Menu
Council meetings

Agenda item

Public Realm Technical Manual

Late item

Decision:

that the report be noted. It was also agreed that:

·         There should be purposeful and broad consultation on the manual (including with the RNIB)

·         There should be a formal review every four or five years (each Council administration)

·         That the manual should be proactively shared with councillors on planning committees as a matter of course.

 

Minutes:

5.1    Charlotte Harrison (Head of Strategic Housing and Regeneration) introduced the report. Charlotte provided the background to the development of the technical manual. Madhur Gurjar (Project Manager, Strategic Regeneration) provided an overview of the content of the report, highlighting the principles that had informed its development.

 

5.2    Charlotte Harrison, Madhur Gurjar and Patrick Dubeck (Director of Inclusive Regeneration) responded to questions from the Committee – the following key points were noted:

·         Work had taken place with officers across the Council to develop the manual. Upcoming projects (including those being delivered through TfL funding) would take the proposals in the manual into account.

·         Engagement would take place with developers as part of the consultation process.

·         There was a lot of flood risk information available in the borough – which could be incorporated into the delivery of future schemes.

·         Nature based solutions could be incorporated in future schemes. Officers were collaborating with boroughs that were more advanced in terms of their delivery of improvements to the streetscape to learn from good practice.

·         The manual would not provide a list of places for action – but it would provide tools for delivery.

·         It was recognised that not all streets had the maximum amount of pavement space available – but where there was space – the manual would seek to safeguard it, whilst also recognising the other uses of the streetscape (such as for businesses and street trading)

·         Consideration was being given to the best ways to share the manual with residents.

·         There had been some missed opportunities for the delivery of improvements to the streetscape. It was intended that as future improvements were made (including highway and footway renewals) the guidance in the manual would be picked up. Funding was an ongoing constraint and it was important to manage expectations.

·         The document would not have statutory planning weight – but it was already being consulted as part of the development of future schemes and was welcomed by developers and project managers.

 

5.3    Councillor Krupski was invited to address the Committee – the following key points were noted:

·         The development of the manual was welcome and it was being linked to the Council’s other areas of development (including the sustainable streets programme and the development of the integrated active travel strategy)

·         She encouraged officers from across the Council to deliver coordinated improvements.

 

5.4    In Committee discussions the following key points were also noted:

·         Members would welcome the wider publication of the manual to residents and interested community groups in the borough.

·         The Royal National Institute of Blind people (RNIB) had created its own guide to the streetscape – which officers should consider to improve streets for all users (and consult with the organisation).

·         A regular review of the manual would be welcomed (at least once during each Council administration).

 

5.5    Resolved: that the report be noted. It was also agreed that:

·         There should be purposeful and broad consultation on the manual (including with the RNIB)

·         There should be a formal review every four or five years (each Council administration)

·         That the manual should be proactively shared with councillors on planning committees as a matter of course.

Supporting documents: