and
highway authorities

5. Planning
approval

Prepare design and

access statement
and other supporting
documents

Prepared by
design team for
approval by the
planning authority
in consultation
with the highway
authority

2. Objective
setting

3. Design

Outline planning
application

Full planning application

6.
Implementation

7. Monitoring

Detailed design and

technical approval

Design team

Construction

Promoter

Adoption

Highway authority

Travel plan

Promoter

Road user monitoring

Highway authority

Manual for Streets

25

Realm Strategy or Open Space Strategy which

will be of particular importance in establishing
fundamental design principles. The policy
review should also consider the national policy
framework, particularly where the local policy
framework is out of date or unclear.

ensuring that a development will be served

by public transport that is viable in the long
term; and
keeping traffic speeds at 20 mph or less in
all streets on a development.

Stage 2: objective setting

3.5.5 Objectives could be expressed as

a design checklist, which provides a simple
summary of the key aspects that need to be met.

3.5.1
It is important that objectives for
each particular scheme are agreed by all
parties and reviewed later in the process to
ensure that they are being met. Objectives
need to reflect the local policies and the wider
planning framework to ensure a consistency of
approach across an area.

3.5.6 For some sites, a Development Brief or

other form of guidance may have been prepared
to establish the key principles of development,
and will need to be taken into account at the
objective setting stage.

3.6
3.5.2 On complex and lengthy projects,
objectives may need to be reviewed and revised
as the design process proceeds, with any
changes agreed by all parties.

Stage 3: design

Context appraisal
3.6.1
A context appraisal will normally be
undertaken to determine how buildings and streets
are arranged within the local area. This will be used
to help determine an appropriate form for the
development of, or changes to, existing streets.

3.5.3 Objectives should be expressed as

outcomes that can be readily measured, and
should not be expressed in vague terms, or
require or invoke particular solutions. The
objectives will often be related to the various
activities expected to take place in particular
locations and streets. There may also be
objectives that apply across the whole of a
new development area.

3.6.2 The context appraisal will identify how

an area has developed in terms of form, scale,
the pattern and character of streets and how a
site or existing street relates to existing buildings
and/or open space. It may also be appropriate to
identify poor-quality streets or areas which need
to be improved. One way of achieving this is by
undertaking a Landscape Character Appraisal.2

3.5.4 Typical objectives might be:

enabling local children to walk and cycle
unaccompanied from all parts of a development
to a school, local park or open space;
promoting and enhancing the vitality and
viability of a local retail centre;

3.6.3 On smaller schemes it may only be

necessary to consider context in a relatively
local area, but this does not prevent designers
from drawing on good-quality examples of local
distinctiveness from the wider area.

2 Countryside Agency and

Scottish Natural Heritage
(2002) Landscape
Character Assessment:
Guidance for England
and Scotland. London:
TSO.

Andrew Cameron, WSP

Andrew Cameron, WSP

3.5

Figure 3.3 New housing with: (a) good (b) poor integration into an existing street.

26

Manual for Streets

Llewelyn Davies Yeang

Development
opportunity sites
View towards the river
New active frontage
onto London Road
Conservation area
Character buildings
Green network
Major riverside green
link/space (pedestrian)
New aspect onto river
Pedestrian links from
station/interchange
New street with possible
bridge over railway
Residential (existing)
Employment &
consultation zone
Existing vegetation
Mixed use, higher density,
centre focus
Railway station /
interchange

Figure 3.4 An illustration of a context appraisal.

3.6.4 When existing streets are being redesigned,

it is very important to have a detailed understanding
of how they sit within an urban area. Care needs
to be taken to retain and develop the relationship
between the streets and the buildings and public
spaces that surround them, and to capitalise on links
to important local destinations. There is a need to
identify opportunities to repair incomplete or poorquality connections (Fig. 3.3).

Manual for Streets

Analysis of existing places

3.6.5
As part of the context appraisal, the relative
importance of existing places within the locality will
need to be identified. Places to be identified include
important buildings and public open spaces, and
key destinations such as educational institutions and
areas of employment or commerce (Fig. 3.4).

27

3.6.6 The analysis will determine which

places in the surrounding area need to be made
accessible to local people, particularly on foot
and by bicycle, and the appropriate design and
layout of that area.

situations where some upper-tier modes are not

provided for for example, buses might not
need to be accommodated in a short, narrow
section of street where access for
cars is required.

3.6.7 This analysis will also help to establish

whether additional centres of activity are
required as part of a new development, such
as a new local centre or school.

3.6.10 An analysis of movement within

an existing settlement will help identify any
changes required for it to mesh with a new
development. It could also influence movement
patterns required within the
new development.

Analysis of existing movement patterns

3.6.8 It is recommended that the design
of a scheme should follow the user hierarchy
shown in Table 3.2.
Table 3.2: User hierarchy
Consider first

Pedestrians
Cyclists
Public transport users
Specialist service vehicles (e.g.
emergency services, waste, etc.)

Consider last

3.6.11 The position of a street within the

existing movement framework will determine
the demands it needs to meet, and these,
in turn, will inform decisions on its capacity,
cross-section and connectivity.

Other motor traffic

3.6.9 The hierarchy is not meant to be rigidly

applied and does not necessarily mean that it is
always more important to provide for pedestrians
than it is for the other modes. However, they
should at least be considered first, followed by
consideration for the others in the order given.
This helps ensure that the street will serve all
of its users in a balanced way. There may be

3.6.12 Establishing the movement requirements

of existing streets is particularly important when
changes are planned so that the needs of all road
users are fully taken into account.

Proposed movement framework

3.6.13 For new developments, an understanding
of how an existing area functions in terms of
movement and place enables the proposed points
of connection and linkage to be identified, both
within and from the site, so that important desire
lines are achieved. This process will help ensure
that a new development enhances the existing
movement framework of an area rather than
disrupting or severing it (Fig. 3.5).

Main vehicular
routes

Llewelyn Davies Yeang

Secondary
vehicular
routes
Homezone or
pedestrian
priority routes
Pedestrian
only routes

Figure 3.5 Proposed movement diagram for the redevelopment of RAF Halton.

28

Manual for Streets

Llewelyn Davies Yeang / Crown copyright. All rights reserved

Department for Transport 100039241 2007

Figure 3.6 A concept masterplan with 3-D visualisation.

3.6.14 Guidance on the design of movement

frameworks is set out in more detail in Chapter
4. The movement framework is a key input to
the development of the masterplans.

Outline masterplan or scheme layout

3.6.15 Although not always needed, especially
where proposals are small scale, an outline
masterplan helps to establish the schemes broad
development principles (Fig. 3.6).
3.6.16 An outline masterplan that has
been produced through collaboration with
key stakeholders is usually more robust and
realistic than it would otherwise be. For larger
sites, a series of stakeholder events is often
the most productive way of achieving this as
it brings all the parties together to generate
a design vision which reflects community and
stakeholder objections. For smaller sites, the
process need not be so involved and design
proposals may be more appropriately informed
by a simple scheme layout developed though
targeted meetings with key stakeholders
and/or correspondence.
3.6.17 For simpler schemes adequately served
by detailed layouts, outline scheme layouts are
usually not likely to be needed (Fig. 3.7). An
exception might be where, for example, the site
is in a conservation area.

Manual for Streets

Figure 3.7 Small scheme design for an infill

development (a) outlined in red. Location of
new houses (b) shown in green together with
new access street. Note that the new access street
can be extended to allow for future growth at
the top of the diagram.

29

3.6.18 The outline masterplan will bring together

the movement framework with other important
aspects of the design of a new development, such
as the need for new local facilities, important views
and microclimate considerations.
3.6.19 When developing outline masterplans
for large-scale proposals, such as an urban
extension, the design team needs to consider
the longer-term vision for the area in question.
Such a future-proofing exercise involves looking
beyond the usual planning periods to consider
where development may be in, say, 20 or 30
years. The issues identified may influence the
masterplan. An example would be allowing for
the future growth of a settlement by continuing
streets to the edge of the site so that they can be
extended at a later date (Fig. 3.8). This principle
also applies to smaller-scale schemes which need
to take account of future development proposals
around an application site and, where appropriate
in discussions with the local planning authority,
to ensure that linkages are established wherever
possible and that the site is swiftly integrated into
its surroundings.

Street character types

3.6.20 Once the outline masterplan has been
prepared, the next step will be to establish the
characteristics of the various types of street that
are required for the new development.
3.6.21 Street character types set out not only
the basic parameters of streets, such as
carriageway and footway widths, but also the
streets relationship to buildings and the private
realm, and other important details, such as
parking arrangements, street trees, planting
and lighting.
3.6.22 Further guidance on determining street
character types is given in Chapter 7.
3.6.23 Street character types can also be
expressed through design codes, which are
discussed later in this chapter.

Street network
3.6.24 It is recommended that the proposed
street network is based on a combination of
the proposed movement framework and the
proposed street types (Fig. 3.9).

Crown copyright. All rights reserved Department for Transport 100039241 2007

Figure 3.8 Ballater, Aberdeenshire the ability for future growth is not compromised in the south-west
of the village (a) with its permeable street pattern, but more recent cul-se-sac type development in the
north-east (b) does not allow for a connected growth of the village.

30

Manual for Streets

Detailed masterplan or detailed

scheme layout

3.6.26 It is important when preparing a detailed

masterplan, that all of the critical features which
impact on the efficiency and quality of the
development and which cannot be changed once
it is built are carefully considered (Fig. 3.10).

3 CABE (2004) Creating

Successful Masterplans:
A Guide for Clients.
London: CABE

Figure 3.9 Street network diagram for Upton,

Northamptonshire, showing the main route through
a connected layout and linkages to key spaces and
places within the development, with street character
types identified.

parking provision, design and control;

landscape design and structural planting;
materials, management and
maintenance regime;
servicing and access for emergency vehicles;
speed control; and
SUDS and sewer routes.

Red Tree LLP, The Princes Foundation and Paul Murrain

3.6.27 The full extent of the masterplanning

process is beyond the scope of MfS, but it is
recommended that the following key features
relating to street design are addressed:
connections to the surrounding area;
connections through the site;
street layout and dimensions;
building lines;
building heights;
routes for utilities;

English Partnerships, EDAW and Alan Baxter & Associates

3.6.25 Detailed masterplans are likely to

be needed for schemes at the higher end of
the scale in terms of size and complexity.
For relatively simple proposals, a detailed
scheme layout is all that is likely to be needed.
Guidance on the masterplanning process is
given in Creating Successful Masterplans:
A Guide for Clients.3

Figure 3.10 An example of a large-scale masterplan Sherford New Community near Plymouth.

Manual for Streets

31

Design codes
3.6.28 Design codes are an effective
mechanism for implementing the masterplan
(Fig. 3.11). They comprise detailed written and
graphically presented rules for building out a
site or an area. They are often promoted by local
authorities but they may be put forward by the
private sector.

3.6.29 Design codes determine the two- and

three-dimensional design elements which are
key to the quality of a development. Although
not appropriate in all circumstances, they can
be valuable for helping local authorities and
developers to deliver high-quality design.
3.6.30 The elements which are coded will differ
according to circumstances, but they might
include aspects relating to layout, townscape

S.04.1 Rivers edge Plot series

Plot series
Attribute
Priority relative to street

Riverside
Character area
Code
Active frontage must be orientated toward
the street

Sub-series
Series type (regular/mixed)

Regular

Plot width at frontage

(dimension range)

6 m 12 m; exceptionally, larger width, in

increments of 5 m, with vertical articulation
of module visible in the faade

Point of access (type and frequency)

Pedestrian

Minimum every 12 m

Vehiclar

None

Allowable plot types

Attached

S.04.2 Rivers edge Plan

Public highway
Attribute

Riverside
Character area
Code

Carriage width

6.0 m

Footpath width

Min 2.0 m, Min 3.0 m along riverfront

Design speed

20 mph

Traffic calming

Carriageway narrowing

Junction radii

Min. 40 m

Vehicle type to be accommodated

Cars, small service vehicles, fire appliances,

cycles

On-street parking

Perpendicular 5.0 m x 2.5 m

Direct access to plots

No

Street trees

8.0 12.0 m spacing between trees (adjust

to accommodate parking areas)

Occupied or unoccupied roof

Footway min. 2.0 m

Private

Carriageway 5.0 m

Parking 5.0 m

Footway min. 3.0 m

Shoulder/eaves height

Street section
Attribute

Riverside
Character area
Code

Shoulder/eaves height

3 5 storey

Storey height

Floor to ceiling heights on the ground floor

must be a minimum of 2.7m to allow for
flexibility of use and adaptability

Maximum height of roof occupied or

unoccupied

3 m above shoulder/eaves height

Step-back

2.5 m maximum

Balconies

1.5 m maximum

Vertical position of access

Level

Vertical mix of uses

Residential on ground floor, retail on

ground floor around junctions of Burrell
Street and Water Lane, residential above
ground floor

Figure 3.11 Design code for riverside development in Rotherham.

32

Manual for Streets

Roger Evans & Associates

S.04.3 Rivers edge Section

Step-back
Max. height

and landscape considerations, or architecture

or building performance. Codes may also
usefully establish the relationships of plots,
sometimes the building form or even materials.
However, given the primary need to secure a
quality townscape and a sense of place, the
most important role of a design code will be
in securing the lasting structural elements of
a place, such as the street pattern and street
dimensions. Getting these structural elements
right will enable the other elements of a design
to evolve. To do this successfully, however, the
design code will need to be underpinned by a
specific design vision, such as a masterplan or a
design and development framework.
3.6.31 A key benefit of design codes is the
collaborative nature of their preparation
a process that brings together a broad range
of professionals and organisations with a role
in delivering the development. Typically, this
comprises land, design, development and
public interests. Regardless of whether a code
is promoted by the private sector or a local
authority, it is essential that engineers, designers
and planners work together to develop the code
to help ensure that each aspect of the design
successfully reinforces the overall sense of place.
3.6.32 When a code is prepared by a local
authority, a Development Team approach will
bring advantages. Representatives from the
authoritys key departments will need to work
together. These will include planning (both policy
and development control), highways, landscape,
parks and recreation, and, where appropriate,
the housing authority and the authoritys estates

management team. The inclusion of the authoritys

legal team will also be helpful, particularly where
the codes relate to planning conditions, section
106 and 278 agreements, unilateral undertakings
or local development orders. In particular, the
highways team in an authority plays a key role in
the preparation of a design code and in adopting
the infrastructure that results.
3.6.33 Detailed guidance on the preparation
and implementation of design codes, including
advice on how they can be formalised, is set out
in Preparing Design Codes A Practice Manual.4
This guidance makes it clear that:
Highways policy and standards are decisive
influences on design code preparation, and
design codes provide a key opportunity
to improve highways design that takes
account of urban design considerations and
helps create quality places. The preparation
of a design code can provide a ready
opportunity to work closely with highways
authorities to review any outdated local
highways standards.

3.6.34 In this context it is essential that,

when design codes are being prepared, the
coding team consider carefully what the design
objectives are and the required outcomes to
deliver those objectives. It is recommended
that careful consideration should be given to
the scope for the design code to address those
aspects of the street environment that will be
crucial to delivering the required outcomes.
Those which are not can be left to the discretion
of the developer and his or her designer
(see box and Fig. 3.12).

Design codes

4 Communities and Local

Government (2006)
Preparing Design Codes
A Practice Manual.
London: RIBA Publishing.

Street-related design elements and issues

which a design code may relate to include:
the function of the street and its position in
the Place and Movement hierarchy, such as
boulevards, high streets, courtyards, mews,
covered streets, arcades or colonnades;
the principal dimensions of streets;
junctions and types of traffic calming;
treatments of major junctions, bridges and
public transport links;

Manual for Streets

location and standards for on-and off-street

parking, including car parks and parking
courts, and related specifications;
street lighting and street furniture
specifications and locations;
specifications for trees and planting;
location of public art;
drainage and rainwater run-off systems;
routeing and details of public utilities; and
arrangements for maintenance and servicing.

33

Criteria

Street Specification
Standard Design

Variation 1 (One-sided parking)

Variation 2 (Variable Kerb)

Design Speeds
Speed Limit

20 mph (at entrance)

Control Speed

20 mph (internally)

Street dimensions and character

Minimum
carriageway width

5.5 m

Footway

2.0-3.0 m on each side

Cycle way

No - Parallel routes provided on other streets

Verge

No

Private strip

2.0 m

Direct vehicular
access to properties

Yes

Plot Boundary Treatment

2.0 m private area to building line with up to 1.0 m encroachment 0.9-1.1 m railing on plot boundary with footway

Maximum number of properties served

Not restricted

Public Transport
Bus access

No

Street design details

Pull out strip

No

Traffic calming

Features at 60 m-80 m
c/c, parking, trees, formal
crossings

Non parallel kerbs, variations in planting/

building lines, parking

Vehicle swept path to be accommodated

Removals/refuse vehicles enter and leave using own side of road

only (assuming 20 mph)

Refuse vehichle passing car on street

On street parking

Yes, both sides, 2.0 m wide

Yes, one or both sides, informal

Gradients (footways)

1:15 Maximum, footway to follow carriageway

Maximum foward visibility

33 m, 20 m (measured 1.0m out from kerb)

Junction sightlines (x/y)

2.4 m/33 m

Junction spacing-same side/other side

60 m/30 m

Junction radii

4m

Stats services (excluding storm and capping

layer drainage

In footway, each side.

Drainage below carriageway

Yes, one side, 2.0 m wide

Footways, where necessary

Materials
Footway Surfacing

Natural grey, pre-cast concrete paving flags, 63 mm thick staggered joint, variable sizes: 600x450 mm, 450x450 mm10%, 300 x 450 mm

Parking Zone

Natural grey tumbled pre-cast concrete paviors 80 mm

thick with 225-300 mm exposed granite aggregate pre-cast
kerb 20 mm high

Kerbing

225-300 mm wide x 200 mm square edged exposed granite aggregate pre-cast kerb 125 mm high
225-300 mm wide x 200 mm square edged exposed granite aggregate pre-cast kerb 20 mm high

Carriageway

Black-top

5 rows of 100 mm x 100-250 mm cropped granite setts

Pedestrian Crossing

Stainless steel tactile

studs inserted into
paving/tactile paving

Street Lighting

LC4, LC5 Maximum to eaves height (see Appendix 4)

Street Furniture

SF3, SF6, SF9 (see Appendix 4)

n/a

Tactile Paving

Trees
Street Trees

Acer platanoides Obelisk

Feature Trees

Corylus Colurna - specific locations detailed in Development Briefs

Figure 3.12 (a) and (b) Design code for particular street character type in Upton, Northampton
(note (b) is on the next page).

34

Manual for Streets

English Partnerships, EDAW and Alan Baxter Asssoicates

English Partnerships, EDAW and Alan Baxter & Asssoicates

Manual for Streets

35

3.7

Stage 4: quality auditing

Case study

Devon: quality audit

5 PERS (Pedestrian
Environment Review
System) is software
developed by TRL and
provides one way of
carrying out a walking
audit. For further details
see www.trlsoftware.
co.uk/products/detail.
asp?aid=16&c=4&pid=66.
6 TRL (unpublished) Cycle
Environment Review
System.
7 Institution of Highways
and Transportation (IHT)
(1998) Cycle Audit and
Cycle Review. London: IHT.
8 Highways Agency (HA)
(2005) HD42 NonMotorised User Audits
Volume 5 Sections 2
Part 5. Design Manual
for Roads and Bridges.
London: TSO.
9 Living Streets (2003) DIY
Community Street Audit
Pack. London: Living
Streets.
10 Guidance on Placecheck
is available at www.
placecheck.info.
11 Department for Transport
(2002) Inclusive
Mobility A Guide to Best
Practice on Access to
Pedestrian and Transport
Infrastructure. London:
Department for Transport.
12 Centre for Accessible
Environments
(2004) Designing for
Accessibility. London:
RIBA Publishing.
13 IHT (1996) The Safety
Audit of Highways.
London: IHT.
14 HA (2003) HD19 Road
Safety Audit Volume 5
Section 2 Part 2. Design
Manual for Roads and
Bridges. London: TSO.

3.7.2 Being made up of a series of assessments,

a quality audit is likely to be carried out by various
professionals and each may be undertaken within
particular guidelines. By grouping the assessments
together, any compromises in the design will be
apparent, making it easier for decision makers to
view the scheme in the round.
3.7.3 Auditing should not be a box ticking
exercise. It is an integral part of the design
and implementation process. Audits inform
this process and demonstrate that appropriate
consideration has been given to all of the
relevant aspects. The quality audit may include
some or all of the following, or variations on
them, depending on the nature of the scheme
and the objectives it is seeking to meet:
an audit of visual quality;
a review of how the streets will be used by
the community;
a road safety audit, including a risk
assessment (see below);
an access audit;
a walking audit;5
a cycle audit;6, 7
a non-motorised user audit;8
a community street audit (in existing
streets);9 and
a Placecheck audit.10
3.7.4 Access auditors should take account
of the advice given in Inclusive Mobility.11 The
Centre for Accessible Environments has also
published guidance on access audits in relation to
public buildings.12 It contains much useful general
advice on access auditing in the public realm.

36

Devon County Council

3.7.1
Properly documented design audit
and sign-off systems are important. They help
ensure that street designs are appropriate and
meet objectives agreed at the outset. Such
audits may include documents required by the
local planning authority to support an outline or
detailed application. In existing streets, quality
audits provide an opportunity for decision
makers to make a balanced assessment of
different considerations before approving a
particular solution (see Devon case study box).
Figure 3.13 Road safety officers, police and engineers
working on a road safety audit in Devon.

Devon County Council has developed a process

whereby both an environmental audit and a
road safety audit (Fig. 3.13) are carried out when
improvement schemes are being prepared.
The two audits are carried out separately and if
there is a difference of opinion between the two
over any aspect, the matter is referred to a senior
officer for a decision. It is therefore possible to
demonstrate that decisions have been properly
considered in case of future dispute.
This process is, in essence, a quality
auditing process.

Road safety audits

3.7.5 Road safety audits (RSAs) are routinely
carried out on highway schemes. The Institution of
Highways and Transportation (IHT) Guidelines on
RSA13 sit alongside the Highways Agency standard
contained in DMRB14 as the recognised industry
standard documents in the UK. The procedures set
out in DMRB are a formal requirement only for
trunk roads.
3.7.6 RSAs are not mandatory for local
highway authorities. Many residential streets,
where the design is carried out by a developers
consultant, are assessed independently by the local
highway authority. In some authorities there is no
requirement for a further check by an RSA team,
particularly where it is clear that motorised traffic
volumes and speeds, and the degree of potential
conflict between different user-groups, are not
going to be significant.
Manual for Streets

3.7.7 The purpose of the RSA is to identify

road safety problems, with the objective of
minimising the number and severity of casualties.
An RSA is not a check on compliance with
design standards. Audits take all road users into
account, including pedestrians and cyclists. The
standard procedure is that the auditor makes
recommendations for changes to the design to
address perceived safety concerns. The design
team reviews the RSA report and decides whether
or not to accept particular recommendations.
3.7.8
It is important to note that the design
team retains responsibility for the scheme, and is
not governed by the findings of the RSA. There is
therefore no sense in which a scheme passes or
fails the RSA process. Designers do not have to
comply with the recommendations of a safety audit,
although in such cases they would be expected to
justify their reasoning in a written report.
3.7.9 The process set out in DMRB requires
the audit team to be independent of the design
team. Road safety issues are therefore often
considered in isolation from visual quality and
Placemaking issues, and it can be difficult to
achieve a balanced design through dialogue and
compromise. However, the requirement for
independence need not prevent contact
between the design team and the audit team
throughout the process.

15 UK Roads Board
(2005) Highway Risk
and Liability Claims
A Practical Guide to
Appendix C of The Roads
Board Report Well
Maintained Highways
Code of Practice for
Highway Maintenance
Management, 1st edn.
London: UK Roads Board.
16 Communities and Local
Government (2006)
Circular 01/06 Guidance
on Changes to the
Development Control
System. London: TSO.
17 CABE (2006) Design and
Access Statements How
to Write, Read and Use
Them. London: CABE.
18 Disability Rights
Commission (DRC) (2005)
Planning, Buildings,
Streets and Disability
Equality. Stratford upon
Avon: DRC.
19 ibid. (16).

3.7.10 It is beyond the scope of MfS to

define in detail a wholly new and more balanced
approach to RSAs, and the IHT guidelines are
due to be revised. However, involving road safety
professionals as an integral part of the design
team could help to overcome some of the reported
problems. This allows ideas to be tested and
considered in more balanced and creative ways.
3.7.11 One area of concern with the existing
system is that RSAs may seek to identify all
possible risks without distinguishing between
major and minor ones, or quantifying the
probability of them taking place. There can also
be a tendency for auditors to encourage designs
that achieve safety by segregating vulnerable
road users from road traffic. Such designs can
perform poorly in terms of streetscape quality,
pedestrian amenity and security and, in some
circumstances, can actually reduce safety levels.

Manual for Streets

3.7.12 It would therefore be useful if

RSAs included an assessment of the relative
significance of any potential safety problems.
A risk assessment to consider the severity of a
safety problem and the likelihood of occurrence
would make it considerably easier for decision
makers to strike an appropriate balance. An
example of a risk assessment framework is given
in Highway Risk and Liability Claims.15
3.1.13 Careful monitoring (such as through
conflict studies) of the ways in which people use
the completed scheme can identify any potential
safety problems. This can be particularly useful
when designers move away from conventional
standards. Monitoring is discussed further in
Section 3.10 below.

3.8

Stage 5: planning approval

3.8.1
New development proposals need to be
submitted for approval to the planning authority
who, in turn, consults with the local highway
authority on street design issues.
3.8.2 Where outline planning permission is
being sought, various supporting information
needs to be provided as agreed with the
planning and highway authorities. This may
include some or all of the following, depending
on the type size and complexity of the scheme
(this list is not necessarily exhaustive):
preliminary street designs and layouts;
a Design and Access Statement
(see box);16, 17, 18
a Transport Assessment;
a Travel Plan;
an Environmental Statement or
Environmental Impact Assessment;
a Sustainability Appraisal;
a Flood Risk Assessment; and
a Drainage Report.

Design and Access Statement

Since August 2006, Design and Access
Statements (DASs) have been required for most
planning applications for new developments.19
DASs are documents that explain the design
thinking behind a planning application and
are therefore important documents. They
normally include a written description and
justification of the planning application, often
using photographs, maps and drawings to help
clarify various issues.
37

3.8.3 It is critical that as many issues as

possible are resolved at the outline planning
application stage so that they can receive
thorough and timely consideration. This will
help to make detailed planning applications
or the consideration of reserved matters as
straightforward as possible.
3.8.4 The local planning authority needs
to ensure that the key features set out in
paragraph 3.6.27 above, and any site-specific
issues of importance, are resolved before outline
permission is granted. The design of streets,
spaces and parking is important and should be
considered alongside other planning matters,
such as the design of the built form and use,
conservation, landscape and housing type.
3.8.5 Ideally, following outline consent, only
matters of detail, such as detailed layout and
material choices, will be left for consideration at
the detailed application stage.
3.8.6 For small developments and schemes
in sensitive locations, such as conservation
areas, it will often be appropriate for detailed
planning approval to be sought without first
obtaining outline consent. This enables the
approving authorities to consider the effects of
the development in detail before approving the
development in principle.
3.8.7 In existing streets, the highway authority
is normally both the designer and the approving
body. It is recommended that well-documented
approval systems are used that properly assess
the impact of proposed changes to prevent the
gradual degradation of the street scene through
ill-considered small-scale schemes.

3.9

Stage 6: implementation

Detailed design, technical approval,

construction and adoption

20 Communities and Local

Government (2006)
Planning Policy Statement
3: Housing. London. TSO.
21 Disability Discrimination
Act 2005. London: TSO.

3.9.1
In the past, developers have sought
to satisfy the detailed planning process before
commencing the detailed design of streets in
order to meet the highway adoption process.
This has led to problems in some circumstances

38

where the detailed design and technical approval

process throws up problems that can only be
resolved by changing the scheme that was
approved at the detailed planning stage.
3.9.2 A more integrated approach is
recommended, with highway adoption engineers
being fully involved throughout, so that schemes
that are approved at detailed planning stage
can move through the technical approval stage
without requiring any significant changes. Highway
adoption is dealt with in more detail in Chapter 11.

3.10

Stage 7: monitoring

3.10.1 Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing

(PPS3)20 makes clear that local planning
authorities and agencies are expected to
report on progress towards the achievement of
consistently good design standards through the
Annual Monitoring Report process, assessing
achievement against their design quality
objectives (PPS3, paragraphs 7577). This is
likely to include some consideration of the
design quality of new streets or existing street
modifications as part of the wider public realm.
3.10.2 Monitoring is an integral element of
the disability equality duty under the Disability
Discrimination Act 2005.21 Within their Disability
Equality Schemes, local authorities are expected
to set out their arrangements for monitoring the
effectiveness of their policies and practices as
they relate to the interests of disabled people.
This includes both planning and highways
functions. The information will help authorities
to make decisions about what actions and
changes to their policies and practices would
best improve disability equality.
3.10.3 Monitoring for reasons other than
those above has seldom been undertaken to
date but can be highly desirable. Monitoring
can be used to see how completed schemes or
existing street environments function in practice,
so that changes can be made to new designs,
particularly innovative ones, at an early stage.
3.10.4 Monitoring can also be an important
aspect of residential travel plans, where patterns of
movement are reviewed against planned targets.

Manual for Streets

B
Design principles

Tim Pharoah, Llewelyn Davies Yeang

4
Layout and connectivity

4.2

Chapter aims
Set out design concepts for the
structuring of towns and cities.
Set out principles for walkable
neighbourhoods.
Illustrate appropriate layouts
and street forms.
Consider internal permeability
and external connectivity.
Give advice on crime prevention.

4.1

Planning for things you cannot

easily change later

4.1.1
The way streets are laid out and how
they relate to the surrounding buildings and
spaces has a great impact on the aesthetic and
functional success of a neighbourhood. Certain
elements are critical because once laid down,
they cannot easily be changed. These issues are
considered in the masterplanning and design
coding stage, and need to be resolved before
detailed design is carried out.
4.1.2 This chapter highlights the issues
likely to be encountered in developing detailed
designs, and ways of dealing with them.
There are also tips on avoiding unwanted
consequences of particular design decisions.

Bus stop

1 Llewelyn Davies (2000)

The Urban Design
Compendium. London:
English Partnerships and
The Housing Corporation.
2 I York, A Bradbury, S Reid,
T Ewings and R Paradise
(2007) The Manual
for Streets: Redefining
Residential Street Design.
TRL Report No. 661.
Crowthorne: TRL.

Principal routes

Consider how best the site can be

connected with nearby main routes
and public transport facilities.

