05 November 2010

Manual for Streets 1 Manual for Streets 2RTPI Cymru - Briefing

Introductions- WSP MfS team

•Alan Young – Senior Technical Director - WSP•Project Manger MfS1 and contributor•Project Manager and Co - Managing Editor MfS2/contributor

•Peter Evans – Associate Director – WSP•WSP’s MfS trainer•MfS2 contributor •Delivered MfS training programme to all Welsh authorities during 2010

Contact:peter.evans@wspgroup.comTel:02920 366 300Mobile:07824 471 861

What we will be covering today day

Ice BreakerWhat makes a good placeAn Inspector Calls/recent Inspectors questionsSpot the issuesSuccessful streetsManual for Streets 1 – The Start of the journeyQuality auditsCollaborative workingManual for Streets 2People like to walk in straight linesManual for Streets ResearchDe-clutteringQuestions

Start Time 1.45pmFinish 4.00pm

What makes a good place?

Character• Sustaining or enhancing local character

• Promoting legible development

• Promoting a successful relationship between public & private space

• Promoting quality, choice and variety

• Promoting innovative design

What makes a good place?

Movement• Promoting sustainable means of travel

Access• Ensuring ease of access for all

What makes a good place?

Environmental Sustainability• Achieving efficient use & protection of natural resources

• Enhancing biodiversity

• Designing for change

Community Safety• Ensuring attractive, safe public spaces

• Security through natural surveillance

What makes a Sustainable Street?Character – encouraging a sustainable

community / sustainable transportLegible / RecognisableConnected / PermeableMovement – encouraging sustainable modesEncouragement of walking / cyclingPublic transportAccess – encouraging access for allEnvironmental Sustainability

– working with the environmentBiodiversitySolar shadingSustainable Drainage SystemsCommunity Safety

– encouraging activity / walking / cycling

How can quality enhance sustainability?

Ensuring attractive, safe public spaces

Reduced maintenance need

Reduced lifetime costs

Reduce clutter

How can a good place help movement?

Encouragement of walking / cyclingSurveillance / street lightingLegibilityPublic transportFacilities / land uses which reduce the need to travel

The first milestone

Manual for Streets 1

Launched March 2007

TRL Document 332

TRL Document 662

Some recent issues uncovered The Local Authority Picture in 2010

Approximately 15% of decision makers who have attended WSP training were aware Manual for Streets existed!

Approximately 5% of decision makers who attended WSP training were using Manual for Streets!

Approximately 1% of decision makers who attended the recent WSP training were aware of the research documents which inform Manual for Streets!

Decision makers were still using DB32 and considered this to be acceptable!

Planning Inspectors were highlighted as not giving Manual for Streets any weight!

Planning Inspectors have highlighted decision makers as not using Manual for Streets!

Many Highway Design Guides not updated since March 2007!

An Inspector Call’s Some recent appeal decisions

Appeal – APP/V4250/A/08/2080757Hilton Park, Chadwick St, Leigh 99 dwellings, Nov 08

Issues:Access to the Strategic Route NetworkHigh Street Visibility could not meet adopted standards

Inspector:‘Despite the high volume of traffic carried by Leigh Road, to my mind the combination of land uses and their relationship with the highway results in this location being a place that is people base’,It is therefore my view that it is the guidance within MfS that should be used in this case.

Appeal – APP/P4225/A/07/2040756/NWFCoral Mill, Rochdale, 87 dwellings, 5 Sept 07

Issues:A663 joining J21 of M62 1 km NW of site85th percentile speeds 25mph and 27mphVis at access could not meet adopted standards

Inspector:‘…I accept the Appellant’s approach to research based matter.’‘…The classification of Shaw Road has no bearing on a driver’s ability to stop

if necessary, and I see no reason why in this location a ‘Y’ distance of the SSD should not be adopted.’

