MAK ING LONDONCHILD - FRIE NDLY
DE S I G N I N G PL AC E S A N D S TR E E T S FO R
C H I LDR E N A N D YO U N G PEO PLEG OO D G ROW T H BY D E S I G NAB UILTE NVIRONME NTFORALL

LONDONE RS

CONTENTS
Deputy Mayors' Foreword					P7Introduction								P11About this report								P13

Towards a Child-Friendly City					P17Understanding Independent Mobility			

P22

Key themes									P27

Assessing Independent Mobility				P34What to measure								P35Mobility indicator checklist						P36Measurement Methods – How to Measure				
P38

Policy									P41Participation								P55Design and Typology						P69Management								P89The Next Steps for London					P101Resources		 						P105
Precedent Library								P105
Glossary of Key Terms							P133

Contributors and Thanks						P138
About Good Growth by Design					P1401. Greater London Authority, 'The London Plan, Intend to Publish', 2019
2. Greater London Authority, 'Unhealthy weight in London's children. What we know',
London's Child Obesity Taskforce, 2019

1
DEPUT Y MAYORS' FOREWORD
London is a youthful city, with more than two million residents under
the age of 18. With the city’s population set to top 10.8 million
by 2041 1, this figure will rise further. London’s rapid growth andincreasing densification pose big challenges for the city as a wholeand for young people in particular. These are perhaps most felt inthe built environment where the needs of children and young people
can be easily overlooked.
As we build new homes and neighbourhoods across London, wemust ensure that young people’s needs are taken into account andthat they can access the city’s social and physical infrastructure.
This includes opportunities to enjoy cultural activities, parks andopen spaces, museums and galleries, as well as being able to movearound their neighbourhoods – and the wider city – safely andindependently. This is important for supporting young Londoners’
health and wellbeing and helping them reach their potential.
There is of course already some brilliant provision for children andyoung people across London. But at the same time, it’s clear thatyoung Londoners face a number of challenges to how they movearound the city and access this provision. The increase in youth
violence being tackled by the Mayor's Violence Reduction Unit not
only blights the lives of victims, perpetrators and their families, but
can also critically impede the freedom of children and young people
to move around independently.
In addition, nearly 40 per cent of all young Londoners are overweightor obese 2, which can have serious health consequences. The
ambition of the Mayor’s Child Obesity Taskforce is for London to
become a city where every child can be active and grow up a healthy
weight. How we design the built environment is critical to achieving
this, creating more active and playful public streets and spaces.

DEPUTY MAYORS' FOREWORD

7

Station Road Harrow, by Europa (Source: Mark Smith)8

DEPUTY MAYORS' FOREWORD

The Mayor is taking action to tackle these issues and to create
healthier and safer physical environments for children and young
people to live, learn and play. This includes the School Superzone
Pilots as well as broader work to clean up London’s toxic air, such as
the world-leading Ultra Low Emission Zone.
Independent mobility is vital for the physical, social and mental
development and health of young Londoners. It is also intrinsicallyconnected to equality and the everyday freedoms they have toaccess and occupy public space. To deliver the Mayor’s vision
for Good Growth, we must provide inclusive access to London’stransport, spaces and places. And, we must enable more people
to have a say in how the city changes, encouraging a broader
mix of voices, from young to old, and from different cultures andbackgrounds, to participate.
The Mayor’s new London Plan is notable in its provision for children
and young people across various policy areas. It highlights theimportance for them to be independently mobile within theirneighbourhoods and recognises that development proposals must
create safe and accessible routes and increase opportunities forplay and informal recreation.
This report sets out how we can think differently about the built
environment and its effect on how young people develop andbehave. It provides a series of indicators, principles, examples ofbest practice and recommendations to help make London a morechild-friendly city. It will be a key piece of evidence that informs
Supplementary Planning Guidance on play and recreation.
A London that works well for children and young people will be a
London that works well for all of us. Whether at the scale of thestreet, the neighbourhood or the city, we must move away froman approach that is just about ‘play provision’ and embrace thepotential of London’s urban environment to plan and design spacesthat put children and young people first.
Joanne McCartney, AM, Deputy Mayor for Education & Childcare,and Jules Pipe, Deputy Mayor for Planning, Regeneration & Skills
DEPUTY MAYORS' FOREWORD

91. UN UNCRC, UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989
2. Shaw, B, Fagan-Watson, B, and Mocca, E, [Policy Studies Institute] Children’s Independent
Mobility: an international comparison and recommendations for action, 2015
3. Shaw et al, 'Children’s Independent Mobility'
4. HSCIC, 'Health Survey for England 2015' Physical activity in children, 2016

2
INTRODUCTION
Why 'independent mobility'?
The independent mobility of children and young people is the
freedom they have to occupy and move around the public realm
without adult supervision. The United Nations' Convention on the
Rights of the Child recognises the rights of people under the age of
18 for rest and leisure, to engage in play and recreational activities,
and to participate freely in cultural life1. The creation of safe
outdoor environments that facilitate independent mobility can beconsidered integral to promoting and encouraging this right.
Whilst independent mobility is of intrinsic value to young
Londoners, recent research by the Policy Studies Institute (PSI)
demonstrates that it is in decline2, with significant consequences
for the physical, social and mental development and health ofpeople under the age of 18. Between 1971 and 2010 the number ofchildren in the UK of primary school age allowed to walk to schoolby themselves fell from 86 per cent to 25 per cent 3 and at the sametime, childhood obesity rates are increasing 4 .
Several factors, from changing attitudes and the role oftechnology, to increased concerns over safety, can be referenced
to explain the decline in levels of independent mobility. The PSI
study also found that the most successful initiatives to improvechildren’s independent mobility focused on transforming thebuilt environment. The independent mobility of children andyoung people is therefore a key consideration for London's built
environment, and an important topic for planners, designers,
architects and policymakers.
The Mayor’s new London Plan highlights the importance ofchildren and young people being independently mobile within theirneighbourhoods, requiring development proposals to create safe
and accessible routes and increase opportunities for play and
INTRODUCTION

11

(Source: TfL Image Library)

12

INTRODUCTION

informal recreation. Creating these opportunities requires the needto improve the visibility of children and young people in the public
realm, normalising their presence and their activities as part of dayto-day urban life.

About this report
This report highlights how the design of the built environment canincrease opportunities for young Londoners to be independently
mobile within their neighbourhoods and the city. Produced by the
Mayor’s Good Growth by Design programme, it recognises andconsolidates the research, policy and other work that has alreadybeen done in this area, defining a set of key principles and bestpractice approaches to support independent mobility and thecreation of a child-friendly city.
There is a myriad of academic research into child-friendliness, playand mobility, however its influence on the built form of cities hasoften been limited. The built environment is a key element in either
supporting or impeding the independent mobility of young people,
from the design of public spaces, roads, crossings and connections
between different places, to how we provide for children and young
people in residential developments.
●
As child-friendliness encompasses a wide range of characteristics
and interventions, the following research objectives were used tofocus the design inquiry:● ● What does independent mobility mean for young Londoners andwhat research has already been carried out in this field?
● ● What are the features of the built environment that facilitate
the independent mobility of under 18s, and how can these be
implemented in neighbourhoods?
● ● At the city-scale, what design guidelines can help London become
more child-friendly and enable independent mobility?
INTRODUCTION

13

The four lenses of the inquiry promote an integrated and holistic
approach to independent mobility

POLICYprinciples and processes ofgovernance that aim to improvechildren and young people’sability to moveindependently

DESIGNphysical features of the city that
aim to encourage independent
mobility, ranging from every day
streets and spaces, to housing
and neighbourhood
developments

EXEMPLARAPPROACH

MANAGEMENT

how young people are engaged
throughout the development of a
project, from concept todelivery and evaluation

the way streets and spaces
are managed and adapted to
become more child-friendly

14

INTRODUCTIONPARTICIPATION

Intended as a catalyst for further action, this primer unpacks the
key themes, indicators and definitions that inform the independent
mobility of children and young people so that the topic can be moreeasily understood and assessed. A combination of case studies
and precedents covering a range of scales are presented within thereport to identify diverse and best practice approaches.
The research and case studies have been examined across four
lenses (left), with each lens representing a key mechanism of city
making. Through a set of key principles and practice, the primer
outlines how transforming the built environment can enable children
and young people to play, socialise and move around their local
neighbourhood more safely and independently. These lenses
reflect the UN’s definition of achieving children’s rights as a multifaceted process: of being safe and protected, having a high quality
and sustainable environment, and being involved in decisions that
affect them 5.
An exemplar child-friendly city, neighbourhood, development, or
street would be working well in all four of these areas to ensure aholistic provision of infrastructure and services. Thinking about how
children and young people move around a city is a crucial starting
point for design and planning.
Who is this report for?
The expansive and multi-faceted nature of this study means there
are multiple target audiences, all of whom can play a key role inmaking London child-friendly. These include: GLA and boroughpolicy teams such as planning, transport and public health;commissioning authorities, clients and developers; and architects,
designers and play professionals.

5. UN UNCRC, UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989

INTRODUCTION

15

(Source: TfL Image Library)

16

TOWARDS A CHILD FRIENDLY CITY3
TOWARDS A CHILD-FRIENDLY CIT Y
Dinah Bornat
Mayor's Design Advocate and'Young People and The City' Sounding Board Chair

Independent mobility is the everyday freedom we all need to getaround our local neighbourhood and city as we choose. For children
and young people it might be to reach destinations like school andthe shops, but it is also about being active outside as part of play, or
hanging out with friends. Most people cherish memories of walking
home from school or roaming freely at the weekend and recognisethat the current generation is unable to enjoy the same freedoms we
did. Rather than indulging in nostalgia, we need to focus on improving
the independent mobility of young Londoners if we are to reverse thenegative trend, and give back their freedom to enjoy spaces, be partof the community, and grow up as happy, healthy people.
Under 18s are a significant minority in society and unique in that
although everyone is or has been one, they are not a subset ofthe voting majority, nor are they homeowners or tenants. Their
opportunity to influence decisions is less straightforward and,despite the fact that age is recognised as a protected characteristic
under the Equalities Act 2010, there is often little or no mention ofchildren in planning policy or guidance.
For children and young people, the rights to play, to gather and toparticipate in decisions that influence them are enshrined in the
United Nations' Convention on the Rights of the Child. Although it
can be helpful to talk about the benefits that their physical presence
outdoors might bring to a community, such as reducing obesity
and increasing safety, children’s independent mobility is a right initself, rather than a means to other outcomes. There is real value inmovement for movement’s sake, even if it's just cycling around theblock. We need to better understand how children use space to get
TOWARDS A CHILD FRIENDLY CITY

17

around; by ignoring the ways they behave we do them and society
a great disservice.
Children need the freedom to get around independently, to call on
friends to play, hang out and enjoy their neighbourhood. They are
motivated to form a range of friendships, to take risks and to explore
their local area. Allowing them to do so offers intergenerational
benefits; spaces that are safe for children tend to be safefor everyone.
We should be encouraged that research shows good design andlayout are able to support play and independent mobility. The vision
should be a city where we are able to see children and young people
outside, in small and larger sized groups, on foot, bicycles, scootersor wheelchairs. If we prioritise this desirable goal from the outset
we can ensure that it is delivered though a design process which
includes appropriate participation and detailed briefing.
In designing for independent mobility, we must cover a breadth ofareas and disciplines, from policy and guidance through to briefing,engagement, procurement, delivery and management. It requires acommitment at all stages and a willingness to overcome challenges
and conflicts. There needs to be both the will at a leadership level
and an understanding from all those involved; clients, architects,
engineers, highways, planners and landscape architects that it canbe done. It is all at once strategic, specific, nuanced and detailed,and needs to be highly regarded from the outset, thoroughly
understood by the team, and cherished throughout the project.
This report provides a structure to draw in all the players, by
examining policy, participation, design and management. It
recognises and consolidates research, policy and guidance alreadycarried out, identifies gaps and makes a series of best practicerecommendations that are highly appropriate and relevant foranyone involved in the physical aspects of our cities at the small,medium or large scale.

18

TOWARDS A CHILD FRIENDLY CITY

The time is right to do this. We can be inspired by international
examples, but we must be ambitious and build our own examples
in London.
We need to start by advocating for children’s rights, of which one
is participation. As most in the planning and development industry
are unlikely to encounter children in their professional lives, it
makes it all the more important that we make efforts to do so andto do it well. We should begin with the lived experiences of children,
understanding where and how they use space, how they get aroundand use this to build a clear picture of a local area. Not only does
this provide authenticity, it allows children to operate effectively as
stakeholders on their terms, setting up choices that they often are
not afforded.
In policy and guidance there needs to be a recognition of how
children use space beyond the more straightforward A to B paths ofadult pedestrians and cyclists. Younger and older children need totake time to explore, meander and hang out. Giving children, alongwith older and less independent people, greater protection as road
users – above able-bodied pedestrians and cyclists – would allow
these activities to flourish.
The iterative process of design means that when the first viability
tests are applied, we should be mindful of the more specificelements that will support play at a strategic but also a detailed
level. It should not be assumed that these will be picked up
automatically at a later design stage when the first masterplan andmassing moves are being made. We must think first how children
might move around a new local area before any buildings are placed.
Sight lines, overlooking and connections in residential
developments rely on the exact locations of entrances, on whether
apartments or dwellings are single or dual aspect, and on theposition of on-street carparking, amongst other things. Anticipatingthese will help avoid poor outcomes such as car-dominated streetsor being unable to see from upper levels into communal courtyards
where other children might be playing.

TOWARDS A CHILD FRIENDLY CITY

19

Most of the city, and people’s lives, will continue to be affectedby existing places, creating a pressing need to carry out post
occupancy evaluation. This should be conducted in both newdevelopments and in the transformation of existing neighbourhoods;
it is not difficult to see the unfairness in provision of children’s
independent mobility if it is only applied to new build projects. Thereis much to watch and learn from how residents use space, and manysocial value opportunities to be discovered when re-engaging with
communities after 10 or 20 years.
This report is a step change in how we might think about designing
our cities for children; giving them a more prominent position andshifting from thinking about play ‘spaces’ towards a more holistic
and strategic approach. If we don’t, we risk more lives being
impacted by poor provision, with segregated playgrounds being one
such example.
One thing we must learn from this work is that there is no one
single answer – it is and should be an evolving dialogue. It is our
responsibility to make sure that dialogue includes and engages
with children.

20

TOWARDS A CHILD FRIENDLY CITY

'HeartmiX' is an interactive public art work in Gersagerparken, Greve, Denmark,consisting of light, sound and painting, by artists Helle Hove and Karoline H Larsen andconsultancy by Light Bureau (former ÅF Lighting) (Source: Light Bureau/ Thomas Arnbo)

Aldriche Way project, London Borough of Waltham Forest (Source: Build Up)

TOWARDS A CHILD FRIENDLY CITY

21

4
UNDERSTANDING INDEPENDENT MOBILIT Y
The independent mobility of children and young people is a multidisciplinary topic that draws on a range of academic disciplines
including public health, environmental and developmental
psychology, transport, planning and urban governance. Whilst these
themes are relevant to the built environment, they have emerged
from several fields of study.
There are common themes in how independent mobility is definedin established research and literature. Recognising freedom,
unaccompanied movement, a wide spatial area and a social
foundation are common elements.

Defining independent mobility for children and young people
In the context of children and young people and for the
purposes of this report, independent mobility is defined as aright in itself:
The freedom to occupy and move around the public realm –either alone or with other children – without adult supervision.
A child or young person’s independent mobility is established bynegotiation between parental / carer permissions and children’s
wishes, and might include walking, cycling, public transport,
as well as playing and socialising. This inquiry predominantly
explores the topic through a rights-based agenda, alongside
the importance of young people's participation in decision
making and authorship of the built environment, advocating
for a long-term involvement in the city from which health anddevelopmental benefits will follow.