The movement framework

4.2.1 A key consideration for achieving

sustainable development is how the design can
influence how people choose to travel. Designers
and engineers need to respond to a wide range
of policies aimed at making car use a matter of
choice rather than habit or dependence. Local
transport plans and movement strategies can
directly inform the design process as part of the
policy implementation process (Wales: Regional
Transport Plans and Local Development Plans).
4.2.2 It is recommended that the movement
framework for a new development be based
on the user hierarchy as introduced in Section
3.6. Applying the hierarchy will lead to a design
that increases the attractiveness of walking,
cycling and the use of public transport. Delays
to cars resulting from adopting this approach are
unlikely to be significant in residential areas. The
movement framework should also take account
of the form of the buildings, landscape and
activities that form the character of the street and
the links between new and existing routes and
places (Fig. 4.1).
4.2.3 Street networks should, in general, be
connected. Connected, or permeable, networks
encourage walking and cycling, and make places
easier to navigate through. They also lead to a
more even spread of motor traffic throughout the
area and so avoid the need for distributor roads
with no frontage development. Research2 shows
that there is no significant difference in collision
risk attributable to more permeable street layouts.

Internal streets

The typical cul-de-sac response

creates an introverted layout which
fails to integrate with its surroundings.

A more pedestrian friendly approach

that integrates with the surrounding
community. It links existing and
proposed streets and provides direct
routes to bus stops.

This street pattern then forms the

basis for perimeter blocks which
ensure that buildings contribute
positively to the public realm.

Figure 4.1 Integrating new developments into the existing urban fabric is essential
(source: The Urban Design Compendium1).

Manual for Streets

41

Stephen Marshall

4.2.4 Pedestrians and cyclists should

generally be accommodated on streets rather
than routes segregated from motor traffic. Being
seen by drivers, residents and other users affords
a greater sense of security. However, short
pedestrian and cycle-only links are generally
acceptable if designed well. Regardless of
length, all such routes in built-up areas, away
from the carriageway, should be barrier-free and
overlooked by buildings. Narrow routes hemmed
in by tall barriers should be avoided as they can
feel claustrophobic and less secure for users.

Connecting layouts to their surroundings

4.2.5 Internal permeability is important but
the area also needs to be properly connected
with adjacent street networks. A development
with poor links to the surrounding area creates an
enclave which encourages movement to and from
it by car rather than by other modes (Fig. 4.2).
4.2.6 External connectivity may often be
lacking, even where layouts generally have good
internal permeability. Crown Street, Glasgow, is
shown in Fig. 4.3, with an indication of where
connectivity was not realised as may have been
intended in the masterplan.
4.2.7 The number of external connections
that a development provides depends on the
nature of its surroundings. Residential areas
adjacent to each other should be well connected.
4.2.8 To create a permeable network, it is
generally recommended that streets with one-way
operation are avoided. They require additional
signing and result in longer vehicular journeys.

The hierarchies of provision

4.2.9 If road safety problems for pedestrians
or cyclists are identified, conditions should be
reviewed to see if they can be addressed, rather
than segregating these users from motorised
traffic. Table 4.1 suggests an ordered approach
for the review.

Figure 4.2 Internally permeable neighbourhoods

lacking direct connections with one another
(source: Marshall 2005 3).

4.2.10 These hierarchies are not meant to be

rigidly applied and there may be situations where
it is sensible to disregard some of the solutions
when deciding on the optimum one. For
example, there would be no point in considering
an at-grade crossing to create a pedestrian/
cyclist link between developments on either side
of a motorway. However, designers should not
dismiss out of hand solutions in the upper tier of
the hierarchy.
4.2.11 It is recommended that the hierarchies
are used not only for a proposed scheme but
also for connections through existing networks
to local shops, schools, bus stops, etc.

4.3

Building communities to last

4.3.1 Good design is a key element in

achieving the Governments aim to create
thriving, vibrant, sustainable communities.
Sustainable communities meet the diverse needs
of existing and future residents, are sensitive to
their environment by minimising their effect on
climate change, and contribute to a high quality
of life. They are safe and inclusive, well planned
and promote social inclusion, offering equality of
opportunity and good services for all.

3 Marshall, S. (2005)
Streets and Patterns.
London: Spon Press.
Figure 2.10, p.34.

42

Manual for Streets

Tim Pharoah, Llewelyn Davies Yeang

Junction with
poor pedestrian
facilities
Poor quality
connection

A730

Ri

ights reserved Department for Transport 100039241 2007

C ro

wn

.S S
TR
BAL
GOR

Poor quality
connection

City centre
10 mins walk

Str

EE

ee

A8

ve

rC

lyd

Development
walled off in
this area

Crown copyright. All

Main Axis

No connection
(Axis Broken)

Figure 4.3 Crown Street, Glasgow: (a) the Crown Street development in the background is separated from the
main road to the city centre; and (b) map.
Table 4.1 The hierarchies of provision for pedestrians and cyclists

Consider first

Pedestrians

Cyclists

Traffic volume reduction

Traffic volume reduction

Traffic speed reduction

Traffic speed reduction

Reallocation of road space to pedestrians

Junction treatment, hazard site treatment,

traffic management

Provision of direct at-grade crossings,

improved pedestrian routes on existing
desire lines

Cycle tracks away from roads

New pedestrian alignment or grade

separation

Conversion of footways/footpaths to
adjacent-* or shared-use routes for
pedestrians and cyclists

Consider last
* Adjacent-use routes are those where the cyclists are segregated from pedestrians.

Manual for Streets

43

4.3.2 Areas of local amenity should be more

evenly distributed, with good connectivity, so
that the overall layout encourages access by
walking or cycling, and shortens the distances
travelled by car (Fig 4.4).
4.3.3 When considering a site there needs
to be a broad understanding of its historic
development and its relationship with other
communities, whether at the village, town or city
scale (Fig 4.5).
4.3.4 The provision and viability of
facilities needs to be assessed in relation to
the location and scale of proposals. In many
cases, it may be better for a new development
to reinforce existing centres and facilities
rather than providing alternative facilities. The
greater the density of development, the more
facilities can be supported.

2
1

Figure 4.5 The plans of many UK villages, towns and cities illustrate different patterns of development
over time, from (1) historic cores, through to (2) experimental Radburn layouts from the 1960s,
to (3) recent cul-de-sac/DB32-type layouts.

44

Manual for Streets

Crown copy ight. All rights reserved Department for Transport 100039241 2007

Figure 4.4 (a) dispersed and car-dependent versus

(b) traditional, compact and walkable layout.

Figure 4.7 A highways-dominated layout with buildings

that have a poor relationship to the road.

4.4

critical mass of development is needed to justify

a regular bus service, at frequent intervals, which
is sufficient to provide a real alternative to the
car.

The walkable neighbourhood

4.4.1 Walkable neighbourhoods are

typically characterised by having a range
of facilities within 10 minutes (up to about
800 m) walking distance of residential areas
which residents may access comfortably on
foot. However, this is not an upper limit and
PPS134 states that walking offers the greatest
potential to replace short car trips, particularly
those under 2 km. MfS encourages a reduction
in the need to travel by car through the
creation of mixed-use neighbourhoods with
interconnected street patterns, where daily needs
are within walking distance of most residents.
4.4.2 By creating linkages between new
housing and local facilities and community
infrastructure, the public transport network
and established walking and cycling routes are
fundamental to achieving more sustainable
patterns of movement and to reducing peoples
reliance on the car. A masterplan (or scheme
layout for smaller-scale developments) can help
ensure that proposals are well integrated with
existing facilities and places.

4 DETR (2001) Policy

Planning Guidance 13:
Transport. London: TSO.
5 DTLR and CABE (2001)
Better Places to Live: By
Design. A Companion
Guide to PPG3. London:
Thomas Telford Ltd.
6 Communities and Local
Government (2006)
Planning Policy Statement
3: Housing. London: TSO.

Phil Jones, Phil Jones Associates

Tim Pharoah, Llewelyn Davies Yeang

Figure 4.6 Perimeter blocks enclosing a pleasant

communal open space.

4.4.3 Density is also an important

consideration in reducing peoples reliance on
the private car. PPS35 encourages a flexible
approach to density, reflecting the desirability
of using land efficiently, linked to the impacts
of climate change. It sets a national minimum
indicative density of 30 dwellings per hectare.
Residential densities should be planned to take
advantage of a proximity to activities, or to good
public transport linking those activities. Better
Places to Live: By Design6 advises that a certain

Manual for Streets

4.5

Layout considerations

4.5.1 Streets are the focus of movement

in a neighbourhood. Pedestrians and cyclists
should generally share streets with motor
vehicles. There will be situations where it is
appropriate to include routes for pedestrians
and cyclists segregated from motor traffic,
but they should be short, well overlooked
and relatively wide to avoid any sense of
confinement. It is difficult to design an
underpass or alleyway which satisfies the
requirement that pedestrians or cyclists will
feel safe using them at all times.
4.5.2 The principle of integrated access
and movement means that the perimeter
block is usually an effective structure
for residential neighbourhoods. A block
structure works in terms of providing direct,
convenient, populated and overlooked routes.
In addition, it makes efficient use of land,
offers opportunities for enclosed private or
communal gardens, and is a tried and tested
way of creating quality places (Figs 4.6 and 4.7).
4.5.3 Several disadvantages have become
apparent with housing developments built
in the last 40 years which departed from
traditional arrangements. Many have layouts
that make orientation difficult, create left-over
or ill-defined spaces, and have too many blank
walls or faades. They can also be inconvenient
for pedestrians, cyclists and bus users.

45

Andrew Cameron, WSP

Rectilinear grid.
b

Concentric grids designed to promote access

to local centres or public transport routes.
c

Irregular layouts.
Figure 4.8 Variations on the block structure.

4.5.4 Within a block structure, the designer

has more freedom to create innovative layouts.
The layouts in Fig. 4.8, and variations on them
(such as a broken grid with the occasional
cul-de-sac), are recommended when planning
residential and mixed-use neighbourhoods.

Geometric choices and street pattern

7 Crime and Disorder Act

1998. London: TSO.
8 ODPM and Home Office
(2004) Safer Places:
The Planning System
and Crime Prevention.
London: Thomas
Telford Ltd.

4.5.5 Straight streets are efficient in the use

of land. They maximise connections between
places and can better serve the needs of
pedestrians who prefer direct routes. However,
long, straight streets can also lead to higher
speeds. Short and curved or irregular streets
contribute to variety and a sense of place,
and may also be appropriate where there are
topographical or other site constraints, or where
there is a need to introduce some variation
for the sake of interest. However, layouts that
use excessive or gratuitous curves should be
avoided, as they are less efficient and make
access for pedestrians and cyclists more difficult.
4.5.6 Geometric choices and street pattern should
be based on a thorough understanding of context.

46

Figure 4.9 A good example of a pedestrian/cycle route

at Poundbury, Dorchester. It is short, direct and with
good surveillance.

4.5.7 Cul-de-sacs may be required because

of topography, boundary or other constraints.
Cul-de-sacs can also be useful in keeping motortraffic levels low in a particular area, but any
through connections for pedestrians and cyclists
should be well overlooked with active frontages.
Cul-de-sacs can also provide the best solution
for developing awkward sites where through
routes are not practical (Fig. 4.9). Caution must,
however, be exercised when planning for culde-sacs, as they may concentrate traffic impact
on a small number of dwellings, require turning
heads that are wasteful in land terms and lead
to additional vehicle travel and emissions,
particularly by service vehicles.

4.6

Crime prevention

4.6.1 The layout of a residential area can have a

significant impact on crime against property (homes
and cars) and pedestrians. Section 17 of the Crime
and Disorder Act 1998,7 requires local authorities to
exercise their function with due regard to the likely
effect on crime and disorder. To ensure that crime
prevention considerations are taken into account
in the design of layouts, it is important to consult
police architectural liaison officers and crime
prevention officers, as advised in Safer Places.8
4.6.2 To ensure that crime prevention is
properly taken into account, it is important that
the way in which permeability is provided is
given careful consideration. High permeability is
conducive to walking and cycling, but can lead
to problems of anti-social behaviour if it is only
achieved by providing routes that are poorly
overlooked, such as rear alleyways.

Manual for Streets

routes should lead directly to where

people want to go;
all routes should be necessary, serving a
defined function;
cars are less prone to damage or theft if
parked in-curtilage (but see Chapter 8). If cars
cannot be parked in-curtilage, they should
ideally be parked on the street in view of the
home. Where parking courts are used, they
should be small and have natural surveillance;
layouts should be designed with regard to
existing levels of crime in an area; and
layouts should provide natural surveillance
by ensuring streets are overlooked and well
used (Fig. 4.10).

Tim Pharoah, Llewelyn Davies Yeang

9 Welsh Assembly
Government (2002).
Technical Advice Note 12:
Design. Cardiff: NAfW.
Chapter 5, Design Issues.

4.6.3 Safer Places highlights the following

principles for reducing the likelihood of crime in
residential areas (Wales: also refer to Technical
Advice Note (TAN) 12 9):
the desire for connectivity should not
compromise the ability of householders to
exert ownership over private or communal
defensible space;
access to the rear of dwellings from public
spaces, including alleys, should be avoided
a block layout, with gardens in the
middle, is a good way of ensuring this;
cars, cyclists and pedestrians should be kept
together if the route is over any significant
length there should be a presumption
against routes serving only pedestrians
and/or cyclists away from the road unless
they are wide, open, short and overlooked;

Figure 4.10 Active frontage to all streets and to neighbouring open space should be an aim in all
developments. Blank walls can be avoided, even on the return at junctions, with specially designed
house types.

Manual for Streets

47

4.7

Street character types

4.7.1
Traditionally, road hierarchies (e.g.
district distributor, local distributor, access road,
etc.) have been based on traffic capacity. As set
out in Chapter 2, street character types in new
residential developments should be determined
by the relative importance of both their place
and movement functions.
4.7.2 Examples of the more descriptive
terminology that should now be used to define
street character types are
high street;
main street;

shopping street;
mixed-use street;
avenue;
boulevard;
mews;
lane;
courtyard;

4.7.3 The above list is not exhaustive.

Whatever terms are used, it is important that the
street character type is well defined, whether
in a design code or in some other way. The
difference in approach is illustrated by
Figs 4.11 and 4.12.

English Partnerships, EDAW and Alan Baxter & Associates

English Partnerships, EDAW and Alan Baxter & Associates

Figure 4.11 Alternative proposals for a development: (a) is highways-led; while (b) is more attuned to pedestrian
activity and a sense of place.

48

Manual for Streets

Andrew Cameron, WSP

Andrew Cameron, WSP

Figure 4.12 (a) Existing development in Upton turns its back on the street; while (b) a later development
has a strong presence on the street. The latter was delivered using a collaborative workshop design process
and a design code.

Manual for Streets

49

Llewelyn Davies Yeang

5
Quality places

Chapter aims

Case study

Staiths South Bank, Gateshead

Promote the place function of streets

and explain the role that streets can play
in making better places.
Peter OBrien, Llewelyn Davies Yeang

Stress the importance and value of urban

design as a framework within which
streets are set out and detailed.
Set out expectations for the design of
quality places, as well as routes for safe
and convenient movement.
Discuss local distinctiveness.

5.1

Introduction

5.1.1
The previous chapter described how to
plan sustainable communities, covering issues
such as the need to plan for connected layouts,
mixed uses and walkable neighbourhoods. This
chapter develops those themes by demonstrating
the importance of quality and encouraging the
use of three-dimensional urban design.

5.2

1 ODPM (2005) Planning

Policy Statement 1:
Delivering Sustainable
Developments. London:
TSO.
2 Welsh Assembly
Government (2002)
Planning Policy Wales.
Cardiff: NAfW.
3 Welsh Assembly
Government (2002)
Technical Advice Note 12:
Design. Cardiff: NAfW.
4 Communities and Local
Government (2006)
Planning Policy Statement
3: Housing. London: TSO.
5 Welsh Assembly
Government (2002)
Ministerial Interim
Planning Policy Statement
01/2006: Housing.
Cardiff: NAfW.
6 CABE (2002) The
Value of Good Design.
London CABE; CABE
(2006) Buildings and
Spaces: Why Design
Matters. London: CABE;
CABE (2006) The Value
Handbook. London:
CABE; and CABE (2006)
The Cost of Bad Design.
London: CABE.

The value of good design

5.2.1
Good design plays a vital role in
securing places that are socially, economically and
environmentally sustainable (see Gateshead case
study box). Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering
Sustainable Development (PPS1)1 emphasises
this. It states that good design ensures attractive,
usable, durable and adaptable places and is a key
element in achieving sustainable development.
Good design is indivisible from good planning
and should contribute positively to making places
better for people (Wales: refer to Planning Policy
Wales,2 Section 2.9, and Technical Advice Note
(TAN) 123).
5.2.2 This message is also reinforced by
Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing (PPS3)4
which states that good design is fundamental to
the development of high-quality new housing,
which contributes to the creation of sustainable,
mixed communities. (Wales: refer to Ministerial
Interim Planning Policy Statement 01/2006:
Housing5).
5.2.3 There is growing evidence of the benefits
of a public space, development or building that
improves peoples sense of well being, although
these benefits can often be difficult to quantify.
Manual for Streets

Figure 5.1 New development at Staiths South

Bank, Gateshead.

A significant level of detailed effort was

required to negotiate deviation from
standards this was resource intensive. MfS
guidance aims to avoid this by promoting
the acceptance of innovation (Fig. 5.1).
The homes are relatively affordable which
shows that high-quality design need not
be expensive.
Parking was limited to a ratio of one space
per house, which provided scope for a
higher-quality public realm.
The scheme was designed as a Home Zone.

However, evidence is also growing of the economic,

social and environmental benefits of good urban
design. Good design should not be considered
as an optional or additional expense design
costs are only a small percentage of construction
costs, but it is through the design process that
the largest impact can be made on the quality,
efficiency and overall sustainability of buildings,
and on the long-term costs of maintenance and
management (Fig. 5.2).
5.2.4 CABE has collated a supporting
evidence base,6 which includes the following:
compact neighbourhoods that integrate
parking and transport infrastructure,
encourage walking and cycling, and so
reduce fuel consumption;
properties adjacent to a good-quality park
have a 57% price premium compared with
identical properties in the same area but
that are away from the park; and
the benefits of better-designed commercial
developments include higher rent levels, lower
maintenance costs, enhanced regeneration and
increased public support for the development.
51

Una McGaughrin, Llewelyn Davies Yeang

Figure 5.2 Newhall, Harlow a masterplan-led approach with bespoke housing design.

5.3

Key aspects of urban design

Urban design is the art of making places
for people. It includes the way places work
and matters such as community safety,
as well as how they look. It concerns the
connections between people and places,
movement and urban form, nature and the
built fabric, and the processes for ensuring
successful villages, towns and cities.

7 DETR and CABE (2000)

By Design: Urban
Design in the Planning
System: Towards Better
Practice. London:
Thomas Telford Ltd.
8 Llewelyn Davies (2000)
The Urban Design
Compendium. London:
English Partnerships and
The Housing Corporation.
9 DTLR and CABE (2001)
Better Places to Live: By
Design. A Companion
Guide to PPG3. London:
Thomas Telford Ltd.
10 www.buildingforlife.org.uk.
11 Welsh Development
Agency (WDA) (2005)
Creating Sustainable
Places. Cardiff: WDA.
12 LDA Design (2005) A
Model Design Guide
for Wales: Residential
Development. Cardiff:
Planning Officers
Society Wales.
13 CABE (2005) Housing
Audit: Assessing the
Design Quality of New
Homes in the North East,
North West and Yorkshire
& Humber. London:
Ernest Bond Printing Ltd.

By Design: Urban Design in the Planning

System: Towards Better Practice7

5.3.1
It is important to appreciate what this
means in practice. It is easy to advocate places of
beauty and distinct identity, but it takes skill to
realise them and ensure they are fit for purpose.
A number of key documents and initiatives provide
an introduction, including the Urban Design
Compendium,8 Better Places to Live: By Design9
and Building for Life10 (see box) (Wales: see
also Creating Sustainable Places11 and A Model
Design Guide for Wales12).
5.3.2 These basic aspects of urban design,
however, are not being realised in many new
developments. All too often, new development
lacks identity and a sense of place. In these
cases, it lets communities and users down,
and undermines the aims of the sustainable
communities agenda.
5.3.3 Frequently, it is in the interaction
between the design and layout of homes and

52

streets that attempts to create quality places

break down.13 In the past, urban designers
sometimes felt that their schemes were
compromised by the application of geometrical
standards to highways that were current at
the time. Highway engineers, in turn, have
occasionally raised concerns about layouts that
did not comply with the design criteria to which
they were working.
5.3.4 MfS advocates better co-operation
between disciplines, and an approach to design
based on multiple objectives.

5.4

Street dimensions

5.4.1 Most neighbourhoods include a range

of street character types, each with differing
characteristics, including type of use, width and
building heights. These characteristics dictate
how pedestrians and traffic use the street.

Width
5.4.2 Width between buildings is a key
dimension and needs to be considered in relation
to function and aesthetics. Figure 5.3 shows
typical widths for different types of street.
The distance between frontages in residential
streets typically ranges from 12 m to 18 m,
although there are examples of widths less
than this working well. There are no fixed rules
but account should be taken of the variety of
activities taking place in the street and of the
scale of the buildings on either side.

Manual for Streets

The principles of urban design

The fundamental principles of urban design are
described more fully in By Design: Urban Design
in the Planning System: Towards Better Practice.14
They involve expressing the main objectives of
urban design through the various aspects of the
built form.
The objectives of urban design can be
summarised as follows:
Character a place with its own identity.
Continuity and enclosure a place where
public and private spaces are clearly
distinguished.
Quality of the public realm a place with
attractive and successful outdoor areas.
Ease of movement a place that is easy to
get to and move through.
Legibility a place that has a clear image
and is easy to understand.
Adaptability a place that can change easily.
Diversity a place with variety and choice.
The aspects of the built form are described
as follows:
Layout: urban structure the framework of
routes and spaces that connect locally
and more widely, and the way developments,
routes and open spaces relate to one another.

Layout: urban grain the pattern of the

arrangement of street blocks,
plots and their buildings in a settlement.
Landscape the character and appearance
of land, including its shape, form, ecology,
natural features, colours and elements, and
the way these components combine.
Density and mix the amount of
development on a given piece of land
and the range of uses. Density influences
the intensity of development, and, in
combination with the mix of uses,
can affect a places vitality and viability.
Scale: height scale is the size of a building
in relation to its surroundings, or the size of
parts of a building or its details, particularly
in relation to the size of a person. Height
determines the impact of development on
views, vistas and skylines.
Scale: massing the combined effect of
the arrangement, volume and shape of a
building or group of buildings in relation to
other buildings and spaces.
Appearance: details the craftsmanship,
building techniques, decoration,
styles and lighting of a building or
structure.
Appearance: materials the texture,
colour, pattern and durability of materials,
and how they are used.

18 - 30m

7.5 - 12m

High Street

Mews
27 - 36m
12 - 18m

Boulevard

Residential Street
18 - 100m

14 DETR/CABE (2000) By
Design: Urban Design
in the Planning System:
Towards Better Practice.
London: Thomas Telford.

Square
Figure 5.3 Typical widths for different types of street.

Manual for Streets

53

Mews 1:1 ratio.

1:3 ratio is generally effective.

Large squares and very wide streets.

Spatial definition of street through use of planting.

Spatial definition by building height.

Spatial definition by recess line.

Figure 5.4 Height-to-width ratios.

Height

Length

5.4.3 The public realm is defined by height as

well as width or, more accurately, the ratio of
height to width. It is therefore recommended that
the height of buildings (or mature trees where
present in wider streets) is in proportion to the
width of the intervening public space to achieve
enclosure. The actual ratio depends on the type of
street or open space being designed for. This is a
fundamental urban design principle. The heightto-width enclosure ratios shown in Table 5.1 and
illustrated in Fig. 5.4 can serve as a guide.

5.4.5 Street length can have a significant

effect on the quality of a place. Acknowledging
and framing vistas and landmarks can help bring
an identity to a neighbourhood and orientate
users. However, long straights can encourage
high traffic speeds, which should be mitigated
through careful design (see Section 7.4 Achieving
appropriate traffic speeds).

Table 5.1 Height-to-width ratios

Maximum

Minimum

Minor streets, e.g. mews

1:1.5

1:1

Typical streets

1:3

1:1.5

Squares

1:6

1:4

5.4.4 The benefits of taller buildings, such

as signifying locations of visual importance,
adding variety, or simply accommodating larger
numbers of dwellings, must be weighed against
the possible disadvantages. These include
an overbearing relationship with the street,
overshadowing of surrounding areas, and the
need to provide more parking. Design mitigation
techniques, such as wider footways, building
recesses and street trees, can reduce the impact
of taller buildings on their settings (Fig. 5.5).

54

5.5

Buildings at junctions

5.5.1
The arrangement of buildings and
footways has a major influence on defining
the space at a junction. It is better to design
the junction on this basis rather than purely
on vehicle movement (Fig. 5.6). In terms of
streetscape, a wide carriageway with tight,
enclosed corners makes a better junction than
cutback corners with a sweeping curve. This might
involve bringing buildings forward to the corner.
Double-fronted buildings also have an important
role at corners. Junction treatments are explored in
more detail in Chapter 7.

Manual for Streets

Ben Castell, Llewelyn Davies Yeang

Ben Castell, Llewelyn Davies Yeang

Ben Castell, Llewelyn Davies Yeang

Figure 5.5 Two streets demonstrating different levels of enclosure. Street (a) has a height-to-width ratio
of approximately 1:3, enabling a pleasant living environment to be shared with functionality in the form
of traffic movement and on-street parking, some of it angled. Street (b) has a height-to-width ratio of
about 1:1.5. Again, this works well in urban design terms, but the need to accommodate on-street parking
has meant that traffic is restricted to one-way movement.

Figure 5.6 Wide, curved junctions reduce enclosure. In this example, the relationship between the buildings
and the amenity space at the centre of the circus is diminished.

Manual for Streets

55

5.6

Backs and fronts

5.6.1
In general, it is recommended that streets
are designed with the backs and fronts of houses
and other buildings being treated differently. The
basic tenet is public fronts and private backs.
Ideally, and certainly in terms of crime prevention,
back gardens should adjoin other back gardens
or a secure communal space. Front doors should
open onto front gardens, small areas in front of
the property, or streets.

5.6.2 The desirability of public fronts and private

backs applies equally to streets with higher levels of
traffic, such as those linking or providing access
to residential areas. If such streets are bounded
by back-garden fences or hedges, security
problems can increase, drivers may be encouraged
to speed, land is inefficiently used, and there
is a lack of a sense of place (Fig. 5.7). Research
carried out for MfS15 shows that streets with
direct frontage access to dwellings can operate
safely with significant levels of traffic.

15 I. York, A. Bradbury,
S.Reid, T. Ewings and
R.Paradise (2007) The
Manual for Streets:
Redefining Residential
Street Design. TRL
Report No. 661.
Crowthorne: TRL.

Llewelyn Davies Yeang

Figure 5.7 (a) and (b) Cul-de-sacs surrounded by a perimeter road that is fronted by back fences no sense of place,
no relationship with its surroundings, no quality, with streets designed purely for vehicles.

56

Manual for Streets

5.7

Designing streets as social spaces

5.7.2 High-quality open space is a key

component of successful neighbourhoods. Local
Development Frameworks, often supplemented
by open space strategies and public realm
strategies, should set out the requirements
for provision in particular localities. As with
streets, parks and other open spaces should be
accessible and be well overlooked16 (Wales: Refer
to TAN 1617). Open spaces can aid urban cooling
to help mitigate the effects of climate change.

5.8

16 ODPM (2002) Planning

Policy Guidance 17:
Planning for Open Space,
Sport and Recreation.
London: TSO.
17 Welsh Assembly
Government (2006) Draft
Technical Advice Note
16: Sport, Recreation
and Open Space. Cardiff:
NAfW.

Other layout considerations

5.8.1
The layout of a new housing or mixed-use
area will need to take account of factors other than
street design and traffic provision. They include:
the potential impact on climate change,
such as the extent to which layouts promote
sustainable modes of transport or reduce
the need to travel;
climate and prevailing wind, and the impact
of this on building type and orientation;
energy efficiency and the potential for solar
gain by orientating buildings appropriately;
noise pollution, such as from roads or railways;
providing views and vistas, landmarks,
gateways and focal points to emphasise
urban structure, hierarchies and connections,
as well as variety and visual interest;
crime prevention, including the provision of
defensible private and communal space, and
active, overlooked streets (see Chapter 4); and
balancing the need to provide facilities for
young children and teenagers overlooked
by housing, with the detrimental effects of
noise and nuisance that may result.

Manual for Streets

Ben Castell, Llewelyn Davies Yeang

5.7.1
The public realm should be designed
to encourage the activities intended to take
place within it. Streets should be designed to
accommodate a range of users, create visual
interest and amenity, and encourage social
interaction. The place function of streets may equal
or outweigh the movement function, as described
in Chapter 2. This can be satisfied by providing
a mix of streets of various dimensions, squares
and courtyards, with associated pocket parks,
play spaces, resting places and shelter. The key
is to think carefully about the range of desirable
activities for the environment being created, and to
vary designs to suit each place in the network.

Figure 5.8 A contemporary interpretation of the

terraced house, providing active frontage to the street
and a small private buffer area.

5.8.2 Often satisfying one consideration will

make it difficult to satisfy another, and invariably
a balance has to be achieved. This is one of the
reasons for agreeing design objectives at an early
stage in the life of the scheme.

5.9

Where streets meet buildings

5.9.1
The space between the front of the
building and the carriageway, footway or other
public space needs to be carefully managed as it
marks the transition from the public to the private
realm. Continuous building lines are preferred as
they provide definition to, and enclosure of, the
public realm. They also make navigation by blind
and partially-sighted people easier.
5.9.2 For occupiers of houses, the amenity
value of front gardens tends to be lower when
compared to their back gardens and increased
parking pressures on streets has meant that
many householders have converted their front
gardens to hard standing for car parking.
However, this is not necessarily the most
desirable outcome for street users in terms of
amenity and quality of place, and can lead to
problems with drainage. Where no front garden
is provided, the setback of dwellings from the
street is a key consideration in terms of:

57

Llewelyn Davies Yeang

Figure 5.9 Trees, bollards, benches and the litter bin have the potential to clutter this residential square,
but careful design means that they add to the local amenity.

defining the character of the street;

determining a degree of privacy;
security space, providing a semi-private
buffer which intruders would have to pass
through, thus reducing opportunities for
crime (Fig. 5.8);
amenity space for plants or seating, etc.; and
functional space for rubbish bins, external
meters or storage, including secure
parking for bicycles.

5.9.3 Keeping garages and parking areas level

with, or behind, the main building line can be
aesthetically beneficial in townscape terms.

5.10

18 Joint Committee on
Mobility of Blind and
Partially Sighted People
(JCMBPS) (2002) Policy
Statement on Walking
Strategies. Reading:
JCMBPS.

Reducing clutter

5.10.1 Street furniture, signs, bins, bollards,

utilities boxes, lighting and other items which
tend to accumulate on a footway can clutter the
streetscape. Clutter is visually intrusive and has
adverse implications for many disabled people.
The agencies responsible for such items and
those who manage the street should consider
ways of reducing their visual impact and
impediment to users.

58

5.10.2 Examples of reducing the impact include:18

mounting streetlights onto buildings, or
traffic signals onto lighting columns;
locating service inspection boxes within
buildings or boundary walls;
specifying the location and orientation of
inspection covers in the footway;
ensuring that household bins and recycling
containers can be stored off the footway; and
designing street furniture to be in keeping
with its surroundings (Fig. 5.9).
5.10.3 Where terraced housing or flats are
proposed, it can be difficult to find space
for storing bins off the footway. In these
circumstances, sub-surface or pop-up waste
containers may be a practicable solution
(Fig.5.10).

5.11

Local distinctiveness

5.11.1 Local identity and distinctiveness are

important design considerations and can be
strengthened by:
relating the layout to neighbouring
development (if it satisfies the basics of
good urban design);
involving the community early on in the
design process;
Manual for Streets

Lorraine Farrelly, University of Portsmouth

5.11.2 Village and Town Design Statements,

which are based on enhancing local character
and distinctiveness, can also be a useful tool.

Figure 5.10 Sub-surface recycling bins for communal use.

Planting

5.12.1 Space for planting can be integrated

into layout and building designs, and, wherever
possible, located on private land or buildings
(generous balconies, roof gardens, walls) or public
land intended for adoption, including the highway.
5.12.2 Planting adds value; it helps to soften
the urban street-scene, creates visual and
sensory interest, and improves the air quality
and microclimate. It can also provide habitats
for wildlife. The aromatic qualities or contrasting
colours and textures of foliage are of value to
all, and can assist the navigation of those with
visualimpairment. Flowers and fruit trees add
seasonal variety.
5.12.3 Planting can provide shade, shelter,
privacy, spatial containment and separation.
It can also be used to create buffer or security
zones, visual barriers, or landmarks or gateway
features. Vegetation can be used to limit forward
visibility to help reduce vehicle speeds.

Llewelyn Davies Yeang

19 For region-specific
guidance, see English
Heritages Streets for All
series at www.englishheritage.org.uk.

using local materials (which may also be

better environmentally);
using grain, patterns and form sympathetic
to the predominant vernacular styles
(Fig. 5.11), or as established in local
supplementary planning documents and/
or Character Assessment documents;19
retaining historical associations; and
engaging with utility companies to ensure
that the design, quality and setting of their
street furniture does not detract from the
overall street design, view points and vistas.

5.12

Figure 5.11 The Orchard, Lechlade new housing sympathetic to the local context.

Manual for Streets

59

Una McGaughrin, Llewelyn Davies Yeang

Figure 5.12 Mature trees help to structure the space, while buildings are placed to create a sense of enclosure.

5.12.4 Existing trees can occupy a substantial

part of a development site and can have a
major influence on layout design and use of
the site, especially if they are protected by Tree
Preservation Orders. Layouts poorly designed
in relation to existing trees, or retaining trees
of an inappropriate size, species or condition,
may be resented by future occupants and create
pressure to prune or remove them in the future.
To reduce such problems, specialist advice is
needed in the design process. An arboriculturalist
will help determine whether tree retention
can be successfully integrated within the new
development, specify protection measures
required during construction, and recommend
appropriate replacements as necessary (Fig.5.12).
5.12.5 Sustainable planting will require the
provision of:
healthy growing conditions;
space to allow growth to maturity with
minimal intervention or management;
species appropriate to a local sense of
place and its intended function, and site
conditions; and

60

well-informed proposals for new planting

(or the retention and protection of existing
plants) and longer-term maintenance.
These proposals should be agreed with the
adopting local or highway authority, trust,
residents or community association or
management company.

5.13

Standing the test of time

5.13.1 Places need to look good and work well

in the long term. Design costs are only a small
percentage of the overall costs, but it is the
quality of the design that makes the difference
in creating places that will stand the test of
time. Well-designed places last longer and are
easier to maintain, thus the costs of the design
element are repaid over time. The specification
for materials and maintenance regimes should
be written to provide high standards of durability
and environmental performance. Maintenance
should be straightforward and management
regimes should ensure that there are clear lines
of responsibility. These themes are covered
further in Chapter 11.

Manual for Streets

C
Detailed design issues

David Millington Photography

6
Street users needs

Chapter aims
Promote inclusive design.
Set out the various requirements of
street users.
Summarise the requirements for various
types of motor vehicle.

6.1

Introduction

6.1.1
Street design should be inclusive.
Inclusive design means providing for all people
regardless of age or ability. There is a general
duty for public authorities to promote equality
under the Disability Discrimination Act 2005.1
There is also a specific obligation for those who
design, manage and maintain buildings and
public spaces to ensure that disabled people play
a full part in benefiting from, and shaping, an
inclusive built environment.
6.1.2
Poor design can exacerbate the problems
of disabled people good design can minimise them.
Consultation with representatives of various usergroups, in particular disabled people, is important for
informing the design of streets. Local access officers
can also assist here.
6.1.3
Designers should refer to Inclusive
Mobility,2 The Principles of Inclusive Design3
and Guidance on the Use of Tactile Paving
Surfaces (1999)4 in order to ensure that their
designs are inclusive.

1 Disability Discrimination
Act 2005. London: TSO.
2 Department for Transport
(2002) Inclusive
Mobility A Guide to Best
Practice on Access to
Pedestrian and Transport
Infrastructure. London:
Department for Transport.
3 CABE (2006) The Principles
of Inclusive Design
(They include you).
London: CABE.
4 DETR (1999) Guidance on
the Use of Tactile Paving
Surfaces. London: TSO.

6.1.4 If any aspect of a street unavoidably

prevents its use by particular user groups, it is
important that a suitable alternative is provided.
For example, a safe cycling route to school
may be inappropriate for experienced cyclist
commuters, while a cycle route for commuters
in the same transport corridor may be unsafe for
use by children. Providing one as an alternative
to the other overcomes these problems and
ensures that the overall design is inclusive.
6.1.5
This approach is useful as it allows
for the provision of a specialised facility
where there is considerable demand for it
without disadvantaging user groups unable
to benefit from it.

Manual for Streets

6.2

Requirements for pedestrians

and cyclists

6.2.1
When designing for pedestrians or
cyclists, some requirements are common to both:
routes should form a coherent network linking
trip origins and key destinations, and they
should be at a scale appropriate to the users;
in general, networks should allow people
to go where they want, unimpeded by
street furniture, footway parking and other
obstructions or barriers;
infrastructure must not only be safe but
also be perceived to be safe this applies to
both traffic safety and crime; and
aesthetics, noise reduction and integration
with surrounding areas are important the
environment should be attractive, interesting
and free from graffiti and litter, etc.

6.3

Pedestrians

6.3.1
The propensity to walk is influenced not
only by distance, but also by the quality of the
walking experience. A 20-minute walk alongside a
busy highway can seem endless, yet in a rich and
stimulating street, such as in a town centre, it can
pass without noticing. Residential areas can offer
a pleasant walking experience if good quality
landscaping, gardens or interesting architecture
are present. Sightlines and visibility towards
destinations or intermediate points are important
for pedestrian way-finding and personal security,
and they can help people with cognitive
impairment.
6.3.2 Pedestrians may be walking with
purpose or engaging in other activities such as
play, socialising, shopping or just sitting. For the
purposes of this manual, pedestrians include
wheelchair users and people pushing wheeled
equipment such as prams.
6.3.3 As pedestrians include people of all
ages, sizes and abilities, the design of streets
needs to satisfy a wide range of requirements.
A street design which accommodates the needs
of children and disabled people is likely to suit
most, if not all, user types.
6.3.4 Not all disability relates to difficulties
with mobility. People with sensory or cognitive
impairment are often less obviously disabled,

63

Figure 6.1 West End of London 1884 the block dimensions are of a scale that encourages walking.

so it is important to ensure that their needs are

not overlooked. Legible design, i.e. design which
makes it easier for people to work out where
they are and where they are going, is especially
helpful to disabled people. Not only does it
minimise the length of journeys by avoiding
wrong turns, for some it may make journeys
possible to accomplish in the first place.
5 Department for Transport
(1995) The Assessment of
Pedestrian Crossings.
Local Transport Note
1/95. London: TSO.
6 Department for Transport
(1995) The Design of
Pedestrian Crossings.
Local Transport Note
2/95. London: TSO.
7 County Surveyors
Society/Department for
Transport (2006) Puffin
Good Practice Guide
available to download
from www.dft.gov.uk or
www.cssnet.org.uk.
8 Department for Transport
(2005) Inclusive Mobility
A Guide to Best Practice
on Access to Pedestrian
and Transport
Infrastructure. London:
Department for
Transport.

6.3.5 The layout of our towns and cities has

historically suited pedestrian movement (Fig. 6.1).
6.3.6 Walkable neighbourhoods should be on
an appropriate scale, as advised in Chapter 4.
Pedestrian routes need to be direct and match
desire lines as closely as possible. Permeable
networks help minimise walking distances.
6.3.7 Pedestrian networks need to connect
with one another. Where these networks are
separated by heavily-trafficked roads,
appropriate surface level crossings should be
provided where practicable. Footbridges and
subways should be avoided unless local
topography or other conditions make them
necessary. The level changes and increased

64

distances involved are inconvenient, and they

can be difficult for disabled people to use.
Subways, in particular, can also raise
concerns over personal security if they are
unavoidable, designers should aim to make
them as short as possible, wide and well lit.
6.3.8 The specific conditions in a street
will determine what form of crossing is most
relevant. All crossings should be provided with
tactile paving. Further advice on the assessment
and design of pedestrian crossings is contained
in Local Transport Notes 1/955 and 2/956 and the
Puffin Good Practice Guide.7
6.3.9 Surface level crossings can be of a
number of types, as outlined below:
Uncontrolled crossings these can be
created by dropping kerbs at intervals
along a link. As with other types of
crossing, these should be matched to the
pedestrian desire lines. If the crossing
pattern is fairly random and there is
an appreciable amount of pedestrian
activity, a minimum frequency of 100 m
is recommended.8 Dropped kerbs should

Manual for Streets

have nearside pedestrian signals and a

variable crossing time, are replacing Pelican
crossings. They use pedestrian detectors
to match the length of the crossing period
to the time pedestrians take to cross.
Toucan and equestrian crossings operate in
a similar manner to Puffin crossings except
that cyclists can also use Toucan crossings,
while equestrian crossings have a separate
crossing for horse riders. Signalised
crossings are preferred by blind or
partially-sighted people.
6.3.10 Obstructions on the footway should
be minimised. Street furniture is typically
sited on footways and can be a hazard for
blind or partially-sighted people.
6.3.11 Where it is necessary to break a road
link in order to discourage through traffic, it is
recommended that connectivity for pedestrians
is maintained through the break unless there
are compelling reasons to prevent it.

Andrew Cameron, WSP

be marked with appropriate tactile paving

and aligned with those on the other side
of the carriageway.
Informal crossings these can be created
through careful use of paving materials
and street furniture to indicate a crossing
place which encourages slow-moving traffic
to give way to pedestrians (Fig. 6.2).
Pedestrian refuges and kerb build-outs
these can be used separately or in
combination. They effectively narrow the
carriageway and so reduce the crossing
distance. However, they can create
pinch-points for cyclists if the remaining
gap is still wide enough formotor vehicles
to squeeze past them.
Zebra crossings of the formal crossing
types, these involve the minimum delay for
pedestrians when used in the right situation.
Signalised crossings there are four types:
Pelican, Puffin, Toucan and equestrian
crossings. The Pelican crossing was the first
to be introduced. Puffin crossings, which

Figure 6.2 Informal crossing, Colchester although the chains and a lack of tactile paving are hazardous to
blind or partially-sighted people.

Manual for Streets

65

Large radius (eg. 7 metres)

Pedestrian desire line (---) is maintained.

Vehicles turn slowly (10 mph 15 mph).

Pedestrian desire line deflected.

Detour required to minimise crossing distance.
Vehicles turn faster (20 mph 30 mph).

Pedestrian does not have to look further

behind to check for turning vehicles.
Pedestrian can easily establish priority because
vehicles turn slowly.

Pedestrian must look further behind to check

for fast turning vehicles.
Pedestrian cannot normally establish priority
against fast turning vehicles.

Devon County Council

Small radius (eg. 1 metre)

Figure 6.3 The effects of corner radii on pedestrians.

6.3.12 Pedestrian desire lines should be kept

as straight as possible at side-road junctions
unless site-specific reasons preclude it. Small
corner radii minimise the need for pedestrians
to deviate from their desire line (Fig. 6.3).
Dropped kerbs with the appropriate tactile
paving should be provided at all side-road
junctions where the carriageway and footway
are at different levels. They should not be
placed on curved sections of kerbing because
this makes it difficult for blind or partiallysighted people to orientate themselves
before crossing.
6.3.13 With small corner radii, large vehicles
may need to use the full carriageway width
to turn. Swept-path analysis can be used to
determine the minimum dimensions required.
The footway may need to be strengthened
locally in order to allow for larger vehicles
occasionally overrunning the corner.

encourage drivers to make the turn more quickly,

speeds will need to be controlled in some way,
such as through using a speed table at the
junction.
6.3.15 The kerbed separation of footway and
carriageway can offer protection to pedestrians,
channel surface water, and assist blind or
partially-sighted people in finding their way
around, but kerbs can also present barriers to
some pedestrians. Kerbs also tend to confer an
implicit priority to vehicles on the carriageway.
At junctions and other locations, such as school
or community building entrances, there are
benefits in considering bringing the carriageway
up flush with the footway to allow people
to cross on one level (Fig. 6.4). This can be
achieved by:
raising the carriageway to footway level
across the mouths of side roads; and
providing a full raised speed-table at T
junctions and crossroads.

6.3.14 Larger radii can be used without

interrupting the pedestrian desire line if the
footway is built out at the corners. If larger radii

66

Manual for Streets

Stuart Reid, TRL

Andrew Cameron, WSP

Figure 6.6 Uninviting pedestrian link narrow, not

well overlooked, unlit and deserted.

Andrew Cameron, WSP

Tim Pharoah, Llewelyn Davies Yeang

Figure 6.4 Raised crossover, but located away

from the desire line for pedestrians and therefore
ignored the crossover should be nearer the
junction with, in this case, a steeper ramp for
vehicles entering the side street.

Figure 6.5 Inviting pedestrian link.

Figure 6.7 Overlooked shared route for pedestrians

and vehicles, Poundbury, Dorset.

6.3.16 The carriageway is usually raised using

short ramps which can have a speed-reducing
effect, but if the street is on a bus route, for
example, a more gradual change in height may
be more appropriate (Fig. 6.4). It is important
that any such shared surface arrangements are
designed for blind or partially-sighted people
because conventional kerbs are commonly
used to aid their navigation. Tactile paving
is required at crossing points regardless of
whether kerbs are dropped or the carriageway
is raised to footway level. Other tactile
information may be required to compensate
for kerb removal elsewhere.

6.3.18 Pedestrians generally feel safe from

crime where:
their routes are overlooked by buildings
with habitable rooms (Fig. 6.7);
other people are using the street;
there is no evidence of anti-social activity
(e.g. litter, graffiti, vandalised street furniture);
they cannot be surprised (e.g. at blind corners);
they cannot be trapped (e.g. people can
feel nervous in places with few entry and
exit points, such as subway networks); and
there is good lighting.

6.3.17 Pedestrians can be intimidated by

traffic and can be particularly vulnerable to the
fear of crime or anti-social behaviour. In order
to encourage and facilitate walking, pedestrians
need to feel safe (Figs 6.5 and 6.6).

Manual for Streets

6.3.19 Streets with high traffic speeds can

make pedestrians feel unsafe. Designers should
seek to control vehicle speeds to below 20 mph
in residential areas so that pedestrians activity is
not displaced. Methods of vehicle speed control
are discussed in Chapter 7.

67

2.1m

0.75 m

0.9 m

1.5 m

1.2 m

Footway
2m (min)

Play 4.0m or more

Devon County Council

Stay/chat
2.5m or more

Figure 6.8 The footway and pedestrian areas provide for a range of functions which can include browsing,
pausing, socialising and play.

6.3.20 Inclusive Mobility gives guidance on

design measures for use where there are steep
slopes or drops at the rear of footways.
6.3.21 Places for pedestrians may need to serve a
variety of purposes, including movement in groups,
childrens play and other activities (Fig. 6.8).
6.3.22 There is no maximum width for
footways. In lightly used streets (such as those
with a purely residential function), the minimum
unobstructed width for pedestrians should
generally be 2 m. Additional width should
be considered between the footway and a
heavily used carriageway, or adjacent to
gathering places, such as schools and shops.
Further guidance on minimum footway widths
is given in Inclusive Mobility.

68

6.3.23 Footway widths can be varied

between different streets to take account of
pedestrian volumes and composition. Streets
where people walk in groups or near schools
or shops, for example, need wider footways.
In areas of high pedestrian flow, the quality of
the walking experience can deteriorate unless
sufficient width is provided. The quality of
service goes down as pedestrian flow density
increases. Pedestrian congestion through
insufficient capacity should be avoided. It is
inconvenient and may encourage people to
step into the carriageway (Fig. 6.9).
6.3.24 Porch roofs, awnings, garage doors,
bay windows, balconies or other building
elements should not oversail footways at a
height of less than 2.6 m.

Manual for Streets

0.20 P/m2

0.50 P/m2

0.90 P/m2

Figure 6.9 Diagram showing different densities of

use in terms of pedestrians per square metre.
Derived from Vorrang fr Fussgnger 9.

6.3.25 Trees to be sited within or close to

footways should be carefully selected so that
their spread does not reduce pedestrian space
below minimum dimensions for width and
headroom (Fig. 6.10).

Figure 6.10 Poorly maintained tree obstructing

the footway.

down (common under footbridge ramps), or the

pedestrian surface ramps up, should be avoided
or fenced off.
6.3.27 Designers should attempt to keep
pedestrian (and cycle) routes as near to level
as possible along their length and width,
within the constraints of the site. Longitudinal
gradients should ideally be no more than 5%,
although topography or other circumstances
may make this difficult to achieve (Fig. 6.11).

Andrew Cameron, WSP

6.3.26 Low overhanging trees, overgrown

shrubs and advertising boards can be particularly
hazardous for blind or partially-sighted people.
Tapering obstructions, where the clearance under
a structure reduces because the structure slopes

9 Wissenschaft & Verkehr

(1993) Vorrang fr
Fussgnger. Verkehrsclub
sterreich.

Tim Pharoah, Llewelyn Davies Yeang

0.05 P/m2

Figure 6.11 In some instances it may be possible to keep footways level when the carriageway is on a gradient,
although this example deflects pedestrians wanting to cross the side road significantly from their desire lines.

Manual for Streets

69

back of footway
original footway profile

900 mm minimum at normal

footway crossfall (2.5% max.)

25 mm minimum upstand

Figure 6.12 Typical vehicle crossover.

cross. Vehicle crossovers should therefore have a

minimum upstand of 25 mm at the carriageway
edge. Where there is a need for a pedestrian
crossing point, it should be constructed
separately, with tactile paving and kerbs dropped
flush with the carriageway.

6.3.28 Off-street parking often requires

motorists to cross footways. Crossovers to private
driveways are commonly constructed by ramping
up from the carriageway over the whole width
of the footway, simply because this is easier to
construct. This is poor practice and creates
inconvenient cross-falls for pedestrians.
Excessive cross-fall causes problems for people
pushing prams and can be particularly difficult to
negotiate for people with a mobility impairment,
including wheelchair users.

6.3.31 Surfaces used by pedestrians need to

be smooth and free from trip hazards. Irregular
surfaces, such as cobbles, are a barrier to some
pedestrians and are unlikely to be appropriate
for residential areas.
6.3.32 Designs need to ensure that pedestrian
areas are properly drained and are neither washed
by runoff nor subject to standing water (Fig 6.13).

6.3.30 Vehicle crossovers are not suitable as

pedestrian crossing points. Blind or partiallysighted people need to be able to distinguish
between them and places where it is safe to

6.3.33 Seating on key pedestrian routes should be

considered every 100 m to provide rest points and to
encourage street activity. Seating should ideally be
located where there is good natural surveillance.

Stuart Reid, TRL

Andrew Cameron, WSP

6.3.29 Where it is necessary to provide vehicle

crossovers, the normal footway cross-fall should
be maintained as far as practicable from the back
of the footway (900 mm minimum) (Fig. 6.12).

Figure 6.13 Poor drainage at a pedestrian crossing

place causes discomfort and inconvenience.

70

Figure 6.14 On-street cycling in Ipswich.

Manual for Streets

Large radius (eg. 7 metres)

Cycle and car speeds compatible.

Danger from fast turning vehicles cutting

across cyclists.

Devon County Council

Small radius (eg. 1 metre)

Figure 6.15 The effect of corner radii on cyclists near turning vehicles.

6.4

Cyclists

6.4.1 Cyclists should generally be

accommodated on the carriageway. In areas with
low traffic volumes and speeds, there should not
be any need for dedicated cycle lanes on the
street (Fig. 6.14).
6.4.2 Cycle access should always be considered
on links between street networks which are not
available to motor traffic. If an existing street is
closed off, it should generally remain open to
pedestrians and cyclists.
6.4.3 Cyclists prefer direct, barrier-free routes
with smooth surfaces. Routes should avoid the
need for cyclists to dismount.
6.2.4 Cyclists are more likely to choose routes
that enable them to keep moving. Routes that take
cyclists away from their desire lines and require
them to concede priority to side-road traffic are
less likely to be used. Anecdotal evidence suggests
that cyclists using cycle tracks running adjacent
and parallel to a main road are particularly
vulnerable when they cross the mouths of side
roads and that, overall, these routes can be
more hazardous to cyclists than the equivalent
on-road route.
6.4.5 Cyclists are particularly sensitive to
traffic conditions. High speeds or high volumes
of traffic tend to discourage cycling. If traffic
conditions are inappropriate for on-street
cycling, the factors contributing to them need to
be addressed, if practicable, to make on-street
cycling satisfactory. This is described in more
detail in Chapter 7.

Manual for Streets

6.4.6 The design of junctions affects the way

motorists interact with cyclists. It is recommended
that junctions are designed to promote slow
motor-vehicle speeds. This may include short
corner radii as well as vertical deflections (Fig. 6.15).
6.4.7 Where cycle-specific facilities, such
as cycle tracks, are provided, their geometry
and visibility should be in accordance with the
appropriate design speed. The design speed for
a cycle track would normally be 30 km/h (20
mph), but reduced as necessary to as low as 10
km/h (6 mph) for short distances where cyclists
would expect to slow down, such as on the
approach to a subway. Blind corners are a
hazard and should be avoided.
6.4.8 Cyclists should be catered for on the
road if at all practicable. If cycle lanes are
installed, measures should be taken to prevent
them from being blocked by parked vehicles.
If cycle tracks are provided, they should be
physically segregated from footways/footpaths
if there is sufficient width available. However,
there is generally little point in segregating a
combined width of about 3.3 m or less. The
fear of being struck by cyclists is a significant
concern for many disabled people. Access
officers and consultation groups should be
involved in the decision-making process.
6.4.9 Cycle tracks are more suited to leisure
routes over relatively open spaces. In a built-up
area, they should be well overlooked. The decision
to light them depends on the circumstances of
the site lighting may not always be appropriate.

71

6.4.10 Like pedestrians, cyclists can be

vulnerable to personal security concerns. Streets
which meet the criteria described for pedestrians
are likely to be acceptable to cyclists.
6.4.11 The headroom over routes used by
cyclists should normally be 2.7 m (minimum
2.4m). The maximum gradients should generally
be no more than 3%, or 5% maximum over a
distance of 100 m or less, and 7% maximum over
a distance of 30 m or less. However, topography
may dictate the gradients, particularly if the
route is in the carriageway.
6.4.12 As a general rule, the geometry,
including longitudinal profile, and surfaces
employed on carriageways create an acceptable
running surface for cyclists. The exception to
this rule is the use of granite setts, or similar.
These provide an unpleasant cycling experience
due to the unevenness of the surface. They can
prove to be particularly hazardous in the wet and
when cyclists are turning, especially when giving
hand signals at the same time. The conditions
for cyclists on such surfaces can be improved if
the line they usually follow is locally paved using
larger slabs to provide a smoother ride.

6.5

Public transport

6.5.1
This section concentrates on bus-based
public transport as this is the most likely mode
to be used for serving residential areas. Inclusive
Mobility gives detailed guidance on accessible
bus stop layout and design, signing, lighting,
and design of accessible bus (and rail) stations
and interchanges.

6.5.5 In order to design for long-term viability,

the following should be considered:
streets serving bus routes should be reasonably
straight. Straight routes also help passenger
demand through reduced journey times and
better visibility. Straight streets may, however,
lead to excessive speeds. Where it is necessary
to introduce traffic-calming features, designers
should consider their potential effects on buses
and bus passengers; and
layouts designed with strong connections
to the local highway network, and which
avoid long one-way loops or long distances
without passenger catchments, are likely to
be more viable.
6.5.6 Bus priority measures may be appropriate
within developments to give more direct
routeing or to assist buses in avoiding streets
where delays could occur.
6.5.7 Using a residential street as a bus route
need not require restrictions on direct vehicular
access to housing. Detailed requirements
for streets designated as bus routes can be
determined in consultation with local public
transport operators. Streets on bus routes
should not generally be less than 6.0 m wide
(although this could be reduced on short
sections with good inter-visibility between
opposing flows). The presence and arrangement of
on-street parking, and the manner of its provision,
will affect width requirements.

Public transport vehicles

4.57 m

6.5.2 Purpose-built buses, from hoppers to

double-deckers, vary in length and height, but
width is relatively fixed (Fig. 6.16).

6.5.4 Bus routes and stops should form

key elements of the walkable neighbourhood.
Designers and local authorities should try to
ensure that development densities will be high
enough to support a good level of service
without long-term subsidy.
72

3.2 m

6.5.3 Streets currently or likely to be used

by public transport should be identified in the
design process, working in partnership with
public transport operators.

0.25 m

2.5 m (max)

0.25 m

3.0 m

Figure 6.16 Typical bus dimensions

Manual for Streets

Andrew Cameron, WSP

Figure 6.17 The bus lay-by facilitates the free movement of other vehicles, but it is inconvenient for pedestrians.

6.5.8 Swept-path analysis can be used to

determine the ability of streets to accommodate
large vehicles. Bus routes in residential areas
are likely to require a more generous swept
path to allow efficient operation. While it
would be acceptable for the occasional lorry
to have to negotiate a particular junction
with care, buses need to be able to do so with
relative ease. The level of provision required
for the movement of buses should consider
the frequency and the likelihood of two buses
travelling in opposite directions meeting each
other on a route.

Bus stops
6.5.9 It is essential to consider the siting of
public transport stops and related pedestrian
desire lines at an early stage of design. Close
co-operation is required between public transport
operators, the local authorities and the developer.
6.5.10 First and foremost, the siting of bus
stops should be based on trying to ensure they
can be easily accessed on foot. Their precise
location will depend on other issues, such as
the need to avoid noise nuisance, visibility
requirements, and the convenience of
pedestrians and cyclists. Routes to bus stops
must be accessible by disabled people. For
example, the bus lay-by in Fig. 6.17 deflects

Manual for Streets

pedestrians walking along the street from their

desire line and the insufficient footway width
at the bus stop hinders free movement.
6.5.11 Bus stops should be placed near
junctions so that they can be accessed by
more than one route on foot, or near specific
passenger destinations (schools, shops, etc.)
but not so close as to cause problems at the
junction. On streets with low movement function
(see Chapter 2), setting back bus stops from
junctions to maximise traffic capacity should
be avoided.
6.5.12 Bus stops should be high-quality
places that are safe and comfortable to use.
Consideration should be given to providing cycle
parking at bus stops with significant catchment
areas. Cycle parking should be designed and
located so as not to create a hazard, or impede
access for, disabled people.
6.5.13 Footways at bus stops should be
wide enough for waiting passengers while
still allowing for pedestrian movement along
the footway. This may require local widening
at the stop.
6.5.14 Buses can help to control the speed of
traffic at peak times by preventing cars from
overtaking. This is also helpful for the safety of
passengers crossing after leaving the bus.
73

Lorry

4.2 m

Van/mini bus

1.6 m

2.4 m

Family saloon

0.25 m

2.5 m

0.25 m

0.2 m

3.0 m

2.0 m

0.2 m

0.1 m

1.8 m

0.1 m

2.0 m

2.4 m

Figure 6.18 Private and commercial motor-vehicles typical dimensions.

6.6

Private and commercial

motor vehicles

6.6.3 In some locations, a development may

be based on car-free principles. For example,
there are options for creating developments
relatively free of cars by providing remotely
sited parking (e.g. Greenwich Millennium
Village, see Fig. 6.19) or by creating a wholly
car-free development. Such approaches can
have a significant effect on the design of
residential streets and the way in which they
are subsequently used.

Andrew Cameron, WSP

6.6.1 Streets need to be designed to

accommodate a range of vehicles from private
cars, with frequent access requirements, to larger
vehicles such as delivery vans and lorries, needing
less frequent access (Fig. 6.18). Geometric design
which satisfies the access needs of emergency
service and waste collection vehicles will also
cover the needs of private cars. However,
meeting the needs of drivers in residential streets
should not be to the detriment of pedestrians,
cyclists and public transport users. The aim should
be to achieve a harmonious mix of user types.

6.6.2 In a residential environment, flow is unlikely

to be high enough to determine street widths, and
the extent of parking provision (see Chapter 8) will
depend on what is appropriate for the site.

Figure 6.19 Greenwich Millennium Village. Cars can be parked on the street for a short time,
after which they must be moved to a multi-storey car park.

74

Manual for Streets

6.7

Emergency vehicles

6.7.1
The requirements for emergency
vehicles are generally dictated by the fire service
requirements. Providing access for large fire
appliances (including the need to be able to
work around them where appropriate) will cater
for police vehicles and ambulances.
6.7.2 The Building Regulation requirement
B5 (2000)10 concerns Access and Facilities for the
Fire Service. Section 17, Vehicle Access, includes
the following advice on access from the highway:
there should be a minimum carriageway
width of 3.7 m between kerbs;
there should be vehicle access for a pump
appliance within 45 m of single family houses;
there should be vehicle access for a pump
appliance within 45 m of every dwelling
entrance for flats/maisonettes;
a vehicle access route may be a road or
other route; and
fire service vehicles should not have to
reverse more than 20 m.

10 Statutory Instrument 2000

No. 2531, The Building
Regulations 2000. London:
TSO. Part II, paragraph B5:
Access and facilities for
the fire service.
11 Fire and Rescue Services
Act 2004. London: TSO.
12 Risk Reduction Plans
required by the Welsh
Assembly. See Welsh
Assembly Government
(2005) Fire and Rescue
National Framework for
Wales. Cardiff: NAfW.

