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:[email protected]: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
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!
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?
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
Manual for Streets
Aims to increase the quality of life through good urban design and deliver more people- orientated streets
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.
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
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?
Street Hierarchy
Green Fringe
Lanes
Lower High Street
Formal CrescentsPark Enclosure
Community Street
Neighbourhood Street
The Green Route
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
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
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