22

UNDERSTANDING INDEPENDENT MOBILITYWASTELAND

CHILDFRIENDLY
ENVIRONMENTCELLGLASSHOUSE-

Ability to move around independently+

A child-friendly city has a good balance between children andyoung people’s ability to move around independently and things to
do. It is not enough to just create a lot of activities for children andyoung people – they must be able to move between these different
activities, school and home. Only when children and young people
can easily and safely move from place to place, do you have a childfriendly environment.

-

Number of places to go and things to do+

Interpretation of Kyttä’s matrix of child-friendliness (Arup, 2017) – a child-friendly
environment will balance places to go and things to do with a high level of independent
mobility

UNDERSTANDING INDEPENDENT MOBILITY

23

The independent movement of children and young people isdetermined by multiple factors. Age and play are key elements:
Age
There is a clear expectation that independent mobility increases
with age. Schools, institutions and organisations play a role inclassifying and providing for different ages, with the distinction
between primary and secondary school aged children forming aclear categorisation. ‘Children’s independent mobility’ as a term
includes young people who we may not categorise as ‘children’.
In the literature reviewed, ‘children’ are often defined as everyone
below the age of 11 or 12, whilst those aged 12–18 are definedas ‘youth’ or teenagers 1, to recognise that different groups havedifferent mobility and recreational needs. This study adopts thedefinition of children and young people as anyone younger than 18.
Play and playfulness
Play is the process of engaging in activities that involve creativity,
imagination and physical exertion. Although not the focus of thisreport, play cannot and should not be separated from mobility as
both contain an element of independence and self-direction. Playand playable space are fundamental elements of creating a childfriendly city with opportunities for all ages. It is important for spaces
to offer a range of potential interactions, or ‘affordances’, so it
can be used in different ways by different age groups and needs 2.
‘Playfulness’ can also be considered as an approach to research,
design and planning, with the aim of generating more imaginativeand creative interventions. This report adopts the definition of playthat has emerged from the Playwork Principles 3:‘Play is a process that is freely chosen, personally directed
and intrinsically motivated. That is, children and young people
determine and control the content and intent of their play,by following their own instincts, ideas and interests,
in their own way for their own reasons.’
1. Bornat and Shaw 2019; Crawford et al. 2017; LLDC 2016; GLA 2012
2. Gehl, J, Life Between Buildings, 1996

3. Playwork Principles Scrutiny Group, Playwork Principles, 2004

24

UNDERSTANDING INDEPENDENT MOBILITY

'HeartmiX' is an interactive public art work in Gersagerparken, Greve, Denmark,consisting of light, sound and painting, by artists Helle Hove and Karoline H Larsen
and consultancy by Light Bureau (former ÅF Lighting)(Source: Light Bureau / Thomas Arnbo)

UNDERSTANDING INDEPENDENT MOBILITY

25

CHILD
DEVELOPMENTMOBILITY AND
PLAY

PROXIMITY

A RIGHTS-BASEDAPPROACH

GENDER

SUPERVISIONHEALTH

THIRD
PLACESRISKCRIME ANDANTI-SOCIALBEHAVIOUR

26

UNDERSTANDING INDEPENDENT MOBILITY

Key Themes
The following themes emerged from a literature review of key
texts, and have helped to identify a number of characteristics that
influence the independent movement of children and young people.
A rights-based approach
A rights-based approach to independent mobility recognises that it
is an intrinsic right for children and young people as active citizens,
rather than a means to other outcomes 4. The 'UN Declaration on
the Rights of the Child' and the 'UN Convention on the Rights of theChild' both define children's rights in three components:● ● protection of children;● ● a high quality and sustainable environment;● ● involvement and efficacy in decisions that affect them 5 .
Policy and design interventions should aim to fulfil thesecomponents of children’s rights, rather than using childfriendliness as a means for urban improvement 6. This outcomebased understanding risks tailoring child-friendly initiatives toa recognised problem. Several important secondary outcomes
do emerge from a rights-based approach, including addressing
childhood obesity and improving mental health, developmental
health and air quality 7.
●

4. Shaw et al, 'Children’s Independent Mobility'

5. UN UNCRC, UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989

6. Willow, C. Meeting the obligations of the Convention on the Rights of the Child in England,Children and young people's messages to Government, 2007
7. Gill, T. Building Cities Fit for Children, 2017

UNDERSTANDING INDEPENDENT MOBILITY

27

Supervision
Play and independent mobility both require some proportion of
directly unsupervised time 8. Natural surveillance enables safety
for children and young people without formal monitoring. In design
terms, permeability, or a reduction in physical barriers between
spaces, can enable places to be naturally overlooked and overheard
as well as easily accessed 9. Urbanist Jane Jacobs argued that an
inclusive and successful city is one where people without formal
kinship or relations take responsibility for others 10. This culture ofcare can be facilitated through the design of multi-use space thatprovides for multiple functions and interactions and therefore arange of age groups, people and active uses 11.
●
Health“If we cherish the fun and freedom that comes from playing out, we
will be rewarded with health and wellbeing outcomes in abundance”12.
Physical activity is closely linked to improving children’s physicaland mental health 13. Children’s inactivity and obesity is increasingin the UK, along with diagnosis rates of mental health problems.
London’s Child Obesity Taskforce demonstrates the recognition of,and strategic commitment to, addressing poor heath of children andyoung people, particularly in deprived areas of London 14. Ensuringthat built environment interventions facilitate greater physicalactivity is crucial in fulfilling health and wellbeing outcomes, as wellas the right to mobility.
●
8. Bornat, D. Housing Design for Community Life: Researching how residents use external spaces
in new developments, 2016
9. Krysiak, N. Making space for play, 2018

10. Jacobs, J. The Death and Life of Great American Cities, 1961
11. Bornat, 'Housing Design for Community Life'

12. Bornat, D. Neighbourhood Design, in Chain Reaction: Do buildings damage your health, 2018b13. Bornat, D. Between Edges and Hedges. Essay: Designing for Play, 2018a14. Greater London Authority. The London Health Inequalities Strategy, 201828

UNDERSTANDING INDEPENDENT MOBILITY

Crime and antisocial behaviour
Children, particularly teenagers, are a complicated presence inpublic space – often stereotyped as proponents of antisocial
behaviour, whilst also imposed with mobility restrictions due toperceived dangers of public space 15.
In London, young people’s perceptions of safety in their area
decrease with age 16. A study conducted by ZCD Architects foundknife crime, strangers and adults’ negative perceptions to be
the most prominent factors for reluctance to go outside 17. Built
environment interventions and policy should therefore aim to fulfil achild’s right to safety, both actual and perceived 18.
●
GenderGirls, particularly teenage girls, are more likely to have restrictions
placed on their mobility freedoms 19. Research in different housing
typologies in London found that boys are more likely to play out,
visit a park and ride a bicycle alone, and have fewer concerns
over safety in public spaces 20. Design, planning and policy must
understand these social and gendered issues when considering
how built environment interventions will be experienced and impact
on opportunities for mobility. One example would be understanding
how suitable a conventional Multi Use Games Area (MUGA) is forgirls, as research shows they are less likely to be used by girls 21.
●
15. Lacey, L. Street play – a Literature Review, 2007

16. Mayor of London Office for Policing and Crime. What Londoners tell us around knife crimeand violence: MOPAC evidence and insight, 201917. Bornat, D. and Shaw, B. Neighbourhood Design, 201918. ARUP. Cities Alive. 201719. Kyttä, M. The extent of children's independent mobility and the number of actualized
affordances as criteria for child-friendly environments, 2004
20. O’Brien et al. Children’s Independent Spatial Mobility, 2000

21. Beebeejaun, Y. Gender, urban space, and the right to everyday life, 2016

UNDERSTANDING INDEPENDENT MOBILITY

29

Risk
A risk-averse approach to policy and design means thedevelopmental and experiential benefits of risk such as resilience,risk management, independence and self-reliance are being
eroded 22. Risk is a key part of childhood. A level of risk must bepresented to children and young people so they do not seek out
dangerous situations in un-provisioned environments. Risks also
tend to be outweighed by the health and developmental benefits ofplaying, especially when this is self-directed 23.
Alternative evaluation and assessment methods, for example
Play England’s Risk-Benefit Assessment 24, consider benefits ofdesign and risk – there is scope to develop this approach for public
realm design that incorporates playful features, as this has not yet
been explored 25.
●
Third places
Designing for independent mobility needs to create safe andaccessible routes between the home and the school, as well as
connections to the other places that children and young people
use 26. ‘Third places’ are places used away from home and school,such as parks, recreation facilities, libraries and other forms ofsocial infrastructure 27. These informal spaces, where importantsocial interactions occur, hold a key functional and symbolic role 28.
●
22. Gill, T. Playing it Safe, 201823. Gill, T. Space-oriented Children’s Policy, 200824. http://www.playengland.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/psf-risk-benefitassessment-form-worked-example.pdf
25. Gill, 'Playing it Safe'

26. Elshater, A. The Philosophy of Urban Reload, 201827. Oldenburg, R. The Great Good Place, 1989

28. Hickman, P. “Third Places” and social interaction in deprived neighbourhoods in Great Britain,
2013

30

UNDERSTANDING INDEPENDENT MOBILITY

Mobility and play
Play and mobility are often discussed in separate terms, however a
key part of play is self-directed movement either within or between
different spaces 29. Part of being able to move between thesespaces is having high-quality and safe streets and public transport
for children and young people to use, either dependently or
independently of parents or carers. In terms of design and the built
environment, interventions that incorporate play into mobility, andmobility into play, are naturally ones that encourage independentand self-directed play. In these instances, the built environment
becomes simultaneously safer, full of affordances and navigable forchildren and young people of all ages and abilities.
●
Child development
Multi-use and flexible spaces where children and young people
are able to play, and other activities can occur, create a processof ‘self-reinforcing’ behaviours. Visibility of different social groupsinteracting encourages more groups to join and builds a senseof informal responsibility and safety 30. Research has found thatyounger children who are able to play and move independently show
better mental and physical development than children who are not 31.
Child development is also underpinned by a good balance of risks
and benefits which a mixed-use space often brings 32.
●

29. Wheway, R, and Millward, A. Child’s play: Facilitating play on housing estates, 199730. Gehl, 'Life Between Buildings'

31. Hüttenmoser, M. Children and Their Living Surroundings, 1995
32. Gill, 'Playing it Safe'

UNDERSTANDING INDEPENDENT MOBILITY

31

Proximity
The distance between the home, school, transport and play andsocial spaces is important in determining the mobility license
granted to children and young people. Younger children tend tosee larger distances as a greater hinderance to mobility than older
children do 33. Closer proximity between different uses and spaces
enables greater independence in mobility, supporting the idea of amixed-use and multi-functional public realm.
Studies in 1997 34 and 2013 35 both found that children of all ages
prefer to play where they can see / hear and be seen / heard from thehome or by other responsible adults. Incorporating design elementsthat maintain sight lines is key, both in public spaces and residential
developments, and can inform playable environments with morethan one intended use 36.
●

33. Greater London Authority. Sowing the Seeds, Reconnecting London's Children with Nature,2011
34. Wheway, R, and Millward, A. Child’s play, 199735. Barclay, M. and Tawil, B. Wrexham Play Sufficiency Assessment, 201336. Krysiak, 'Making space for play'

32

UNDERSTANDING INDEPENDENT MOBILITY

(Source: TfL Image Library)

UNDERSTANDING INDEPENDENT MOBILITY

33

5
ASSESSING INDEPENDENT MOBILIT Y
The importance of being able to evaluate the levels and qualityof independent mobility in built and unbuilt projects cannot be
underestimated in the production of the built environment. Not
only does it assist with more effective planning assessment
and decision making, but it fundamentally allows us to better
understand the effectiveness of interventions and how this caninform future development.
How and what we measure ultimately defines eventual outcomes,
as schemes and developments become tailored to meetassessment criteria. Independent mobility, and wider childfriendliness, is a relatively complex area to measure, dependent
on many variables, and therefore it requires both qualitative andquantitative approaches.
International Comparisons
The Policy Studies Institute conducted a longitudinal study between
1971 and 2015, looking at levels of independent mobility across 16
countries. Results found that mobility restrictions are greatest forchildren below 11, and become more relaxed as children get older1.
Traffic and road safety are the main reasons for restrictions on
independent mobility, and improving streets and highways was a
key recommendation. Children’s independent mobility in the UK
ranked in the middle of the countries assessed.
International assessments are useful in identifying trends, drawing
out best-practice examples, and understanding global concerns
such as the impact that intensive vehicle use in cities has on
childhood and development.

1. Shaw et al, 'Children’s Independent Mobility'

34

ASSESSING INDEPENDENT MOBILITY

What to Measure
There are a number of factors that indicate how child-friendly
an environment is. It is important to recognise that what getsmeasured and turned into a policy requirement will define, andpotentially limit, outcomes. Some indicators and data are moreeasily translated into practice. Therefore it is crucial to outlinea range of indicators for different audiences and purposes,
recognising that children and young people understand andnavigate the urban environment in more sensory ways to adults,
who often prioritise efficiency over experience for journeys.
Outlining the key components of independent mobility is the firststep to understanding what we can assess and measure2:

Mobility
licence

The defined rules granted to children and young people,
including certain spaces and transport modes they areallowed to visit and use

Territorial
range

The distance from home that children and young people
can travel independently.

Destination

The specific destinations that children and young people
are allowed to visit unaccompanied, or where they actuallygo, for example school, the homes of peers,
sports facilities.

Time

The amount of time a child is allowed to spend awayfrom home.

2. 'Marzi, I. & Reimers, A.K. Children’s Independent Mobility: Current Knowledge, Future Directions,and Public Health Implications, 2018

UNDERSTANDING INDEPENDENT MOBILITY

35

Mobility Indicator Checklist
Different sets of indicators help to understand processes
at different scales, across a range of contexts. The urban
environment is not purely spatial nor purely experiential, so a
combination of both quantitative and qualitative indicators isimportant when addressing children’s independent mobility.
The following key indicators highlight the ways that mobility
and the potential impacts of elements of the built environment
should be measured.
An extended list of indicators can be found in the accompanying
appendix document.
Mobility● ● Can a child / young person walk or cycle to and fromschool alone?
● ● Can a child / young person walk or cycle to friends’ houses,
civic and social spaces and activities alone?
●● What is the maximum distance a child can travel independently?
● ● Does a child/young person feel safe walking or cycling to andfrom school and other destinations and activities alone?
● ● Can a child / young person play within sight of their home?
●● Does a child / young person use public transport independently?
● ● Can a child / young person travel after dark alone orwith friends?
● ● What is the average time taken for a child to walk / cyclefrom home to a play space or green space?
● ● What proportion of children use active modes of transport
to and from school?
36

ASSESSING INDEPENDENT MOBILITY

Features of the environment● ● What proportion of children have access to green space andplay space within close proximity to their home?
● ● Do children and young people feel welcome and able to playin public and communal spaces?
● ● How much formal and informal play space is there in an area?
● ● What are the air quality measurements around schools andchildren’s infrastructure, including before and after built
environment interventions?
● ● What proportion of outside space is car-free, well overlooked
and directly accessible from residential developments?
● ● What proportion of a local authority’s budget is dedicated toencouraging active transport in children and young people,
in terms of education, design, improvements and renovation?
● ● Do children and young people have a high level of input into
decision making regarding the built environment?
● ● Does the environment create conditions for children andyoung people to be outside after dark?

ASSESSING INDEPENDENT MOBILITY

37

Measurement Methods – How to Measure
There are five main ways of measuring the mobility patterns andbehaviours of children and young people:

Interviews

These may be unstructured, following the natural directionof the conversation with minimal guidance, or be structured
with a pre-determined set of questions 3 . Interviews canprovide important insights into mobility licence.

Observations

Often researchers will observe a space, people and their
behaviours, to try and generate a picture of what the space
is used for and by whom. This may also identify who cannot
use the space and what activities are not permitted.

Mapping

Used as a creative engagement tool to understand how
children and young people perceive their neighbourhood.
Children and young people are invited to draw and annotate
a map to provide a greater insight into their relations withand feelings towards particular places.