6.7.3 The Association of Chief Fire Officers

has expanded upon and clarified these
requirements as follows:
a 3.7 m carriageway (kerb to kerb) is
required for operating space at the scene
of a fire. Simply to reach a fire, the access
route could be reduced to 2.75 m over short
distances, provided the pump appliance can
get to within 45 m of dwelling entrances;
if an authority or developer wishes to
reduce the running carriageway width to
below 3.7 m, they should consult the local
Fire Safety Officer;
the length of cul-de-sacs or the number
of dwellings have been used by local
authorities as criteria for limiting the size
of a development served by a single access
route. Authorities have often argued that
the larger the site, the more likely it is
that a single access could be blocked for
whatever reason. The fire services adopt a less
numbers-driven approach and consider each
application based on a risk assessment for the
site, and response time requirements. Since
the introduction of the Fire and Rescue
Services Act 2004,11 all regions have had to
produce an Integrated Management Plan

Manual for Streets

6.8

setting out response time targets (Wales:

Risk Reduction Plans12). These targets
depend on the time required to get fire
appliances to a particular area, together with
the ease of movement within it. It is therefore
possible that a layout acceptable to the Fire
and Rescue Service (FRS) in one area, might
be objected to in a more remote location;
parked cars can have a significant influence
on response times. Developments should
have adequate provision for parking to
reduce its impact on response times; and
residential sprinkler systems are highly
regarded by the FRS and their presence
allows a longer response time to be used.
A site layout which has been rejected on the
grounds of accessibility for fire appliances
may become acceptable if its buildings are
equipped with these systems.

Service vehicles

6.8.1 The design of local roads should

accommodate service vehicles without
allowing their requirements to dominate the
layout. On streets with low traffic flows and
speeds, it may be assumed that they will be
able to use the full width of the carriageway
to manoeuvre. Larger vehicles which are
only expected to use a street infrequently,
such as pantechnicons, need not be fully
accommodated designers could assume that
they will have to reverse or undertake multipoint turns to turn around for the relatively
small number of times they will require access.
6.8.2 Well-connected street networks have
significant advantages for service vehicles.
A shorter route can be used to cover a given
area, and reversing may be avoided altogether.
They also minimise land-take by avoiding the
need for wasteful turning areas at the ends of
cul-de-sacs.
6.8.3 However, some sites cannot facilitate
such ease of movement (e.g. linear sites and
those with difficult topography), and use
cul-de-sacs to make the best use of the land
available. For cul-de-sacs longer than 20 m,
a turning area should be provided to cater for
vehicles that will regularly need to enter the
street. Advice on the design of turning areas is
given in Chapter 7.

75

6.8.4 The need to provide suitable

opportunities for the storage and collection of
waste is a major consideration in the design of
buildings, site layouts and individual streets.
Storage may be complicated by the need to
provide separate facilities for refuse and the
various categories of recyclable waste. Quality
of place will be significantly affected by the type
of waste collection and management systems
used, because they in turn determine the sort of
vehicles that will need to gain access.
6.8.5 Policy for local and regional waste
planning bodies is set out in Planning Policy
Statement 10: Planning for Sustainable Waste
Management (PPS10)13 and its companion
guide. PPS10 refers to design and layout
in new development being able to help
secure opportunities for sustainable waste
management. Planning authorities should ensure
that new developments make sufficient provision
for waste management and promote designs
and layouts that secure the integration of waste
management facilities without adverse impact on
the street scene (Wales: Refer to Chapter 12 of
PPW14 and TAN 21: Waste15).

13 ODPM (2005) Planning

Policy Statement 10:
Planning for Sustainable
Waste Management.
London: TSO.
14 Welsh Assembly
Government (2002).
Planning Policy Wales.
Cardiff: NAfW. Chapter
12, Infrastructure and
Services.
15 Welsh Assembly
Government (2001)
Technical Advice Note 21:
Waste. Cardiff: NAfW.
16 British Standards
Institute (BSI) (2005)
BS 5906: 2005 Waste
Management in
Buildings Code of
Practice. London: BSI.
17 Statutory Instrument
2000 No. 2531, The
Building Regulations
2000. London: TSO.
18 BSI (2005) BS 5906:
2005 Waste Management
in Buildings Code of
Practice. London: BSI.

6.8.6 The operation of waste collection

services should be an integral part of street
design and achieved in ways that do not
compromise quality of place. Waste disposal
and collection authorities and their contractors
should take into account the geometry of
streets across their area and the importance
of securing quality of place when designing
collection systems and deciding which vehicles
are applicable. While it is always possible to
design new streets to take the largest vehicle
that could be manufactured, this would conflict
with the desire to create quality places. It is
neither necessary nor desirable to design new
streets to accommodate larger waste collection
vehicles than can be used within existing streets
in thearea.
6.8.7 Waste collection vehicles fitted with
rear-mounted compaction units (Fig .6.20) are
about the largest vehicles that might require
regular access to residential areas. BS 5906:
200516 notes that the largest waste vehicles
currently in use are around 11.6 m long, with

76

a turning circle of 20.3m. It recommends a

minimum street width of 5 m, but smaller widths
are acceptable where on-street parking is
discouraged. Swept-path analysis can be used to
assess layouts for accessibility. Where achieving
these standards would undermine quality of
place, alternative vehicle sizes and/or collection
methods should be considered.
6.8.8 Reversing causes a disproportionately
large number of moving vehicle accidents in the
waste/recycling industry. Injuries to collection
workers or members of the public by moving
collection vehicles are invariably severe or
fatal. BS 5906: 2005 recommends a maximum
reversing distance of 12 m. Longer distances can
be considered, but any reversing routes should
be straight and free from obstacles or visual
obstructions.
6.8.9 Schedule 1, Part H of the Building
Regulations (2000)17 define locations for the
storage and collection of waste. The collection
point can be on-street (but see Section 6.8.11), or
may be at another location defined by the waste
authority. Key points in the Approved Document
to Part H are:
residents should not be required to carry
waste more than 30 m (excluding any
vertical distance) to the storage point;
waste collection vehicles should be able
to get to within 25 m of the storage point
(note, BS 5906: 200518 recommends shorter
distances) and the gradient between the
two should not exceed 1:12. There should
be a maximum of three steps for waste

Tim Pharoah

Waste collection vehicles

Figure 6.20 Large waste collection truck in a

residential street.

Manual for Streets

on the way waste is to be managed and in particular:

methods for storing, segregating and
collecting waste;
the amount of waste storage required,
based on collection frequency, and the
volume and nature of the waste generated
by the development; and
the size of anticipated collection vehicles.

Andrew Cameron, WSP

6.8.13 The design of new developments should

not require waste bins to be left on the footway
as they reduce its effective width. Waste bins on
the footway pose a hazard for blind or partiallysighted people and may prevent wheelchair and
pushchair users from getting past.

Figure 6.21 Refuse disposal point discharging into

underground collection facility.

containers up to 250 litres, and none when

larger containers are used (the Health and
Safety Executive recommends that, ideally,
there should be no steps to negotiate); and
the collection point should be reasonably
accessible for vehicles typically used by the
waste collection authority.

6.8.10 Based on these parameters, it may

not be necessary for a waste vehicle to enter
a cul-de-sac less than around 55 m in length,
although this will involve residents and waste
collection operatives moving waste the maximum
recommended distances, which is not desirable.
6.8.11 BS 5906: 2005 provides guidance
and recommendations on good practice. The
standard advises on dealing with typical weekly
waste and recommends that the distance over
which containers are transported by collectors
should not normally exceed 15 m for two-wheeled
containers, and 10 m for four-wheeled containers.
6.8.12 It is essential that liaison between the
designers, the waste, highways, planning and
building control authorities, and access officers,
takes place at an early stage. Agreement is required

Manual for Streets

Recycling
6.8.14 The most common types of provision
for recycling (often used in combination) are:
bring facilities, such as bottle and paper
banks, where residents leave material for
recycling; and
kerbside collection, where householders
separate recyclable material for collection
at the kerbside.
6.8.15 Bring facilities need to be in accessible
locations, such as close to community buildings, but
not where noise from bottle banks, etc., can disturb
residents. There needs to be enough room for the
movement and operation of collection vehicles.
6.8.16 Underground waste containers may
be worth considering. All that is visible to the
user is a litter bin or other type of disposal
point (Fig. 6.21). This collects in underground
containers which are emptied by specially
equipped vehicles. There were some 175 such
systems in use in the UK in 2006.
6.8.17 Kerbside collection systems generally
require householders to store more than one
type of waste container. This needs to
be considered in the design of buildings
or external storage facilities.
6.8.18 Designers should ensure that containers
can be left out for collection without blocking
the footway or presenting hazards to users.

77

Andrew Cameron, WSP

Street geometry

Chapter aims
Advise how the requirements of
different users can be accommodated
in street design.
Summarise research which shows that
increased visibility encourages higher
vehicle speeds.
Describe how street space can be allocated
based on pedestrian need, using swept
path analysis to ensure that minimum
access requirements for vehicles are met.
Describe the rationale behind using
shorter vehicle stopping distances to
determine visibility requirements on links
and at junctions.
Recommend that the design of streets
should determine vehicle speed.
Recommend a maximum design speed of
20 mph for residential streets.

7.1

Introduction

Street dimensions

7.2.1
The design of new streets or the
improvement of existing ones should take into
account the functions of the street, and the
type, density and character of the development.
7.2.2 Carriageway widths should be
appropriate for the particular context and
uses of the street. Key factors to take into
account include:
the volume of vehicular traffic and
pedestrian activity;
the traffic composition;
the demarcation, if any, between
carriageway and footway (e.g. kerb, street
furniture or trees and planting);
whether parking is to take place in the
carriageway and, if so, its distribution,
arrangement, the frequency of occupation,
and the likely level of parking enforcement
(if any);
the design speed (recommended to be
20 mph or less in residential areas);
the curvature of the street (bends require
greater width to accommodate the swept
path of larger vehicles); and
any intention to include one-way streets,
or short stretches of single lane working in
two-way streets.
7.2.3 In lightly-trafficked streets,
carriageways may be narrowed over short
lengths to a single lane as a traffic-calming
feature. In such single lane working sections of

5500

4800

4100

2750

7.1.1
Several issues need to be considered
in order to satisfy the various user requirements
detailed in Chapter 6, namely:
street widths and components;
junctions;
features for controlling vehicle speeds;
forward visibility on links; and
visibility splays at junctions.

7.2

Figure 7.1 Illustrates what various carriageway widths can accommodate. They are not necessarily
recommendations.

Manual for Streets

79

street, to prevent parking, the width between

constraining vertical features such as bollards
should be no more than 3.5 m. In particular
circumstances this may be reduced to a
minimum value of 2.75 m, which will still allow
for occasional large vehicles (Fig. 7.1). However,
widths between 2.75 m and 3.25 m should be
avoided in most cases, since they could result in
drivers trying to squeeze past cyclists. The local
Fire Safety Officer should be consulted where a
carriageway width of less than 3.7 m is proposed
(see paragraph 6.6.3)

7.2.4 Each street in the network is allocated a

particular street character type, depending on
where it sits within the place/movement
hierarchy (see Chapter 2) and the requirements
of its users (see Chapter 6). Individual streets
can then be designed in detail using the relevant
typical arrangement as a starting point. For
example, one street might have a fairly high
movement status combined with a medium place
status, whilst another might have very little
movement status but a high place status. The
typical arrangement for each street character
type can then be drawn up. This may be best
Case study

Local centre

School

Newhall, Harlow

Una McGaughri, Llewelyn Davies Yeang

Figure 7.3 On-street parking and shallow gradient

junction table suitable for accommodating buses.
c

Newhall demonstrates that adherence to

masterplan principles can be achieved through
the use of design codes (Fig. 7.3) that are
attached to land sales and achieved by
covenants.
A list of key dimensions was applied:
Frontage to frontage min 10.5 m;
Carriageway width min 4.8 m, max 8.8 m;
Footway width min 1.5 m;
Front gardens min 1.5 m, max 3 m;
Reservation for services 1 m; and
Design speed 20 mph.

0.3 m 2 m

2m

4.8 5.5 m

2 m 0.3 m

11.4 12.1 m
Figure 7.2 Typical representation of a street character
type. This example shows the detail for minor side
street junctions. Key plan (a) shows the locations,
(b) is a cross-section and (c) the plan.

80

The design is based on pedestrian priority and

vehicle speeds of less than 20 mph controlled
through the street design.

Manual for Streets

Figure 7.4 Left to right: (a) the buildings and urban edge of a street help to form the place; (b) the kerb line
can be used to reinforce this; and (c) the remaining carriageway space is tracked for movement and for the
provision of places where people may park their vehicles.

represented using a plan and cross-section as

illustrated in Figure 7.2.
7.2.5 These street types can be defined in
a design code, as demonstrated at Newhall,
Harlow (see Newhall, Harlow box).

Swept path analysis

7.2.6 Swept path analysis, or tracking,
is used to determine the space required for
various vehicles and is a key tool for designing
carriageways for vehicular movement within
the overall layout of the street. The potential
layouts of buildings and spaces do not have to
be dictated by carriageway alignment they
should generally be considered first, with the
carriageway alignment being designed to fit
within the remaining space (Fig. 7.4).
7.2.7 The use of computer-aided design
(CAD) tracking models and similar techniques
often proves to be beneficial in determining
how the street will operate and how vehicles
will move within it. Layouts designed using this
approach enable buildings to be laid out to suit
the character of the street, with footways and
kerbs helping to define and emphasise spaces.
Designers have the freedom to vary the space
between kerbs or buildings. The kerb line does
not need to follow the line of vehicle tracking if
careful attention is given to the combination of
sightlines, parking and pedestrian movements.
Manual for Streets

Shared surface streets and squares

7.2.8 In traditional street layouts, footways
and carriageways are separated by a kerb. In a
street with a shared surface, this demarcation is
absent and pedestrians and vehicles share the
same surface. Shared surface schemes work best
in relatively calm traffic environments. The key
aims are to:
encourage low vehicle speeds;
create an environment in which pedestrians
can walk, or stop and chat, without feeling
intimidated by motor traffic;
make it easier for people to move around;
and
promote social interaction.
7.2.9 In the absence of a formal carriageway,
the intention is that motorists entering the area
will tend to drive more cautiously and negotiate
the right of way with pedestrians on a more
conciliatory level (Fig. 7.5).
7.2.10 However, shared surfaces can cause
problems for some disabled people. People with
cognitive difficulties may find the environment
difficult to interpret. In addition, the absence of
a conventional kerb poses problems for blind or
partially-sighted people, who often rely on this
feature to find their way around. It is therefore
important that shared surface schemes include
an alternative means for visually-impaired people
to navigate by.

81

Bob White, Kent County Council

7.2.12 Consultation with the community and

users, particularly with disability groups and
access officers, is essential when any shared
surface scheme is developed. Early indications
are that, in many instances, a protected space,
with appropriate physical demarcation, will
need to be provided, so that those pedestrians
who may be unable or unwilling to negotiate
priority with vehicles can use the street safely and
comfortably.

Figure 7.5 A shared surface in a residential area

7.2.11 Research published by the Guide Dogs

for the Blind Association in September 2006
illustrated the problems that shared surfaces
cause for blind or partially-sighted and other
disabled people. Further research to be carried
out by the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association
will consider how the requirements of disabled
people can be met, with a view to producing
design guidance in due course.

Duchy of Cornwall and Leon K ier

1 The Guide Dogs for the

Blind Association (2006)
Shared Surface Street
Design Research Project.
The Issues: Report of
Focus Groups. Reading:
The Guide Dogs for the
Blind Association

7.2.14 Subject to making suitable provision for

disabled people, shared surface streets are likely
to work well:
in short lengths, or where they form
cul-de-sacs (Fig. 7.6);
where the volume of motor traffic is below
100 vehicles per hour (vph) (peak) (see
box); and
where parking is controlled or it takes place
in designated areas.

Andrew Cameron, WSP

7.2.13 When designing shared surface

schemes, careful attention to detail is required to
avoid other problems, such as:
undifferentiated surfaces leading to poor
parking behaviour;
vulnerable road users feeling threatened by
having no space protected from vehicles;
and
the positioning and quantity of planting,
street furniture and other features creating
visual clutter.

Figure 7.6 (a) and (b) A shared-surface square in Poundbury, Dorset.

82

Manual for Streets

Franz Otto Novotny, Northmoor Urban Art Project

Tim Pharoah, Llewelyn Davies Yeang

Figure 7.7 A shared surface scheme. Beaulieu Park,

Chelmsford.

7.2.15 Shared surface streets are often

constructed from paviours rather than asphalt,
which helps emphasise their difference from
conventional streets. Research for MfS has
shown that block paving reduces traffic speeds
by between 2.5 and 4.5 mph, compared with
speeds on asphalt surfaces (Fig. 7.7).

Home Zones
7.2.16 Home Zones are residential areas
designed with streets to be places for people,
instead of just for motor traffic. By creating a
high-quality street environment, Home Zones
strike a better balance between the needs of the
local community and drivers (Fig. 7.8). Involving
the local community is the key to a successful
scheme. Good and effective consultation with all
sectors of the community, including young
people, can help ensure that the design of
individual Home Zones meets the needs of the
local residents.

Research on shared space streets

2 I York, A Bradbury, SReid,

T Ewings and R Paradise
(2007) TheManual
for Streets: redefining
residential street design.
TRL Report No. 661.
Crowthorne: TRL.
3 Transport Act 2000.
London: TSO.

A study of public transport in London Borough

Pedestrian Priority Areas (PPAs) undertaken
by TRL for the Bus Priority Team at Transport
for London concluded that there is a selflimiting factor on pedestrians sharing space
with motorists, of around 100 vph. Above
this, pedestrians treat the general path taken
by motor vehicles as a road to be crossed
rather than as a space to occupy. The speed

Manual for Streets

Figure 7.8 Children playing in a Home Zone,

Northmoor, Manchester. However, this type of
bollard would cause problems for disabled people.

7.2.17 Home Zones often include shared

surfaces as part of the scheme design and in
doing so they too can create difficulties for
disabled people. Research commissioned by the
Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee
(DPTAC) on the implications of Home Zones
for disabled people, due to be published in
2007, will demonstrate those concerns. Design
guidance relating to this research is expected to
be published in due course.
7.2.18 Home Zones are encouraged in both
the planning and transport policies for new
developments and existing streets. They are
distinguished from other streets by having
signed entry and exit points, which indicate the
special nature of the street.
7.2.19 Local traffic authorities in England and
Wales were given the powers to designate roads
as Home Zones in section 268 of the Transport
Act 2000.2 The legal procedure for creating a
of vehicles also had a strong influence on how
pedestrians used the shared area. Although
this research project concentrated on PPAs, it
is reasonable to assume that these factors are
relevant to other shared space schemes.
The relationship between visibility, highway width
and driver speed identified on links was also
found to apply at junctions. A full description of
the research findings is available in Manual for
Streets: redefining residential street design.3

83

Nodal form

Cross /
staggered

Multi
armed

Square

Circus

Crescent

Regular

Irregular

Fig. 7.9 Illustrative junction layouts.

Home Zone in England is set out in the Quiet

Lanes and Home Zones (England) Regulations
20064 and guidance is provided in Department for
Transport Circular 02/2006.5 Procedure regulations
are yet to be made in Wales, but traffic authorities
may still designate roads as Home Zones.
7.2.20 Developers sometimes implement
Home Zone style schemes without formal
designation. However, it is preferable for the
proper steps to be followed to involve the
community in deciding how the street
will be used.

4 Statutory Instrument
2006 No. 2082, the Quiet
Lanes and home Zones
(England) Regulations
2006. London: TSO.
5 Department for Transport
(2006) Circular 02/2006

The Quiet Lanes and

Home Zones (England)
Regulations. London:
TSO.
6 Department for Transport
(2005) Home Zones:

Challenging the future

of our streets.London:

7.2.21 In existing streets, it is essential that

the design of the Home Zone involves significant
participation by local residents and local access
groups. In new-build situations, a partnership
between the developer and the relevant
authorities will enable prospective residents to
be made aware of the proposed designation of
the street as a Home Zone. This will pave the
way for the formal consultation procedure once
the s treet becomes public highway.
7.2.22 Further guidance on the design
of Home Zones is given in Home Zones:
Challenging the Future of Our Streets,6 the
Institute of Highway Incorporated Engineers
(IHIE) Home Zone Design Guidelines7 and on the
website www.homezones.org.uk.

Department for Transport

7 IHIE (2002) Home Zones

Design Guidelines.

7.3

Junctions

7.3.1
Junctions that are commonly used in
residential areas include:
crossroads and staggered junctions;
T and Y junctions; and
roundabouts.
Figure 7.9 illustrates a broader range of junction
geometries to show how these basic types can
be developed to create distinctive places.
Mini-roundabouts and shared surface squares
can be incorporated within some of the depicted
arrangements.
7.3.2 Junctions are generally places of high
accessibility and good natural surveillance. They
are therefore ideal places for locating public
buildings, shops and public transport stops,
etc. Junctions are places of interaction among
street users. Their design is therefore critical to
achieving a proper balance between their place
and movement functions.
7.3.3 The basic junction forms should be
determined at the masterplanning stage. At the
street design stage, they will have to be considered
in more detail in order to determine how they are
going to work in practice. Masterplanning and
detailed design will cover issues such as traffic
priority arrangements, the need, or otherwise, for
signs, markings and kerbs, and how property and
building lines are related.

London: IHIE

84

Manual for Streets

7.3.4 The resulting spaces and townscape

should ideally be represented in three
dimensions see box.

7.3.6 Junction design should facilitate direct

pedestrian desire lines, and this will often
mean using small corner radii. The use of swept
path analysis will ensure that the junctions are
negotiable by vehicles (Fig. 7.11).

Una McGaughrin, Llewelyn Davies Yeang

7.3.5 Often, the key to a well-designed

junction is the way in which buildings are placed
around it and how they enclose the space in
which the junction sits. Building placement
should therefore be decided upon first, with
the junction then designed to suit the available
space.

Figure 7.11 Quadrant kerbstones used instead of

large radii at junctions reduce the dominance of the
carriageway. This is reinforced by the placement and
form of the adjacent buildings and the absence of
road markings. However, note the lack of dropped
kerbs and tactile paving.

Drawing in three dimensions

Presenting design layouts in three dimensions
isan important way of looking at aspects of
engineering and urban design together
(Fig. 7.10). It enables street furniture, lighting,
utility equipment and landscaping to be clearly
shown. Three-dimensional layouts are also
useful in consultation with the public.
Street cross-sections and plans should be
developed initially. Perspective or axonometric
drawings can then be produced to add clarity
and to assist designers in visualising and
refining their ideas. Such three-dimensional
representation is fairly easy to achieve both by
hand and using CAD software. For more complex
schemes, a computer-generated walk-through
presentation can be used to demonstrate how
the proposal will work in practice. It is also a
powerful tool for resolving design issues.
d
c

b
d
a

30

Colin J Davis

e
30

Figure 7.10 Example of three-dimensional presentations.

Manual for Streets

85

7.3.7 Junctions can be marked to indicate

which arms have priority, but on quieter streets it
may be acceptable to leave them unmarked.
A lack of marked priority may encourage
motorists to slow down to negotiate their way
through, making the junction more comfortable
for use by pedestrians. However, this approach
requires careful consideration (see Chapter 9).
7.3.8 Crossroads are convenient for
pedestrians, as they minimise diversion from
desire lines when crossing the street. They also
make it easier to create permeable and legible
street networks.
7.3.9 Permeable layouts can also be achieved
using T and Y junctions. Y junctions can increase
flexibility in layout design.
7.3.10 Staggered junctions can reduce vehicle
conflict compared with crossroads, but may
reduce directness for pedestrians. If it is
necessary to maintain a view point or vista,
and if there is sufficient room between
buildings, staggered junctions can be provided
within continuous building lines. (Fig. 7.12).
Case study

Figure 7.12 Using staggered junctions to maintain

a view point or vista.

Tim Pharoah, Llewelyn Davies Yeang

Hulme, Manchester: speed tables

Figure 7.13 Raised tables at junction in Hulme.

The table has been raised almost to kerb height.

A distinctive feature of the Hulme development

is the adherence to a linear grid form. Raised
tables at junctions reduce speeds and facilitate
pedestrian movement (Fig. 7.13).

86

7.3.11 Where designers are concerned about

potential user conflict, they may consider placing
the junction on a speed table (see Hulme,
Manchester box). Another option might be to
close one of the arms to motor traffic (while
leaving it open for pedestrians and cyclists).
7.3.12 Conventional roundabouts are
not generally appropriate for residential
developments. Their capacity advantages are not
usually relevant, they can have a negative impact
on vulnerable road users, and they often do little
for the street scene.
7.3.13 Larger roundabouts are inconvenient
for pedestrians because they are deflected from
their desire lines, and people waiting to cross
one of the arms may not be able to anticipate
easily the movement of motor vehicles on the
roundabout, or entering or leaving it.

Manual for Streets

Peter OBrien, Llewelyn Davies Yeang

Figure 7.14 This street avoids the use of vertical traffic-calming features, but the irregular alignment is unsightly
and unlikely to have much speed-reducing effect, because of the width of the carriageway. It also results in
irregular grassed areas that create a maintenance burden while contributing little to street quality.

7.3.14 Roundabouts can be hazardous for

cyclists. Drivers entering at relatively high speed
may not notice cyclists on the circulatory
carriageway, and cyclists travelling past an arm
are vulnerable to being hit by vehicles entering
or leaving the junction.
7.3.15 Mini-roundabouts may be more suitable
in residential areas, as they cause less deviation
for pedestrians and are easier for cyclists to use.
In addition, they do not occupy as much land.
Practitioners should refer to Mini-roundabouts:
Good Practice Guidelines.8

8 Department for Transport

and County Surveyors
Society (CSS) (2006)

Mini-roundabouts:
Good Practice Guidance.
London: CSS.
9 Davies D,G. Taylor, MC,
Ryley, TJ, Halliday,
M. (1997) Cyclists at

Roundabouts the Effects

of Continental Design
on Predicted Safety and
Capacity. TRL Report No.
285. Crowthorne: TRL.
10 DETR (1997) Traffic

Advisory Leaflet 9/97

Cyclists at Roundabouts:
Continental Design
Geometry. London: DETR.

7.3.16 Continental-style roundabouts are also

suitable for consideration. They sit between
conventional roundabouts and mini-roundabouts
in terms of land take. They retain a conventional
central island, but differ in other respects there
is minimal flare at entry and exit, and they have
a single-lane circulatory carriageway. In addition,
the circulatory carriageway has negative camber,
so water drains away from the centre, which
simplifies drainage arrangements. Their geometry
is effective in reducing entry, circulatory and
exit speeds.9 They are safer for cyclists because
of the reduced speeds, together with the fact
that drivers cannot overtake on the circulatory
carriageway. Their use is described in Traffic
Advisory Leaflet 9/97.10

11 I York, A Bradbury, S Reid,

T Ewings and R Paradise
(2007) The Manual
for Streets: redefining
residential street design.
TRL Report no. 661.
Crowthorne: TRL.

Manual for Streets

Spacing of junctions
7.3.17 The spacing of junctions should be
determined by the type and size of urban blocks
appropriate for the development. Block size
should be based on the need for permeability,
and generally tends to become smaller as density
and pedestrian activity increases.
7.3.18 Smaller blocks create the need for more
frequent junctions. This improves permeability
for pedestrians and cyclists, and the impact
of motor traffic is dispersed over a wider
area. Research in the preparation of MfS11
demonstrated that more frequent (and hence
less busy) junctions need not lead to higher
numbers of accidents.
7.3.19 Junctions do not always need to cater
for all types of traffic. Some of the arms of a
junction may be limited to pedestrian and cycle
movement only.

7.4 Achieving appropriate traffic

speeds
7.4.1
Conflict among various user groups can
be minimised or avoided by reducing the speed
and flow of motor vehicles. Ideally, designers
should aim to create streets that control vehicle
speeds naturally rather than having to rely on
unsympathetic traffic-calming measures
(Fig. 7.14). In general, providing a separate
pedestrian and/or cycle route away from motor
traffic should only be considered as a last resort
(see the hierarchy of provision in Chapter 4).

87

Andrew Cameron, WSP

Figure 7.15 Trees planted in the highway at Newhall, Harlow, help to reduce vehicle speeds.

7.4.2 For residential streets, a maximum

design speed of 20 mph should normally be
an objective. The severity of injuries and the
likelihood of death resulting from a collision
at 20 mph are considerably less than can be
expected at 30 mph. In addition, vehicle noise
and the intimidation of pedestrians and cyclists
are likely to be significantly lower.
7.4.3 Evidence from traffic-calming schemes
suggests that speed-controlling features are
required at intervals of no more than 70 m in
order to achieve speeds of 20 mph or less.12
Straight and uninterrupted links should therefore
be limited to around 70 m to help ensure that the
arrangement has a natural traffic-calming effect.

12 DETR (1999) Traffic

Advisory Leaflet 9/99
- 20mph speed limits and
zones. London: DETR.
13 Department for Transport
(2005) Traffic Advisory

Leaflet 2/05 - Traffic

calming Bibliography.
London: Department for
Transport.
14 J Kennedy, R Gorell,
L Crinson, A Wheeler,
M Elliott (2005)

Psychological traffic
calming TRL Report No.
641. Crowthorne: TRL.

7.4.4 A continuous link can be broken up by

introducing features along it to slow traffic. The
range of traffic-calming measures available act
in different ways, with varying degrees of
effectiveness:
Physical features involving vertical
or horizontal deflection can be very
effective in reducing speed. It is preferable
to use other means of controlling speeds,
if practicable, but there will be situations
where physical features represent the
optimum solution. Additional sources of
advice on traffic calming can be found in
Traffic Advisory Leaflet

2/05.13
Changes in priority at roundabouts and
other junctions. This can be used to
disrupt flow and therefore bring overall
speeds down.
88

Street dimensions can have a significant

influence on speeds. Keeping lengths of
street between junctions short is particularly
effective. Street width also has an effect on
speed (see box).
Reduced visibility research carried out in
preparation of MfS found that reductions
in forward visibility are associated with
reduced driving speeds (see box).
Psychology and perception street features
and human activity can have an influence
on the speed at which people choose to
drive. Research14 suggests that features
likely to be effective include the following:
edge markings that visually narrow the
road speed reduction is likely to be
greatest where the edging is textured to
appear unsuitable for driving on;
the close proximity of buildings to
the road;
reduced carriageway width;
obstructions in the carriageway
(Fig. 7.15);
features associated with potential
activity in, or close to, the carriageway,
such as pedestrian refuges;
on-street parking, particularly when the
vehicles are parked in echelon
formation or perpendicular to the
carriageway;
the types of land use associated with
greater numbers of people, for example
shops; and
pedestrian activity.

Manual for Streets

Influence of geometry on speed

Improved visibility and/or increased

carriageway width were found to correlate with
increased vehicle speeds. Increased width for
a given visibility, or vice versa, were found to
increase speed. These data are summarised in
Fig. 7.16.

Research carried out in the preparation of

MfS considered the influence of geometry on
vehicle speed and casualties in 20 residential
and mixed-use areas in the UK. Two highway
geometric factors stand out as influencing
driving speed, all other things being equal.
They are:
forward visibility; and
carriageway width.

45

60

85th percentile speed (mph)

40

Average speed (mph)

The relationship between visibility, highway

width and driver speed identified on links
was also found to apply at junctions. A full
description of the research findings is available
in TRL Report 661.15

35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

50

40

30

20
10
0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Forward visibility (m)

20

40

60

80

100

120

Forward visibility (m)

Road
Road
Road
Road
Road
Road

width
width
width
width
width
width

=
=
=
=
=
=

10 m
9m
8m
7m
6m
5m

Figure 7.16 Correlation between visibility and carriageway width and vehicle speeds (a) average speeds
and (b) 85th percentile speeds. These graphs can be used to give an indication of the speed at which
traffic will travel for a given carriageway width/forward visibility combination.

