Welcome new life for Manual for Streets – but greater ambition is needed if it is to deliver

THE IMPENDING PUBLICATION by the Department for Transport of an updated Manual for Streets, as promised within the Government’s new Road Safety Strategy published earlier this month, marks a significant moment for transport practitioners, almost two decades after the original Manual helped reshape thinking around street design in urban areas and local neighbourhoods in England.

The update has been long anticipated. However, early professional reaction to the drafts that have so far emerged suggests growing concern that the document, in its current form, does not meet the standard required of a national manual intended to shape everyday decisions on street design in the context of significant policy changes since the last version was published.

Addressing the scale of issues being raised through industry feedback suggests urgent action is needed for the guidance to be in place and in an appropriate form to provide the support necessary to complement the revised National Planning Policy Framework which is expected to be finalised later this year.

Manual for Streets was originally conceived as a practical reference, bridging the gap between policy aspiration and on-the-ground delivery. MfS1, published in 2007, focused on lightly trafficked residential streets and challenged orthodox highway practice by requiring that the ‘place’ function of street should be considered on the same footing as the ‘movement’ function. MfS2, published in 2010 by the Chartered Institution of Highways and Transportation (CIHT) with DfT endorsement, extended this approach to busier streets where movement and place functions coexist, requiring more nuanced trade-offs.

Together, these documents brought, at least in theory, a design discipline to local roads comparable to that applied to the strategic network through the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB), but with a broader understanding of streets as an important focus for wider social, economic and environment-related activity. In practice, however,some engineers have unfortunately continued to apply DMRB standards to complex urban streets, despite their being intended solely for motorways and all purpose trunk roads with quite different functions.

MfS3 (as the new version has been dubbed) is intended to consolidate and update MfS1 and MfS2 into a single document. Its development has, however, been unusually protracted. During 2019, the Government’s Policy Lab undertook research to understand whether an updated MfS was needed and, if so, what it should seek to achieve. Then, in late 2020, consultant WSP was appointed by the CIHT, on behalf of the DfT, to prepare the revised MfS. Subsequently, in 2022, a 365-page ‘90% working draft’ version of the new document was circulated to a range of key stakeholders for comment- much of which, it is understood, was averse.

Since that time, whether because of that feedback, or because of the dislike within of the latter days of the previous Government for anything that might be construed as against the interests of ‘motorists’, or perhaps for both reasons or others, the document has seemed to go underground. It is believed to have been a little further developed internally, and very slowly, by the DfT itself, alongside Active Travel England and MHCLG.

Whether further external professional advice has been used during this later period is unclear.

That extended gestation has at least raised expectations across the profession that MfS3 would emerge, re-energised- as a robust, well-evidenced and highly usable piece of national guidance, particularly given the pace of change in policy and practice relating to placemaking and local transport and environmental thinking during that time.

In this context, a refreshed and substantive Manual for Streets certainly remains essential. Without a clear and authoritative reference, there is a continuing risk that local streets default to traffic-led solutions driven by legacy DMRB highway design and traffic management standards, or other development pressures, rather than by contemporary place-based objectives.

Late last year, rumours began to circulate that a draft of the new document might be imminent. However, it wasn’t until the Road Safety Strategy (published on 6th January) had specifically promised the publication of a new MfS, that it emerged that a draft of Part A of the new manual had been issued for comment to a small, select and unidentified group of stakeholders on 16th December. Part B was then issued for comment on 13th January, but again it is unclear as to whom. The Part A and Part B drafts, together, run to just over 80 pages of unformatted text covering six chapters. A Part C draft is also anticipated shortly, though it is not known what its coverage will be, or who will be asked to comment on it.

As you might imagine, copies of these drafts have been seen by pairs of eyes beyond those to whom that were originally sent, which can only be a good thing for the Department in its presumed wish to get the document into the best shape possible, with many asking why this round of engagement seems to have been so partial and secretive in the first place.

Practitioners have highlighted the imbalance in the draft document between place and movement, with movement compressed into a single objective, applied uniformly to all streets. This approach is seen as conceptually flawed, as different streets require different priorities. Clarity on network design, street function and matters like junction strategy are essential if the new manual is to do its job.

There is also, of course, the rather important matter of the nature of the content itself, and it appears that many practitioners are questioning whether the current draft is sufficiently robust, usable, clear and authoritative. Has it been generated to simply fulfil an obligation – or do a vital job within transport policy and beyond?