Soft GIS

Soft Geographic Information Software (GIS) combines bothsubjective and objective data, enabling a richer insight into
spatial understanding, such as the opinion a participant
has on a particular place. It can be used to understandqualitative and quantitative aspects of a child’s territorial
range.

SurveyA standardised set of questions which may be closed(multiple choice) or open (written response). The benefits ofthis survey method are the possibility of a high number ofparticipants and ease in comparing data.

Independent mobility is multi-faceted and determined by a
combination of qualitative and quantitative factors 4 . As the mostappropriate methods of measuring it can vary depending on thenature of different contexts, a combination of different methods isadvised to allow for a more holistic understanding of the issue.
3. 'Secor, A.J. Social Surveys, Interviews, and Focus Groups in Research Methods in Geography,
2010
4. Bhosale, J., Duncan, S., Stewart, T., Chaix, B., Kestens, Y. and Schofield, G. Measuring children’s
independent mobility: comparing interactive mapping with destination access and licence toroam. 2017, p679.

38

ASSESSING INDEPENDENT MOBILITY

(Source: TfL Image Library)

ASSESSING INDEPENDENT MOBILITY

39

40

Example section

6
POLICY
Introduction
Child-friendly design and urban planning is an emerging field which
advocates an approach to planning and designing cities beyond
playground provision, to improve the health and physical, social andmental development of children and young people. It recognises
the importance of independence and play as part of the built
environment as a whole.
Whilst there are issues and concerns in London, there is also a lotof potential for improving the life of citizens of all ages throughpolicy and built environment interventions. Child-friendly policies
are those that specifically provide guidance on initiatives andinterventions that realise the rights of children. The identificationand development of policy that facilitates the transformation of thebuilt environment to address independent mobility of children andyoung people is a key part of creating a child-friendly city. Policy atboth the city and borough level can simultaneously set standards
and coordinate the actions of built environment professionals.
At the local level the Play Streets movement is beginning to
influence planning and development, with communities reclaiming
streets as their own spaces to socialise, gather and play. There arealso notable instances of London boroughs such as Tower Hamlets
and Hackney are leading the way with child-friendly Supplementary
Planning Documents (SPD) in development. However there is stilla long way to go, particularly from the perspective of engaging
children and young people in policy making itself.
A recent review of child-friendly planning in the UK highlights that'children’s participation in planning is both about participation in
the process of planning and in the outcomes of planning', however'participatory planning processes are regularly criticised for not

POLICY

41

giving an adequate voice to communities'1. The review advocates athree-pronged approach to participatory outcomes and processes
with children and young people in planning that supports children's
use of space in terms of:● ● time to participate● ● space to participate● ● attitudes to policy development and implementation
At the city level, the new London Plan sets out a city-wide spatial
development strategy, underpinned by the concept of Good
Growth – growth that is socially and environmentally sustainable
and economically inclusive. The Plan sets ambitious planningpolicies that aim to improve the social, economic, environmental
and transportation development of London through various built
environment and service interventions. It is particularly notable for its
provision for children and young people across a range of services,
initiatives and processes. Those of relevance to this inquiry include:● ● A plan-led approach to play provision where boroughs are
required to carry out assessments and audits of existing play andinformal recreation opportunities to assess the quantity, quality
and accessibility of spaces.
● ● That developments should increase opportunities for play andinformal recreation to enable children and young people to be
independently mobile.
● ● A tenure-blind approach to playspace provision i.e. that playshould not be segregated by tenure in housing developments● ● That play space should be stimulating and overlooked to enablepassive surveillance, incorporate greenery and form part of thesurrounding neighbourhood and be safely accessed from thestreet by children and young people independently.
1. Wood, J. Bornat, D. Bicquelet-Lock, A. Child Friendly Planning in the UK, A Review, 201942

POLICY● ● The necessity for development proposals to incorporate safe andaccessible routes for children and young people to local amenities
so that they can move about freely and independently within theirneighbourhoods.
In addition, policy D8 Public Realm of the new London Plan assertsthat whether publicly or privately owned, public realm should beopen, free to use and offer the highest level of public access.
These spaces should only have rules restricting the behaviour ofthe public that are considered essential for safe management of
the space. The Mayor will provide a ‘Public London Charter’ which
will set out the rights and responsibilities for the users, owners andmanagers of public spaces irrespective of land ownership.
These strategic London-wide policies place a renewed emphasis on
the importance of understanding what already exists within a given
area, to assess how any new development might contribute to it,
connect and engage with it. In addition, restrictive street layouts,
poor links between spaces for play and informal recreation and thecontext of busy roads are also all contributing factors in whether
neighbourhoods can be classified as ‘child-friendly’.
The detail of these contextual issues need to be addressed at theborough level, making the creation of appropriate local policies anddepartmental agendas with a strategic emphasis on children andyoung people an intrinsic part of the process.

POLICY43

Bike Around the Borough – a cycling event in Hackney (Source: LB Hackney)

44

POLICYPrinciple
Policy Approach
An inter-departmental agenda of child-friendliness,particularly with the objective of facilitating independent
mobility for children and young people, should be pursued
at the borough level and embedded across multiple
departments and strategies.
The development of policy affecting children and young
people should seek to engage with their views as part of thecommissioning process.
This policy principle, alongside those in other chapters, hasbeen identified to assist those involved with city making – local
authorities, clients, developers and their design teams – in creatinga holistic and strategic approach to enabling better independent
mobility in the built environment for children and young people.

Practice
Recommendations for best practice grouped by target audience
include:Local authorities and policy teams:● ● Planning policy should prioritise compact distribution ofchildren’s amenities and uses, reducing the number of majorroads separating them.
● ● Qualitative and quantitative criteria and data should be used to
inform policymaking, measuring both quantity of spaces, andquality of places and routes provided.
● ● Local authorities should develop their own Child-Friendly SPDs,also addressing mobility.
POLICY45

● ● A proportion of a local authority’s budget should be dedicated to
improving children’s infrastructure and active transport.
● ● New children’s amenities should not be located on major roads
or areas with poor air quality.
● ● Street closures, timed closures, School Streets and Play Streetsshould be consistently implemented around all boroughs.
● ● Youth cabinets and youth parliaments can provide a means ofcommunication between formal governance structures and anarea’s young community (refer to 'Participation' chapter).
● ● Stakeholders including children, tenants’ and residents’associations, the local council, and local charities or actors
with the agenda of elevating children’s rights to mobility can allplay key roles in the development of new policy and planningguidance.
● ● The development of relevant planning policy and Local Plans
should be informed and framed by gathering relevant placebased insights from children and young people.
● ● Engagement with children and young people should be
carried out by appropriately qualified professionals who havedemonstrable experience in interacting at their level.
Designers, architects and play professionals● ● The development of policy, strategies and associated guidanceshould seek to engage with and respond to the interests andviews of children and young people.
● ● Engagement with children and young people should be tailoredaccordingly and undertaken on their terms and on their level(refer to 'Participation' chapter).
● ● The time and space for engagement processes with children andyoung people need to be carefully planned and allowed for toensure they are fully able to participate.
46

POLICYUseful References● ● Child Friendly Planning in the UK: A Review (Wood, Bornat &Bicquelet-Lock, 2019)● ● 'School Streets: Timed Traffic Restrictions, toolkit for
professionals' (Hackney Council, 2019)● ● 'Place Standard Tool' (Architecture & Design Scotland, 2015) canbe used to assess the quality of a place and identify priorities● ● Independent mobility indicator checklist (Refer to Assessing
Independent Mobility pg36–7)● ● London Borough of Hackney case study (Refer to pg48–51)● ● Neighbourhood Design case study (Refer to pg52–53)● ● Playing Out precedent (Refer to Resources pg108–109)● ● Futures London Workshop, Housing Design SPG, Good Quality
Homes for all Londoners 2020 precedent (Refer to Resources
pg107)● ● Mayor of London Peer Outreach Workers and London Youth
Assembly precedent (Refer to Resources pg106)● ● Oslo, Norway precedent (Refer to Resources pg112)● ● City of Toronto precedent (Refer to Resources pg105)● ● City of Vancouver precedent (Refer to Resources pg110–111)● ● Tirana, Albania precedent (Refer to Resources pg113)

POLICY47

Case Study
London Borough of Hackney
A political commitment to child-friendliness at local authority
level is implemented effectively via a cross-policy approachacross council departments.
In 2018, the Mayor of Hackney made a public pledge that Hackney
would become a child-friendly borough. A range of interventions
in green spaces, play spaces and streets were announced and anumber of reports, policies and strategies from several different
departments address and advocate for a range of child-friendly
initiatives. The table (right) highlights the inter-departmental
approach that the council is taking.
Hackney Council has also commissioned two research projects that
adopt innovative approaches to understanding lived experiences ofchildren and young people in Hackney, and has set a precedent for
the way councils can collect information and engage with residents.
The borough is currently drafting its Child-Friendly Places SPD.
School Streets
The School Streets scheme creates temporary road closures outsideschools during pick-up and drop-off times, where only pedestrians
and cyclists are allowed to use the road. Over 250,000 car journeys
are created every day by the school run in London, despite therelatively close proximity between homes and schools. Transforming
the space outside schools for pedestrians and cyclists is enforced
with penalty notices. The initiative was piloted at five different schools
in the borough, with three of these pilots now permanent, and anotherfour currently being trialled. The scheme has a series of aims:● ● Healthier children and better academic performance throughgreater physical activity● ● Less traffic and pollution● ● Safer school zones and better connectivity between spaces
48

POLICYRegeneration

Public HealthStrategy, Policy
and Economic
Development

Leisure, Libraries
and Green Spaces

Public Realm

Policy Area

Initiatives

Parklets
Smarter Travel
Bikeability
Bike around the boroughQuietways
Cycle to School
School Clean Air Zones
Play Streets
School Streets
Safe Transport Teams
Junior Road Safety Officers
Children’s Centres
Learning Outside theClassroom
School Grounds Habitat Action
Plan
Air Quality Focus Areas
Air Quality Impact Assessment
Travel Plans
HENRY
Greenways
CFC Reports

An inter-departmental agenda means initiatives are present across several
departments (source: Publica)

POLICY49

In order to assess the effectiveness of the scheme, baseline data
was collected for each of these indicators:● ● Air quality – concentration of harmful pollutants can bemeasured using air quality monitoring equipment.
● ● Volume of traffic using roads outside the school and on nearby
roads.
● ● Modal split of students – how many pupils walk and cycle toschool? How many pupils still get driven to school, what are thereasons, and how can this be addressed?
The effectiveness of the timed road closures over the pilot period
was then compared to baseline data. For example, over a 15-month
period, traffic volume on roads surrounding the Tysson Primary
School showed a reduction of 32 per cent, and traffic volumes
directly outside the school decreased by 85 per cent.
In 2019, LB Hackney published a detailed School Streets Toolkit
which was circulated to all boroughs nationally. It provides examples
of information cards, consultation and site selection processes, andbest practice examples from within the borough, with a series ofsteps outlining implementation.
A range of LB Hackney’s other child-friendly initiatives can be foundin the appendix document.

50

POLICY

'Play streets' traffic restrictions on residential roads (Source: LB Hackney)

A School Streets intervention in Hackney(Source: LB Hackney)

POLICY51

Case Study
Neighbourhood Design
Working with children towards a child-friendly city
A mixed-method engagement approach helps to understand
lived experience, and is a crucial starting point for design andredevelopment interventions.
ZCD Architects’ study adopted a participatory approach toassess children’s lived experiences in the De Beauvoir Estate in
Hackney 2 . Creative participatory methods were used as a way ofunderstanding how children and young people use space, and as
a way of understanding their levels of play sufficiency. A mixtureof qualitative and quantitative methods included discussions andfocus groups, map-making, creative writing, photography andwalking tours led by children. The researchers also conducted a setof observations on the behaviours and uses of spaces by children.
Data on mobility and levels of independence were assessed
through surveys and diagrams about activities, days and levels of
freedom or constraint (from fully constrained to complete agency).
Assessments of external areas on the estate collected data on
spaces, things, surfaces, edges and the elements that impact them,which were then translated into a map of the space. Children andyoung people identified points of interest, different routes, andcommented about their sense of place, which were elaborated on in
focus group discussions and analyses.
Children and young people created a narrative of neighbourhoodand play space to evaluate play sufficiency, levels of independence,safety, and capacity for mobility in both qualitative and quantitative
terms. Mobility and play were integrated using this mixedmethodological approach.

2. Bornat and Shaw, 'Neighbourhood Design'

52

POLICY

The study has created a framework of engagement suitable
for replication in other urban areas, and demonstrates how
understanding experience is a crucial part of the early stages ofthe design process. Facilitating young people to create a narrative
elevates their voices and right to participate, and allows them toevaluate their levels of independence and capacity for mobility.

Experiences of navigating the De Beavoir Estate. (Source: ZCD Architects)

POLICY53

54

Example section

7
PARTICIPATION
Introduction
The processes of planning and design are key points at whichchildren and young people can engage with the changes in theirneighbourhood. Meaningful engagement should focus on lived
experience, recognising that children and young people are active
citizens who use and negotiate the city, and who should therefore
have a level of responsibility and input into how it is shaped1.
“Participation needs to be led by children’s experiences of space.
The expertise of children to be able to bring life and insight toa place through their stories and descriptions is invaluable toprofessionals working on urban development. The knowledge ofchildren needs to be paired with the expertise of urban professionals
in design and delivery. Engagement of children must focus on the
lived experience not abstract concepts of urban design.” 2
In addition to developing key life skills such as sharing,collaboration and co-learning 3 , exemplar approaches to planningand design that engage with children and young people can help
to achieve and elevate their rights. This is particularly important asthey are often under-represented and overlooked in typical built
environment consultation processes 4 .
Efforts should be made to understand how children and young
people use and feel about space from the outset of the project andto help inform the design brief. Engagement methods should betailored to suit the relevant age groups of those participating, toensure a wide range of input is achieved. In addition, engagement
1. Hart, R. Stepping Back from ‘The Ladder’: reflections on a model of participatory workwith children, 2008
2. Bornat and Shaw, 'Neighbourhood Design'

3. Hart, R. Children’s Participation: from tokenism to citizenship, 1992
4. Hart, 'Children’s Participation'

PARTICIPATION

55

should continue throughout the development and delivery of a
project, into post-occupancy analysis, to inform management plans
and any further interventions required.
A best practice approach for involving children and young people
in place-based projects was developed in 2013 by the Children andYoung People Commissioner for Scotland. The seven golden rulesof participation are written from the perspective of the participant
and can be a helpful tool in developing an appropriate strategy 5 .
There are a number of areas that address process and engagementin London policy. The new London Plan encourages boroughs toconsult with children and young people when preparing needs
assessments of play and informal recreation and states thatthe views of children and young people should be sought when
designing new provision. The Plan supports a wide range ofconsultation methods, including interactive digital models and 3D
Virtual Reality.
This agenda of empowerment is also present in the Mayor’s
Environment Strategy, where vulnerable stakeholders have a sayin the location of developments with the aim of reducing their
exposure to poor quality air. Transport for London’s ‘Small Change,
Big Impact’ guide helps map out the practical steps to implement
small scale interventions, from early feasibility evaluations toformalisation of the initiative.
Children and young people’s participation is a fundamental aspectof an inclusive and child-friendly city. In order to engage fully withyoung people, different creative and flexible methods must be
adopted 6 .

5. Children and Young People's Commissioner Scotland, Seven golden rules of participation, 2013
6. Driskell, D. Status of Children’s Outdoor Play in Urban Settings, 2002

56

PARTICIPATION

Principle
Participative Approach
Children and young people should be engaged in the processof design and planning from the earliest possible stages,
including pre-design consultation.
Participation needs to be understood as a long-term process;ensuring post-intervention feedback and analysis means
co-creation is not limited to the design of a space, but also
its management and iterative changes.
This participation principle, alongside those in other chapters, hasbeen identified to assist those involved with city making – local
authorities, clients, developers and their design teams – in creatinga holistic and strategic approach to enabling better independent
mobility in the built environment for children and young people.