7.4.5 Speed limits for residential areas are

normally 30 mph, but 20 mph limits are
becoming more common. If the road is lit, a
30 mph limit is signed only where it begins
repeater signs are not used here. All other speed
limits have to be signed where they start and be
accompanied by repeater signs.

15 I York, A Bradbury,
S Reid, T Ewings and
R Paradise (2007)
The Manual for Streets:
Redefining Residential
Street Design. TRL Report
No. 661. Crowthorne:
TRL.

Manual for Streets

89

7.4.6 A street with a 20 mph limit is not the

same as a 20 mph zone. To create a 20 mph
zone, it is a legal requirement that trafficcalming measures are installed to ensure that
low speeds are maintained throughout. In such
cases, the limit is signed only on entering the
zone, and no repeater signs are necessary.
7.4.7 Any speed limits below 30 mph, other
than 20 mph limits or 20 mph zones, require
individual consent from the Secretary of State
for Transport. Designers should note that such
approval is unlikely to be given.
7.4.8 A speed limit is not an indication of
the appropriate speed to drive at. It is the
responsibility of drivers to travel within the
speed limit at a speed suited to the conditions.
However, for new streets, or where existing
streets are being modified, and the design speed
is below the speed limit, it will be necessary
to include measures that reduce traffic
speeds accordingly.

16 Highways Agency (1992)

Design Manual for Roads

and Bridges London: TSO.
17 Department of the
Environment/Department
of Transport (1977; 2nd
edn 1992) Design Bulletin
32, Residential Roads
and Footpaths - Layout
Considerations. London:
HMSO.
18 D.W. Harwood, D.B.
Fambro, B. Fishburn,
H. Joubert, R. Lamm
and B. Psarianos.
(1995) International
Sight Distance Design
Practices, International
Symposium on
Highway Geometric
Design Practices,
Boston, Massachusetts
Conference Proceedings.
Washington USA:
Transportation Research
Board.
19 Maycock G, Brocklebank
P. and Hall, R. (1998)
Road Layout Design
Standards and Driver
Behaviour. TRL Report
No. 332. Crowthorne: TRL

7.4.9 Difficulties may be encountered where

a new development connects to an existing
road. If the junction geometry cannot be made
to conform to the requirements for prevailing
traffic speeds, the installation of traffic-calming
measures on the approach will allow the use of
a lower design speed to be used for the new
junction.

7.5

7.5.3 The basic formula for calculating SSD

(in metres) is:

SSD = vt + v2/2d

where:
= speed (m/s)

v
= driver perceptionreaction time

t
(seconds)
= deceleration (m/s2)

d
7.5.4 The desirable minimum SSDs used in
the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges are
based on a driver perceptionreaction time of
2 seconds and a deceleration rate of 2.45 m/s2
(equivalent to 0.25g where g is acceleration due
to gravity (9.81 m/s2 )). Design Bulletin 3217
adopted these values.
7.5.5 Drivers are normally able to stop
much more quickly than this in response to an
emergency. The stopping distances given in the
Highway Code assume a driver reaction time
of 0.67 seconds, and a deceleration rate
of 6.57 m/s2.
7.5.6 While it is not appropriate to design
street geometry based on braking in an
emergency, there is scope for using lower SSDs
than those used in Design Bulletin 32. This is
based upon the following:

Stopping sight distance

7.5.1
This section provides guidance on
stopping sight distances (SSDs) for streets where
85th percentile speeds are up to 60 km/h. At
speeds above this, the recommended SSDs in
the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges16 may
be more appropriate.
7.5.2 The stopping sight distance (SSD)
is the distance within which drivers need to
be able to see ahead and stop from a given
speed. It is calculated from the speed of
the vehicle, the time required for a driver to
identify a hazard and then begin to brake (the
perceptionreaction time), and the vehicles
rate of deceleration. For new streets, the design
speed is set by the designer. For existing streets,
the 85th percentile wet-weather speed is used.

90

a review of practice in other countries has

shown that Design Bulletin 32 values are
much more conservative than those used
elsewhere;18
research which shows that the 90th
percentile reaction time for drivers
confronted with a side-road hazard in a
driving simulator is 0.9 seconds (see TRL
Report 33219);
carriageway surfaces are normally able
to develop a skidding resistance of at
least 0.45g in wet weather conditions.
Deceleration rates of 0.25g (the previously
assumed value) are more typically
associated with snow-covered roads; and
of the sites studied in the preparation of
this manual, no relationship was found
between SSDs and casualties, regardless
of whether the sites complied with Design
Bulletin 32 or not.

Manual for Streets

Table 7.1 Derived SSDs for streets (figures rounded).

Speed

Kilometres per
hour

16

20

24

25

30

32

40

45

48

50

60

Miles per hour

10

12

15

16

19

20

25

28

30

31

37

SSD (metres)

12

15

16

20

22

31

36

40

43

56

SSD adjusted for bonnet

length. See 7.6.4

11

14

17

18

23

25

33

39

43

45

59

Additional features will

be needed to achieve
low speeds

7.5.7 The SSD values used in MfS are based

on a perceptionreaction time of 1.5 seconds and
a deceleration rate of 0.45g (4.41 m/s2). Table 7.1
uses these values to show the effect of speed
on SSD.

7.6.3 Checking visibility in the vertical

plane is then carried out to ensure that views
in the horizontal plane are not compromised
by obstructions such as the crest of a hill, or a
bridge at a dip in the road ahead. It also takes
into account the variation in driver eye height
and the height range of obstructions. Eye height
is assumed to range from 1.05 m (for car drivers)
to 2 m (for lorry drivers). Drivers need to be
able to see obstructions 2 m high down to a
point 600 mm above the carriageway. The latter
dimension is used to ensure small children can
be seen (Fig. 7.17).

7.5.9 Gradients affect stopping distances.

The deceleration rate of 0.45g used to calculate
the figures in Table 7.1 is for a level road. A 10%
gradient will increase (or decrease) the rate by
around 0.1g.

Visibility requirements

1050 min.

600 min.

2000 max.

7.6.1
Visibility should be checked at junctions
and along the street. Visibility is measured
horizontally and vertically.

7.6.4 The SSD figure relates to the position

of the driver. However, the distance between
the driver and the front of the vehicle is typically
up to 2.4 m, which is a significant proportion
of shorter stopping distances. It is therefore
recommended that an allowance is made by
adding 2.4 m to the SSD.

Figure 7.17 Vertical visibility envelope.

Manual for Streets

2000 max.

7.5.8 Below around 20 m, shorter SSDs

themselves will not achieve low vehicle speeds:
speed-reducing features will be needed. For
higher speed roads, i.e. with an 85th percentile
speed over 60 km/h, it may be appropriate
to use longer SSDs, as set out in the Design
Manual for Roads and Bridges.

7.6

7.6.2 Using plan views of proposed layouts,

checks for visibility in the horizontal plane
ensure that views are not obscured by vertical
obstructions.

Typically 2400

91

7.7

Visibility splays at junctions

7.7.1
The visibility splay at a junction ensures
there is adequate inter-visibility between
vehicles on the major and minor arms (Fig. 7.18).
7.7.2
The distance back along the minor arm
from which visibility is measured is known as
the X distance. It is generally measured back
from the give way line (or an imaginary give
way line if no such markings are provided).
This distance is normally measured along the
centreline of the minor arm for simplicity, but in
some circumstances (for example where there is
a wide splitter island on the minor arm) it will be
more appropriate to measure it from the actual
position of the driver.
7.7.3
The Y distance represents the distance
that a driver who is about to exit from the minor
arm can see to his left and right along the main
alignment. For simplicity it is measured along
the nearside kerb line of the main arm, although
vehicles will normally be travelling a distance
from the kerb line. The measurement is taken
from the point where this line intersects the
centreline of the minor arm (unless, as above,
there is a splitter island in the minor arm).
7.7.4 When the main alignment is curved and
the minor arm joins on the outside of a bend,
another check is necessary to make sure that an
approaching vehicle on the main arm is visible
over the whole of the Y distance. This is done by
drawing an additional sight line which meets the
kerb line at a tangent.
7.7.5
Some circumstances make it unlikely
that vehicles approaching from the left on
the main arm will cross the centreline of the
main arm opposing flows may be physically

segregated at that point, for example. If so, the

visibility splay to the left can be measured to the
centreline of the main arm.
X distance
7.7.6
An X distance of 2.4 m should normally
be used in most built-up situations, as this
represents a reasonable maximum distance
between the front of the car and the drivers eye.
7.7.7
A minimum figure of 2 m may be
considered in some very lightly-trafficked and
slow-speed situations, but using this value
will mean that the front of some vehicles will
protrude slightly into the running carriageway of
the major arm. The ability of drivers and cyclists
to see this overhang from a reasonable distance,
and to manoeuvre around it without undue
difficulty, should be considered.
7.7.8
Using an X distance in excess of 2.4 m is
not generally required in built-up areas.
7.7.9
Longer X distances enable drivers to
look for gaps as they approach the junction. This
increases junction capacity for the minor arm,
and so may be justified in some circumstances,
but it also increases the possibility that drivers
on the minor approach will fail to take account
of other road users, particularly pedestrians
and cyclists. Longer X distances may also result
in more shunt accidents on the minor arm.
TRL Report No. 18420 found that accident risk
increased with greater minor-road sight distance.
Y distance
7.7.10 The Y distance should be based on
values for SSD (Table 7.1).

20 Summersgill I., Kennedy,

J. and Baynes, D. (1996)
Accidents at Three-arm

Priority Junctions on
Urban Single-carriageway
Roads TRL Report no.
184. Crowthorne: TRL.

92

Manual for Streets

Possible features
preventing vehicles from
crossing centre line

Alternative left-hand visibilty splay if vehicles approaching

from the left are unable to cross the centre line

Y distance

Y distance

X distance
Left-hand
visibility splay

Right-hand
visibility splay

Possible feature preventing

vehicles from crossing
centre line
Alternative left-hand visibility
splay if vehicles approaching
from the left are unable to
cross the centre line

Visibility splays
Tangent to kerb
line (additional
check)

Y distance

Tangent to kerb
line (additional
check)

Y distance

X distance

c
Possible feature preventing
vehicles from crossing
centre line

Y distance

Alternative left-hand visibility

splay if vehicles approaching
from the left are unable to
cross the centre line

X distance
Y distance

Visibility splays

Figure 7.18 Measurement of junction visibility splays (a) on a straight road, (b) and (c) on bends.

Manual for Streets

93

7.8

Forward visibility

7.8.1
Forward visibility is the distance a
driver needs to see ahead to stop safely for
obstructions in the road. The minimum forward
visibility required is equal to the minimum SSD.
It is checked by measuring between points on
a curve along the centreline of the inner traffic
lane (see Fig. 7.19).

Visibility along the street edge

7.8.3 Vehicle exits at the back edge of the
footway mean that emerging drivers will have
to take account of people on the footway.
The absence of wide visibility splays at private
driveways will encourage drivers to emerge more
cautiously. Consideration should be given to
whether this will be appropriate, taking into
account the following:
the frequency of vehicle movements;
the amount of pedestrian activity; and
the width of the footway.

Andrew Cameron, WSP

7.8.2 There will be situations where it is

desirable to reduce forward visibility to control
traffic speed the Influence of geometry on
speed box describes how forward visibility
influences speed. An example is shown in
Fig 7.20.
Figure 7.20 Limiting forward visibility helps keep
speeds down in Poundbury, Dorset.

7..8.4 When it is judged that footway visibility

splays are to be provided , consideration should
be given to the best means of achieving this in a
manner sympathetic to the visual appearance of
the street (Fig. 7.21). This may include:
the use of boundary railings rather than
walls (Fig. 7.22); and
the omission of boundary walls or fences at
the exit location.

Obstacles to visibility
Forward visibility
measured along centre
of inner lane

Visibility splays

Visibility splay
envelope

7.8.5 Parking in visibility splays in built-up

areas is quite common, yet it does not appear to
create significant problems in practice. Ideally,
defined parking bays should be provided outside
the visibility splay. However, in some
circumstances, where speeds are low, some
encroachment may be acceptable.
7.8.6 The impact of other obstacles, such as
street trees and street lighting columns, should
be assessed in terms of their impact on the
overall envelope of visibility. In general,
occasional obstacles to visibility that are not
large enough to fully obscure a whole vehicle or
a pedestrian, including a child or wheelchair user,
will not have a significant impact on road safety.

Figure 7.19 Measurement of forward visibility.

94

Manual for Streets

Tim Pharoah, Llewelyn Davies Yeang

Tim Pharoah, Llewelyn Davies Yeang

Figure 7.21 Beaulieu Park, Chelmsford low

vegetation provides subtle provision of visibility
at private driveway.

Figure 7.22 Beaulieu Park, Chelmsford: the visibility

splays are provided by railings rather than boundary
walls, although the railings could have followed the
property boundary.

7.9

7.9.1 One of the key differences between

streets and roads is that streets normally provide
direct access to buildings and public spaces.
This helps to generate activity and a positive
relationship between the street and its
surroundings. Providing direct access to
buildings is also efficient in land-use terms.
7.9.2 The provision of frontage vehicle access
onto a street should be considered from the
viewpoint of the people passing along the street,
as well as those requiring access (Fig. 7.23).
Factors to consider include:
the speed and volume of traffic on the
street;
the possibility of the vehicles turning
around within the property where this is
possible, then vehicles can exit travelling
forward;
the presence of gathered accesses a
single access point can serve a number of
properties or a communal parking area,
for example. This may be acceptable where
a series of individual accesses would not be;
and

the distance between the property

boundary and the carriageway to provide
adequate visibility for the emerging driver.

7.9.3 In the past, a relatively low limit on

traffic flow (300 vehicles per peak hour or some
3,000 vehicles per day) has generally been used
when deciding whether direct access was
appropriate. This is equivalent to the traffic
generated by around 400 houses. Above this
level, many local-authority residential road
guidelines required the provision of a local
distributor road.

Andrew Cameron, WSP

Frontage access

Figure 7.23 Frontage access for individual dwellings

onto a main street into Dorchester.

Manual for Streets

95

7.9.4 Such roads are often very unsuccessful

in terms of placemaking and providing for
pedestrians and cyclists. In many cases, buildings
turn their backs onto local distributors, creating
dead frontages and sterile environments.
Separate service roads are another possible
design response, but these are wasteful of land
and reduce visual enclosure and quality.
7.9.5 It is recommended that the limit for
providing direct access on roads with a 30 mph
speed restriction is raised to at least 10,000
vehicles per day (see box).

Traffic flow and road safety for streets

with direct frontage access
The relationship between traffic flow and road
safety for streets with direct frontage access
was researched for MfS. Data on recorded
accidents and traffic flow for a total of 20 sites
were obtained. All of the sites were similar in
terms of land use (continuous houses with
driveways), speed limit (30 mph) and geometry
(single-carriageway roads with limited sideroad junctions). Traffic flows at the sites varied
from some 600 vehicles per day to some
23,000 vehicles per day, with an average traffic
flow of some 4,000 vehicles per day.
It was found that very few accidents occurred
involving vehicles turning into and out of
driveways, even on heavily-trafficked roads.
Links with direct frontage access can be
designed for significantly higher traffic flows
than have been used in the past, and there is
good evidence to raise this figure to 10,000
vehicles per day. It could be increased further,
and it is suggested that local authorities review
their standards with reference to their own
traffic flows and personal injury accident
records. The research indicated that a
link carrying this volume of traffic, with
characteristics similar to those studied, would
experience around one driveway-related
accident every five years per kilometre. Fewer
accidents would be expected on links where
the speed of traffic is limited to 20 mph or less,
which should be the aim in residential areas.

96

7.10

Turning areas

7.10.1 Connected street networks will

generally eliminate the need for drivers to make
three-point turns.
7.10.2 Where it is necessary to provide for
three-point turns (e.g. in a cul-de-sac), a
tracking assessment should be made to indicate
the types of vehicles that may be making this
manoeuvre and how they can be accommodated.
The turning space provided should relate to its
environment, not specifically to vehicle
movement (see Fig. 7.24), as this can result
in a space with no use other than for turning
vehicles. To be effective and usable, the turning
head must be kept clear of parked vehicles.
Therefore it is essential that adequate parking is
provided for residents in suitable locations.
7.10.3 Routeing for waste vehicles should be
determined at the concept masterplan or scheme
design stage (see paragraph 6.8.4). Wherever
possible, routing should be configured so that
the refuse collection can be made without the
need for the vehicle having to reverse, as turning
heads may be obstructed by parked vehicles and
reversing refuse vehicles create a risk to other
street users.

7
3
Figure 7.24 Different turning spaces and usable
turning heads.

Manual for Streets

7.11

Overrun areas

Tim Pharoah, Llewelyn Davies Yeang

7.11.1
Overrun areas are used at bends and
junctions (including roundabouts). They are
areas of carriageway with a surface texture and/
or appearance intended to deter overrunning
by cars and other light vehicles. Their purpose
is to allow the passage of large vehicles, such
as buses and refuse vehicles, while maintaining
tight carriageway dimensions that deter smaller
vehicles from speeding.

7.11.2 Overrun areas should generally be

avoided in residential and mixed-use streets.
They can:
be visually intrusive;
interfere with pedestrian desire lines
(Fig. 7.25); and
pose a hazard for cyclists.
However, they can help to overcome problems
with access for larger vehicles and so may
represent the best solution.

Figure 7.25 The overrun area at this junction is hazardous for pedestrians and/or requires them to divert from
their desire line. Notice also the unsightly placing of inspection covers. The layout is particularly hazardous
for blind and partially-sighted pedestrians.

Manual for Streets

97

Design for Homes

8
Parking

Chapter aims
Emphasise the importance of providing
sufficient good-quality cycle parking in
all new residential developments to meet
the needs of residents and visitors.
Explain how the parking of vehicles is a
key function of most streets in residential
areas and that it needs to be properly
considered in the design process.
Confirm that, having regard to the
policy in Planning Policy Statement 3:
Housing (PPS3),1 designers need to
consider carefully how to accommodate
the number of cars that are likely to be
owned by residents (Wales: refer to TAN
18: Transport 2).
Describe how providing a level of car
parking below normal demand levels can
be appropriate in some situations.
Explain the efficiency benefits of
unallocated car parking and the need
to meet at least some of the normal
demand on the street.
Offer guidance on footway parking.
Give guidance on the size of parking
spaces for cycles, cars and motorcycles.

8.1

1 Communities and Local

Government (2006)
Planning Policy Statement
3: Housing. London: TSO.
2 Welsh Assembly
Government (2007)
Technical Advice Note 18:
Transport. Cardiff: NAfW.
3 Statutory Instrument 2002
No. 3113,The Traffic Signs
Regulations and General
Directions 2002. London:
TSO.
4 Department for Transport
(various) The Traffic Signs
Manual. London: TSO and
HMSO.
5 DETR (2001) Policy
Planning Guidance
Note 13: Transport.
London: TSO.

Introduction

8.1.1
Accommodating parked vehicles is
a key function of most streets, particularly in
residential areas. While the greatest demand is
for parking cars, there is also a need to consider
the parking of cycles, motorcycles and, in some
circumstances, service vehicles. Where there is
a need to regulate parking, this should be done
by making appropriate traffic regulation orders
(TROs) and signing and marking in accordance
with the Traffic Signs Regulations and General
Directions 2002 (TSRGD). 3 Guidance is also
provided in the Traffic Signs Manual.4
8.1.2
The level of parking provision and its
location has a key influence on the form and
quality of a development, and the choices
people make in how they travel. The way cars are

Manual for Streets

parked is a key factor for many issues, such as

visual quality, street activity, interaction between
residents, and safety.
8.1.3
A failure to properly consider this
issue is likely to lead to inappropriate parking
behaviour, resulting in poor and unsafe
conditions for pedestrians.
8.1.4 Parking can be provided on or off the
street. Off-street parking includes parking within
a curtilage (on-plot) or in off-street parking
areas (off-plot).

8.2

Cycle parking

8.2.1
Providing enough convenient and
secure cycle parking at peoples homes and other
locations for both residents and visitors is critical
to increasing the use of cycles. In residential
developments, designers should aim to make
access to cycle storage at least as convenient as
access to car parking.
8.2.2 The need for convenient, safe and
secure cycle parking in new developments is
recognised in Policy Planning Guidance
Note 13: Transport (PPG13)5 (Wales: TAN 18),
which recommends that provision should be
increased to promote cycle use but should
at least be at levels consistent with the local
authoritys cycle target strategy in its Local
Transport Plan.

Determining the amount of cycle parking

8.2.3 Shared cycle parking is normally more
efficient than providing sufficient space within
each dwelling for the maximum possible number
of cycles. Shared cycle parking facilities should
be secure and convenient to use.
8.2.4 The amount of cycle parking in a shared
facility will depend on the overall number of
cycles anticipated across the scheme, based on
average cycle-ownership levels. This number can
vary considerably depending on circumstances.
8.2.5 Houses tend to have higher levels of
cycle ownership than flats. Research carried out
for CABE/Oxfordshire County Council by WSP

99

Average cycles/ Average cycles/

dwelling
resident
Houses,
Oxford City

2.65

0.73

Houses, rest of
Oxfordshire

1.51

0.52

Flats,
Oxford City

0.97

0.48

Flats,
rest of
Oxfordshire

0.44

0.23

and Phil Jones Associates in 2006 found the

average cycle ownership levels shown
in Table 8.1.

8.2.6 The amount of provision will also
vary depending on the type of development.
Cycle use can be expected to be relatively high
in places such as student accommodation. In
sheltered housing or housing for older people,
lower provision is likely to be more appropriate.
8.2.7 When assessing the effect of location,
census data on the proportion of trips to work
made by cycle provides a useful proxy for
assessing the likely level of cycle ownership.
8.2.8 Cycle parking is often likely to be
within, or allocated to, individual dwellings,
particularly for houses. In such cases, it will be
necessary to consider the potential for one cycle
to be owned by each resident.

Visitors and mixed-use areas

8.2.9 Providing cycle parking for visitors is
important when planning new developments and
modifying existing streets. In residential areas,
the amount and location of visitor parking can
be informed by the amount of cycle parking
available to residents and the targeted modal
share of visitor trips.
8.2.10 In some cases, visitors may be able
to use spare space within residential cycleparking facilities, whether shared or individual.
Some provision in the public realm may also
be appropriate, particularly where residents
provision is not easily accessed by visitors.
100

8.2.11 In mixed-use areas and where there are

commercial or communal facilities in a residential
neighbourhood, well-located and convenient
public cycle-parking will normally be necessary.

Design solutions for residential

cycle-parking
8.2.12 Cycles are often kept in garages, and
this can be convenient and secure if located near
the front of the property. However, garages are
not normally designed for cycle storage, and the
proportion of housing schemes with individual
garages is declining.
8.2.13 Greater consideration therefore needs
to be given to the provision of bespoke cycle
storage. Cycles are not suited to overnight
storage outdoors as they are vulnerable to theft
and adverse weather. At the very least, any
outdoor cycle parking needs to be covered, and
preferably lockable (Fig. 8.1).
8.2.14 If no cycle parking is provided, this
may affect the way garages are used. This
aspect, among others, will inform decisions on
whether garages count fully towards car-parking
provision (see paragraph 8.3.4 below).
8.2.15 Where separate cycle-parking is
provided within the building, it needs to be
conveniently located, close to the main point of
access. Where cycle parking is to be provided
within a separate building, such as a detached
garage or other outbuildings, it will need to be
secure, with doors designed for easy access.
8.2.16 In flats, cycle parking has often
been inadequate, leading to cycles being
stored in hallways or balconies. For new
developments, the storage of cycles is an
important consideration.

Llewelyn Davies Yeang

Table 8.1 Average cycle ownership levels in

Oxfordshire, 2006

Figure 8.1 Secure cycle storage.

Manual for Streets

TfL Streetscape Guidance, Transport for London

Andrew Cameron, WSP

Figure 8.2 Cycle parking that has good surveillance

and is at a key location in this example near a
hospital entrance.

8.2.17 For ground-floor flats, or where

adequately-sized lifts are provided, storage
within the accommodation may be an option,
but it will need to be expressly considered in the
design and it will be important to ensure that
cycles can be brought into the building easily
and quickly.

Figure 8.3 Sheffield stands are simple and effective.

The design allows the bicycle frame and wheels to
be easily locked to the stand. Note the tapping
rail near ground level and the reflective bands on
the uprights.

8.2.19 Another option is to provide communal

cycle-parking in secure facilities, such as in
underground car parks, in purpose-designed
buildings or in extensions to buildings.
8.2.20 Visitor cycle-parking in the public
realm is best provided in well-overlooked areas,
which may often be the street itself (Fig. 8.2).
Although there is a wide variety of design
options, simple and unobtrusive solutions, such
as Sheffield stands (Fig. 8.3), are preferred.
Some bespoke designs are not so convenient, for
example they may not allow both wheels to be
easily locked to the stand (Fig. 8.4).
8.2.21 Cycle stands need to be located clear of
pedestrian desire lines, and generally closer

Manual for Streets

Cycling England

8.2.18 Cycle parking for flats can also be

located in communal areas, such as in hallways
or under stairs, but, if so, it needs to be properly
designed in order to prevent parked cycles
becoming a nuisance for residents. If parking is
to be located on upper floors, adequately-sized
lifts need to be considered.
Figure 8.4 A contemporary design for cycle parking
note that this arrangement is not so convenient for
locking both wheels to the stand.

to the carriageway than to buildings. They

should be detectable by blind or partially sighted
people. A ground level tapping rail at either end
of a run of stands should be provided.
8.2.22 The preferred spacing of these stands is
about 1 m, so that two cycles can be stored per
metre run. Where space is limited, an absolute
minimum spacing of 800 mm may be used,
although this will make it more difficult for
cycles with baskets and panniers to be stored.
The outermost stands should be no closer than
550 mm to a parallel wall. In addition, there
should be at least 550 mm clear space betwen
the ends of individual stands and any wall.

101

1000 min.

Wall fixings

2000 min.
Figure 8.5 Plan of store for two cycles using wall fixings.

8.3.2 PPS3 makes it clear that, when

assessing the design quality of a proposed
new development, it is important to consider a
design-led approach to the provision of carparking space that is well-integrated with a
high-quality public realm. PPS3 (paragraph 51)
advises that:
Local Planning Authoritiesshould,with
stakeholdersandcommunities,
developresidential parking policies for their
areas,taking account of expectedlevels of
carownership, the importance of promoting
good design and the need to use
land efficiently.

900

550 min.

550 min.

550 min.

2000 min.

Sheffield stands

Figure 8.6 Plan of store for four cycles using

Sheffield stands.

8.3.3 The context of a new residential

development needs to be carefully considered
when determining the appropriate amount
of parking (Fig. 8.7). This will be informed
by the Transport Assessment, together with
any accompanying Travel Plan and the local
authoritys residential parking policies set out in
its Local Development Framework.
8.3.4 Although the ability of residents to
reach important destinations by other modes is
one factor affecting car ownership, research7 has
shown that dwelling size, type and tenure are
also important.

8.2.23 Where cycle parking is provided

internally, the indicative dimensions shown in
Figs 8.5 and 8.6 are appropriate.

8.2.24 Overall space requirements can be

reduced where cycles are stored on-end or in
two layers using rack systems, but such storage
is often not as easy to use by everyone, and is
a less desirable option than parking on
the ground.

8.3

Car parking

6 Welsh Assembly
Government (2002)
Planning Policy Wales.
Cardiff: NAfW. Chapter 8,
Transport.
7 Forthcoming
Communities and Local
Government research
document

8.3.1
The availability of car parking is a major
determinant of travel mode. The Governments
general planning policy for car parking is set out
in PPG13: Transport. The Governments policy
on residential car-parking provision is set out
in PPS3: Housing, which is particularly relevant
for MfS (Wales: policy on parking is set out in
Planning Policy Wales,6 supplemented by TAN 18).

102

Phil Jones, Phil Jones Associates

Introduction and policy background

Figure 8.7 Residential car parking.

Manual for Streets

8.3.5 Local planning authorities will need to

consider carefully what is an appropriate level
of car parking provision. In particular,
under-provision may be unattractive to some
potential occupiers and could, over time, result
in the conversion of front gardens to parking
areas (see box). This can cause significant loss
of visual quality and increase rainwater run-off,
which works against the need to combat climate
change. It is important to be aware that many
disabled people are reliant on the use of the
private car for personal mobility. Ideally,
therefore, layouts should be able to accommodate
parking provision for Blue Badge holders.

8.3.8 More information on car clubs is

available at www.carplus.org.uk and in the
Department for Transport document Making Car
Sharing and Car Clubs Work10 (see box).

Car clubs
Making Car Sharing and Car Clubs Work
advises that:
The importance of on-street spaces cannot
be underestimated both for open and closed
schemes; not least because they provide a very
visible image of the presence of a car club, and
demonstrate direct benefits for potential users.
The provision of dedicated parking spaces is a
major incentive for the uptake of community
car clubs, particularly in urban areas.

Car parking provision for new homes

8 CABE (2005) What Home

Buyers Want: Attitudes
and Decision Making
amongst Consumers.
London: CABE.
9 CABE (2005) What its
Like to Live There: The
Views of Residents on the
Design of New Housing.
London: CABE.
10 Department for Transport
(2004) Making Car Sharing
and Car Clubs Work:
A Good Practice Guide.
London: Department for
Transport.

8.3.7 One way of encouraging reduced car

ownership is to provide a car club. Car clubs
provide neighbourhood-based short-term
car hire to members for periods of as little as
one hour, and have been shown to reduce car
ownership and use. To function effectively, car
club vehicles need to be made available close to
members homes.

Manual for Streets

Andrew Cameron, WSP

8.3.6 Provision below demand can work

successfully when adequate on-street parking
controls are present and where it is possible for
residents to reach day-to-day destinations, such
as jobs, schools and shops, without the use of a
car. This will normally be in town and city centres
where there will be good public transport and
places that can be accessed easily on foot and
by cycle. For residents who choose not to
own a car, living in such an area may be an
attractive proposition.

8.3.9 Highway authorities are able to make

TROs, limiting the use of on-street parking
spaces to car club vehicles. Authorities that have
done this include Bristol, Ealing, Edinburgh, and
Kensington and Chelsea. The supporting traffic
signs and markings may need to be authorised
by the Department for Transport in England or
the Welsh Assembly Government (see Fig. 8.8).

Andrew Cameron, WSP

CABE research8,9 found that car parking

remains a significant issue for residents and
house buyers. Many people feel that the
design for a new residential development
should accommodate typical levels of car
ownership and that the level of parking in new
developments is often inadequate for residents
and visitors demands. There was a general
feeling among buyers of new homes that
apparent attempts to restrict parking in order
to curb car ownership were unrealistic and had
little or no impact on the number of cars a
household would require and acquire.

Figure 8.8 (a) and (b) A successful car club scheme is

operating in Bath, with spaces provided on-street.

103

Allocated and unallocated parking

On-street parking

8.3.10 Not all parking spaces need to be

allocated to individual properties. Unallocated
parking provides a common resource for a
neighbourhood or a specific development.