Appeal – Martins Terrace, Abercynon Erection of 80 dwellings

Issues:Whether adequate highway access would be afforded to the site, and whether such arrangements would provide access for refuse and emergency vehicles’.

Inspector:‘…although MfS does not provide design advice for the access bridge if replacement is

required, to default to DMRB is not a sustainable approach, the principles of MfS should be adopted and a bridge sufficient to serve a residential development is required, not a major road bridge design to motorway design standard. A clear understanding of the day to day use needs to be considered, not a default standard, MfS has challenged this out dated approach ’

Some Recent Inspectors Questions

1. What width is required to allow access for a fire engine?2. What is a street?3. What is the BS distance for a refuse vehicle to reverse?4. What distance does a fire engine need to get within of a dwelling entrance?5. Does the proposed Traffic Regulation Order condition pass the circular

test?6. What is the difference between a small and larger radius at the proposed

junction?7. What is the value of good design?8. Have you taken account of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998? How and

why?9. Please take me through how you have considered the user hierarchy in

this case?10.What is the car ownership levels in this locality? You don’t know please

find out by the end of the day?

11.So what is the difference between MfS and DMRB?12.Your design standards were approved in 2006 are they up to date?13.Does the road type affect the SSD’s in MfS?14.Does forward visibility influence speed?15.Did the appellant provide a scoping note?16.Have you carried out a swept path analysis? How did you do this? What

vehicles did you use?17.What is the appropriate design standard for the bridge linking the two

residential areas?18. Is highway adoption an issue for this appeal?19.Has a stage 1 safety audit been carried out?20. Is this design sustainable? Why?

Don’t worry engineers have stop taking the illegal substances!!

Policy Documents:

Planning Policy Wales

TAN12 (2009)

TAN18 (2007)

TAN22

Manual for Streets (2007)

Manual for Streets 2 (2010)

Parking Standards

Local Design Standards / Guides

DB32 – cancelled by MfS March 2007

What issues can you see?

What issues can you see?

Manual for Streets

Aims to increase the quality of life through good urban design and deliver more people- orientated streets

Successful Streets – UptonSuccessful Streets – Where?

Successful Streets – New Hall, Harlow

High Street Kensington

The Ashlands, Portishead

The benefits of better urban streets

Cabinet Office Urban Transport report (November 2009)Importance of taking into account multiple objectives when developing

transport strategies / schemesNot simply congestion reductionOther priorities include:

• economic regeneration• climate change• accident reduction• reducing air and noise pollution• encouraging sustainable and healthy travel

Streets as Places which provide: Streets as Places which provide:

• Movement

• Access

• Parking

• Utilities/Services

Manual for Streets - 1

Guidance for practitioners involved in the planning, design, provision and approval of new streets, and modifications to existing ones.

Aims to increase the quality of life through good urban design and deliver more people-orientated streets.

Design Bulletin 32 v Manual for Streets The Legal Position?

Manual for Streets replaces Design Bulletin 32 and its companion guide “Places, Streets and Movement”.

Manual for Streets does not set out new policy or introduce new additional burdens

Presents guidance on how to do things differently within the existing policy, technical and legal framework.

Manual for Streets updates and re-establishes the link between planning professionals, designers and engineers.

Based on research.

George Street, Edinburgh – Adapting to change

George Street, Edinburgh – Adapting to change

George Street, Edinburgh – Adapting to change

suburban sprawl

suburban sprawl

We are still building the ingredients of towns but have forgotten how to put them together

Developing quality environments?

This is what DB32 has been delivering

Hierarchy of Users – Who are we designing for?

Have we been wasting money!

Place making has takena different focus

But are we creating quality environments?

Traditional Neighbourhood

Traditional Neighbourhood

Getting it Right

Visual appropriatenessRobustnessLandscapeDensitySustainabilityLayout

Street Clutter

What does the tree mean to you?