Practice
Recommendations for best practice grouped by target audience
include:Commissioning authorities, clients and developers● ● Facilitate children and young people to initiate their own ideas
and projects, and invite adults into the decision-making process
on their own terms.
● ● Promote and ensure good-quality and appropriate engagement
is done through the lens of ‘social value’, or the ‘additional
benefit to the community from a commissioning/ procurement
process over and above the direct purchasing of goods, services
and outcomes’ 7.
7. BuildingSocialValue.org. What is social value?, 2019PARTICIPATION57

● ● Recognise that the design and development of projects
hold value beyond merely financial benefits – this is key infostering empowerment and social sustainability in projectcommissioning.
● ● Introduce pilot projects to test new interventions, in design
or consultation, in order to start the process of learning andsecuring funding for projects.
● ● Test ideas through meanwhile use programmes for spaces togather early-stage feedback from residents and young people.
● ● Undertake post-occupancy evaluations and phase-to-phaselearning to identify opportunities to improve future phases ofprojects and outcomes and promote the testing of new elements
and approaches.
Designers and architects● ● A focus on understanding the ‘lived experience’ of children
and young people through research is crucial to gain a richunderstanding of place. This should be used as a starting point
to inform design.
● ● Major projects should start with mapping and audits of children’s
infrastructure and routes in a particular place. This process of
mapping must engage with, and be led by, children and young
people who live in or use the area.
● ● Engagement should be meaningful – weight and status should
be given to feelings, opinions and experiences of children andyoung people, which should enable them to have an impact onpolicy, design and development.
● ● Engagement processes should start with observational research
and mapping of both quantitative and qualitative elements ofenvironments, including barriers to independent mobility andwider connectivity and networks.

58

PARTICIPATION

● ● Engagement should use creative methods to ensure children andyoung people are stimulated, including online and digital.
Useful references● ● Hart’s Ladder of Participation shows how we can measurechildren and young people’s engagement, outlining the key
characteristics of genuine participation. (Refer to separate
appendix document)● ● Seven golden rules of participation Children and Young People
Commissioner for Scotland (SCCYP 2013)● ● Hackney Quest and Build Up Hackney case study (Refer to
pg64–67)● ● Rokesly Junior School case study (Refer to pg60–61)● ● Room for Art case study (Refer to pg62–63)● ● The Amazing Place, Christchurch New Zealand precedent(Refer to Resources pg116)● ● Flickrum, Stockholm precedent (Refer to Resources pg114)● ● Child-Friendly Rotterdam, The Netherlands precedent (Refer toResources pg115)● ● Growing Up Boulder, Colorado precedent (Refer to Resources
pg117)PARTICIPATION

59

Case Study
Rokesly Junior School, LB Haringey
A series of workshops with young people to engage them withthe built environment and imagine a future without cars.
As part of the RIBA Architecture Ambassadors programme,architecture and design practice Freehaus developed a series ofworkshops with ninety Year 6 students at Rokesly Junior School inHaringey, drawing on the school’s existing interest in communityand cultural outreach.
The workshops revolved around modes of transport in the city,
considering how infrastructure impacts communities and how a city
is shaped. The aim was for the students to think about alternative
methods of transport and ultimately to imagine London devoid ofcars: how would that affect the way we live and the way our streets
work? What would we do with the extra space?
In an initial workshop, the students discussed the layout of various
cities in relation to the historical evolution of transport. Throughthe use of collage, the students re-envisaged their own streets andneighbourhoods devoid of cars.
The second workshop saw their concepts come to life. Throughout
the day, the cohort built their imagined streetscape from cardboard
at a scale of 1:5.
The students worked as a team, negotiating and delegating tasks
between them, highlighting the value and efficiency of collaboration.
Ultimately, the workshops set out to enthuse the students toconsider the positive impact of good design, not only on the way
we live but through our interactions with one another and the world
around us.
Following the success of the workshops, Freehaus are exploring
how these themes could become routed in a real-life scenario incollaboration with Haringey Council’s ‘Play Streets’ programme.
60

PARTICIPATION

Rokesly School Workshops(Source: Freehaus)

Rokesly School Workshops(Source: Freehaus)

PARTICIPATION

61

Case Study
Room for Art, Poplar, LB Tower Hamlets
A clear process of participation ensures young people can havea say in the spaces and buildings they use every day.
MATT+FIONA is a collaborative venture which exposes young
people to the processes involved in design and construction within
the built environment. They use live design and build projects toprovide children and young people with an understanding of spatial
design, through constructive teaching, play and making. Eachproject has a clear pathway: briefing, design and build, with thechildren and young people at the centre of every stage.
The Room for Art project was a commission by the Whitechapel
Gallery which enabled Year 6 students at Lansbury LawrencePrimary School in Poplar to design, develop and build their own
community art room in Poplar.
Situated on the fringes of Canary Wharf and the Olympic Park, theLansbury Estate finds itself on the margins of rapid redevelopment.
Over 12 weeks the children explored the possibilities for their new
art classroom with the help of MATT+FIONA. The students set thebrief for the space and what they would like to do there. They werethen supported through a process of imagining, drawing and model
making to create a proposal for the Room for Art.
Chapter 1 of the project concluded with a week-long build at theWhitechapel Gallery where the children fabricated a full scale
prototype for part of the Room in two of the gallery spaces. Chapter
2 will be for the students to refine the design of the classroom andthen be involved in its fabrication on the school site.

62

PARTICIPATION

'Room for Art' workshops(Source: MATT+FIONA, RobHarris)'Room for Art' installation at Whitechapel Gallery(Source: MATT+FIONA, RobHarris)

PARTICIPATION

63

Case Study
Hackney Quest and Build Up Hackney
A co-produced project, from the early concept stages, to final
design and construction. Innovative methodologies were used toensure meaningful engagement and participation, and foster asense of ownership.
Hackney Quest is a project ‘to amplify the voices of young people’,recognising them as important stakeholders with concerns andideas. In 2017, over 400 young people from primary schools,
secondary schools and youth clubs in Hackney Wick were engaged
with, giving their opinions and experiences. 26 per cent of the local
population is 19 or younger, and 19.6 per cent of the population live
in deprived households, making Hackney the 7th most deprived
local authority in the country 8 . The report ‘Hackney Wick ThroughYoung Eyes’ outlines what respondents liked, as well as theirconcerns about their neighbourhood, particularly the sense of disempowerment regarding changes to the area.
In 2019, Hackney Quest joined Build Up Hackney to address someof the concerns raised in the report, particularly the negative
stereotypes of young people, a sense of dis-empowerment, andpoor-quality public spaces in the local area.
Located on a formerly unloved and disused piece of public realm
owned by Hackney Council on Flanders Way, the project comprised
the design and construction of a new pocket park, featuring acircular fixed-seating area with integrated swings, new lighting,brightly coloured bins, timber signage and an exciting playful borderwith cast iron artwork. Involving young people aged 10–12 from two
local schools, the collective aspiration was to create a community
space that could be enjoyed by everyone. Tasks included:●● Mapping the area to find out what the young people like and dislike
through photography and identification of meaningful places.
8. Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government. The English Indices of Deprivation, 201964

PARTICIPATION

● ● Identifying ideal characteristics of Hackney and the site thatthey’d like to see.
● ● Mapping trees and developing place-specific ecologicalknowledge of the area.
● ● Drawing up plans and designs for the space and getting
feedback from architects and councillors.
● ● Co-producing rules of the site and learning to use power tools,
both of which fostered and created responsibility through risk.
● ● Enabling children and young people to reach out to the wider
community, culminating in planting and seeding days at the endof October.

Design workshops with young people (Source: Build Up)

PARTICIPATION

65

The completed project at Flanders Way, Hackney (Source: Build Up)

Children engaged in creative mapping of how they would like to see the sitetransformed. Source: BuildUp

Young people identifying sites of interest and developing designs at the Build Up
Hackney site (Source: Build Up)

66

PARTICIPATION

Construction of the Flanders Way pocket park with young people (Source: Build Up)

PARTICIPATION

67

68

Example section

8
DESIGN AND T YPOLOGYDesigning Streets and Public Spaces
Fulfilling children and young people’s right to mobility means
creating a safe and accessible urban environment with many places
to go and options for things to do. Streets and spaces are a key
element of children’s infrastructure. They provide a means forchildren and young people to move around their neighbourhood,and interact with friends and other members of the community.
Identifying and improving routes between different children’s
amenities is key in making the connections between different
places.
In terms of safety, design interventions should aim to remove
danger from the environment rather than remove children from adangerous environment1. Perceptions of road safety are related tolevels of children’s independent mobility, and therefore focusing
on street design and the measures designers can take to improve
it is a key element of facilitating children’s independent mobility 2 .
Laws in Denmark that forced authorities to protect and safeguard
children and young people against traffic translated into a range ofdesign and planning practices, focusing on prioritising cyclists andpedestrians 3 . Between 1970–2008, road deaths decreased by 70
per cent, from 24.62 to 7.37 per 100,000 people 4 . Similar patterns in
Holland followed the rollout of the Woonerf or ‘living street’ designintervention 5 . Cities in Denmark and Holland are regarded as being
some of the most child-friendly in the world.
1. Shaw et al, 'Children’s Independent Mobility'

2. Forman, H. Residential Street Design and Play, 2017

3. Gill, T. Space-oriented Children’s Policy: Creating Child-friendly Communities to ImproveChildren’s Well-being, 2008
4. OECD/ITF IRTAD Road Safety Annual Report 2009, 2010

5. Krishnamurthy, S., Steenhuis, C., Reijinders, D. and Stav, T. Child-Friendly Urban Design:
Observations on public space from Eindhoven (NL) and Jerusalem (IL), 2018

DESIGN AND TYPOLOGY69

Public spaces play a similar role to streets, in that they enable
movement and social interaction. Child-friendly spaces will
integrate play into other functions, encouraging a multigenerational mixture of uses. Making spaces more child-friendly
is based on the expectation that children should be visible whenplaying in or moving around the public realm. In terms of design, acombination of fixed and temporary features makes a space more
flexible in how it is used, particularly in response to changing needs
and environmental conditions.
The Mayor's Healthy Streets for London initiative is a set ofpolicies and strategies that encourage decision-making, planningand design to prioritise the provision of high-quality streets andservices for active travel and public transport. Through 10 Healthy
Streets Indicators, the programme outlines the ideal characteristics
that a street will have for it to be sustainable and benefit
pedestrians and cyclists.
Two indicators are particularly relevant when considering designing
for independent mobility:● ● Things to see and do – designing amenities, art and otherobjects that provide 'affordances' for interaction transforms thestreet into a space for play and interaction. The ‘Parklet’ initiativeis one example, and the Parc Rives de Seine precedent on page
119 illustrates this indicator.
● ● Easy to cross – removing physical barriers when crossing roads
is key in pedestrian and active travel. Ensuring routes flow wellhelps to prioritise the mobility of pedestrians and reduces the
obstacles between different spaces.

70

DESIGN AND TYPOLOGYDesigning Housing and Residential Developments
The way housing and residential developments are designed
impacts on the ability of children and young people to move
between domestic, playable and social spaces. A good physicalhousing environment will incorporate and consider children’s
activities and play spaces as necessary elements from the outset,
creating formal and informal provision for multiple ages, and safe
mobility routes to amenities in the wider area. Designing in multiple
uses encourages social activities and social interactions, enablinga form of overlooking and passive supervision 6 . It is importantthat children and young people feel welcome and able to play andsocialise in public and communal spaces.
Some studies have found that high-rise living leads to less outdoor
play by young residents7. However, there is a lot of potential in theplanning and design of new developments to unlock opportunities
to create child-friendly housing typologies. Blocks of flats holdpotential if shared space is well utilised, creating more social andcommunity space than private gardens would for residents 8 .
Research into children’s independent mobility in different housing
typologies has found that maximising the quality of shared spaces,
both interior and exterior, is fundamental to facilitating children andyoung people moving between spaces freely and safely 9 .
There are differences in the typologies of inner-city and suburban
areas in London, meaning the requirements for communal
spaces, routes and mobility vary greatly10 . Suburban low-density
neighbourhoods may require a greater focus on improving active
travel opportunities and encouraging a behavioural shift away
6. Gehl, 'Life Between Buildings'

7. Nitta, K. Effects of living floors on children’s play in Takashimadaira high-rise housing project,Tokyo, 1980

8. Sim, D. Soft City: building density for everyday life, 2019
9. Bornat, 'Housing Design for Community Life'10. ZCD Architects and NHBC Foundation. Making Spaces for Play: On new suburban and town
developments, 2017

DESIGN AND TYPOLOGY71

from car use. On the other hand, high-density inner-city areas may
require overlooking of play spaces and communal areas from every
floor in a building11, making the orientation of play and recreation
spaces and buildings central to achieving good quality spaces.
In the context of London governance, there are several policies that
address housing provision and the needs of children and young
people. In the new London Plan, a quota for outdoor space per childis specified for all new developments, and in the Mayor’s Housing
Strategy, the notion of well-designed and sustainable housing isemphasised. The new Housing Design SPG, Good Quality Homes
for all Londoners (2020), will provide further detailed guidance toaid the implementation of the housing and design policies of the
new London Plan, helping to ensure Good Growth for the creationof successful, inclusive and sustainable places. This includes
guidance to:● ● support quality design across a range of sites and housing
typologies, through qualitative guidance, technical standards
and examples of best practice;● ● optimise site capacities through a design-led approach; and● ● guidance to assist boroughs to facilitate the delivery of small
sites via the preparation of design codes
As part of the development of the new SPG, a draft of the guidance
was reviewed by Mayor's Design Advocate Dinah Bornat to ensurethat principles of children and young people's independent mobility
were embedded into the guidance for each typology.
Housing is a crucial lens through which to understand the
independent mobility of children and young people. The immediatearea outside the home is one that children and young people will use
every day, so ensuring that it is high quality and safe is crucial. Indoor
spaces must also provide opportunities for play and socialisation
when outdoor spaces are unusable, such as when it rains.
11. Ferry, K. – between edges and hedges. 13 ideas for a better Harrow. 201772

DESIGN AND TYPOLOGYKing's Crescent Play Street, London Borough of Hackney (Source: MUF Architecture)

DESIGN AND TYPOLOGY73

Principle
Design and Typology Approach
New developments, renewal projects and public realm
improvements should encourage and facilitate theindependent mobility of children and young people. Widerconnectivity should be provided for to access nearby
streets, cycle lanes, bus stops and train stations. If this is notpossible, nearby child-friendly routes should be identified
and efforts made to ensure access between the development
and the route.
This design and typology principle, alongside those in otherchapters, has been identified to assist those involved with city
making – local authorities, clients, developers and their design
teams – in creating a holistic and strategic approach to enabling
better independent mobility in the built environment for children
and young people.