8.3.12 An arrangement of discrete parking

bays adjacent to the running lanes is often the
preferred way of providing on-street parking. It
has little effect on passing traffic and minimises
obstructions to the view of pedestrians crossing
the street.
8.3.13 It is recommended that, in most
circumstances, at least some parking demand in
residential and mixed-use areas is met with
well-designed on-street parking (Fig. 8.9).
8.3.14 Breaking up the visual impact can be
achieved by limiting on-street parking to small
groups of, say, about five spaces. These groups
can be separated by kerb build-outs, street
furniture or planting.
8.3.15 In planning for expected levels of car
ownership it is not always necessary to provide
parking on site (i.e. within curtilage or in offstreet parking areas). In some cases it may be
appropriate to cater for all of the anticipated

Tim Pharoah, Llewelyn Davies Yeang

8.3.11 A combination of both types of

parking can often be the most appropriate
solution. There are several advantages to
providing a certain amount of unallocated
communal parking, and it is recommended that
there should be a presumption in favour of
including some in most residential layouts. Key
considerations for communal parking are that it:
only needs to provide for average levels of
car ownership;
allows for changes in car ownership
between individual dwellings over time;
provides for both residents and visitors
needs; and
can cater for parking demand from
non-residential uses in mixed-use areas,
which will tend to peak during the daytime
when residential demands are lowest.

Figure 8.9 An example of on-street parking in the centre of the street that helps to separate the car from
other users and provides strong surveillance of the cars.

104

Manual for Streets

On-street parking
positive and negative effects

Tim Pharoah, Llewelyn Davies Yeang

Positive effects

Figure 8.10 On-street parking in Crown Street,

Glasgow.

demand on-street. This could be the case, for

example, with a small infill development where
adjacent streets are able to easily accommodate
the increase in parking, or where a low
car-ownership development is proposed. Crown
Street, Glasgow, is an example of a large scheme
that has accommodated all parking on-street
(Fig. 8.10).
8.3.16 Where regulated on-street parking is
provided, it is important to note that it cannot
be allocated to individual dwellings, although
such spaces can be reserved for particular types
of user, such as disabled people.

Negative effects
Can introduce a road safety problem,
particularly if traffic speeds are above
20 mph and there are few places for
pedestrians to cross with adequate visibility.
Can be visually dominant within a street
scene and can undermine the established
character (Fig. 8.11).
May lead to footway parking unless the
street is properly designed to accommodate
parked vehicles.
Vehicles parked indiscriminately can block
vehicular accesses to dwellings.
Cars parked on-street can be more
vulnerable to opportunistic crime than
off-street spaces.

Una McGaughrin, Llewelyn Davies Yeang

8.3.17 In deciding how much on-street parking

is appropriate, it is recommended that the
positive and negative effects listed in the
On-street parking box are considered.

A common resource, catering for residents,

visitors and service vehicles in an efficient
manner.
Able to cater for peak demands from
various users at different times of the day,
for example people at work or residents.
Adds activity to the street.
Typically well overlooked, providing
improved security.
Popular and likely to be well-used.
Can provide a useful buffer between
pedestrians and traffic.
Potentially allows the creation of areas
within perimeter blocks that are free of cars.

Figure 8.11 Street detailing and pedestrian provision dominated by car-parking considerations

Manual for Streets

105

8.3.18 Generally the most appropriate solution

will be to design for a level of on-street parking
that takes account of the following factors:
the overall level of car ownership in the
immediate area;
the amount of off-street parking provided;
the amount of allocated parking provided;
the speed and volume of traffic using the
street; and
the width and geometry of the street and
its junctions.
8.3.19 Indicating on-street car-parking spaces
clearly through the use of road markings or
changes of surfacing material can help to
encourage good parking behaviour.
8.3.20 Where on-street spaces are provided
in bays adjacent to running lanes, having
them drain towards the street will make
cleaning easier.

8.3.25 It is preferable to provide these spaces

in unallocated areas, including on-street, as
it is not normally possible to identify which
properties will be occupied by or visited by
disabled people. It is recommended that spaces
for disabled people are generally located as close
as possible to building entrances.
8.3.26 In the absence of any specific local
policies, it is recommended that 5% of residential
car-parking spaces are designated for use by
disabled people. A higher percentage is likely to
be necessary where there are proportionally more
older residents. Local authorities should provide
spaces on the basis of demand.
8.3.27 Where local authorities mark out
disabled bays on streets in residential areas, the
traffic signs and road markings should comply
with TSRGD and be supported by a TRO.

Parking for service vehicles

Visitor parking
8.3.21 It is recommended that visitor parking
is generally served by unallocated parking,
including onstreet provision.
8.3.22 Research11 indicates that no additional
provision needs to be made for visitor parking
when a significant proportion of the total
parking stock for an area is unallocated.
8.3.23 In town centres and other locations
with good accessibility by non-car modes, and
where on-street parking is controlled, it is often
appropriate to omit visitor car-parking spaces.

11 Noble, J. and Jenks,

M. (1996) Parking:
Demand and Provision
in Private Sector
Housing Developments.
Oxford: Oxford Brookes
University.
12 DETR (2001) Policy
Planning Guidance 13:
Transport. London: TSO.
(Wales: Welsh Assembly
Government (2007)
Technical Advice Note
18: Transport. Cardiff:
NAfW.)
13 DTLR and CABE (2001)

Car parking provision for disabled people

(Blue Badge holders)
8.3.24 Spaces for disabled people12 need to be
properly marked and meet the minimum space
requirements (see paragraph 8.3.58 below).

8.3.28 In most situations, it will not be

necessary to provide parking spaces specifically
for service vehicles, such as delivery vans, which
are normally stationary for a relatively short time.
If such parking bays are considered necessary,
other vehicles may need to be prevented from
using the spaces by regulation and enforcement.

Design and location of car-parking spaces

8.3.29 Guidance on the design and location of
car-parking spaces can be found in a number of
recent documents.
8.3.30 Better Places to Live13 echoes many of
the principles already set out above, including
opportunities to use a combination of allocated
and unallocated parking and the scope for onstreet parking, provided that it is designed so
that it is interrupted at regular intervals.

Better Places to Live: By

Design. A Companion
Guide to PPG3. London:
Thomas Telford Ltd.

106

Manual for Streets

Llewelyn Davies Yeang

Figure 8.12 This arrangement of buildings creates

well-overlooked parking spaces (shown in pink)
through routes increase natural surveillance from
passing pedestrians (source: Better Places to Live ).

8.3.31 Better Places to Live notes that

courtyard parking can be a useful addition
to spaces in front of dwellings, and that
courtyards which work well exhibit three main
characteristics:
they are not car parks, but places which
have parking in them;
they are overlooked by adjoining houses, or
by buildings entered from the parking area
(Figs 8.12 and 8.13); and
they normally include, at most, 10 parking
spaces if there are more spaces, the
courtyard layout should be broken up.

14 ODPM and Home Office

(2004) Safer Places: The

Planning System and

Crime Prevention. London:
Thomas Telford Ltd.
15 Llewelyn Davies (2000)
The Urban Design
Compendium. London:
English Partnerships and
The Housing Corporation.
16 English Partnerships and
Design for Homes (2006)
Car Parking: What Works
Where. London: English
Partnerships.

8.3.32 Better Places to Live also acknowledges

the success of developments which depend on
basement or undercroft parking, without which
they would not be viable. The advantage of
putting cars underground is that it preserves the
street frontage, uses land more efficiently and
may be more convenient for drivers accessing the
building, particularly in adverse weather. However,
as with courtyard parking, much depends on the
location and design of the entrance.

Figure 8.13 This well-overlooked parking court at

Bishops Mead, Chelmsford, is obviously in the
private realm (source: Safer Places14 ).

8.3.33 The Urban Design Compendium15

advises that vehicles should not be allowed
to dominate spaces, or to inconvenience
pedestrians and cyclists; and that a careful
balance has to be struck between the desire of
car owners to park as near to their dwellings as
possible and the need to maintain the character
of the overall setting. Parking within the front
curtilage should generally be avoided as it
breaks up the frontage and restricts informal
surveillance. Where cars are parked in courts or
squares, the design should ensure that they are
overlooked by adjoining buildings.
8.3.34 Car Parking: What Works Where16
provides a comprehensive toolkit for designers
that gives useful advice on the most appropriate
forms of car parking relevant to different types
of residential development. The guidance
includes examples of:

Manual for Streets

parking in structures such as multi-storey

and underground car parks;
parking in front and rear courts;
on-street parking in central reservations,
along kerbs and at different angles, and in
parking squares; and
parking on driveways, in garages and car
ports, and in individual rear courts.

107

8.3.35
The guidance includes detailed
case studies that illustrate the application
of these parking solutions for different
locations and types of housing.
8.3.36
When drawing up parking
policies or designing for new car-parking
arrangements, it is recommended that local
authorities and applicants seeking planning
permission have regard to the good practice
set out in the above guidance (and also see
box). Consideration should also be given
to the Safer Parking Scheme initiative of
the Association of Chief Police Officers
(ACPO),17 aimed at reducing crime and the
fear of crime in parking areas.

Table 8.2 Efficiency of different types of parking

Level of
efficiency/
flexibility
High

Car parking arrangements:

good practice
It is recommended that the following key
principles (based on Car Parking: What Works
Where) should be followed when considering
the design and location of car parking:
the design quality of the street is
paramount;
there is no single best solution to providing
car parking a combination of on-plot, offplot and on-street will often be appropriate;
the street can provide a very good car
park on-street parking is efficient,
understandable and can increase vitality
and safety;
parking within a block is recommended only
after parking at the front and on-street
has been fully considered rear courtyards
should support on-street parking, not
replace it;
car parking needs to be designed with
security in mind advice on this issue is
contained in Safer Places. See also the Safer
Parking Scheme initiative of ACPO; and
consideration needs to be given to parking
for visitors and disabled people.

Efficiency of parking provision

8.3.37 A key objective of PPS3 is to ensure
that land is used efficiently, and to this end the
total space taken up by parking needs to be
minimised (Wales: refer to TAN 18). The more
flexible the use of parking spaces, the more
efficient the use of space.

Type of parking

Comments

On-street

Most efficient,
as parking
spaces are
shared and the
street provides
the means of
access

Off-street
communal

Requires
additional access
and circulation
space

Off-street
allocated spaces
but grouped

Although less
flexible in
operation, this
arrangement
allows for future
changes in
allocation

Off-street
allocated garages
away from
dwellings

Inflexible, and
largely precludes
sharing spaces.
Also security
concerns

Within individual
dwelling curtilage

Requires more
space due to
the need for
driveways, but
more secure

Low

8.3.38 Each type of solution has different

levels of efficiency and flexibility (see Table 8.2).

17 See www.britishparking.
co.uk.

108

Manual for Streets

Garages
8.3.39 Garages are not always used for car
parking, and this can create additional demand
for on-street parking.

Tim Pharoah, Llewelyn Davies Yeang

8.3.40 Research shows that, in some

developments, less than half the garages are
used for parking cars, and that many are used
primarily as storage or have been converted to
living accommodation (see box).

Use of garages for parking

Recent surveys found the following proportions
of garages were used for parking:
44% at various sites in England18
36% at Waterside Park, Kent;19 and
45% at various sites in Oxfordshire.20,21

18 WSP (2004). Car

Parking Standards and
Sustainable Residential
Environments research
carried out for ODPM.
19 Scott Wilson Surveys
of garage use at Ingress
Park and Waterstone
Park, Dartford, Kent.
20 Some 63% of residents
in Oxfordshire who did
not use their garage for
parking said that this was
because it was used for
storage, including cycle
storage.
21 WSP and Phil Jones
Associates (2006)
unpublished reasearch.

8.3.41 In determining what counts as parking

and what does not, it is recommended that the
following is taken into account:
car ports are unlikely to be used for storage
and should therefore count towards parking
provision; and
whether garages count fully will need to be
decided on a scheme-by-scheme basis. This
will depend on factors such as:

the availability of other spaces, including
on-street parking where this is limited,
residents are more likely to park in their
garages;

the availability of separate cycle parking
and general storage capacity garages
are often used for storing bicycles and
other household items; and

the size of the garage larger garages
can be used for both storage and car
parking, and many authorities now
recommend a minimum size of 6 m
by 3 m.

Footway parking
8.3.42 Footway parking (also called pavement
parking) causes hazards and inconvenience to
pedestrians. It creates particular difficulties for
blind or partially-sighted people, disabled people
and older people, or those with

Manual for Streets

Figure 8.14 Footway parking at Beaulieu Park,

Chelmsford.

prams or pushchairs (Fig. 8.14). It is therefore

recommended that footway parking be
prevented through the design of the street.
8.3.43 Footway parking may also cause
damage to the kerb, the footway and the
services underneath. Repairing such damage can
be costly and local authorities may face claims
for compensation for injuries received resulting
from damaged or defective footways.
8.3.44 In London footway parking is prohibited, unless expressly permitted by an order.
Outside London footway parking is not generally prohibited, but local authorities can prohibit
footway parking through a TRO. Any such order
would, however, need to be enforced, which
may be costly without an awareness-raising
campaign. Local authorities should therefore aim
to encourage drivers to regard the footway as
reserved for pedestrians, and public information
and education programmes can help to influence
attitudes in line with this objective.
8.3.45 It is also possible to deter footway
parking through physical measures, such as by
installing bollards, raised planters or other street
furniture, and by clearly indicating where people
should park.

109

Case study

Derby City Council

tackling pavement parking
In a number of pavement parking hot-spots
in Derby, the Council placed Parking on
Pavements leaflets on vehicles parked on the
pavement (Fig. 8.15). These leaflets give a clear
message as to the negative effects of pavement
parking, along with an indication of the
penalties that pavement parkers could incur.
Since 2002, over 300 Parking on Pavements
leaflets have been placed on vehicles in hot
spots, and the effect on pavement parking has
been positive.

8.3.46 Further guidance on deterring footway

parking is contained in Traffic Advisory Leaflet
04/93.22 The Department for Transport has also
drawn together examples of authorities that
have tackled footway parking (also see Derby
City Council case study box).

Dimensions for car-parking spaces and

manoeuvring areas

8.3.47 Where there is a shared surface

(Fig. 8.16), conventional footways are dispensed
with, so, technically, footway parking does not
arise. However, inconsiderate parking can still
be a problem (Fig. 8.17). Parking spaces within
shared surface areas which are clearly indicated
for example by a change in materials will
let people know where they should park. Street
furniture and planting, including trees, can also
be used to constrain or direct parking.

8.3.49 For echelon or perpendicular parking,

individual bays will need to be indicated or
marked. Bays will need to enclose a rectangular
area about 2.4m wide and a minimum of 4.2m
long. Echelon bays should be arranged so that
drivers are encouraged to reverse into them. This
is safer than reversing out, when visibility might
be restricted by adjacent parked vehicles.

Una McGaugh in, Llewelyn Davies Yeang

8.3.48 For parking parallel to the street, each

vehicle will typically need an area of about 2m
wide and 6m long.

Phil Jones, Phil Jones Associates

22 Department for
Transport (1993) Traffic
Advisory Leaflet 04/93
Pavement Parking.
London: Department for
Transport.

Derby City Council

Figure 8.15 DCCs Parking on Pavements leaflets.

Figure 8.16 Clearly indicated parking spaces on

a shared surface in Morice Town Home Zone,
Plymouth.

110

Figure 8.17 Untidy and inconsiderate parking.

Manual for Streets

Perpendicular parking arrangement

6.0 m

2.4 m

4.8 m

2.0 m

4.8 m

Parallel parking arrangement

Figure 8.18 Suggested parallel and perpendicular parking arrangements.

Figure 8.19 Gradual widening of the carriageway to create on-street spaces, with running carriageway
checked using vehicle tracking.

8.3.50 Figures 8.18 and 8.19 show some

suggested arrangements.
8.3.51 The width (W in Fig. 8.18) needed
to access echelon or perpendicular spaces
conveniently, depends on the width of the bay
and the angle of approach. For a 2.4m wide bay,
these values are typically:

at 90 degrees, W = 6.0 m;
at 60 degrees, W = 4.2 m; and
at 45 degrees, W = 3.6 m.

8.3.52 These width requirements can be

reduced if the spaces are made wider.
Swept-path analysis can be used to assess the
effect of oversized spaces on reducing the need
for manoeuvring space (Fig 8.20).

8.3.53 Where space is limited it may not be

possible to provide for vehicles to get into the
spaces in one movement. Some back and fore
manoeuvring may be required. This is likely to
be acceptable where traffic volumes and speeds
are low.
8.3.54 The dimensions given above for
parking spaces and manoeuvring areas can also
be applied to the design of underground and
multi-storey car parks. For detailed guidance on
the design of these types of parking, reference
can be made to guidelines prepared by the
Institution of Structural Engineers (IStructE).23

Tracking assessment

b1

90

b2

w1

w2

90

23 IStructE (2002) Design

Recommendations
for Multi-storey and
Underground Car Parks.
London: IStructE.

b1 < b2
w1 > w2
Figure 8.20 The effect on overall street width requirements when wider car parking spaces are provided.

Manual for Streets

111

24 Department for Transport

(2005) Traffic Advisory
Leaflet 05/05 Parking
for Disabled People.
London: Department for
Transport.
25 Department for Transport
(2005) Inclusive
Mobility: A Guide to
Best Practice on Access
to Pedestrian and
Transport Infrastructure.
London: Department for
Transport.
26 British Standards
Institute (BSI) (2001)
BS 8300: 2001 Design
of Buildings and their
Approaches to Meet
the Needs of Disabled
People. London: BSI.
27 Department for
Transport (1986) Traffic
Signs Manual Chapter
3: Regulatory Signs.
London: HMSO.
28 Department for Transport
(2003) Traffic Signs
Manual Chapter 5: Road
Markings. London: TSO.
29 Department for
Transport (2002) Traffic
Advisory Leaflet 02/02
Motorcycle Parking.
London: Department for
Transport.
30 IHIE (2005) Guidelines
for Motorcycling:
Improving Safety
through Engineering and
Integration. London:
IHIE.

Parking spaces for disabled people

8.4

8.3.55 Detailed design specifications for

parking spaces for disabled people are set out in
Traffic Advisory Leaflet 05/9524 and in Inclusive
Mobility.25 Further advice is available in BS 8300:
2001.26 However, it is important to note that the
diagrams on page 58 of Inclusive Mobility do not
show the correct way to mark nor do they show
the full range of dimensions for on-street bays
for disabled people. The diagrams also show
some of the kerb-mounted sign posts poorly
positioned for people wishing to access their
cars. Traffic signs and road markings for onstreet bays reserved for disabled badge holders
should comply with TSRGD and further guidance
is provided in Traffic Signs Manual Chapter 327
and Traffic Signs Manual Chapter 5.28

8.4.1
In 2003 there were 1.52 million
motorcycles in use representing around 5%
of all motor vehicles. The need for parking
provision for motorcycles is recognised in
PPG13, which advises that, in developing
and implementing policies on parking, local
authorities should consider appropriate
provision for motorcycle parking.

8.3.56 It is recommended that parking bays for

disabled people are designed so that drivers and
passengers, either of whom may be disabled, can
get in and out of the car easily. They should allow
wheelchairs users to gain access from the side
and the rear. The bays should be large enough
to protect people from moving traffic when
they cannot get in or out of their car on the
footway side.
8.3.57 Inclusive Mobility recommends that
dropped kerbs with tactile paving are provided
adjacent to car-parking spaces to ensure that
wheelchair users can access footways from
the carriageway. (Wales: Further guidance on
car parking standards and design for inclusive
mobility will be produced in association
with Welsh guidance on Design and Access
Statements during 2007.)
8.3.58 The recommended dimensions of
offstreet parking bays are that they are laid out
as a rectangle at least 4.8 m long by 2.4 m wide
for the vehicle, along with additional space as
set out in Inclusive Mobility.

112

Motorcycle parking

8.4.2 Guidance on motorcycle parking is

contained in Traffic Advisory Leaflet 02/02.29
General advice on designing highways to meet
the need of motorcycles is given in the Institute
of Highway Engineers (IHIE) Guidelines for
Motorcycling, published in 2005.30 Some of the
guidance contained in that document has been
repeated here for ease of reference.
8.4.3 The IHIE guidelines provide
considerable detail on the provision of public
motorcycle parking at locations such as
educational establishments and workplaces,
at shopping/entertainment areas and within
residential areas lacking private parking
opportunities.
8.4.4 Motorcyclists prefer to park close to
their destination, in places where they can
secure their machine. Designated motorcycle
parking facilities that fail to meet these
requirements will probably be overlooked in
favour of informal spaces that are considered
more suitable by owners.
8.4.5 Motorcycles are prone to theft, as
they can be readily lifted into another vehicle.
Security should therefore be a key consideration
for those providing parking facilities for
motorcycles.

Manual for Streets

8.4.6 In planning for private residential

parking, in most situations motorcycles
will be able to use car parking spaces, but
in some situations it will be appropriate to
provide designated motorcycle parking areas,
particularly:
where there is a high density of
development and where car parking is likely
to be intensively used; and
where demand for motorcycle parking is
expected to be significant.

of wheel sizes in use. The addition of guard

railing prevents the locking rail from becoming a
tripping hazard.
8.4.3 To estimate the space required for
parking motorcycles, it is recommended that
a 2.0 m by 0.8 m footprint is allowed per
motorcycle. It is not necessary or desirable to
mark individual bays. For regulated on-street
parking, supported by a TRO, diagram 1028.4 of
TSRGD should be used.

8.4.8 Physical security need not be difficult

or expensive to provide. Fixed features, such
as rails, hoops or posts designed to provide a
simple locking point to secure a motorcycle
should be considered. Where motorcycles are
parked in bays with one wheel against the kerb,
a simple continuous steel rail satisfies most
situations (Fig. 8.21). The rail should be set at
around 600 mm high to accommodate the range

Manual for Streets

Motorcycle Industry Association

8.4.7 Where designated parking is provided,

covered spaces will provide protection from the
elements.

Figure 8.21 Secure motorcycle parking.

113

James Pu kiss, Halcrow

Traffic signs and markings

Chapter aims
Discuss the influence of signs on making
streets successful.
Raise awareness of the visual impact of
excessive signing.
Direct practitioners to detailed guidance.
Examine the flexibility allowed by the Traffic
Signs Regulations and General Directions
2002 and the Traffic Signs Manual to
ensure that signing is appropriate to the
street and its intended uses.
Encourage designers to optimise signing.

9.1

1 Statutory Instrument
2002 No. 3113,The Traffic
Signs Regulations and
General Directions 2002.
London: TSO.
2 Department for Transport
(various) The Traffic Signs
Manual. London:
TSO and HMSO.
3 Department for Transport
(2004) Traffic Signs
Manual Chapter 1:
Introduction. London: TSO.
4 Department for Transport
(1987) Traffic Signs
Manual Chapter 3:
Regulatory Signs. London:
HMSO.
5 Department for Transport
(2004) Traffic Signs
Manual Chapter 4:
Warning Signs.
London: TSO.
6 Department for Transport
(2003) Traffic Signs
Manual Chapter 5: Road
Markings. London: TSO.
7 Department for Transport
(1994) Local Transport Note
1/94 - The Design and Use
of Directional Informatory
Signs. London: HMSO.
8 Department for Transport
(2005) Traffic Advisory
Leaflet 06/05 - Traditional
Direction Signs. London:
Department for Transport.

Traffic signs

(the TAL series). The publications relevant to

signing include LTN 1/94 The Design and Use
of Directional Informatory Signs7 and TAL 06/05
Traditional Direction Signs.8
9.1.5
Designers need to understand the status
of these documents. Compliance with TSRGD is
mandatory. The Traffic Signs Manual, the LTNs
and the TALs are guidance.
9.1.6 On occasion designers may find that there
is no prescribed sign which suits their purpose.
If so, they can apply to the Department for
Transport or the Welsh Assembly Government,
as appropriate, for authorisation to use a nonprescribed sign. However, they should check
carefully beforehand to make sure that the
situation they wish to address is not already
covered by TSRGD some applications for
non-prescribed signs turn out to be unnecessary
for this reason.

9.1.1
The Traffic Signs Regulations and General
Directions 20021 (TSRGD) is a regulatory
document which details every traffic sign
prescribed for use in the UK. It includes all of
the prescribed road markings, as a road marking
is legally a sign. TSRGD also stipulates the
conditions under which each sign may be used.

9.1.7 Some streets feature few, or no, signs

or markings. This may be appropriate in
lightly-trafficked environments. It reduces sign
clutter and the relative lack of signing may
encourage lower vehicle speeds. However, it is
worth monitoring such arrangements to confirm
that the level of signing is correct.

9.1.2
Further advice on the use of signs is
contained in the Traffic Signs Manual,2 which
gives advice on the application of traffic signs
in common situations. Chapters likely to be of
particular relevance to street design include:

9.1.8 In residential areas, minimal signing can

work well if traffic volume and speed are low.
Some designers have experimented with this
approach on more heavily-trafficked streets,
but there is insufficient evidence to date to be
able to offer firm guidance here.

Chapter 1 Introduction:3 sets out the

background to, and principles of, signing;
Chapter 3 Regulatory Signs:4 gives advice
on the use of signs which give effect to
traffic regulation orders (TROs);
Chapter 4 Warning Signs:5 gives advice on
signs used to warn of potential hazards;
Chapter 5 Road Markings:6 gives advice on
the use of road markings in common situations.

9.1.3
It is important that designers refer to
the Traffic Signs Manual before embarking on
the design of signing.
9.1.4 Supplementary advice is also published
by the Department for Transport in Local Transport
Notes (the LTN series) and Traffic Advisory Leaflets

Manual for Streets

9.1.9 When planning how to sign a street,

designers should note the following:
the size of a sign should suit the speed
of the traffic regardless of its purpose.
It is not appropriate to use smaller signs
simply because the sign is informative
rather than a warning or regulatory sign.
If the sign is necessary, motorists need to
be able to read it;
signs are most effective when not used to
excess. Designers should ensure that each
sign is necessary they should use the
flexibility within the TSRGD and associated
guidance documents to ensure that signs are
provided as required, but do not dominate
the visual appearance of streets;

115

9.2

Jesse Honey, Llewelyn Davies Yeang

Figure 9.1 (a) Sign clutter in residential areas;

(b) the yellow backing board adds clutter and its use
with the flashing amber lights is counter-productive.
In addition, the sign post should not protrude
above the sign.

signs which have no clear purpose should

be removed to reduce clutter and to ensure
that essential messages are prominent; and
consideration should be given to
incorporating colour contrast bands on
poles and columns to help partiallysighted people. A single white or yellow
band 150 mm deep with its lower edge
between 1.5 m and 1.7 m from the ground
is likely to be appropriate.

Clutter
9.1.10 Signs can clutter the street if used to
excess (Fig. 9.1). Clutter is unattractive and can
introduce hazards for street users.
9.1.11 Cluttering tends to take place over time
by the incremental addition of signs to serve a
particular purpose without regard having been
given to the overall appearance of the street. It
is recommended that street signs are periodically
audited with a view to identifying and removing
unnecessary signs.

9 Department for Transport

(2004) Traffic Signs Manual
Chapter 1: Introduction.
London: TSO.
10 Department for Transport
(2004) Traffic Signs Manual
Chapter 4: warning Signs.
London: TSO.

9.1.12 In the case of new developments,

some highway authorities seek to guard against
having to install additional signs at their own
expense later, by requiring all manner of signs
to be provided by the developer at the outset.
This can lead to clutter and is not recommended.
The preferred way of addressing such concerns
is to issue a bond to cover an agreed period, so
that additional signs can be installed later at the
developers expense if required.

116

Designing signs

9.2.1
No signs are fundamentally required by
TSRGD per se. Signs are only needed to warn
or inform, or to give effect to TROs, and TSRGD
simply sets out how signs must be used once it
has been decided that they are necessary.
9.2.2 Designers should start from a position
of having no signs, and introduce them only
where they serve a clear function:
Signs are used to control and guide traffic
and to promote road safety. They should
only be used where they can usefully serve
these functions.9

9.2.3 Street layouts, geometries and networks

should aim to make the environment selfexplanatory to all users. Features such as public
art, planting and architectural style can assist
navigation while possibly reducing the need for
signs.
9.2.4 The location and design of signs and
signposts should be planned to permit effective
maintenance (including access for cleaning
equipment) and to minimise clutter.
9.2.5 Providing additional signs may not
solve a particular problem. If signs have proved
ineffective, it may be more appropriate to remove
them and apply other measures rather than
providing additional signs. If motorists already
have all the information they need, additional
signing will simply clutter the environment:
Appropriate warning signs can greatly
assist road safety. To be most effective,
however, they should be used sparingly.10

9.2.6 The TSRGD provide significant flexibility

in the application of statutory signs, including
the use of smaller signs in appropriate conditions.
Designers need to be familiar with the Regulations
and with the published guidance, determine what
conditions they are designing for and specify
appropriate signs. Working drawings for most
prescribed signs are available free of charge on
the Department for Transport website. Designers
should always start from these when adapting a
prescribed sign for special authorisation.

Manual for Streets

Table 9.1 Prompts for deciding on the appropriate level of signing

Prompts

11 Department for Transport

(2004) Traffic Signs Manual
Chapter 1: Introduction.
London: TSO. Paragraph 1.57
12 Department for Transport
(2005) Traffic Advisory
Leaflet 06/05 - Traditional
Direction Signs. London:
Department for Transport
13 Department for Transport
(2003) Traffic Signs
Manual Chapter 5: Road
Markings. London:TSO
14 Debell, C. (2003) White
lines - study shows their
absence may be a safety
plus. Traffic Engineering
and Control v. 44 (9)
pp316-317

What signs are necessary to assist users, including non-motorised users?

Are directional signs needed for vehicular traffic, including pedal cyclists?
Is information provided in the necessary formats to be accessible to all?
Can navigation be assisted by means other than signs? For example,
landmarks or other visual cues ,etc.
Can road markings be dispensed with in some places?

Users

Place

How can necessary information be integrated into the place without dominating it?
Can some pedestrian direction signs be designed to contribute to the sense of place
by using a locally distinctive format?
Are traditional direction signs12 appropriate for the setting?

Safety

Are there any hazards that require signs?

Can significant locations, such as school entrances, health centres, local shops, etc.,
be indicated by a measure such as surface variation to reduce the need for signs?

Regulation

What signing is necessary to give effect to TROs?

Is it necessary to regulate traffic or parking?
Can behaviour be influenced by means other than signing? For example,
can parking be managed by the physical layout of the street?

Speed

Are signs specified at the minimum size required for the design speed of traffic
(new build) or 85th percentile speed (existing streets)?
Can traffic speeds be controlled by measures
(such as planting to break-up forward visibility)
to reduce the need for signs?

9.2.7 When designing for minimal signing,

care should be taken that safety hazards are not
left unsigned.

9.2.12 The prompts in Table 9.1 will help

when deciding on the appropriate level of
signing for a street.

9.2.8 The Department for Transport may

be prepared to authorise departures from
TSRGD to reduce signs and road markings in
environmentally sensitive streets.