The Quality Audit process:Manual for Streets (sections3.7.2 and 3.7.3)

Series of assessmentsCarried out by various professionals within particular guidelines By grouping the assessments together, any compromises in the design will be apparentNot a box ticking exerciseIntegral part of the design and implementation process

Quality Audits

An audit of visual qualityA review of how the streets will be used by the communityA road safety audit, including a risk assessmentAn access auditA walking auditA cycling auditA non-motorised user auditA community street audit (in existing streets) A Place check audit’A travel planning auditAn environmental / sustainability audit.

Quality Audits

The Quality Audit team may include;

Road safety auditorUrban designerPlannerTransport Planner/Travel PlannerHighways engineerLandscape architectCommunity representativePolice representative

Quality Audits

Collaborative Working

Pre-application discussions

Who to involve and when?Common complaints:

“But I wouldn’t have agreed to that ….”

“Why didn’t you mention this before?”Agree a vision / objectives at the outsetA willingness to engage

Community Engagement

Increasing focus upon community empowermentWhen should I consult the community?

“There isn’t anything to comment on!”

“You have already made your mind up!”Be genuine about what you are askingBe clear about what is NOT up for debateWhose community is it anyway?Whose responsibility is it?Be prepared for wider issues to emerge

Design Review

Purpose – independent review and adviceMulti-disciplinaryCan be requested by LPA or applicantMaterial considerationImportance of early engagement

Design Charettes / Workshops

Enquiry by DesignMulti-disciplinaryIdeas galore ….Time and cost implicationPublic Relations / Profile

Delivery Agreements

Voluntary agreements

Timetable

Working arrangements

Responsibilities

Commitments / Priorities

What if circumstances change?

The street is a place and not the bit left over between buildings

Street Hierarchy

Green Fringe

Lanes

Lower High Street

Formal CrescentsPark Enclosure

Community Street

Neighbourhood Street

The Green Route

Integrating New Development into the Existing Urban Fabric

Integrating New Development into the Existing Urban Fabric

Integrating New Development into the Existing Urban Fabric

Integrating New Development into the Existing Urban Fabric

Typical Widths for Street Hierarchy and Urban Design

Permeability

26/10/2010

Manual for Streets 2 Wider Application of the Principles

So Why the Need for Manual for Streets 2?

+

Hilton Park Leigh

Site

Scope of MfS

Definition of a street:

‘MfS focuses on lightly-trafficked residential streets, but many of its key principles may be applicable to other types of streets.’

(ref MfS Status and Application)

Scope of MfS

Definition of a street:

‘MfS focuses on lightly-trafficked residential streets, but many of its key principles may be applicable to other types of streets.’

(ref MfS Status and Application)

Manual for Streets 2 - Why?

MfS only applicable to residential streets?

Concerns over HGVs and buses re braking characteristics

Fear of litigation

Comfort of familiar stringent standards

Lack of confidence in applying MfS principles

Scope of MfS2

Launched September 2010. MfS 2 does not replace the 2007 document but sits along side it.

re-striking the balance

Workshop, February 2010Some key issues of concern:

More guidance on where MfS applies, Use speed limits as a proxy?

Emphasise multi-disciplinary approach - Quality Audits

Shift burden of proof – provide evidence for signs and lines

Little mentioned of cyclists

Not all highways being considered are streets

Too urban

Application of key areas of MfS1 and 2 guidance

Visibility: stopping sight distances (85th percentile speeds)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Forward Visibility (m)

Spee

d (m

ph) Road Width = 5m

Road Width = 6mRoad Width = 7mRoad Width = 8mRoad Width = 9mRoad Width = 10m

TRL Research: the site survey data shows that speed increases with road width and visibility for both links and junctions

Relearning Old Lessons

Research found a relationship between increased carriageway width and increases in the average speed of traffic, and conversely reductions in radius of curvature of highways and reductions in speed of traffic.

Road Design in relation to Traffic Movement and Road SafetyR J Smeed, Proceedings of the IME 1954

Changing Context – A452 Chester Rd, Birmingham