Practice
Recommendations for best practice grouped by target audience
include:Local authorities and policy teams● ● The quality of spaces and routes for children and young people
should be assessed, alongside the quantum of space.
● ● Widened pavements and shared surfaces should be key
considerations in street design to allow for the non-linear,meandering movement patterns of children.
● ● Safe routes should connect children and young people’s
amenities through well-marked and playfully designed streets
and public transport provision, including suitable lighting.
74

DESIGN AND TYPOLOGY

● ● Streets should be designed to reduce the speed of drivers inresidential areas where possible.
●● Multi-modal journeys should be encouraged through closely
positioned transport hubs, for example cycle racks near bus stops.
● ● Where possible and appropriate, cycle lanes should besegregated from the road with a significant buffer between thetwo carriageways.
● ● Thinking ‘beyond the redline’ should be a routine consideration
in housing redevelopments and refurbishments. Improvements
to public realm and infrastructure beyond the boundary of
the project should always be sought, for example improving
connectivity of social or children’s infrastructure in aneighbourhood.
Commissioning authorities, clients and developers● ● Independent mobility and child-friendly criteria should be
integrated into vision, brief and procurement processes formasterplan, housing renewal, large-scale housing, and public
realm projects, with all new development plans specificallyformalising provisions for independent mobility.
● ● A multi-actor governance approach is essential to projectcommissioning. Stakeholders including children, tenants’ andresidents’ associations, the local council, and local charities or
actors with the agenda of elevating children’s rights to mobility
can all play key roles. This harnesses local knowledge, practicalassistance and more bureaucratic knowledge12, as well as crossproject learning and knowledge transfer.
● ● The involvement of children and young people in shaping new
spaces should start from the outset, with engagement at the
beginning of projects – continuing all the way through to postoccupancy analysis (see also Participation chapter).
12. Gill, Playing it Safe

DESIGN AND TYPOLOGY75

● ● Play and independent mobility should be recognised asimportant elements when measuring ‘social value’. This will
enable a holistic and wider audit of provision within development
proposals, where quantifiable improvements must be proposed.
● ● Building on the new London Plan policy to prohibit segregatedplay spaces, it is important that public spaces in housingdevelopments are designed with the understanding that children
will be free to play within them.
● ● A rigorous approach to post-occupancy analysis and learning
between phases and between developments, should be used todefine project briefs and aims.
● ● Developments should incorporate a mixture of uses, such asplay space, allotments, social spaces and commercial space.
● ● Gender differences in how spaces are used and experienced
should be considered by questioning the continued relevance oftraditional play features such as MUGAs.
Designers and architects● ● Developments should be considered in their wider context –for example proximity to nearby schools, transport links andcivic / social uses. In large developments these should bemapped and understood from the outset.
● ● Design focus should be given to the quality of space and themobility networks connecting them to demonstrate a more
integrated approach to independent mobility.
● ● Both formal and incidental play space should cater for a range ofages and abilities and incorporate good levels of risk.
● ● Spaces should have multiple functions and land uses to invite arange of people and activities, fostering social interaction andinformal supervision.

76

DESIGN AND TYPOLOGY

● ● Designing with flexibility and adaptability at the street scale isimportant when considering sustainability – in terms of changing
uses and a changing climate.
● ● It is important to ensure that different spaces in neighbourhoods
and housing developments are connected by safe and navigable
routes that encourage incidental play.
● ● Providing spaces suitable for different age groups and genders
is important. Older children may require more informal design
and recreational features.
● ● Evening and night-time conditions should be considered andprovided for, including lighting along routes and play spaces toenable wayfinding and mobility for children and young people
into the evening during winter months.
● ● The use of urban greening should be considered to createa buffer zone between pedestrians and the carriageway,
potentially also improving drainage and air quality.
● ● Biodiversity and greenery should be incorporated into thedesign of streets and spaces, to increase climate resilience
whilst fostering an understanding of ecology in everyday
mobility contexts.
● ● Designing for children’s mobility and play infrastructure should
always consider future possible demographic change.
● ● For suitable typologies, front doors should face each otheracross a street or open social space to increase passive
surveillance.
● ● Minimum play space requirements should not be the default
maximum open space provided. The amount of any dedicatedplay space provision should be matched with alternative open
space provision to encourage flexible recreational uses.

DESIGN AND TYPOLOGY77

● ● Outdoor spaces in residential developments should bepedestrian priority (and car-free where possible), welloverlooked, and accessible, inviting children and young people
to play and move around the safe communal spaces.
● ● Playable and shared amenity spaces in residential developments
should be overlooked where possible, either by active rooms
within family units or from corridors and walkways, to enable
opportunities for informal community supervision.
● ● Stairwells, lobbies and corridors should be designed to allow
for unsupervised use by children and young people, with naturallighting, generous widths and differentiated designs to enableintuitive wayfinding.
● ● Networks and connections between both private and sharedspaces should be safe and car free where possible. Footpaths
should connect open spaces and have playable features.
● ● Segregating security measures such as high fences should be
avoided where possible.
● ● Designers and governance bodies must recognise thatphysical spaces and social relations between residents on
housing estates are different from those of conventional street
residences.13● ● Clear sightlines should be maintained throughout developments
and ensure children and young people can observe all routes,
and consider the heights of enclosures.
● ● Corridors and decks should be wide, allowing for indoor play andsafe storage of bicycles, scooters and pushchairs.

13. Gill, T A Natural Thing: Supporting outdoor play on housing estates in Hackney 2018b78

DESIGN AND TYPOLOGYUseful references● ● Small Change, Big Impact: A practical guide to changing
London’s public spaces (TfL, 2017)● ● Transport for London Streetscape Guidance● ● Transport for London Healthy Streets Toolkit. Available at:https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/about-tfl/how-we-work/planning-forthe-future/healthy-streets● ● Designing Child-Friendly High Density Neighbourhoods,
Natalia Krysiak 2019
● ● GLA SuDS guidance series 'Reimagining Rainwater' (2020)● ● Mini Hollands case study (Refer to pg80–82)● ● Kings Crescent Estate case study (Refer to pg83–87)● ● Precedent studies: (Refer to Resources)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Liveable Neighbourhoods, London pg118
Parc Rives de Seine, Paris pg119
Superkilen, Copenhagen pg120
Superblocks, Barcelona pg121
Aldgate Gyratory, Lodnon pg122
Brotorget Square, Bollnäs pg123
Freiburg, Germany pg124
The Musicon Path, Roskilde pg127
Giraffe Playground, Uppsala pg126
Hupisaaret Park, Oulu pg125
Bridget Joyce Square, White City pg128
Marmalade Lane, Cambridge UK pg129
Mehr Als Wohnen, Zurich Switzerland pg130
Sutherland Road, Waltham Forest UK pg131
Goldsmith Street, Norwich UK pg132

DESIGN AND TYPOLOGY79

Case Study
Mini Hollands, LB Waltham Forest
Extensive provision of active transport infrastructure across aneighbourhood can encourage significant behavioural change.
The Mini-Hollands programme was initiated in 2013 by Transportfor London, offering three London boroughs significant grants
to improve their cycling infrastructure. Proposals from the outer
London boroughs of Waltham Forest, Enfield and Kingston won
funding to transform the areas into cycling hubs with highspecification cycling infrastructure.
The London Borough of Waltham Forest focused on improving cycle
and pedestrian connectivity in the borough. The works included
a major cycleway along Lea Bridge Road, cycle storage hubs atmajor stations, vehicle restrictions on Orford Road, and widespreadcrossing and pedestrian improvements. Improvements since 2013
have created a network of safer and cleaner streets, putting active
travel and the potential for social interaction first.
Healthy Streets
The Mini Hollands programme
is part of the Mayor's Healthy
Streets agenda, to help
Londoners walk, cycle anduse public transport more.
The Healthy Streets Approachpromotes the creation of safe,
low-pollution, quiet routes
between schools, parks andamenities, with a focus on
improving street conditions
for children and othervulnerable groups.
Healthy Streets indicators (Source: Lucy Saunders)

80

DESIGN AND TYPOLOGYChildren using the pedestrianised Mini-Holland roads in Waltham Forest(Source: Publica)

Mini Hollands Interventions in Waltham Forest
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

37 road filters

Two timed road closures

22km of segregated cycle lanes

104 improved pedestrian crossings
15 new pocket parks
660 new trees

20mph speed limits
250 Bikehangars

Removal of 800 car parking space

DESIGN AND TYPOLOGY81

The Mini-Holland scheme on Orford Road in Waltham Forest, showing pedestrianand cyclist priority. (Source: Publica)

Using baseline data from 2013, Kings College London undertooka study analysing the effects of the Mini-Holland scheme inWaltham Forest 1. Researchers at the University of Westminster also
conducted a study to identify modal change 2. This is a combinationof findings from King’s College London and the University ofWestminster Reports:
Impacts
in 2019

Impacts
expectedin 2020

Increase of 41 minutes more walking and cycling per person
per week.
More positive attitude towards cycling.

Reduce NOx exposure in the borough by 25 per cent.
Reduce particulate matter exposure by 13 per cent.

1.5 month increase in life expectancy for children born
since 2013

1. Dajnak, D., Walton, H., Stewart, G., Smith, J.D. and Beevers, S. (Kings College London). Air Quality:
concentrations, exposure and attitudes in Waltham Forest.
2. Aldred, R., Croft, J. and Goodman, A. Impacts of an active travel intervention with a cycling focus
in a suburban context: One-year findings from an evaluation of London’s in-progress miniHollands programme. 2019.

82

DESIGN AND TYPOLOGY

Case Study
Kings Crescent Estate, LB Hackney
Inter-phase learning that puts children and young people at thecentre of a mixed-tenure, non-segregated housing development.
The King’s Crescent Estate in Hackney is being transformed
over two phases, with 492 new homes built and 101 refurbished,a significant number of which are for social rent and sharedownership. The new blocks enclose and face existing ones,
creating new courtyards and shared amenity spaces, including
play spaces. This case study provides insight into the processof a two-phase redevelopment, including renovations of existinghomes, development of new homes, and the improvement of sharedamenity and communal space, all with the embedded project
consideration of making the development child-friendly.
The two phases are separated by a permanent part-pedestrianised
play street, which will open onto a new central square in Phase 2.
This street is strategically located to provide a connection between
the Blackstock Road area and Clissold Park. Post-occupancy
evaluation following Phase 1 enabled feedback from residents
about the process of consultation, construction and the design
features, providing an improved brief for Phase 2 and modification
works to Phase 1.
The site plan (overleaf) shows Phase 1, consisting of three blocks,
contained courtyards and a play and partial access street (Murrain
Road) completed in 2017. Phase 2 covers the new blocks, public
square and refurbishment works South of Murrain Road.
"Murrain Road makes space for a multitude of recreation types:
traditional play equipment combined with natural elements such as
logs, rocks and water; props for imaginative play such as a theatre
and a large table; and amenity areas for all ages such as bespoke
seating that caters to the elderly as well as it does to teenagers."– MUF Architecture
DESIGN AND TYPOLOGY

83

Key
1. Play Street (Phase 1): Pedestrianised and pedestrian priority sections, withplay and socialising opportunities integrate the estate into wider network.
Play opportunities developed in response to consultation, e.g. teenagers
wanting informal spaces to hang out.
2. Courtyards (Phase 1): Three resident courtyards, with fob access. The
three courtyards provide a range of landscape qualities with a variety ofcommunity spaces such as community gardens and playable structures.
3. Central Square (Phase 2) Provision of formal play spaces and multi-use
games areas with performative play opportunities.
4. Apple Orchard: Publicly accessible planting areas that borders the south ofthe masterplan.

Site map of the Kings Crescent Estate(Source: MUF Architecture)84

DESIGN AND TYPOLOGYUse of the play street

Use of the play street(Source: MUF Architecture)(Source: MUF Architecture)Children involved in creative mapping of the site as part of the design process(Source: MUF Architecture)

DESIGN AND TYPOLOGY85

Kings Crescent Estate Key Features•

A play street with playable street furniture also creates connections
between other local neighbourhoods, the estate and a nearby zebra
crossing providing direct access into Clissold Park.

•

Much of the play street is pedestrianised with social and play
opportunities along its length. It acts as both a route and a destination.

•

The play street is overlooked by balconies.

•

Optimised ground-floor uses ensure visual permeability from active rooms
onto courtyard spaces.

•

Ground floor units have direct connection to courtyards or the play street.
Height of enclosures around gardens are reduced to allow views into thecourtyards.

•

Winter garden balconies have been added to existing blocks, overlooking
courtyards – all with visually permeable elevations,•

Entrance lobbies have large windows, creating views from the courtyards
to the streets.

•

Playable features are multi-use and multi-age, and include seating andsocialising opportunities for older children and young people.

•

The design team created a temporary garden on site, as a meanwhile use,from the start of the redevelopment, creating a new public space, and aplace for engagement from a very early stage.

•

There was a review by a child-friendly city and play expert post Phase 1,
which informed the design of the second phase.

86

DESIGN AND TYPOLOGYAll entrance lobbies offer views out toPlay features are integrated within the

Easy connection between ground floor doors

Food and plant growing as intergenerational

Presence of well-used planters, a waiting list

Play features and planting combined – edible(Source: Publica)(Source: MUF Architecture)

streets or courtyards. (Source: Publica)

and courtyard play spaces. (Source: Publica)

exists, and standards are kept high.

landscape design. (Source: Publica)

activity. (Source: MUF Architecture)maze with blackcurrants, now matured.

DESIGN AND TYPOLOGY

87

88

Example section

9
MANAGEMENT
Introduction
The way that spaces and developments are managed has a critical
impact on how they are used by children and young people,
determining whether independent mobility is hindered or facilitated.
Management is a key lens to understand and address how designs
can be sustained and supported as part of a long-term plan throughcustodianship and maintenance. Without appropriate management,even the best designed spaces will fail their users.
Management plans and agreed uses should be consideredat the early stages of a project and should be informed by anunderstanding of the site and the awareness of any long-term
capital funding required for the governance and maintenanceof the proposal. In addition, the long-term management should
enable lasting flexibility of use and continued access to sharedand communal spaces. Approaching a street, space and housingdevelopment with the notion of adaptability and flexibility is a key
way to think about management plans, and ensure that good design
is maintained over the life of a building, street or space.
Children have a right to be present and visible in public, shared andcommunal spaces, and their movement and play should always
be regarded as a legitimate activity. Expectations that children
should not be seen or heard, or that they are limited to certain areas
supports the notion that spaces can be segregated or children’s
mobility constricted.
Segregated play spaces in mixed-tenure London housingdevelopment sparked widespread debate in early 2019. At the
Lillian Baylis Estate in Lambeth, planning permission was granted in2013 with equal access to play areas. Access was then changed by
the management company without approval that created barriers
between social housing properties and the communal play areas.
Policy S4 of the new London Plan sets out a commitment to banning
MANAGEMENT

89

segregated play spaces, supporting inclusivity, accessibility, andthe free movement of children and young people around residential
developments.
Additionally, the work-in-progress Mayor’s Public London Charter
will set out principles for the management of new public spaces,
including those that are privately owned. This will ensure that they
are inclusive places that all Londoners can enjoy, and that any
rules or restrictions are only those that are essential for the safe
management of the space.

90

MANAGEMENT

Principle
Management Approach
Residential building management should ensure thatchildren and young people are able to move between private,communal and public spaces (from the home to the street)
without relying on adult presence.
This management principle, alongside those in other chapters, hasbeen identified to assist those involved with city making – local
authorities, clients, developers and their design teams – in creatinga holistic and strategic approach to enabling better independent
mobility in the built environment for children and young people.

Practice
Recommendations for best practice grouped by target audience include:
Local authorities and policy teams● ● A proportion of local authorities’ budgets should be dedicatedto managing and maintaining the quality of children’s play andmobility infrastructure.
● ● The proposed uses of open spaces should not be changed
from that approved by the local planning authority as this canfundamentally alter management, operation and access.
● ● Flexibility should be encouraged in the uses of social
infrastructure, particularly schools and school playgrounds, foralternative purposes outside school hours.
Commissioning authorities, clients and developers● ● Amenity spaces in residential developments should be tenure
blind, with no differentiated access to any communal spaces.