9.3

9.2.9 The Traffic Signs Manual states that

it is desirable to limit the number of posts
in footways. Where possible signs should be
attached to adjacent walls, so that they are
not more than 2 metres from the edge of the
carriageway, or be grouped on posts.11 Lighting
equipment may also be mounted on walls (see
Chapter 10).
9.2.10 In existing neighbourhoods, there can
be legal difficulties associated with attaching
signs (or lighting) to private property this is
less of a problem with new build.
9.2.11 Existing streets should be subject to
a signs audit to ensure that they are not oversigned and, in particular, that old, redundant
signs, such as New road layout ahead have
been removed.

Manual for Streets

Common situations

Centre lines
9.3.1
The use of centre lines is not an
absolute requirement. The Traffic Signs
Manual Chapter 513 gives advice on the
correct use of road markings.
9.3.2
Centre lines are often introduced to reduce
risk but, on residential roads, there is little evidence
to suggest that they offer any safety benefits.
9.3.3 There is some evidence that, in
appropriate circumstances, the absence of white
lines can encourage drivers to use lower speeds:
research undertaken in Wiltshire found that
the removal of the centre line led to a wider
margin being maintained between opposing
flows. There was no indication that drivers
were encouraged to adopt inappropriate
speeds. At 12 test sites, it resulted in slower
speeds and reduced accidents, although the
council had concerns regarding liability;14 and
117

research carried out in 20 residential areas

during the preparation of MfS found no
relationship between white centre lines
and recorded casualties (see Starston case
study box and Fig. 9.3).

9.3.5 For designated parking spaces,

markings indicating the ends of bays may be
omitted if physical delineation is used, e.g.
build-outs (see Traffic Signs Manual Chapter 5).
9.3.6 The new edition of Chapter 3 of the
Traffic Signs Manual, which the Department for
Transport expects to consult on in summer 2007,
will give more guidance on footway parking and
shared parking spaces.

Parking
9.3.4 In residential locations, high levels of
kerbside parking and inconsiderate behaviour
can create problems with access, convenience
and safety. It may be necessary to manage
kerbside parking through the use of restrictions
indicated by signs and road markings (also see
Chapter 8).
Case study

Starston, Norfolk: effects of road

markings and signs on traffic speed

TRL

surfacing was used. Over half of the signs

were removed and many of the remainder
were replaced with smaller ones. New, locallydesigned place-name signs were also installed
which helped reinforce the sense of place of
the village. These measures led to mean speeds
being reduced by up to 7 mph.15

Figure 9.2 Starston, Norfolk.

Starston is a village on the B1134 in Norfolk

(Fig. 9.2) which was experiencing problems
with excessive traffic speed. It would have
required a significant number of new signs
to implement a 30 mph limit. Instead,
road markings were removed, signing was
rationalised and natural coloured road-

Stuart Reid, TRL

The erosion of speed reduction may have been

a consequence of reinstalling the white lines
but drivers were also responding to other factors.

TRL

15 Wheeler, A. H., Kennedy,

J. V., Davies, G. J. and
Green, J. M. (2001)
Countryside Traffic
Measures Group: Traffic
Calming Schemes in
Norfolk and Suffolk. TRL
Report 500. Crowthorne:
TRL.
16 Ralph (2001)
Innovations in Rural
Speed Management.
Proceedings of the
DTLR Good Practice
Conference. London:
DTLR.

Following a Road Safety Audit, Norfolk County

Council reinstalled the white lines and noted that,
six months after the initial scheme opening and
three months after the centre line markings were
put back, there was some erosion of the earlier
reduction achieved on the western approach,
although they were sustained on the shorter
eastern approach.16

Figure 9.3 Street with no centre lining.

118

Figure 9.4 Kerb build-out defines parking area and

provides room for planting clear of the footway.

Manual for Streets

James Purkiss, Halcrow

9.3.7 Parking restrictions are often ignored

where enforcement is limited. The use of planting
and placing of street furniture may be a more
attractive and effective way of managing
parking (Fig. 9.4).

Junction priority

Figure 9.6 Clear and legible street name sign

attached to a building.

9.3.8 Most unsignalised junctions are designed

assuming a dominant flow, with priority indicated
by give-way signs and markings. There is,
however, no statutory requirement for junction
priority to be specified.

Informatory signs
9.3.12 LTN 1/94 The Design and Use of
Directional Informatory Signs gives guidance on
directional signs for drivers. The size of lettering
(defined by the x-height) should be appropriate
for the traffic speed. Guidance on relating the
size of signs to traffic speed is given in Appendix
A of the LTN.

9.3.9 Some schemes, primarily on lower

volume roads, feature unmarked junctions that
require drivers to negotiate their way through,
with the aim of controlling speeds (Fig. 9.5).
At UK residential sites studied in the preparation
of MfS, unmarked junctions performed well in
terms of casualties. There was, however, evidence
of higher vehicle approach speeds compared with
marked junctions. This may indicate an intention
by drivers to slow down only when another
vehicle is present. For unmarked junctions, it is
recommended that the geometry on junction
approaches encourages appropriate speeds.

9.3.13 Streets need to be easy to identify.

This is particularly important for people looking
for a street on foot. A good system of street
name plates may also make direction signs to
certain sites, such as schools, churches, shopping
areas, etc., unnecessary. Name plates should
be provided at each junction. They should be
legible with a strong tonal contrast, for example
black lettering on a white background. Attaching
the name plates to structures can help reduce
clutter (Fig. 9.6).

9.3.10 Where there is a need to specify

junction priority, it can be signed in three ways:
a diagram 1003 Give Way marking;
a diagram 1003 Give Way marking
and a diagram 1023 triangle; and
both these markings and a diagram 602
Give Way sign.

Stuart Reid, TRL

9.3.11 It may be appropriate to begin with the

simplest option, and introduce further signing only
if deemed necessary in the light of experience.

James Pu kiss, Halcrow

9.3.14 Non-statutory signs can also contribute

to the sense of place of a street. This may include
examples such as village signs, as well as the
permitted use of a lower panel on statutory 20
mph zone signs, which allow for scheme specific
artwork and messages (Fig. 9.7).

Figure 9.5 Four-way junction with no marked priority.

Manual for Streets

Figure 9.7 Design contributes to sense of place and

reduces clutter by incorporating several direction
signs on one post.

119

10

Ben Castell, Llewelyn Davies Yeang

Street furniture
and street lighting

Chapter aims
Describe how street furniture that
offers amenity to pedestrians is to be
encouraged, but clutter avoided.
Ben Castell, Llewelyn Davies Yeang

Comment on street furniture and lighting

design relating to context.
Explain that lighting should be planned
as an integral part of the street layout.
Recommend that where lighting is provided
it should conform to European standards.

10.1

Figure 10.1 Well-designed seating.

Introduction

10.1.1 Street furniture and lighting equipment

have a major impact on the appearance of a
street and should be planned as part of the
overall design concept. Street furniture should
be integrated into the overall appearance of a
street. Street audits can help determine what
existing street furniture and lighting is in place,
and can help designers respond to the context.
10.1.2 It is especially important that, in
historic towns and conservation areas, particular
attention is paid to the aesthetic quality of street
furniture and lighting. Care should be taken to
avoid light pollution and intrusion, particularly
in rural areas. In some cases it may not be
appropriate to provide lighting, for example in a
new development in an unlit village.
10.1.3 Street furniture that encourages human
activity can also contribute to a sense of place.
The most obvious example of this is seating, or
features that can act as secondary seating. In
addition, street features such as play equipment
may be appropriate in some locations, particularly in
designated Home Zones, in order to anchor activity.
1 Department for Transport
(2002) Inclusive Mobility
A Guide to Best Practice
on Access to Pedestrian
and Transport Infrastructure.
London: Department for
Transport
2 BSI (2001) BS 8300: 2001
Design of buildings and
their approaches to meet
the needs of disabled
people. Code of practice.
London: BSI

10.1.4 Where street furniture or lighting is

taken out of service, it should be removed.

10.2

Street furniture

10.2.1 Excessive street furniture, including

equipment owned by utilities and third parties,
should be avoided.

Manual for Streets

10.2.2 Street furniture of direct benefit to

street users, particularly seating, is encouraged
but should be sympathetic to the design of the
street and respect pedestrian desire lines (Fig. 10.1).
10.2.3 Seating is necessary to provide rest
points for pedestrians, particularly those with
mobility or visual impairments, and extra
seating should be considered where people
congregate, such as squares, local shops and
schools. Guidance is given in Inclusive Mobility
and BS 8300. Seating can sometimes attract
anti-social behaviour and therefore should
be located where there is good lighting and
natural surveillance.
10.2.4 Although much street furniture is
provided for the benefit of motorised users,
it is generally located on the footway and can
contribute to clutter. In some circumstances, it
may be possible to reduce footway clutter by
placing some of these items on build-outs.
10.2.5 Street furniture, including lighting
columns and fittings, needs to be resistant to
vandalism and be placed in positions that
minimise risk of damage by vehicles.
10.2.6 Street furniture and lighting should
be located within the limits of the adoptable
highway. Street furniture should be aligned on
footways, preferably at the rear edge in order to
reduce clutter. Care should be taken that street
furniture at the rear edge of the footway does
not make adjoining properties less secure by
providing climbable access to windows.

121

Stuart Reid, TRL

Figure 10.2 Guard railing blocking pedestrian desire line - note the pedestrian in the photograph has walked
around it.

10.2.7 All street furniture should be placed to

allow access for street cleaning.
10.2.8 Guard railing is generally installed to
restrict the movement of vulnerable road users
(Fig. 10.2). In some cases guard railing has been
introduced in specific response to accidents.
10.2.9 Guard railing should not be provided
unless a clear need for it has been identified
(Fig. 10.2). Introducing measures to reduce traffic
flows and speeds may be helpful in removing
the need for guard railing. In most cases, on
residential streets within the scope of MfS, it is
unlikely that guard railing will be required.
3 British Standards
Institute (BSI) (2003)
BS EN 13201-2: 2003
Road Lighting
Performance Requirements.
London: BSI
4 BSI (2003) BS EN 132013: 2003 Road Lighting
Calculation of
Performance. London: BSI
5 BSI (2003) BS EN 132014: 2003 Road Lighting
Methods of Measuring
Lighting Performance.
London BSI
6 BSI (2003) BS 5489-1:
2003 Code of Practice
for the Design of Road
Lighting. Lighting of
Roads and Public
Amenity Areas.
London BSI

10.2.10 A Local Transport Note giving further

guidance on guard railing is currently in
preparation.
10.2.11 It may sometimes be necessary to
introduce barriers to pedestrian movement.
Where they are required, consideration should
first be given to the use of features such as
surface textures, bench seating and planting
that can guide pedestrian movement whilst also
contributing to the amenity of the street.

122

10.3

Lighting

10.3.1 Lighting can contribute to:

reducing risks of night-time accidents;
assisting in the protection of property;
discouraging crime and vandalism;
making residents and street users feel
secure; and
enhancing the appearance of the area
after dark.
10.3.2 Lighting may not be appropriate in
all locations or contexts. However, if it is to be
provided it should be of high quality. Lighting
should generally be in accordance with BS EN
13201-2, BS EN 13201-3 and BS EN 13201-4.
Guidance on lighting design is given in
BS 5489-1, Code of Practice for the Design of
Road Lighting, to comply with the requirements
of BS EN 13201.
10.3.3 Where streets are to be lit, lighting
should be planned as an integral part of the
design of the street layout, and in conjunction
with the location and anticipated growth
of planting. This may require coordination
between authorities to ensure that similar
standards of lighting are provided for the
adopted highway and un-adopted areas, such
as car parking. The potential for planting to
shade out lighting through growth should be
considered when deciding what to plant.
Manual for Streets

10.3.4 Lighting columns should be placed so

that they do not impinge on available widths of
footways in the interests of wheelchair users and
people pushing prams, or pose a hazard for blind
or partially-sighted people. Consideration should
be given to incorporating colour contrast bands
on lighting columns (see also paragraph 9.1.9).
10.3.5 Lighting should illuminate both the
carriageway and the footway, including any
traffic-calming features, to enable road users
to see potential obstacles and each other after
dark. The lighting design should ensure that
shadows are avoided in streets where pedestrians
may be vulnerable. Adequate lighting helps
reduce crime and the fear of crime, and can
encourage increased pedestrian activity.
10.3.6 While lighting fulfils a number of
important purposes in residential areas, care
should be taken not to over-light, which can
contribute unnecessarily to light pollution,
neighbourhood nuisance and energy
consumption.

7 Clean Neighbourhoods
and Environment Act
2005. London: TSO

10.3.8 Consideration should be given to

attaching lighting units to buildings to reduce
street clutter (Fig. 10.3). While maintenance
and access issues can arise from the installation
of such features on private property, some
authorities have successfully addressed these.
There are likely to be fewer challenges arising
from the placement of lighting on buildings in
new-build streets. Where lighting units are to
be attached to a building, an agreement will
be required between the freeholder of the
property, any existing tenants and the highway/
lighting authority.
10.3.9 In attaching lighting to buildings, it
should be noted that it may become subject to
the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment
Act 2005. It is possible that lighting could then
be subject to control by Environmental Health
officers if is deemed to constitute a nuisance.
It is therefore important that wall-mounted
lighting is carefully designed to reduce stray
light.
10.3.10 Key issues in the provision of lighting
in residential areas are:
context;
lighting intensity;
scale; and
colour.

Andrew Cameron, WSP

10.3.7 Lighting arrangements may be used to

identify the functions of different streets. For
example, a change of light source to provide
whiter lighting can distinguish a residential or
urban street from the high-pressure sodium
(honey coloured) and the low-pressure sodium
(orange coloured) lighting traditionally used
on traffic routes. This contrast may be reduced
over time if white-light sources become more
commonly used in road-lighting schemes.

Lighting equipment on buildings

Figure 10.3 Street light mounted on a building.

Manual for Streets

123

Context
10.3.11 Lighting should be appropriate to the
context. In some locations, such as rural villages,
lighting may not have been provided elsewhere
in the settlement and therefore it would be
inappropriate in a new development. Often,
lighting suits highway illumination requirements
but is not in keeping with the street environment
or the range of uses of that street. A street audit
can be helpful in determining both the level
of lighting and the type of equipment used in
thearea.
10.3.12 Over-lighting should be avoided. More
detailed information is given in the Guidance
Notes for the Reduction of Obtrusive Light.8
This provides advice on techniques to minimise
obtrusive light and recommends that planning
authorities specify four environmental zones
for lighting in ascending order of brightness,
from National Parks and Areas of Outstanding
Natural Beauty to city centres. This is helpful in
determining limits of light obtrusion appropriate
to the local area.

Lighting intensity

8 Institution of Lighting
Engineers (ILE) (2005)
Guidance Notes for the
Reduction of Obtrusive
Light. Rugby: ILE
9 BSI (2003) BS 5489-1:
2003 Code of Practice
for the Design of Road
Lighting. Lighting of
Roads and Public Amenity
Areas. London: BSI
10 BSI (2003) BS EN
13201-2: 2003 Road
Lighting Performance
Requirements. London:
BSI.
11 Kennedy, J., Gorell, R.,
Crinson, L., Wheeler, A.
and Elliott, M. (2005)
Psychological Traffic
Calming. TRL Report 641.
Crowthorne: TRL.

10.3.13 Guidance on the appropriate level of

lighting in an area is contained in BS 5489-1
Annex B.9 This advice provides a systematic
approach to the choice of lighting class based
on:
type of road or area;
pedestrian and cycle flow;
presence of conflict areas;
presence of traffic-calming features;
crime risk; and
ambient luminance levels.
10.3.14 BS EN 13201-2, Road Lighting
Performance Requirements,10 gives details of
the necessary minimum and average levels of
lighting to be achieved at each of the lighting
classes. For streets within the scope of the MfS,
it is likely that Class ME (primarily vehicular)
lighting will be inappropriate and that Classes S
(for subsidiary routes) or CE (for conflict areas)
should be specified.

124

10.3.15 Lighting levels do not have to be

constant during the hours of darkness. Increasingly
equipment is available which will allow street
lighting to be varied or switched off based
on timing or ambient light levels. This offers
opportunities to design variable lighting to
maximise the benefits while reducing negative
impacts at times when lower lighting levels
may be adequate.
10.3.16 Continuity of lighting levels is important
to pedestrians. Sudden changes in lighting
level can be particularly problematic for
partially-sighted people.

Scale
10.3.17 As much street lighting is actually
provided for highway purposes, it is often located
at a height inappropriate to the cross section of
the street and out of scale with pedestrian users.
10.3.18 In street design, consideration should
be given to the purpose of lighting, the scale of
lighting relative to human users of the street, the
width of the street and the height of
surrounding buildings. For example, a trafficcalming scheme in Latton in Wiltshire reduced
the height of lighting columns by around 40% to
make the appearance less urban. In a survey of
residents, 58% thought it was a good idea, and
only 3% opposed. This arrangement resulted in
less intrusion of light into bedroom windows.11
10.3.19 Where highway and pedestrian area
lighting are both required, some highway
authorities installed lamp columns featuring a
secondary footway light mounted at a lower
height. This can assist in illuminating pedestrian
areas well, particularly where footways are wide
or shaded by trees. Careful design is essential
to ensure that such secondary luminaries do not
have a detrimental effect on the uniformity of
the scheme or increase light pollution.
10.3.20 While reducing the height of lighting
can make the scale more human and intimate, it
will also reduce the amount of coverage from any
given luminaire. It is therefore a balance between
shortening columns and increasing their number.

Manual for Streets

10.3.21 Generally in a residential area, columns

of 56 m, i.e. eaves height, are most appropriate.
It should be noted that, if lighting is less than
4 m in height, it may no longer be considered
highway lighting and therefore the maintenance
responsibility will rest with the lighting authority
rather than the highway authority.

Other lighting considerations

Colour

10.3.25 As with other forms of street furniture,

there are longer-term maintenance issues
associated with the choice and location of
lighting equipment. It is recommended that
this be addressed in the planning process and
that equipment which is both sympathetic to
the local vernacular and for which adequate
replacement and maintenance stock is available
be specified.

10.3.22 The colour of lighting is another

important consideration. This relates both to
peoples ability to discern colour under artificial
light and the colour temperature of the light.
Light colour temperature is a consequence of the
composition of the light, ranging simply from
blue (cold) to red (warm).
10.3.23 In terms of discerning colour,
colour rendering is measured on a Colour
Rendering Index of Ra0Ra100,12 from no
colour differentiation to perfect differentiation.
Generally pedestrians prefer whiter lighting. It
provides better colour perception which makes it
easier to discern street features, information and
facial expressions. The latter can be important
in allaying personal security concerns. For the
lighting of residential and urban streets, an Ra of
50 is desirable and at least Ra60 is preferable
for locations of high pedestrian activity.

10.3.24 In some contexts, lighting can contribute

to the sense of place of a street, with both active
and passive (reflective) lighting features blurring
the boundary between function and aesthetic
contribution to the streetscape.

10.3.26 In developing lighting schemes, it

should be recognised that there will be an
interaction between light shed and light
reflected from pavement surfaces, etc.
Lighting should therefore be developed in
coordination with decisions about materials
and other street furniture.

12 International Commission
on Illumination (CIE)
(1995) Method of
Measuring and Specifying
Colour Rendering
Properties of Light
Sources. Vienna: CIE.

Manual for Streets

125

11

Andrew Cameron, WSP

Materials, adoption
and maintenance

 Encourage authorities to adopt a palette

of materials which allow for more
creative design.

although other public and private-sector bodies

can also be involved. It is therefore important that
the highway engineers responsible for adoption
should be included in all key decisions from the
pre-planning stage through to detailed design.

Show how planting can be included in

a street environment.

11.2

Chapter aims

Advise on foul water and surface

water drainage systems, including
the use of sustainable urban drainage
systems (SUDS).
Provide guidance on accommodating
utilities, etc., and planning for
maintenance in the long term.
Advise on highway adoption procedures
and requirements.

11.1

Introduction

11.1.1
The quality of the environment created
by new development needs to be sustained long
after the last property has been occupied. This
requires good design and high-quality construction,
followed by good management and maintenance.

11.2.1 Developers and local authorities are

encouraged to consider the innovative use of
materials, processes or techniques. This could be
supported by local authorities adopting a wide
palette of local and natural materials, bearing
whole-life costs in mind.
11.2.2 The inflexible application of standard
construction details and materials may not
be appropriate in new housing layouts. Local
authorities should be prepared to allow the
use of alternative materials, landscaping
treatment and features (Fig. 11.1). However, it
is recommended that all materials meet the
following requirements:
easy to maintain;
safe for purpose;
durable;
sustainable (including the manufacturing
process and energy use); and
appropriate to the local character.

Crest Nicholson

11.1.2 The latter tasks are commonly the

responsibility of the local highway authority,

Materials and construction

Figure 11.1 The use of good-quality materials achieves a sense of place without leading to excessive
maintenance costs.

Manual for Streets

127

Peter OBrien, Llewelyn Davies Yeang

Figure 11.2 Good quality planting softens the street scene.

11.3

Planting

11.3.1 Planting should be integrated into street

designs wherever possible. Planting, particularly
street trees, helps to soften the street scene while
creating visual interest, improving microclimate
and providing valuable habitats for wildlife
(Fig. 11.2). Care needs to be taken to preserve
existing trees, particularly when changes to a
street are planned (Fig. 11.3).
11.3.2 Where trees are to be used, careful
consideration needs to be given to their location
and how they are planted. Trench planting,
irrigation pipes and urban tree soils will increase
the chance of trees establishing themselves
successfully, thereby minimising maintenance
and replacement costs.
11.3.3 Consideration should also be given to
the potential impact of planting on adjacent
buildings, footway construction and buried
services. Concerns have been expressed by
highway authorities regarding the impact that
1 Communities and Local
Government (2006)

Tree Roots in the Built

Environment. London:

tree roots can have on highway drainage this

can be reduced with tree pits (see Fig. 11.4).
Detailed advice on this issue is contained in Tree
Roots in the Built Environment.
11.3.4 Trees and shrubs should not obstruct
pedestrian sightlines. In general, driver sightlines
also need to be maintained, although vegetation
can be used to limit excessive forward visibility
to limit traffic speeds. Slow growing species with
narrow trunks and canopies above 2 m should
be considered. Vegetation should not encroach
onto the carriageways or footways.
11.3.5 Maintenance arrangements for all
planted areas need to be established at an early
stage, as they affect the design, including the
choice of species and their locations.
11.3.6 Generally, any planting intended
for adoption by a public body should match
standards set locally and be capable of
regeneration or easy renewal if vandalised.
Planting needs to be designed for minimal
maintenance. Evidence that buildings and walls
have been built with foundations to allow for
tree growth may be required.

TSO.

128

Manual for Streets

Mark Ellis

Figure 11.3 Existing trees preserved in new development.

Tree Roots in the Built

Environment. London
TSO.
4 British Standards
Institute (BSI) (2005)

BS 5837: 2005 Trees in

Relation to Construction.
Recommendations.
London: BSI
5 NJUG 10 is under review
at the time of writing.
Please visit www.njug.
co.uk/publications.htm
for more details.

11.3.8 Alternatives to formal adoption may

require innovative arrangements to secure
long-term landscape management. These
may include the careful design of ownership
boundaries, the use of covenants, and annual
service charges on new properties.

11.3.11 Further advice on planting

considerations is set out in Chapter 5.

11.3.9 Funding for initial set-up costs and an

endowment to generate income for maintenance
(e.g. executive staff, gardening staff, site offices,
equipment, machinery, stores, compost/leaf
litter-bins), and community and resident facilities
capable of generating regular income, may be
appropriate.
11.3.10 Guidance on planting in street
environments includes:
Roots and Routes: Guidelines on Highways
Works and Trees consultation paper;
Tree Roots in the Built Environment;

BS 5837: 2005 Trees in Relation to

Construction; and
National Joint Utilities Group (NJUG),
Guidelines for the Planning, Installation and
Maintenance of Utility Services in Proximity
to Trees.

Cast iron gate

Concrete lid
PVC water
supply

100mm tree grating

Tree ball
Gravel drainage bed

WSP

2 See www.dft.gov.uk
3 Communities and Local
Government (2006)

11.3.7 The planting of less robust species

which require specialist skilled maintenance,
or more frequent maintenance visits than usual,
are unlikely to be accepted for adoption by
the local or highway authority and should be
avoided.

Drain
Fibreglass
fabric filter

Back fill soil

Figure 11.4 Typical tree pit detail.

Manual for Streets

129

11.4

Drainage

Introduction
11.4.1 One of the functions of a street is to
provide a route for foul water and surface water
drainage (Fig. 11.5).

Foul water drainage

11.4.2 The majority of streets are designed to
accommodate the disposal of foul water from
buildings. This will normally take the form of
drains around the curtilage of buildings which
come under Part H of the Building Regulations
(2000), and sewers located in the street, where
the relevant guidance is found within Sewers for
Adoption.

6 Statutory Instrument
2000 No. 2531, The
Building Regulations
2000. London: TSO.
7 Water UK (2006) Sewers
for Adoption, 6th edn.
Swindon: WRc plc
8 Water Industry Act 1991
London HMSO.
9 Department for
Environment, Food and
Rural Affairs (2005)
Making Space for
Water: Taking Forward
a New Government
Strategy for Flood and
Coastal Erosion Risk
Management in England.
London: Defra.

Surface water drainage

11.4.5 The street provides a conduit for the
storage or disposal of rainwater and, by its
nature and its impact on the environment, the
management of surface water runoff is a more
complex matter than dealing with foul water. The
Governments strategy in this area is set out in
Making Space for Water, with the emphasis on
the sustainable management of surface water.
11.4.6 When considering the management
of surface water, designers, developers and
authorities need to take account of the

Andrew Cameron, WSP

11.4.3 The adoption process for sewers is set

by section 104 of the Water Industry Act 1991.
Sewers for Adoption acts as a guide to facilitate
the procurement, design, maintenance and

adoption of sewers, and is accompanied by a

Model Agreement used by sewerage undertakers
and developers.
11.4.4 An important consideration when
designing sewers is their siting within the street
and the impact they may have on detailed
design issues. Advice on these matters is given in
Sewers for Adoption.

Figure 11.5 Sustainable drainage systems can form an integral and attractive part of the street.

130

Manual for Streets

guidance given in Planning Policy Statement 25:

Development and Flood Risk (PPS25)10 (Wales:
refer to TAN 15: Development and Flood Risk11).
11.4.7 The planning and management of
surface water discharge from buildings and
highways requires a co-ordinated approach
to evaluating flood risk and developing an
integrated urban drainage strategy.
11.4.8 A Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) will
demonstrate how flood risk from all sources of
flooding to the development itself and flood
risk to others will be managed now and taking
climate change into account. FRA is required
for planning applications where flood risk is an
issue, depending on their location and size, as
set out in Annex D of PPS25.

10 Communities and
Local Government
(2006) Planning
Policy Statement 25:
Development and Flood
Risk. London: TSO.
11 Welsh Assembly
Government (2004)
Technical Advice Note 15:
Development and Flood
Risk. Cardiff: NAfW.
12 Communities and Local
Government (2007)
Development and Flood
Risk: A Practice Guide
Companion to PPS25
Living Draft. Available
online only from
www.communities.gov.uk
13 National SUDS Working
Group (2004) Interim
Code of Practice for
Sustainable Urban
Drainage Systems.
London: Construction
Industry Research and
Information Association
(CIRIA). See www.ciria.
org/suds/pdf/nswg_
icop_for_suds_0704.pdf
for downloadable PDF.
14 Available from
www.njug.co.uk

11.4.9 The responsibility for undertaking an

FRA rests with the developer. However, PPS25
advocates a partnership approach, consulting
with the relevant stakeholders to compile the
FRA. This will involve the planning authority, the
Environment Agency and sewerage undertakers.
(Wales: refer to TAN 15.)

11.4.10 A Practice Guide12 has been published
as a Living Draft to accompany PPS25. It
contains guidance in the management of surface
water and FRAs.The Practice Guide also covers
other areas of flood risk which may be worth
considering in the way streets can be used to
accommodate or eliminate flood risk.

Sustainable drainage systems

11.4.11 The term Sustainable Drainage
Systems (SUDS) covers the whole range of
sustainable approaches to surface water drainage
management. SUDS aim to mimic natural
drainage processes and remove pollutants from
urban run-off at source. SUDS comprise a wide
range of techniques, including green roofs,
permeable paving, rainwater harvesting, swales,
detention basins, ponds and wetlands. To realise
the greatest improvement in water quality and
flood risk management, these components
should be used in combination, sometimes
referred to as the SUDS Management Train.

Manual for Streets

11.4.12 SUDS are more sustainable than

conventional drainage methods because they:
manage runoff flow rates, using infiltration
and the retention of storm water;
protect or enhance the water quality;
are sympathetic to the environmental
setting and the needs of the local
community;
provide a habitat for wildlife in urban
watercourses; and
encourage natural groundwater recharge
(where appropriate).
They do this by:
dealing with runoff close to where the rain
falls;
managing potential pollution at its source;
and
protecting water resources from pollution
created by accidental spills or other sources.
11.4.13 The use of SUDS is seen as a primary
objective by the Government and should be
applied wherever practical and technically
feasible.
11.4.14 Detailed guidance on SUDS is contained
in the Interim Code of Practice for Sustainable
Urban Drainage Systems,13 Part H of the
Building Regulations and Sewers for Adoption.
All stakeholders need to be aware of the
importance of the application of SUDS as part
of an integrated urban drainage strategy for a
development.

11.5

Utilities

11.5.1 Most residential streets provide routes

for statutory undertakers and other services.
Detailed advice on providing for utilities in new
developments can be found in NJUG Guidance.14
11.5.2 It is best to liaise with the utility
companies when the layouts of the buildings and
streets are being designed. In nearly all cases
this should be prior to making the planning
application. Where streets are to be adopted,
it will be necessary to ensure that all legal
documentation required by the utility companies
is completed as soon as is possible.

131

11.5.3 Similar principles apply to streets that

are to remain private. It is important that the
rights of access to the development by utility
companies are set out in the management
companys obligations. Residents will need to be
made aware of these rights.
11.5.4 The availability and location of existing
services should be identified at the outset. The
requirements for new apparatus should be taken
into account in the layout and design of the
streets, and a balance should be struck between
the requirements of the utility companies and
other objectives. The locations of any existing
trees or shrubs, and proposals for new planting,
will require special consideration.
11.5.5 Where possible, all utility apparatus
should be laid in corridors throughout the site.
This will facilitate the installation of the services
and any future connections as the development
proceeds. Consideration should be given to the
use of trenches and ducts to facilitate this.
11.5.6 In designing for utilities, there are
advantages in developing streets along
reasonably straight lines rather than introducing
gratuitous bends and curves (but see Section
7.4 regarding the control of traffic speeds). This
practice will assist in simplifying utility runs,
with a corresponding improvement in the
efficient use of land and a reduced need for
inspection chambers.
11.5.7 It may be possible to install utilities
apparatus in adopted service strips in privatelymaintained land adjacent to the carriageway,
provided early discussions are held with service
providers and the highway authority, and that
adequate safeguards are provided. Conveyance
documents must incorporate perpetual rights
for service providers within the service strip.
Such service strips should be clearly marked and
residents should be made aware of restrictions
that apply to the use of these areas.