A central concern is that the document clearly does not seem properly designed to function as a ‘manual’. Instead of offering clear, practical guidance, it has been described as largely reiterating high-level policy narratives that are already well established elsewhere. This risks undermining the very purpose that made Manual for Streets influential- as handbook and toolkit to get things routinely done to a suitably high standard, not just provide some aspirational suggestions. Definitive, authoritative, and functional.

These concerns echo the findings of the 2019 Policy Lab research undertaken for the DfT during that original iteration, which concluded that while there was a strong case for retaining the Manual for Streets brand, it required a fundamental redesign to improve uptake and usability, particularly among highway engineers.

The research highlighted the need for greater certainty, clearer structure, stronger visual guidance and a product that felt authoritative and practical, rather than abstract or discursive.

Many of the issues raised in recent professional discussions suggest that these lessons may not yet have been fully absorbed. Practitioners have highlighted the imbalance in the draft between place and movement, with movement compressed into a single objective applied uniformly to all streets. This approach is seen as conceptually flawed, as different streets require different priorities, and as meanwhile undermining clarity on network design, street function and junction strategy.

There have also been concerns about structure and internal consistency. In the drafts of Part A and B, principles appear in illogical order, terminology is sometimes inconsistent, and technical statements too often ambiguous or contradictory. The risk is that this creates scope for selective interpretation, increasing uncertainty rather than reducing it.

Particular unease has been expressed about the limited numerical standards included in the draft. While sparse, these are likely to be the elements most readily adopted by engineers, and some are seen as contentious and potentially harmful, especially if they become default minima that work against place function having its necessary influence on street design in a range of contexts.

As Colin Black, Chair of the Transport Planning Society’s Development and Land Use Planning Group, has put it, the issue is not whether Manual for Streets is still needed – the evidence says very clearly that it is. The problem is that the current draft does not yet provide the clarity, structure or authority that practitioners need if it is to influence real-world decisions.

Concerns have also been raised about alignment with national planning policy. The Part A draft introduces principles that do not clearly align with either the National Planning Policy Framework or the National Design Guide. This risks confusion for decision-makers and weakens the coherence of national policy, particularly at planning appeal and design review stage.

Audience focus remains another challenge. The document appears to be trying to serve planners, highway engineers and policymakers simultaneously, yet does not fully meet the needs of any of them. This mirrors earlier findings on why previous editions were unevenly used and why clearer expectations and stronger positioning and ascribed professional status are essential.

As a result, some practitioners have questioned whether the current draft is of a standard or maturity appropriate for formal consultation, particularly in the absence of key supporting material such as drawings, worked examples and later technical sections of the document.

There is also understandable concern about the nature of the process that has unfolded since WSP was appointed to produce the new document, over five years ago. That commission was intended to produce the new document in early 2022, but all that surfaced, that July, was a ‘90% draft’ that then disappeared from trace.

Who has worked on it since, and to what brief they were working, is unknown to all but a few. And now that drafts are appearing in instalments, reasonable questions are being asked about the ‘ownership’ of the project,what the status of the graphics-free documents is, why such a limited and unknown group of stakeholders has been asked to comment, and what next steps are proposed, and when.

When LTT asked these questions of DfT, the response was quite frankly a pathetic ‘no comment’. It reflects other recent experiences that engagement over professional matters in many parts of the Department is secretive, defensive and dismissive – perhaps as a result of communications paranoia in decisions made at other levels. Sadly, in the current era of highly politicised cut and thrust, does the Department’s technical and professional work have the attention and status it deserves internally?

Could the whole MfS even vanish again, as in 2022, when forces within the Department at either political or senior civil servant level, apparently decided to just abandon the activity? We should really hope that one of the activist ministers – either that for Roads or for Local Transport – has this important project on their radar. We wonder which, incidentally.

Despite these concerns and questions, there is broad agreement in the relevant professional community that MfS3 remains a critical opportunity. With a clearer sense of purpose, stronger alignment with planning policy, and a renewed focus on usability for practitioners, Manual for Streets could once again play a central role in shaping better streets and better places – a stated government intention.

For now, however, the challenge for the Department for Transport and Active Travel England is to ensure that the new Manual for Streets evolves into a document that does more than restate aspirations. To succeed, it will need to provide the clarity, authority and practical guidance that engineers, planners and designers require to turn policy ambition into consistent, high-quality outcomes on the ground.

Peter Stonham is the Editorial Director of TAPAS Network

This article was first published in LTT magazine, LTT930, 22 January 2026.