MANAGEMENT91

● ● Outdoor shared and communal spaces should maximise spacefor play and avoid bans on playful activities.
● ● Spaces where play is provided for should undergo ongoing riskbenefit analysis to ensure the environment is stimulating.
● ● Children and young people should be given time and permission
to play in streets, public spaces and shared and communal
spaces in residential areas where appropriate. Children
and young people are affected by adult behaviours in theenvironment, so adults must actively support and enable
independent mobility and play in everyday contexts.
● ● Management plans should be developed early in residential andmixed-use schemes, particularly in mixed-tenure developments,
to ensure that all children and young people have access to thesame public spaces for movement, play and socialising.
● ● Maintenance plans should be developed in recognition thatindoor and outdoor public spaces will be used independently ofadults for play and socialising.
● ● Key fobs providing access between private and communal
spaces should be avoided, as these can prevent children andyoung people moving freely through developments.
● ● A shared residential agreement protecting the rights of children
and young people to play and freely socialise should be drawn up
at the earliest stage for tenants and homeowners in residential
developments.
Useful References● ● Bourne Estate case study (Refer to pg94–96)● ● Alexandra and Ainsworth Estate case study (Refer to Pg97–99)● ● Marmalade Lane, Cambridge UK (Refer to resources pg129)● ● Goldsmith Street, Norwich UK (Refer to resources pg132)
92

MANAGEMENT

Bourne Estate, Camden UK(Source: Erect Architecture)

MANAGEMENT

93

Case Study
Bourne Estate, LB Camden
The regeneration of an existing estate and the incorporation ofa new management plan balances issues of permeability withsafety.
The Bourne Estate was originally built in the early 1900s. In
2013, LB Camden identified it as a site that could benefit fromredevelopment as part of its borough-wide Community Investment
Programme (CIP). An additional 55 homes were added to theexisting estate, as well as a new tenants’ hall, and improved public
realm and play spaces to connect existing and new residences. A
new public route was introduced to support wider connectivity andaccess to non-residents, whilst also maintaining enclosed and safe
facilities for residents, putting play at the heart of the scheme.
The site plan shows the two-stage masterplan, the first stage
has been implemented with the green space to the west
currently in progress. It also shows the direct sightlines and newconnections between communal spaces on the estate to the wider
neighbourhood.
Key
1. MUGA relocated to estate centre.
2. New fenced and age-specific play spaces straddle a key access route.

3. New tenure-blind block of high architectural merit and build quality encloses
main outdoor space.
4. Shared access decks with permeable balustrades overlook play spaces
and MUGA.
5. TRA community hall relocated to prominent location overlooking
play spaces.
6. Resurfacing works re-balance hierarchy of pedestrians and vehicles.
7. New social seating and planters.
8. Relationship to school unchanged. Direct access from courtyard maintained.

94

MANAGEMENT

Site plan of the Bourne Estate(Source: Matthew Lloyd Architects)

New ground and first floor windows create sightlines across courtyards, rebalancing
public realm towards pedestrians (Source: Matthew Lloyd Architects)

MANAGEMENT

95

Bourne Estate Key Features•

A new direct route from the courtyards to the adjacent primary school.

•

Relocation of the Multi-Use Games Area (MUGA) to the heart of the estate,putting children and young people’s recreation at the centre.

•

The new building reinforces the existing street pattern, clearly defining
boundaries and promoting natural surveillance of outdoor space.

•

Relocation of the community hall to open into a well-supervised play area.

•

The new buildings have secure shared access visually-permeablebalconies and balustrades with clear sight lines.

•

Large windows and access balconies overlook outdoor spaces.

•

Routes and parking areas are re-landscaped as shared surfaces to slow
traffic and prioritise pedestrians. Public realm is activated with entrancesand doors facing one another, linked and visible to the shared spaces.

The relocated MUGA in the centre of the Bourne Estate(Source: Matthew Lloyd Architects)

96

MANAGEMENT

Case Study
Alexandra and Ainsworth Estate, LB Camden
A long-term management and maintenance plan for existing
estates can improve the sense of safety in play spaces, and thequality of public realm for all residents.
The Alexandra and Ainsworth Estate was part of a large public
housing masterplan designed by Neave Brown, with landscapeby Janet Jack, built by Camden Council from 1966 to 1975. The
key organising element of the scheme is two parallel pedestrian
streets, separated by a park and play spaces. The two streets areoverlooked by dwellings, with Rowley Way further activated withfront door access.
The original park was completed in 1979, and was designed as aplayable landscape consisting of five linked sunken play areas
conceived as ‘outdoor rooms’. The park is Grade II* listed and was

Largely vehicle free layout of Alexandra and Ainsworth Estate enables children to playout, giving direct access to the park. (Source: William Jack & Janet Jack)MANAGEMENT

97

the first 20th century landscape to be listed in the UK.
Over time the landscape and open spaces of the estate became
underused by residents due to issues with lack of maintenance anddeterioration. There was no long-term management or maintenanceplan in place and a number of the landscape features were damaged
and play equipment had been removed.
In 2015 the estate received Heritage Lottery funding to repair,conserve and restore the estate as an integrated modernistdesigned playable landscape, improve management of trees
and planting, replace lost features, and revitalise the park as thefocus of community activity. In addition to the landscape andplay improvements, the scheme crucially improved accessibility,
permeability and legibility within the park and restored key
sightlines across the play spaces and with adjacent homes. A
10 Year Management and Maintenance plan was also devised toensure the ongoing preservation of the landscape.

Alexandra and Ainsworth Estate Key Features•

Engagement and consultation with residents highlighted a strong desire
for involvement in the future of the park, to help shape activities and allow
resident participation in caring for the landscape.

•Tree management was used to re-instate key sight lines across thelandscape and play areas to improve the feeling of safety in open spaces.

•

The importance of a long-term management and maintenance plan for thelandscape, with capital budget for replacing damaged features.

•

Modifications made in the playgrounds raised levels in places to provide
better visibility and further access points to improve permeability.

•

The provision of a variety of play opportunities for different age groups.

•

Develop activities to promote greater understanding of and engagementwith the park to a wide range of audiences.

•

Site specific improvement and strategy for dealing with dog fouling.

98

MANAGEMENT

Visual connections created between dwellings and raised new play spaces(Source: Erect Architecture)

Extensive non vehicular path network and long views(Source: Erect Architecture)

MANAGEMENT

99

10
THE NEXT STEPS FOR LONDON
A call to action
This design inquiry is intended as a first step and catalyst for alonger-term process of making London’s built environment morechild-friendly, accessible to, and navigable by children and young
people. Each of the principles outlined in this document require
further research and policy development to implement them mosteffectively at both city and local levels, including the development ofdedicated design guidance.
Borough & neighbourhood scale
Both the neighbourhood and borough scales are crucial ranges
for intervention and transformation, encompassing streets, public
spaces, public transport and housing. The neighbourhood scale inparticular is one at which children and young people of various ages
can move independently.
London also has many different types of neighbourhoods;
independent mobility looks very different in outer London where
there are greater distances between destinations but potentiallymore access to open space, than in a more densely built central
area. This is an area which has been studied in less detail in theconsideration of children and young people‘s lives in cities.
Areas that require further consideration and development at theborough scale include:● ● The development of contextual and place-based knowledge
and policy related to independent mobility, to help promotea variance in child-friendly social, physical, cultural andinfrastructural agendas.
● ● The ways in which children and young people can best
participate in neighbourhood planning and development
THE NEXT STEPS FOR LONDON101

● ● Co-ordination with boroughs and youth groups to foster
engagement in built environment design, planning and policy
development● ● Research and analysis of different management plans for avariety of housing and spatial typologies relevant within aborough, which could be used to inform standardised boroughapproaches for new developments● ● Additional research into independent mobility in lower density,
outer London boroughs will provide greater insight into therelationship between different housing typologies, streets,
transport and independent mobility.
The city scale
London’s density and housing typologies are changing, and thefull impacts of how these affect children’s and young people’s
access to amenity, play and wider mobility networks is not yet fully
understood. Equally, more technical infrastructure elements such as
highway and street features need to be better understood in termsof how they perform to either enable or hinder the independent
mobility of children and young people.
The areas at the city scale that require further scoping andconsideration as part of new design and planning guidance include:● ● Meaningful and in-depth evaluation of built environment
interventions, including public realm and housing typologies atdifferent densities, to understand how they perform in terms ofaccess, use, overlooking and acoustics● ● Dedicated guidelines on the size, type and quality of children
and young people specific infrastructure. For example, details
on successful features of mobility routes that connect children's
amenities and spaces around a local area
● ● Research into alternative methods of measuring and providing
space for children and young people, beyond the current square
metre approach of spatial planning.
102

THE NEXT STEPS FOR LONDONNext steps
Following this design inquiry, and to further assist with theimplementation of new London Plan policies related to children
and young people, the Mayor has made a commitment to develop
a new SPG. This new planning guidance will cover child-friendly
approaches to city making, including independent mobility, play
and recreation. The Good Growth by Design 'Making London ChildFriendly – Designing Places and Streets for Children and Young
People' report will form an important part of the evidence base forthe development of the new SPG.
It is clear from the research undertaken within this design inquiry
that there are some boroughs, commissioning authorities anddesigners who are already leading the way in this subject area. As
part of the development of the new SPG, the GLA teams are keen tolearn from live projects to ensure the emerging guidance can benefit
from real world testing and knowledge sharing. This will help shapea city where children and young people’s rights are addressed andfulfilled, in both the process of transforming the built environment
and the day-to-day lived experiences of London’s neighbourhoods
and places.
If you are working on a relevant built environment design or policy
project with a commitment to child-friendly design and / or urban
planning principles, please get in touch at:
goodgrowthbydesign@london.gov.uk

THE NEXT STEPS FOR LONDON103

1. City of Toronto. Planning for Children in New Vertical Communities: Draft Urban Design
Guidelines. 2017.

104

Example section

11
RESOURCES – PRECEDENT LIBRARY
This precedent library presents a series of international and UK
examples of projects that address the independent mobility ofchildren and young people in the built environment.

City of Toronto, Canada
Design guidelines focusing on the neighbourhood scale provide
an integrated approach to local design and planning.
In 2017, the City of Toronto published a set of design guidelines
based on an inclusive vision for new medium and high-density
urban living1. Twenty-four guidelines across the scales ofneighbourhood, building and unit ensure a holistic approach to
the design and planning of a well-connected and child-friendly
city. Mobility guidelines are arranged in five key areas: Children’s
Independent Mobility; Safe Routes; Active Transportation; Walking/
Cycling to School; Streets as Open Space. Relevant examples ofneighbourhood scale guidelines are:
● ● 1.5 Shared Use and Integrated Co-Located Community Services & Facilities:
these encourage the integration and sharing of space by people of different
backgrounds, age, and socioeconomic conditions.

● ● 1.6 A Complete Community to Meet Daily Needs: land-uses should promotean active street life, with a mix of community services and fine-grained retailspaces, allowing for informal supervision of children.
● ● 1.9 Civic Engagement: engage children as active citizens in the planningand design process through the school curriculum. This shapes theirperspective, engendering civic engagement and a sense of ownership.

Building-scale guidelines recommend locating a critical massof large units at the lower levels of buildings to enable informal
overlooking and surveillance. The guidelines also recommend thatthe design of amenity spaces should encourage social interaction,with a defined proportion specifically for children.
RESOURCES

105

The Mayor of London’s Peer Outreach Workers
and the London Youth Assembly
Including young people in different parts of city governancecreates opportunities to participate in decision making.
The Peer Outreach Workers (POW) are a team of 30 young people
who help young Londoners to get involved in the decisions thatshape the capital. Their work helps shape policies, strategies andservices, from regeneration, environment and transport, to culture,
health and violence reduction. They are drawn upon to represent
planning teams and developers to reach larger quantities of young
people, so that their views can be heard. In addition to the POW,
the London Youth Assembly is a new body which brings together
representatives from different youth forums across the city tocreate positive change for young people. Getting young Londoners
engaged and involved in the running of their city is an important
objective for the London Assembly and these young Londoners are
enthusiastic about having their say on issues that matter to them.

Peer Outreach Workers 'Mayor for the day' event(Source: Greater London Authority)

106

RESOURCES

Futures London Workshop, Housing Design SPG 2020
Pro-actively engaging young Londoners is used as a fundamental
step of the research process to develop new design guidance tosupport London-wide policy.
The Futures London Workshop held at City Hall in 2018 wasorganised by architecture practice Mæ and the Stephen Lawrence
Charitable Trust as part of the development of the London Housing
Design Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG), 'Good Quality
Homes for all Londoners' (2020). The workshop was attended by 10
young people aged 16 and above, and formed an opportunity forMæ to understand the priorities of young Londoners to inform thequality indicators within the new SPG. It was also used to test a very
basic form of typological methodology for assessing site capacity.
A particular area of note was the distinction that the notion of'safety and security' for the attendees was fundamentally about'seeing and being seen'.

Futures London Workshop, 2018
(Source: Mæ)RESOURCES

107

Playing Out, UK
Simple but effective local interventions can become formalised
as policy and scale-up to a wider network when supported by
local authorities.
Playing out is a non-profit organisation that aims to fulfil therights of children across the UK to play and move around theirneighbourhoods safely. In 2009, several neighbours in Bristol came
together to close roads to through traffic for several hours after
school, one day a week. The objective was to enable children toplay and move around outside more spontaneously and withoutparental supervision, but the scheme has also enabled social
interactions and strengthened the community fabric at the street
and neighbourhood scales.
Bristol City Council supported the scheme, providing funding andlaunching a procedure called a Temporary Play Street Order (TPSO),
allowing residents to close their road for three hours a week. Bristol
University undertook research and found measurable quantitative
improvements in physical activity and time spent outdoors following
the formalisation of the TPSO in city policy, setting a precedent forthe policy support and enabling of street closures.
Playing Out is registered as a Community Interest Company. This
process of formalisation has enabled the steering and operational
support to upscale from the street and neighbourhood level tothe national scale, and financial support to be redirected where
necessary.
The scope and benefits have been far reaching, from improvements
to health and well being, to the social implications of normalisingchildren’s presence and behaviour in public space. 63 councils
across the UK now have a Playing Out policy in place.
The organisation illustrates how a grassroots movement can
influence policy and expand to a nationwide movement.
Playing Out is now exploring how different housing typologies canbenefit from the Playing Out model. In tower blocks and estates
there is often existing car-free space, but it is underutilised.
108

RESOURCES

Facilitating children to use these spaces through DIY changes
and creating a sense of ownership has been found to be the mosteffective way to encourage Playing Out, and sets a precedent for
designers, play professionals and policy-makers to consider how
implementation may differ between different residential typologies.

A 'Playing Out' street closure in Bristol(Source: Playing Out)RESOURCES

109

City of Vancouver, Canada
Policy can set specific design standards across different stagesof the design process for child-friendly housing and mobility.
The City of Vancouver was an early adopter of child-friendly
design and planning. In 1992 it adopted a series of objective
criteria for all new high-density housing (75 or more units per
hectare)2 . Seventeen guidelines covering a range of aspects fromsite selection to pedestrian circulation routes and storage were
published.
Developments were required to dedicate 25 per cent of units forfamilies and provide a range of safe mobility and play opportunities,
including opportunities for social interaction for all ages. Thesehousing design guidelines and standards are currently being
updated.
The policy conceptualises housing in three stages: project planning,project design and unit design. Examples of some key guidance
relating to mobility include:● ● Distance guidance for site selections specifies new residential
developments should be at most 0.8km from a school, play area,
child-care centre, community centre and grocery shop, and at
most 0.4km from a playground and public transport stop. Where
these guidelines cannot be met, on-site amenities should be
provided.
● ● A minimum of 20 family units should be provided in eachdevelopment to ensure sufficiency of children’s peers.
● ● Family units should be on lower floors that overlook common
outdoor spaces, be closest to facilities and recreational
amenities, and have minimal exposure to non-residential landand busy roads.
2. City of Vancouver. High-Density Housing for Families with Children Guidelines, 1992

110

RESOURCES

Greenways for Children’s Independent Mobility
The CNV4ME project in Vancouver (2015) is an inter-departmental
project to elevate and fulfil the independent mobility rights ofchildren and young people in the city. The strategic child-friendly
pedestrian and cycle trails aim to connect child-specific amenities
through the ‘Green Necklace’ circular greenway. This provides asafe, segregated route for cyclists and pedestrians and borders six
schools, four parks and a library, providing a safe route between
different amenities. Public art, signage and information about local
wildlife have all been added to the route to add more things to do
along the way.
The Green Necklace improves safety by removing traffic danger,
but also offers a range of health and wellbeing benefits in terms of
encouraging active travel and reducing exposure to air pollution.