11.5.8 There have been problems with service

strips where residents have not been aware of
them. In addition, service strips can be unsightly
and limit opportunities for planting. As an
alternative, placing apparatus in the highway
may be acceptable on well-connected networks,
as traffic can be routed around a point closure if
it is necessary to excavate the carriageway
for maintenance.
11.5.9 In shared surface areas, such as in
some Home Zones, the routing of services will
require careful consultation between designers,
utility companies and the highway authority. This
consultation should take place at an early stage
in the planning and design process. It may be
necessary to route services in the vehicle track
in some places, but as noted above this may
not be a significant problem on well-connected
networks.

11.6

Arrangements for future

maintenance

11.6.1 It is important that the future
maintenance arrangements of the streets and
public spaces in a development are decided
early in the design process. If the streets are
to be adopted by the local highway authority,
the layout and material choices need to be
acceptable to the authority.
11.6.2 It is possible for streets to remain
private but a properly-constituted body with
defined legal responsibilities will need to be
established to maintain the streets to the
common benefit of residents. Further guidance
on management companies is given in
Section 11.9.
11.6.3 A highway authority will require legal
certainty that the streets are going to be
properly maintained in perpetuity by these
private arrangements. In the absence of this,
the Advance Payments Code contained in the
Highways Act 198015 enables highway authorities
to secure funding to meet any costs of bringing
new roads up to an adoptable standard.

15 Highways Act 1980.

London: HMSO.

132

Manual for Streets

11.6.4 A highway authority may be unwilling

to adopt items such as planting and street
furniture (e.g. play equipment and public
art) which are not considered to relate to the
highway functions of the street. If there is no
private management company, arrangements can
be made for such features to be maintained by
another public body, such as a district or town/
parish council (e.g. by designating areas
of public open space).
11.6.5 In these circumstances the developer
must ensure that there is agreement between the
county, district and town/parish councils as to:
which authority is best able in practice to
take day-to-day responsibility for each
element of planting and/or non-highwayrelated furniture;
the future maintenance responsibilities,
obligations and liabilities arising from such
planting, street furniture etc.; and
the apportionment of these contributions
among the authorities concerned in the
light of the apportioned responsibilities/
liabilities.

11.7 Highway adoption

legal framework
Section 38 Agreements
11.7.1
Section 38 of the Highways Act 1980
gives highway authorities the power to adopt
new highways by agreement and this is the
usual way of creating new highways that are
maintainable at the public expense. The Act
places a duty on highway authorities to maintain
adopted highways at public expense under
section 41.
11.7.2 Under a Section 38 Agreement, the
developer is obliged to construct the streets
to an agreed standard, having first secured
technical approval of the designs from the
highway authority. A fee is normally payable by
the developer to the highway authority to cover
its reasonable costs in checking the design and
supervising the construction of the works.

11.7.3 The Section 38 Agreement sets out the

obligations of the developer to construct the
streets and to maintain them for a set period
normally 12 months. Following the satisfactory
discharge of these obligations, the new streets
are automatically dedicated as public highway
and are maintainable at the public expense.

Advance Payments Code

11.7.4 The Advance Payments Code (section
219 to section 225 of the Highways Act 1980)
provides for payments to be made to a highway
authority to cover future maintenance liabilities
in the absence of a Section 38 Agreement.
11.7.5 The Advance Payments Code provides
a compulsory process which involves cash
deposits being made by the developer to the
highway authority before building works can
commence. It is an offence to undertake any
house building until these payments have been
deposited with the highway authority. The
money securing the road charges liability is
used to offset the cost of the works in instances
where the highway authority carries out a Private
Street Works Scheme to make up streets to an
acceptable standard.
11.7.6 Thus, before any construction begins,
the developer will normally be required either:

to secure the payment of the estimated cost

of the highway works under the Advance
Payments Code provisions as set out in
section 219 of the Act; or
to make an agreement with the highway
authority under section 38 of the Act and
provide a Bond of Surety.

Private streets
11.7.7 Where a developer wishes the streets
to remain private, some highway authorities
have entered into planning obligations with the
developer under section 106 of the Town and
Country Planning Act 1990,16 which requires the
developer to construct the new streets to the
authoritys standards and to maintain them in
good condition at all times.

16 Town and Country

Planning Act 1990.
London: HMSO.

Manual for Streets

133

11.7.8 Such a planning obligation enables

the developer to avoid making payments under
the Advance Payments Code, as the highway
authority can then be satisfied that the streets
will not fall into such a condition that a Private
Streets Work Scheme will be needed. The
planning obligation thus provides exemption
to the developer from making advance
payments under section 219(4)(e) of the
Highways Act 1980.

What is adoptable?
11.7.9 The highway authority has considerable
discretion in exercising its powers to adopt
through a Section 38 Agreement under
the Highways Act 1980, but there are other
mechanisms contained in the Act which help to
define the legal tests for adoption.

11.7.10 Although seldom used, section 37 of
the Act does provide an appeal mechanism
in the event of a highway authority refusing
to enter into a Section 38 Agreement. Under
section 37(1), a developer can give notice to
the authority that he/she intends to dedicate a
street as a public highway.
11.7.11 If the authority considers that the
highway will not be of sufficient utility to the
public to justify its being maintained at the
public expense, then it will need to apply to a
magistrates court for an order to that effect.
11.7.12 A further possibility is that the authority
accepts that the new highway is of sufficient
utility but considers that it has not been properly
constructed or maintained, or has not been used
as a highway by the public during the 12-month
maintenance period. On these grounds it can
refuse to accept the new road. In this case the
developer can appeal to a magistrates court
against the refusal, and the court may grant an
order requiring the authority to adopt the road.

134

11.7.13 Section 37 effectively sets the statutory

requirements for a new street to become a
highway maintainable at the public expense. The
key tests are:
it must be of sufficient utility to the public;
and
it must be constructed (made up) in a
satisfactory manner.
In addition:
it must be kept in repair for a period of
12 months; and
it must be used as a highway during
that period.
11.7.14 There is little case law on the
application of these tests, however.
11.7.15 Highway authorities have also tended
to only adopt streets that serve more than a
particular number of individual dwellings or more
than one commercial premises. Five dwellings is
often set as the lower limit, but some authorities
have set figures above or below this.
11.7.16 There is no statutory basis for the lower
limit on the number of dwellings justifying
adoption. The use of five dwellings as a criterion
may have come from the notional capacity of
private service supplies (gas, water, etc.) but it is
now more commonplace for utilities to lay mains
in private streets.
11.7.17 It is not desirable for this number to
be set too high, as this would deny residents of
small infill developments the benefit of being
served by an adopted street.
11.7.18 It is recommended that highway
authorities set a clear local policy on this issue.

Adoption of streets on private land

11.7.19 Under some circumstances the
developer may not be able to dedicate a certain
area of land as highway because he does not
own it. If so, the road (or footway, etc.) can be
adopted using the procedures under section 228
of the Highways Act 1980.

Manual for Streets

11.7.20 On completion of the works to the

satisfaction of the highway authority, and
following any agreed maintenance period,
notices are posted on site. These state that
unless objections are received from the owner of
the land, the highway in question will become
maintainable at public expense one month
after the date of the notice. An inspection
fee is payable in the same way as for
Section 38 Agreements.

Section 278 Agreements

11.7.21 A Section 278 Agreement, under the
Highways Act 1980, enables improvements to
be made to an adopted highway that convey
special benefit to a private body for example,
the formation of a new access to a development
site, or improvements to permeability and
connectivity that help strengthen integration
with an existing community.
11.7.22 Before entering into such an agreement,
a highway authority will need to be satisfied
that the agreement is of benefit to the general
public. The developer will normally bear the full
cost of the works, and a bond and inspection fee
is also payable, as with Section 38 Agreements.

11.8

Design standards for adoption

11.8.1 The highway authority has considerable

discretion in setting technical and other
requirements for a new highway. Concerns have
been raised over the rigid adherence to these
requirements, leading to refusal to adopt new
streets. This issue was explored in Better Streets,
Better Places.17
11.8.2 Highway authorities are nowadays
encouraged to take a more flexible approach to
highway adoption in order to allow greater scope
for designs that respond to their surroundings
and create a sense of place. It is recognised,
however, that highway authorities will need to
ensure that any future maintenance liability is
kept within acceptable limits.
17 ODPM (2003) Better
Streets, Better Places:
Delivering Sustainable
Residential Environments:
PPG3 and Highway
Adoption. London:
ODPM

Manual for Streets

11.8.3 One way of enabling designers to

achieve local distinctiveness without causing
excessive maintenance costs will be for highway
authorities to develop a limited palette of special
materials and street furniture. Such materials and
components, and their typical application,
could, for example, be set out in local design
guidance and be adopted as a Supplementary
Planning Document.
11.8.4 Developers should produce wellreasoned design arguments, and articulate
these in a Design and Access Statement (where
required), particularly if they seek the adoption
of designs that differ substantially from those
envisaged in a local authoritys design guide or
MfS. However, provided it can be demonstrated
that the design will enhance the environment
and the living experience of the residents, and
that it will not lead to an undue increase in
maintenance costs, then highway authorities
should consider responding favourably.
11.8.5 Drawings should indicate which parts of
the layout the developer expects to be adopted
and how the adoption limits are to be differentiated
on the ground. Widths and other key carriageway
dimensions, and the location and dimensions of
parking spaces, should also be shown, together
with full details of all planting.
11.8.6 Highway authorities would be expected
to adopt street layouts complying with their
Design Guide which have been constructed
in accordance with the highway authoritys
specification of works. They would normally be
expected to adopt:
residential streets, combined footways and
cycle tracks;
footways adjacent to carriageways and main
footpaths serving residential areas;
Home Zones and shared-surface streets;
land within visibility splays at junctions and
on bends;
trees, shrubs and other features that are an
integral part of vehicle speed restraints;
any verges and planted areas adjacent to
the carriageway;
Structures, i.e. retaining walls and
embankments, which support the highway
or any other adoptable area;

135

street lighting;
gullies, gully connections and highway
drains, and other highway drainage features;
on-street parking spaces adjacent to
carriageways; and
service strips adjacent to shared surface streets.

11.9

Private management companies

11.9.1 Any unadopted communal areas will
need to be managed and maintained through

136

private arrangements. Typical areas maintained

in this way include communal gardens, shared
off-street car parking, shared cycle storage,
communal refuse storage and composting
facilities, and sustainable energy infrastructure.
11.9.2 Where a private management company
is established, it is desirable for residents to have
a strong input into its organisation and running
in order to foster community involvement in the
upkeep of the local environment.

Manual for Streets

Index

Access See Pedestrian access; Vehicle access

Adoption of streets

design standards
11.8

drainage systems
11.4.3

landscaping
11.3.67, 11.6.4

legal framework
11.7

street furniture
11.6.4
Advance Payments Code
11.6.3, 11.7.46
Advertising boards
6.3.26
Alignment of street
4.5.5, 6.5.5, 7.2.67
Alleyways
4.5.1, 4.6.3
Allocated parking
8.3.1011
Audits

quality
3.7
3.7.513

road safety
Backs of houses
4.6.3, 5.6
Barriers, pedestrian
10.2.11
Blind people See Visual impairment
Block paving
7.2.15
Block structures
4.5.2, 4.5.4, 7.3.1718
Blue Badge parking
8.3.2427
Building frontages

oversailing of footways
6.3.24

in relation to street
2.3.8, 5.56, 5.9, 7.3.5

vehicle access
7.9
Building height, in relation to street width
5.4.34
Bus dimensions
6.5.2
Bus lay-by
6.5.10
Bus routes
6.5.18
Bus stops
6.5.915
Car clubs
8.3.79
Car-free developments
6.6.3
Car parking
8.3

allocated and unallocated parking
8.3.1011

crime prevention
4.6.3

design and location of spaces
8.3.2936

dimensions for spaces and manoeuvring
8.3.4854, 8.3.58

for disabled people
8.3.2427, 8.3.5557

effect on emergency vehicle access
6.7.3

efficient use of space
8.3.3738

footway parking
8.3.4247

front gardens
5.9.2

garages
8.3.3941

government policy
8.3.12

level of provision
8.3.36, 8.3.18

off-street
6.3.28, 6.6.3, 8.1.4

on-street
7.8.6, 8.3.1220

visitors
8.3.2123
Car use (See also Motor vehicles)
4.2.1, 4.3.23, 4.4.1
Carriageway alignment See Alignment of street
Carriageway widths See Width, street
Centre lines
9.3.13
Characterisation of streets
2.4.914, 4.7.1, 7.2.4
Claims against highway authorities
2.6.48
Classification of streets See Street types
Closed-off streets
6.3.11, 6.4.2
Clutter
5.10, 9.1.1012, 10.2.4
Collaborative design
1.3.13, 3.2, 3.6.32
Commercial vehicles
6.6.1
Communal parking
4.6.3, 8.3.11
Communal space
4.5.2, 5.7, 10.2.3

management and maintenance
11.9.1
Community function (See also Social interaction)
2.2.5, 5.7
Connectivity (See also Permeable street layouts)

crime prevention
4.6.23

cycle links
4.2.4, 6.4.2

external connections
4.2.58

pedestrian links
4.2.4, 6.3.11
Conservation areas
3.6.17, 3.8.6

street furniture and lighting
10.1.2
Context appraisal
3.6.17
Continental-style roundabouts
7.3.16
Corner radii
6.3.1214, 6.4.6, 6.5.8

138

Manual for Streets

Courtyard parking
Crime and Disorder Act 1998
Crime prevention (See also Personal security)

access to houses

motorcycle parking
Cross-falls See Vehicle crossovers
Crossings for pedestrians See Pedestrian crossing points
Crossovers See Vehicle crossovers
Crossroads
Cul-de-sacs
Cycle lanes
Cycle links
Cycle parking
Cycle routes
Cycle stands
Cycle tracks
Cycling

design requirements

inclusive design

priorities of different road users

roundabouts
DASs (Design and Access Statements)
Definition of street
Densities, housing
Design and Access Statements (DASs)
Design audits
Design checklists
Design codes

road safety audits (RSAs)

stopping sight distance
Design process

planning

policy review

objective setting

outline and detailed design

quality auditing

planning approval

implementation

monitoring
Design Review
Design standards

for adoption of streets
Design teams
Desire lines See Pedestrian desire lines
Detailed plans
Development Team approach
Dimensions of streets (See also Width)

height of buildings

spacing of junctions

street length
Direction signs
Disability Discrimination Act 2005
Disability Equality Duty
Disabled people (See also Mobility impairment; Visual impairment)

car parking provision

design for

shared-surface streets
Distributor roads
Drainage

foul water

pedestrian areas

surface water

sustainable drainage systems
Dropped kerbs
Echelon parking
Emergency vehicles
Environmental impacts
Equestrian crossings
External connectivity
Fire services See Emergency vehicles
Flood Risk Assessment (FRA)
Flood risk management
Footbridges
Footways

Manual for Streets

4.6.3, 8.3.31
4.6.1
4.6, 10.2.6
5.6.2
8.4.8

7.3.8
4.5.7, 6.7.3, 6.8.3, 6.8.10
6.4.1, 6.4.8
4.2.4, 6.4.2
6.5.12, 8.2
6.4.34
8.2.2124
6.4.4, 6.4.78
2.3.6, 4.2.2
6.2.1, 6.4
4.2.4, 6.1.4
2.4.6, 3.6.89
7.3.1416
3.8.2
1.1.7
4.4.3
3.8.2
3.7
3.5.5
3.6.2834
3.7.5, 3.7.9
7.5.4
3.110
3.23
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
3.10
3.3.3
1.4.5, 2.5.2
11.8
3.2.12
3.6.2528, 3.9.1
3.2.2, 3.6.33
5.4, 7.2
5.4.34
7.3.1718, 7.4.4
5.4.5
9.3.13
2.7.1, 3.10.2
2.7.1, 2.7.3, 3.10.2
8.3.2427, 8.3.5557
2.7, 3.10.2, 6.1.13, 6.3.4
7.2.1012
2.2.34, 7.9.34
2.3.10, 3.2.1, 11.4
11.4.24
6.3.32
11.4.510
11.4.1114
6.3.9, 6.3.12, 8.3.57
8.3.4952
6.7
2.3.5
6.3.9
4.2.58
11.4.810
11.4.610
6.3.7, 6.3.26

139


at bus stops

parking on

width
Forward visibility
Foul water drainage
Front gardens

parking use
Fronts of buildings See Building frontages
Functions of streets
Future-proofing
Garages

doors oversailing footway
Geometric choices
Government policy and guidance
Gradients

cycling

pedestrians

waste collection vehicles
Granite setts
Guard railing
Headroom, cycling
Height of buildings, in relation to street width
High streets
Highway authorities

adoption of streets

joint working

responsibilities

categorisation of street/road types

disability equality

maintenance

road safety
Historic towns, street furniture and lighting
(See also Conservation areas)
Historical perspective
Home Zones

routing of services

street furniture
Housing densities
Improvement schemes
Inclusive design
Informal crossings
Informatory signs
Integrated street design See Collaborative design
Joint working See Collaborative design
Junction design

corner radii

cyclists needs

junction priority

pedestrian needs

spacing of junctions

visibility splays
Kerb build-outs
Kerb line
Kerbing

dropped kerbs
Landscape Character Appraisals
Landscaping

adoption of streets

parking areas

shading of lighting
Large-scale developments
Lay-by, bus
Layouts

context appraisal

conventional approach

crime prevention

detailed plans

factors influencing

movement framework

outline plans

spacing of junctions

structures and geometry

sustainable communities

walkable neighbourhoods
Legal context

140

6.5.10, 6.5.13
8.3.4247
6.3.2223
7.8
11.4.2
5.6.1, 5.9.2
8.3.5
2.3
3.6.19, 5.13
8.3.3941
6.3.24
4.5.57, 6.6.1
2.5.2, 2.5.4
6.4.11
6.3.20, 6.3.27
6.8.9
6.4.12
10.2.810
6.4.11
5.4.34
2.4.10
1.4.12
11.78
3.2.12
2.4.7
2.7.1
2.6.45, 2.6.8, 11.1.2
2.6.6, 3.7.6
10.1.2
2.2.3
2.4.10, 7.2.1622
11.5.9
10.1.3
4.4.3
3.1.3, 3.6.4
1.1.45, 1.6.1, 6.1
6.3.9
9.3.1214
5.5, 7.3
6.3.1214, 6.4.6, 6.5.8
6.4.6
7.3.7, 7.4.4, 9.3.811
6.3.12
7.3.1718, 7.4.4
7.7
6.3.9
7.2.7
2.3.5, 6.3.15
6.3.9, 6.3.12, 8.3.57
3.6.2
5.7.12, 5.12, 11.3
11.3.67, 11.6.4
9.3.7
10.3.3
3.6.19
6.5.10
3.6.24
2.2.34, 4.5.3
4.6
3.6.2528
5.8
4.2
3.6.1519
7.3.1718, 7.4.4
4.5
4.3
4.4
2.5, 3.6.33

Manual for Streets

Legible design
6.3.4, 9.2.3
Length of streets
5.4.5, 7.3.1718, 7.4.4
6.3.7, 6.3.15
Level changes (See also Gradients; Surface level crossings)

vehicle crossovers
6.3.28
Liability and risk See Risk and liability
Life cycle of a scheme
3.1.12
10.2.5, 10.3.4
Lighting columns (See also Street lighting)

effect on visibility
7.8.7

height
10.3.1821
Local amenities
4.3.2, 4.3.4, 4.4.1
Local authorities (See also Highway authorities)

design codes
3.6.33

joint working
1.3.3, 3.2.12

responsibilities
2.3.2

disability equality
2.7.12

standards and guidance
1.4.5, 2.5.5, 3.4.2, 3.5.6
Local Development Frameworks
3.4.2, 5.7.2
Local distinctiveness
3.6.14, 5.11, 11.8.3
Local materials
11.2
Local policies, standards and guidance (See also Design codes)
1.4.5, 2.5.2, 2.5.5, 3.4.2, 3.5.6
Local Transport Plan
3.4.2
Maintenance
5.13.1, 11.6

highway adoption
11.78

landscaping
11.3.59

private management companies
11.9

responsibilities
2.6.45, 2.6.8, 11.1.2

street furniture and lighting
10.2.7, 10.3.21, 10.3.25, 11.6.45
Management companies
11.9
Masterplan

detailed
3.6.2528

outline
3.6.1519
Materials (See also Surface materials)
11.2, 11.8.3
Mini-roundabouts
7.3.15
Mobility impairment

car parking
8.3.5

design for
6.3.20, 6.3.28

public transport use
6.5.1
Monitoring
3.7.13, 3.10
Motor vehicles
(See also Bus routes; Car use; Emergency vehicles; Service vehicles) 6.6

priorities of different road users
2.3.6, 2.4.28, 3.6.89
Motorcycle parking
8.4
Movement
2.3.6

analysis of existing patterns
3.6.812

proposed movement framework
3.6.1314, 4.2

status in relation to place
2.4
Multi-functional streets
2.2.4
Name plates for streets
9.3.13
Networks See Street networks
Objective setting
3.5
Obstructions (See also Closed-off streets; Visibility)
6.3.10, 6.3.26

overhanging trees and shrubs
6.3.26

oversailing of footways
6.3.24
Off-street parking
6.3.28, 6.6.3, 8.1.4
On-street parking
8.3.1220

signs and road markings
9.3.47

in visibility splays
7.8.6
One-way streets
4.2.8
5.7.12
Open space (See also Communal space)
Open Space Strategy
3.4.2
Outline scheme layouts
3.6.1519
Overhanging trees and shrubs
6.3.26
Overrun areas
7.11
Oversailing of footways
6.3.24
Parking (See also Car parking; Cycle parking; Motorcycle parking) 2.3.9, 4.6.3, 8

ingsignage
9.3.47
Parking bays
8.3.4854, 8.3.56, 9.3.5

motorcycles
8.4.9

in relation to junctions
7.8.6
Partially-sighted people See Visual impairment
Pavement parking
8.3.4247
Pavements See Footways
Paving materials (See also tactile paving)
6.3.9, 6.4.12, 7.2.15
Pedestrian access to buildings and public spaces
2.3.78

Manual for Streets

141

Pedestrian barriers
Pedestrian crossing points
Pedestrian desire lines
Pedestrian links
Pedestrian networks
Pedestrian refuges
Pedestrians

design requirements

inclusive design

priorities of different road users

seating
Pelican crossings
Perimeter blocks
Permeable street layouts

crime prevention

junction design

spacing of junctions
Perpendicular parking
Personal security

cyclists

inclusive design

layout considerations

subways
Pinch-points
Place

characterisation

context appraisal

design quality

local distinctiveness

sense of

status in relation to movement
Place/movement matrix
Planning approval
Planning framework
Planning policies
Planning Policy Statement 13: Transport (PPS13)
Planning process
Planting See Landscaping
Policy review
Priorities of different road users (See also User hierarchy)

buses
Private streets
Project life cycle
Project planning
Public consultation
Public Realm Strategy
Public space See Communal space
Public transport

bus routes

bus stops

priorities of different road users

use of
Puffin crossings
Quality auditing
Quality of design
Quality places
Rear access to houses
Recycling provision
Residential sprinkler systems
Reversing distances
Risk and liability (See also Road safety)

balanced approach
Road closure
Road markings

centre lines

for parking
Road safety (See also Risk and liability; Speed reduction)

centre lines

cycling

guard railing

highway authoritys responsibility

visibility splays at junctions
Road safety audits (RSAs)
Road types
Roads compared with streets

142

10.2.11
6.3.79, 6.3.30
6.3.12
4.2.4, 6.3.11
6.3.7
6.3.9
6.2.1, 6.3
4.2.4
2.4.6, 3.6.89
6.3.33, 10.2.23
6.3.9
4.5.2, 4.5.4, 7.3.1718
2.2.5, 4.2.38
4.6.23
7.3.9
7.3.1718
8.3.4952
2.2.5, 6.3.1819
6.4.10
4.2.4
4.5.1
6.3.7
6.3.9
2.1.2
2.4.914, 4.7.1, 7.2.4
3.6.57
5.3
3.6.14, 5.11, 11.8.3
1.1.7, 2.3.25
2.4
2.4.914, 7.2.4
3.8
2.5
3.4.1, 4.4.3,
4.4.1
3.13
3.4
2.3.6, 2.4.2, 2.4.67, 3.6.89
6.5.6
11.7.78
3.1.12
3.3.1
2.4.11, 3.3.2, 3.6.16
3.4.2
6.5
6.5.28
6.5.915
3.6.89
4.2.2, 4.3.3, 4.4.3
6.3.9
3.7
5.2
2.2.5, 5.2
5.6.1
6.8.1418
6.7.3
6.7.2, 6.8.8
2.6
3.7.1112
7.3.11
9.1.2, 9.3.13
9.3.13
9.3.47
2.2.5, 6.3.19
9.3.23
6.4.46
10.2.89
2.6.6, 3.7.6
7.7.9
3.7.513
2.2.3, 2.4.7, 2.4.10, 4.7.1
2.2, 2.4.4

Manual for Streets

Roundabouts
RSAs (Road safety audits)
Rural areas

design statements

street furniture and lighting
Safety See Crime prevention; Personal security; Road safety
Seating
Security See Crime prevention; Personal security
Segregation of road users

non-segregation
Sense of place See Place
Service roads
Service strips
Service vehicles

parking provision
Services See Utilities
Setts, granite
Sewers
Shared-surface streets and squares
Signing

informatory

junction priority

for parking
overuse of
Signalised crossings
Single lane working
Smaller developments

planning approval
Social interaction
Speed limits
Speed reduction (See also Traffic-calming)
Speed tables
SSD (Stopping sight distance)
Stages of a scheme
Staggered junctions
Standards and guidance See Design guidance; Design standards
Stopping sight distance (SSD)
Street character types

categorisation

conventional approach
Street definition
Street dimensions See Dimensions of streets
Street furniture

adoption of streets

reducing clutter
Street lighting

attached to buildings

colour

lighting levels

reducing clutter

scale
Street name plates
Street networks (See also Layouts)

conventional approach
2Subways See Underpasses
SUDS (Sustainable urban drainage systems)
Surface level crossings
Surface materials (See also Paving materials)

cycling

pedestrians

relation to street lighting

shared-surface streets
Surface water drainage
Surveillance
Sustainable communities
Sustainable urban drainage systems (SUDS)
Swept path analysis
Tactile paving
Tall buildings
Tapering obstructions
Technical approval
Toucan crossings
Town Design Statements
Tracking models
Traffic See Motor vehicles; Movement

Manual for Streets

7.3.1216
3.7.513
2.3.5
5.11.2
10.1.2, 10.3.11
6.3.33, 10.2.23
2.2.3, 3.7.9, 4.5.1, 7.4.1
4.6.3
7.9.4
11.5.78
6.8
8.3.28
6.4.12
11.4.24
7.2.815, 11.5.9
9
9.3.1214
9.3.811
8.3.9, 8.3.27, 8.3.55, 9.3.47
2.3.5, 5.10.1
6.3.9
7.2.3
3.1.3, 3.6.3, 3.6.16, 3.6.19
3.8.6
2.2.5, 2.4.12, 5.7
7.4.2, 7.4.58
6.3.19, 6.5.14, 7.4, 9.3.3
6.3.1516, 7.3.11
7.5, 7.6.4
3.1.12, 3.3.1
7.3.10
7.5
4.7
3.6.2023, 7.2.45
2.2.4
1.1.7
2.3.5, 10.12
11.6.4
5.10.12, 9.1.1012, 10.2.4
2.3.5, 10.1, 10.2.56, 10.3
10.3.89
10.3.7, 10.3.2223
10.3.1116
5.10.12
10.3.1721
9.3.13
3.6.24, 6.3.7, 6.8.2
2.2.4
11.4.1114
6.3.79, 6.3.1516
2.3.5
6.4.12
6.3.31
10.3.26
7.2.15
11.4.514
4.5.1, 4.6.3, 6.3.18
2.2.6, 2.3.2, 4.3, 5.2.1
11.4.1114
7.2.6
6.3.8, 6.3.12, 6.3.16, 8.3.57
5.4.4
6.3.26
3.9.2
6.3.9
5.11.2
7.2.7

143

Traffic-calming

junction design

single lane working

speed tables
Traffic signs
Traffic speeds See Speed limits; Speed reduction
Transportation policies
Travel choices, influencing
Trees (See also Landscaping)

effect on visibility

pedestrian issues
Trunk roads
Turning areas
Types of streets See Street types
Unallocated parking
Uncontrolled crossings
Undercroft parking
Underground parking
Underground waste containers
Underpasses
Unmarked junctions
Urban design principles
Urbanisation
User hierarchy (See also Priorities of different road users)

conventional approach

recommended
Utilities

street furniture
Vehicle access to buildings and open spaces
Vehicle crossovers
Vehicles See Motor vehicles; Movement
Visibility

along the street edge

effect on driving speeds

forward visibility

obstacles to

requirements

visibility splays at junctions
Visitors parking

cars

cycles
Visual impairment

design for

shared-surface streets
Walkable neighbourhoods
Walking (See also Pedestrians)
Waste collection
Waste collection points
Waste collection vehicles

routing
Waste containers
Waste storage
Width

footways

parking bays

public transport vehicles

street

effect on driving speeds

bus routes

emergency vehicles

waste collection vehicles
Zebra crossings

144

6.5.5, 7.4.34, 10.3.5

7.4.9
7.2.3
6.3.1516, 7.3.11
2.3.5, 7.4.59, 9.12
3.4.1
4.2.1, 4.3.13
5.12.4, 11.3.24
7.8.7
6.3.2526
1.4.23
7.10
8.3.1011
6.3.9
8.3.32
8.3.32
6.8.16
4.5.1, 6.3.7
9.3.9
5.3
2.3.5
2.4.23
3.6.812, 4.2.2, 4.2.911
2.3.10, 11.5
10.2.1
7.9
6.3.2830
7.8.45
7.4.4
7.8
7.8.67
7.6
7.7.110
8.3.2123
8.2.911, 8.2.20
6.3.910, 6.3.12, 6.3.16, 6.3.26, 6.3.30, 10.3.4
7.2.1011
4.4
2.3.6, 4.2.2
3.2.1, 6.8
6.8.910
6.8.46, 6.8.10
7.9.3
6.8.9, 6.8.11, 6.8.13, 6.8.1618
5.10, 6.8.9, 6.8.1218
6.3.2223
8.3.4852
6.5.2
5.4.2, 7.2
7.4.4
6.5.7
6.7.3
6.8.67
6.3.9

Manual for Streets

Manual for Streets

Manual for Streets is expected to be used predominantly for the design,

construction, adoption and maintenance of new residential streets, but it is also
applicable to existing residential streets subject to re-design. It aims to assist in
the creation of high quality residential streets that:
build and strengthen communities;
balance the needs of all users;
form part of a well-connected network;
create safe and attractive places which have their own identity; and
are cost-effective to construct and maintain.
Transformation in the quality of streets requires a fundamental culture change in
the way streets are designed. This needs a more collaborative approach between
design professions and other stakeholders with people thinking creatively about
their various roles in the design process. This publication is therefore aimed at all
those who have a part to play in creating high-quality streets.

www.thomastelford.com/books