A map showing the Green Necklace in Vancouver(Source: City of North Vancouver, Canada)

RESOURCES111

Oslo, Norway‘Smart’ planning incorporates digital technology in the processof consultation, widening methods of engagement throughsimple online GIS tools.
The Norwegian Planning and Building Act 2008 states thatmunicipalities must engage with and involve children and young
people in planning and design processes to fulfil their rights andneeds. The ‘Children’s Tracks’ programme allows young people
to identify areas in the city, signify what they are used for, andevaluate them, letting planners know if they like the place or not 3 .
‘Traffic Agent’ is an online platform also used by young people in
Oslo to report traffic and safety problems on their neighbourhoodroutes, as well as express general concerns and ideas. The app has
proved successful in encouraging faster intervention from the local
authority and improving traffic safety, which in turn should increase
parental permissions for children to be more independently mobile.
3. Hanssen, G.S. The Social Sustainable City: How to Involve Children in Designing and Planningfor Urban Childhoods?, 2019

An example of ‘smart planning’ consultation in Oslo through the Traffic Agent app.
(Source: Mister Trafikkagenten)

112

RESOURCES

Tirana, Albania
Ambitious projects for urban change and sustainability can be
driven by a child-friendly focus to local policy.
The City of Tirana’s ‘Local Plan 2030’ identifies that urban change
can be facilitated by focusing on the needs of children and young
people. Coordinated investment into education and 40+ play spaces
is also a key part of the commitment to city-wide child-friendliness.
By rejuvenating green and blue corridors with active travel routes
and creating an orbital forest around the city with two million trees,a series of high quality pedestrian and cycle routes have been
provided between outer and inner urban areas. The orbital forest
is used as an educational tool to teach children and young people
about ecological kinship and care for the natural environment.
The integration of green space with urban space demonstrates how
guiding policy and planning through a child-friendly agenda cansimultaneously address social and environmental sustainability4 .
4. Gill, T. Why one city is undergoing a child-friendly revolution, 2019

Planting the orbital forest in Tirana(Source: Albanian International School)

RESOURCES113

Flickrum, Stockholm, Sweden
Alternative modes of engagement are effective in addressing
overlooked experiences of the city.
Swedish architecture practice White Arkitekter undertook a research
project in 2015 and found that as age increases, so does disparity
in use of public space between genders5 . From the age of 8, an
80 / 20 boy / girl imbalance in parks, and a 70 / 30 split in youth clubs
shows how the urban environment is often unequal and does notcorrespond to the needs and preferences of teenage girls, who feelten times more unsafe in public spaces6 .
A collaborative project called ‘Places for Girls’ included interactive
street performances and design workshops to address issues
around mobility and safety for teenage girls. It was underpinned
by inclusivity and collaboration. Features creating social proximity,
good sightlines, weather protection and user interaction werehighlighted as desirable through a series of model-making
workshops with young people.
5. White Arkitekter. LFA: Flickrum – Places for girls. 20186. https://whitearkitekter.com/project/places-for-girls/

A scale model created by young people (Source: White Arkitekter )114

RESOURCESChild-Friendly Rotterdam, The Netherlands
A multi-phase approach to neighbourhood transformation thatuses information collected to inform further interventions.
Two neighbourhood projects in Rotterdam aimed to transform thecity from the least attractive to raise children, to the most childfriendly. ‘Child-friendly Rotterdam’ consisted of a new urban planning
agenda focused on housing provision, youth facilities and services,public space and child-friendly routes7.
In 2014, the ‘Promising Neighbourhoods’ project was launched,including the resident-led ‘Droomstraat’ interventions which
integrated play within streets rather than limiting it to parks or
playgrounds 8 . The ‘Safe Traffic Routes’ element of the project puts
an emphasis on independent mobility. New public amenities are
positioned along the street for natural surveillance and overlooking.
The focus on the neighbourhood scale has led to Rotterdam now
being regarded as the most child-friendly city in the country.

7. Van den Berg, M. City Children and Genderfied Neighbourhoods: the new generation as urban
regeneration strategy
8. Gill, 'Building Cities Fit for Children'A ‘droomstraat’ intervention in Rotterdam where residents have transformed
their road into a space for socialising.
(Source: https://www.facebook.com/pg/pleintjeberkelselaanrotterdam/posts/)

RESOURCES

115

The Amazing Place, Christchurch, New Zealand
Scale of ambition is a key element of the design process. Startingwith restoring children’s infrastructure is a declaration thatchildren and young people’s needs are on the top of the agenda.
Following the Christchurch earthquake in 2011, child-friendliness
was identified as a crucial element to incorporate into the rebuilding
and redesign of the public realm in city. The council consulted
the local community through a design competition called 'The
Amazing Place' which engaged young people through the school
curriculum, inviting them to design a playground and social spaceinspired by geographies of the region. The resulting 'Margaret Mahy
Playground' was completed in 2015 and is the largest recreational
space in the Southern Hemisphere.
Amazing Place was also used to establish an ongoing engagement
platform for future consultation, community champions, curriculum
resources and long-term support from different groups in the city.

The Margaret Mahy Playground in Christchurch, designed by and for children(Source: Berliner Play Equipment)

116

RESOURCESGrowing Up Boulder, Colorado, US
The process of engagement is important to understandchildren’s concerns and opinions for improving infrastructure.
The ‘Growing Up Boulder’ programme in Colorado engages withchildren and young people to ensure they are extensively consulted,
and their perspectives are integrated into planning and design. The‘Whittier HOP Bus Transit Study’ found that local children would
like to take the bus independently, but identified issues such as
inaccessible signage, no places to sit, and dull bus stop designs.
Following engagement, benches, legible signage and playful murals
were added to bus stops.
Other consultation examples include the ‘Youth Engagement in
the Transportation Masterplan’ for the city. Interviews, mapping
and walking audits collected children’s knowledge and ideas
for improving their independent mobility, for example play andrecreation spaces connected to the city’s cycle route, andsegregated cycle lanes near schools.

Classroom engagement process in the Growing Up Boulder scheme(Source: Erika Chavarria/Growing up Boulder)

RESOURCES

117

Liveable Neighbourhoods, London, UK
Implementing Healthy Streets principles across neighbourhoods.
Liveable Neighbourhoods is a £139m funding programme that aims
to implement Healthy Streets principles and help meet the Tranportfor London target of 80per cent of all London journeys by foot,bicycle or public transport by 2041. The scheme builds on the MiniHollands programme by expanding the focus onto public transport,
as well as cycling and walking, at a neighbourhood scale. Hard andsoft landscape features have been implemented across several
London boroughs, with the aim of reducing single-occupancy
journeys and encouraging modal shift to active travel.
The project is taking place over three phases informed bythese aims:● ● Creation of parklets and play streets in vehicular filtered and semipedestrianised roads.
● ● Local consultation – engagement and sharing information between citizens
and the local authority is key throughout the entire process, from planningand design to implementation and evaluation.
● ● Prioritising bicycles and pedestrians over cars, either through prioritisation
measures, vehicular filtered roads, or full pedestrianisation.
● ● Densifying and networking cycle infrastructure – joining up existing and newcycle infrastructure to make bicycle journeys more appealing. This includes
cycle lanes, bike hire schemes, bike hubs and parking hangars.
● ● Good design – consistent palette decisions and uniformity within thecycle and pedestrian network, with rain gardens and planting boxes
along carriageways and footways. Resilience is incorporated into the newinterventions through sturdy and robust materials.
● ● Flexible interventions – streets must be designed for different uses anddifferent users.
● ● Using soft landscaping interventions when needed – for example protecting
cycle lanes using green infrastructure.
● ● Incorporating data and technology – for example, the City Planner GIS tool
can identify areas with untapped walking and cycling potential and high car
ownership, which can then be designated as action areas for pedestrian andcycling interventions.
118

RESOURCESParc Rives de Seine, Paris, France
A bold and ambitious intervention which pedestrianised thebanks of the Seine river, creating a 7km walking and cycling
route with fixed and movable play features along its length.
In 2017, the city of Paris set out a strategy to improve urban spaces
whilst improving the city’s climate resilience, as only 9.5per centof city surfaces are green 9. A 7km stretch of the bank of the River
Seine was transformed from an expressway into a public space, withplayful design features along the route including climbing walls,
football pitches, playgrounds, sandpits and cafes. The combinationof pedestrianisation and playful design has created a safe andchild-friendly route through the centre of Paris. All the items in
the park are designed to be moved easily in response to a flood
warning. Schoolyards are also being converted into ‘islands ofcool’ with green walls, planters and drainable surfaces, with a plan
to open them up to the public outside school hours, incorporating
schoolyards into a network of climate resilient social infrastructure.
9. Clement, M. Green space in every schoolyard: the radical plan to cool Paris, 2018

Parc Rives de Seine interventions in Paris(Source: Fred Romero)RESOURCES

119

Superkilen, Copenhagen, Denmark
Creating a park in the centre of the city offers opportunities for
greater connectivity between neighbourhoods through improved
active travel and a multi-functional public space.
Superkilen is a public park in the Nørrebro neighbourhood of
Copenhagen. It was designed by BIG, Topotek1 and Superflex
as part of a neighbourhood improvement plan. Superkilen
simultaneously serves as mobility, play and social space, with acycle route providing connectivity between two neighbourhoods,
but also between amenities in a multifunctional and mixed-use
public realm.
The square provides a range of activities, from a community centre
with a café, indoor sports area and climbing wall, to traditional playfeatures such as swings and climbing frames. Striped markings
run down from the top of a hill and spread out across the park,
integrating play and mobility. The park is divided into three sections,each with a different design and intended use.

The Superkilen Park in Copenhagen. The park provides recreational space but also
active travel infrastructure across the city (Source: BIG / Bjarke Ingels Group)

120

RESOURCESSuperblocks, Barcelona, Spain
Large scale vehicular restrictions can create green and playspaces, improve air quality, and make streets safe for children
to navigate and play out.
In response to challenges in Barcelona such as air pollution,
traffic congestion, dangerous roads, childhood obesity and thelack of play and green spaces, the Superblocks project is a tool
to reorganise the city so that pedestrian movement is prioritised,followed by cycling and public transport. The Superblock Mobility
Plan 2016 aimed to reduce traffic by 21 per cent in the city, and to
free up nearly 60 per cent of the streets dominated by cars. The
superblocks are configured of several blocks closed off to throughtraffic, where the streets within are greened and calmed to 10km/h
to recover public space for pedestrians, and to favour play andrecreation. The wider network of these superblocks results in long,
linked corridors of green, public space. There are currently nine
blocks, with scope to expand to over 500.

A Superblock play area in Barcelona(Source: Confederación de Talleres de Proyectos de Arquitectura)RESOURCES

121

Aldgate Gyratory, London, UK
Major projects can create much better conditions for children
and young people, improving air quality and opportunities
for mobility
The redevelopment of Aldgate Public Realm in the City of London
involved the re-routing of the existing gyratory to create one of thelargest open spaces in the Square Mile. The congested roads were
replaced with pedestrian and cycle-friendly streets and a central
main square.
The square is the centrepiece of the scheme and unites two
heritage-listed buildings: Sir John Cass’s Foundation Primary
School and the St Botolph without Aldgate Church. The completionof the square has improved air quality in a key location adjacent toa primary school.

The Aldgate Gyratory transformation. A new green space with cycle infrastructure
replaced the previous dangerous roundabout (Source: Gillespies/ John Sturrock)

122

RESOURCES

Brotorget Square, Bollnäs, Sweden
A multi-generational public space, including multiple playand social opportunities in its design for a ‘public living room’.
Brotorget Square accommodates a range of activities in the centreof the city among seating areas, planting and trees lining the square.
The public space, designed by Karavan Landskapsarkitekter, isbased on an open and flexible surface with capacity for activities– including market stalls, concerts, lectures, performances andevents, with an open stage at the centre of the square. The squarehas been designed to give access to all residents in the city andwas conceived as a 'public living room'. The playground in thesquare includes playable features such as a slide, water fountain,
trampolines and imaginative home-like play objects.

The brightly coloured playful design features in Brotorget Square(Source: Alex Giacomini)RESOURCES123

Freiburg, Germany
A balance of high-quality transport provision has elevated therights of pedestrians, particularly children, through high-quality
streets and networks.
The city of Freiburg in Germany saw a transformation in planning anddesign to address the declining population of families with children10 .
Over 180 city zones now have 30km/h speed limits and othertraffic calming measures that prioritise pedestrians and cyclists11.
Adaptation has been key, with existing roads retrofitted with trafficcalming measures and signage. Vauban, a suburban neighbourhoodin Freiburg, has incorporated play features into green spaces andpublic spaces. Homes and neighbourhood amenities are connectedby high quality walking, cycling and public transport infrastructure,and car ownership is low at 16.4 per cent12. An adventure playgroundand animal park, and well-connected kindergartens and primaryschools, put education, play and children and young people’s
amenities at the heart of the neighbourhood13 .

Playable features and a shared green space in the middle of a residential developmentin Vauban. (Source: Alain Rouiller)

124

RESOURCES

Hupisaaret Park, Oulu, FinlandIntelligent technologies can incorporate flexibility to lighting
design, able to adapt to different uses and seasons.
The city of Oulu in Finland installed an intelligent lighting system
to light up paths, trees and play spaces in Hupisaaret Park. Motion
detectors and adjustable brightness means the lighting can adapt
to different uses and weather conditions to provide an engaging andsafe play space and wayfinding in the park.

10. Zimmerman, M. An almost car-free suburb, where kids roam free. 2017.
11. Gill 201712. Heydon, R. ‘Let’s create more car-free developments’. 2019.
13. Coates, G.J. The Sustainable Urban District of Vauban in Freiburg, Germany. 2013.

Intelligent lighting systems make paths welcoming and safe at night and during winter(Source: Arkkitehdit M3 Oy)

RESOURCES

125

Giraffe Playground, Uppsala, Sweden
Lighting can enable children and young people to play out
during winter months.
To address the decreased hours of daylight during winter, the cityof Uppsala in Sweden installed an outdoor lighting system at theGiraffe Playground. Lighting illuminates play features and routes
through the park. Surveys of children who live locally found a 37 percent increase in outdoor play compared to the previously unlit
playground, and a 15 per cent reduction of screen time 14. Parents
also reported improvement in children’s moods after being able toplay out for longer after school.

14. Halper, M. Swedish city makes kids healthier by lighting up the playground. 2015.

Playful lighting illuminates play infrastructure in the Giraffe Playground(Source: Philips)

126

RESOURCES

The Musicon Path, Roskilde, Denmark
Playful and interactive design can enliven the lighting of
the public realm and routes.
Lighting design is a key consideration when addressing the mobilityof young people, particularly so that they can move around theirneighbourhoods later into the evening. The Musicon Path is a
new cycle track and lighting installation in the creative quarter of
Roskilde, Denmark. Playful lighting follows the theme of flowing
water, as blue lights responds to the movement of a cyclist or skateras they move along the path. LIDAR laser technology incorporates
a playful design element to this mobility route. The installation ispart of a 1km path that links the creative quarter of Musicon to
the nearby train station. Other design features of the path also
incorporate playfulness through creative lighting to create a senseof flow towards different park spaces. The technology can be
modified for different cultural events, and also contribute to ‘smart
city’ measurement of activity and footfall.

“The Musicon Path” interactive pump track lighting by Simon Panduro
and Light Bureau (former ÅF Lighting) (Source: Tomasz Majewski / Light Bureau)

RESOURCES

127

Bridget Joyce Square, White City, UK
An innovative street transformation for community events anddaily use, with improved access to a school and playground, andexemplary SuDS design.
This regeneration project incorporated a sustainable drainage
system (SuDS) into a new traffic-free public space to improve roadsafety for the nearby school and playgrounds. The design creates
an informal social space for events, improves connectivity, andalso aims to improve the biodiversity and flooding resilience of
the area through water retention and absorption by the basins andraingardens. A path across the SuDS provides a playful wayfinding
route across the square, as well as an encounter with urban nature.
A nearby Early Years Centre and housing estate benefit directly fromthe pedestrianised space that provides connectivity and helps tofoster ecological literacy in children.

Playful wayfinding features are integrated into a SuDS
(Source: Hammersmith and Fulham Council)

128

RESOURCES

Marmalade Lane, Cambridge, UKHigh quality housing arranged around car free shared spaces,
promotes social interaction.
Marmalade Lane is a 42 house co-housing development in
Cambridge. A large shared garden occupies the central area, andthe entire development is car free, creating a large space andnetwork for safe playing out and wayfinding. Houses face eachother, and a 'common house' means socialising, interaction andmixed-use is designed into the development.

Marmalade Lane, Cambridge UK(Source: David Butler/Mole Architects)

RESOURCES129

Mehr Als Wohnen, Zurich, Switzerland
Creating accessible connections between buildings witha network of paths and public spaces.
320 apartments with shared amenities are arranged in a series ofsmaller, independent buildings and connected through a networkof public spaces, paths and parks. Ground floor tenancies containworkspaces and community rooms. A central public zone makes thearea accessible and connects the city to the north with the park inthe south.

Mehr Als Wohnen, Zurich Switzerland(Source: Niklaus Spoerri / pool Architekten)

130

RESOURCESSutherland Road, Waltham Forest, UK
Deck access creates visual permeability
and natural surveillance.
New residential blocks and a terrace are positioned around an open
courtyard. Innovative deck access to residential units enables
longer distances and visually permeable balustrades for greater
visibility and overlooking. An additional second floor externalamenity space is connected to access decks and enables additional
outdoor play for those furthest away from courtyard.

The deck access at Sutherland Road enables a sense of openness and longer
overlooking distances (Source: Levitt Bernstein / Tim Crocker)

RESOURCES

131

Goldsmith Street, Norwich, UK
Locating parking at the perimeter to prioritise pedestrians andactivating back streets with high quality public realm.
A simple series of seven terrace blocks are arranged in four denselines and parking provision is located on the perimeter, making
streets safe for pedestrians. Bin stores at the front of gardens act asa buffer between the public footpath and front doors.
A landscaped ‘back street’ includes gardens and a pathway with awavy course, creating an interesting space for young children toplay in.
The Goldsmiths Street project won the Royal Institute of British
Architects 2019 Stirling Prize as an eco-development with 100 per
cent social housing units and over 25 per cent of the site assigned
to communal space.

Goldsmith Street, Norwich UK(Source: Tim Crocker / Mikhail Riches)132

RESOURCESRESOURCES – GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS

This glossary defines several key words related to independent
mobility that appear in this report and the accompanying appendix
document.
Active travel
Moving from place to place by walking, running, cycling, scooting, or
any other form of travel that doesn’t use a vehicle.
Affordance
An opportunity for action in an environment. Objects ‘afford’interactions such as climbing, jumping and running. Design shouldincorporate flexibility to provide a range of affordances for a rangeof age groups and requirements15 .
Child-friendlinessThis is a process or approach where children’s needs, development,
accessibility and mobility are ensured through inclusive design andplanning practices that are oriented towards achieving the rights
and elevating the status of children as laid out by UNICEF and the
UNCRC16 . In terms of planning and design, a child-friendly city
will have good provision for independent mobility, and a range ofaffordances.
Children’s infrastructureThis is the network of child-friendly spaces, streets and amenities
that connect to create a child-friendly city. This considers both
spaces and the means of moving between them, so a high-quality
public realm is key to making the everyday experiences of the citychild-friendly17.

15. Kyttä, M. 2004
16. Gill, T. Building Cities Fit for Children. 201717. Arup. 2017.

RESOURCES133

Co-creation
Engaging stakeholders and knowledge holders in the entire
process of planning, design and implementation. Stakeholders
may include children of various age groups, families and local
community groups. Co-creation helps understanding the needs ofstakeholders, as well as establishing trust and a sense of ownershipof the space or project.
Destination
The specific destinations that children are allowed to go
unaccompanied, or where they actually go, for example school, thehomes of peers, sports facilities, are an indicator of independence.
Dependent mobility
Moving around but relying on someone else to facilitate and enable
this movement. For example, a child without access to a bike or abus may rely on their parents to drive them to school in a car.
Everyday freedoms
A child’s capacity to play and level of independent mobility interact
to create a particular level or set of ‘everyday freedoms’. Greater
everyday freedoms result from play being embedded into everyday
spaces, as well as children’s capability to move around an area
unsupervised.
Free action
A characteristic of an environment where children can move andcreate situations away from those imposed on them by adults.
These may be uncertain situations, or situations where needs
and desires are met, either way requiring some sort of navigation
through this ‘field’ of free action18 .
Free play
Play that occurs outside of formalised or prescribed environments.
It is more spontaneous and requires greater imagination than in aformal setting such as organised sports activities19.
18. Kyttä, M. Children in Outdoor Contexts: Affordances and Independent Mobility in theAssessment of Environmental Child Friendliness. 2003

134

RESOURCESGIS
A Geographic Information System is something that can collect,
manipulate and analyse spatial data across multiple layers of
information and display it in a map.
Home zone
A residential street where all users (drivers, cyclists, pedestrians,
children) share the street safely and equally. Street design should
be such that quality of life, leisure and recreation take precedence
over traffic, through loosely prescribed mixed-use design.
Independent mobility
Moving around without the supervision by someone else. This may
be with friends or alone, but there is no one actively monitoring the
movement.
Incidental play
Play that does not take place in formal play space or withformalised play equipment. Playful and whimsical elements of thebuilt environment can provide affordances that are convenient,interesting and welcoming for children to interact and play with.
Mobility infrastructure
The networks and systems that enable people to move around acity. This includes the modes of travel, the roads and cycle lanes,
public transport services, and anything else that is involved inmoving people around.
Mobility licence
The licence that children are granted from a parent or carer toindependently move around their environment. The license involves
a set of defined rules such as permission to cross main roads, tovisit shops, or to cycle on pavements or roads.

19. Hart, R. Containing children: Some lessons on planning for play from New York City. 2002.

RESOURCES

135

Pedestrian priority
An advisory term to indicate that other modes of transport should
give way, or priority, to pedestrians. Other modes of transport still
have access to the road, and therefore it is not a particularly strong
or enforceable term.
Play on the Way
The idea that children’s mobility and play cannot be decoupled.
Children should be simultaneously encouraged to play as they movealong the street, and move through and across playable space20 .
Play streets
A play street is a resident-orientated initiative supported by local
councils. It enables residents to close their road to through traffic
for several hours, creating a safe and convenient communal spacefor children in the neighbourhood to play, and adults to interact.
Play sufficiency
This concept was developed from a methodological approach by
Barclay and Tawil in Wrexham. It can be understood as the point wherechildren are satisfied by their access to opportunities to play where
only minor concerns or changes are expressed. Play sufficiency
alludes to the idea that play should not be limited to formal playspaces such as playgrounds, but instead take place in more everyday
spaces and environments where children can and do play.
Public realm
The spaces between and within buildings where daily life happens.
It is simultaneously functional, symbolic and social. A successful
public realm is one that is liveable, inclusive and accessible for all.
Safe loops
Mobility routes that connect children’s amenities and spaces
around a local area.

20. Barclay, M. and Tawil, B. Wrexham Play Sufficiency Assessment. 2013136

RESOURCES

School Streets
A traffic restriction initiative where roads near a school are closed
during pick-up and drop-off times. The idea was developed in
Italy but is becoming increasingly common in the UK following themeasurable improvements in air quality and wellbeing of pedestrianand cyclist school children21.
Self-reinforcing behaviour
Jan Gehl’s theory states that when there is a centre of activity, withpeople ‘doing’ things such as playing, other people are inspired
to join the centre of activity, increasing the range and scope ofactivities22 .
Social infrastructure
Covers facilities such as health provision, early years provision,
schools, colleges and universities, community, recreation andsports facilities, places of worship, policing and other criminal
justice or community safety facilities, children and young people’s
play and informal recreation facilities.
Territorial range
This is the distance from home that children can travel
independently. This is measured in distance and previous studies
have collected data using questionnaires, GPS and different formsof mapping.
Urban citizenship
The idea that those who use, engage and participate in urban space
are its citizens and therefore have some input into the planning,
design and transformation of urban space. It differs from the formal
notion of citizenship to a particular nation state.
Woonerf
A Dutch ‘living street’ based on the concept of mixed-use planning.
Bikes, cars and pedestrians can co-exist, but cars must drive
slowly. On quieter roads, the woonerf can function as a play space.
21. Sustrans. Sustrans School Streets. 201922. Gehl, 'Life Between Buildings'

RESOURCES

137

CONTRIBUTORS AND THANKS

Consultant Team
Publica
Erect Architecture
GLA Group Client TeamRae Whittow-Williams, GLA Regeneration (Lead)
Anna Turner, GLA Planning
Benjamin Peters, GLA Education and Youth
Katie Hunter, GLA HealthFlora Oglive, TfL Public Health
Jon Hodges, TfL Streetscape GuidanceYoung People and The City Sounding Board
Dinah Bornat, Mayor's Design Advocate (Sounding Board Chair)
Alison Brooks, Mayor's Design Advocate
Julian Lewis, Mayor's Design Advocate
Liza Fior, Mayor's Design Advocate
Esther Kurland, Urban Design London
Gordon Webster, TfL Walking & Cycling
Silviya Barrett, Centre for London
Special Thanks
Dinah Bornat, Tim Gill, Mayor Phillip Glanville, Cllr Chris Kennedy,
Gabrielle Abadi, John Burke, Ian Rae, Alice Ferguson, Amy Rose,
Luke Billington, Lily Dowse, Huan Rimington, Cllr Clyde Loakes,
Mark Lemanski, Daniel Marmot, Patricia Woodward, Sarah Bell,
Rebecca Rubin, Frederik Borello
Copyright
Greater London Authority January 2020
Published byGreater London Authority,
City Hall, The Queen’s Walk,
London SE1 2AA
138

CONTRIBUTORS AND THANKS

Case Study and Precedent Library Project Credits•

Aldgate Gyratory (London, UK) – Gillespies (landscape architecture) and Make•

Alexandra and Ainsworth Estate, Camden (London, UK) – J&L Gibbons(landscape refurbishment), Erect Architecture (playspace refurbishment)

•

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Aldriche Way – Build Up

The Amazing Place, Christchurch (New Zealand) – Christchurch City Council,
WSP Opus (landscape architect)
Bridget Joyce Square, White City (London, UK) – Robert Bray Associates
Brotorget Square (Bollnas, Sweden) – Karavan Landskapsarkitekter

Bourne Estate, Camden (London, UK) – Matthew Lloyd Architects and Tibbalds
Build Up Hackney (London, UK) – Build Up

Flickrum (Stockholm, Sweden) – White Arkitekter

Futures London Workshop, GLA (London, UK) – Mae Architects

Giraffe Playground (Uppsala, Sweden) – Phillips (lighting design)

Goldsmith Street (Norwich, UK) – Mikhail Riches with Cathy Hawley and BBUKHeartmiX, Gersagerparken (Greve, Denmark) – Helle Hove & Karoline H Larsen(artist), Light Bureau (light consultancy)
Hupisaaret Park (Oulu, Finland) – Arkkitehdit m3 Oy (Lighting Design)

King's Crescent Estate, Hackney (London, UK) – Karakusevic Carson (leadarchitects & masterplanners), Henley Halebrown (architects), Muf Architecture(landscape architecture & public realm), Tibbalds (planning & urban design)
Marmalade Lane (Cambridge, UK) – Mole Architects

Mehr Als Wohnen (Zurich, Switzerland) – Futurafrosch and Duplex Architekten(masterplanners), Pool Architekten, Müller Sigrist, Miroslav Šik (architects),
Müller Illien (landscape designers)
Mini Hollands, Waltham Forest (London, UK) – LB Waltham Forest
Parc Rives de Seine (Paris, France) – Franklin Azzi (architects)

The Musicon Path (Roskilde, Denmark) – Simon Panduro and Light Bureau
Rokesly School, Haringey (London, UK) – Freehaus

Room for Art, Poplar (London, UK) – MATT + FIONA
Station Road, Harrow (London, UK) – Europa

Superblocks (Barcelona, Spain) – Ajuntament de Barcelona

Superkilen (Copenhagen, Denmark) – BIG, Topotek1 and Superflex
Sutherland Road, Waltham Forest (London, UK) – Levitt Bernstein

Vauban (Freiburg, Germany) – Kohlhoff & Kohlhoff (masterplan), Freiburg
Municipal Council
CONTRIBUTORS AND THANKS

139

ABOUT GOOD GROW TH BY DESIGNThe Mayor's Good Growth by Design programme seeks to enhancethe design of the built environment to create a city that works for
all Londoners. This means development and growth should benefit
everyone who lives here. As such, it should be sensitive to the local
context, environmentally sustainable and physically accessible.
The programme calls on all involved in London's growing
architectural, design and built environment professions to help
realise the Mayor's vision.
Good Growth by Design uses the skills of both the Mayor's Design
Advocates and the wider sector. This includes teams here at City
Hall, the London Boroughs and other public bodies.
The programme covers six pillars of activity:
SETTING STANDARDS
Using design inquiries to investigate key issues for architecture,urban design and place-shaping, in order to set clear policies
and standards in support of the London Plan and other Mayoral
strategies and initiatives.
APPLYING STANDARDS
Ensuring effective design review and scrutiny across the GLA
and London more widely, including the establishment of the London
Review Panel.
BUILDING CAPACITY
Enhancing the GLA Group’s and boroughs’ ability and resource toshape new development to deliver good growth.
SUPPORTING DIVERSITY
Working towards a more representative sector and supporting thedesign of a more inclusive built environment

140

ABOUT GOOD GROWTH BY DESIGNCOMMISSIONING QUALITY
Ensuring excellence in how the Mayor and other public- sector
clients appoint and manage architects and other built environment
professionals.
CHAMPIONING GOOD GROWTH
Advocating best practice to support success across the sector.
THE MAYOR'S DESIGN ADVOCATESThe Mayor's Design Advocates are 50 built environment
professionals. They were chosen for their skill and experience
to help the Mayor support London's growth through the Good
Growth by Design programme. They are independent and impartial,
and provide support, advice, critique and expertise on London'sbuilt environment. The group includes practitioners, academics,
policy makers and those from community-led schemes. Fifty
per cent of the advocates are women, and one in four are froma BAME background.
SETTING STANDARDS: YOUNG PEOPLE AND THE CITY
The Mayor's Design Advocates and City Hall's Regeneration andEconomic Development, Environment and Planning teams havebeen developing research related to the implementation of the draft
London Plan policy S4. This work has been led by the Regenerationand Economic Development team, with support from a number of
GLA Group teams including GLA Planning, Health, and Education
and Youth, and TfL Public Health and Streetscape Guidance.
This document is a call to action for the built environment sector
to join the Mayor of London in applying new design approaches
to projects, with the aim of making London an inclusive city for all
Londoners.

ABOUT GOOD GROWTH BY DESIGN

141

FOR MORE INFORMATION

Regeneration TeamGreater London Authority,
City Hall, The Queen’s Walk,
London SE1 2AA
www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/regeneration/advice-andguidance/about-good-growth-design
goodgrowthbydesign@london.gov.uk
For a large print, Braille, disc, sign language video or audio-tapeversion of this document, please contact us at the address below:
Public Liaison Unit			Greater London Authority		
City Hall, London SE1 2AA		

Telephone 020 7983 4000
Minicom 020 7983 4458
www.london.gov.uk

You will need to supply your name, your postal address and state theformat and title of the publication you require.
If you would like a summary of this document in your language,please phone the number or contact us at the address above.

142

FOR MORE INFORMATIONAB UILTE NVIRONME NTFORALL

LONDONE RS