A councillor’s guide to better streetworks

Streetworks are vital. Installing, repairing and replacing utilities often requires digging up the roads. Yet coordinating streetworks often seems strangely difficult. The disruption they cause often seems out of proportion to the work required. They frustrate citizens, businesses and elected leaders - leaving many people wondering if the system could be improved. 

This report provides an overview of emerging and best practice in streetworks.

It is aimed at councillors who want to understand the context on streetworks, and explore what their authorities can do differently to reduce disruption. 

‘Streetworks’ is a catch-all term for work on the roads. This includes installing and repairing equipment, under and above street level.

Gas, water, electricity, broadband, electric vehicle and telecoms networks are the main infrastructure services requiring streetworks. Streetworks are usually carried out by the companies that run these services. 

‘Roadworks’ technically means repairs to the road itself. The word is often used to mean any streetwork. 

A highways authority is the organisation responsible for maintaining a public road. This varies across the country. In most of England, National Highways is responsible for motorways and major roads, and County or unitary authorities are responsible for other roads. 

Policy context

Streetworks are governed by two main sets of legislation: roads, and utilities. 

The New Roads and Street Works Act 1991, Traffic Management Act 2004 and Highways Act 1980 are the most important laws setting out who is responsible for streetworks and how they are managed. This gives highways authorities responsibility for coordinating streetworks. 

Legislation governing the operation of electricity, water, gas and telecommunications gives those utilities the right to undertake streetworks. 

Other organisations do not have the right to undertake streetworks but can apply to do so. This includes housing developers, some electric vehicle infrastructure companies, and private landowners. 

As well as legislation, a range of technical guidance covers the design, delivery and guarantee of streetworks - such as the Specification for the Reinstatement of Highways, known as SROH, or the safety code of practice known as the ‘Red book’.

Policy is changing. Infrastructure is a major theme of the government’s Growth Mission, emphasising the role of both roads and utilities in underpinning a strong economy. New fines and penalties for utilities are coming in 2025, and policy on the roll-out of electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure is under discussion. 

Why is demand for streetworks increasing?

Demand for streetworks is going up - with a 30% increase in utility company works over the past decade. This is due to:

• Ageing infrastructure. Much of the UK’s longer-established infrastructure requires constant maintenance. Metal gas pipes are being replaced across the network by 2031. Many old water and sewage pipes are being replaced.
• New energy infrastructure. EVs require new cables and infrastructure under roads and pavements. Some new mobility, heating and power systems can require new underground works.
• Connectivity. New broadband services can require new underground cables.
• Increased stress on roads. Overall car ownership is rising, and cars are generally heavier. This leads to increased wear.
• Streetworks creating roadworks. Studies suggest that opening up a trench can reduce the lifespan of a road by 17%, meaning the more streetworks that take place, the more likely it is to require further works.
• Reduction in local government budgets. Historically, local authorities might ignore badly-finished streetworks by utilities, and simply fix the road themselves. Now this is not a financially-viable option. 

How much do streetworks cost?

Streetworks have a complex range of costs and benefits. 

Upgrading and maintaining utilities is a foundation of economic growth. There is no single estimate for the economic value of streetworks in supporting this agenda: but no-one doubts that high-quality, reliable networks and services are essential for consumers and businesses. 

Costs of streetworks include the direct costs, and wider impact through disruption. 

Streetworks’ direct costs are significant, and can push up the cost of utilities. One estimate puts streetworks as 70% of the cost of new broadband infrastructure, if utilities choose to bury infrastructure. 

Wider costs have different estimates. The Department for Transport estimates that streetworks cost the UK economy around £4 billion a year through delays and congestion. Bus operators face increased delays and diversions. This can create extra costs to maintain service levels: one bus firm reports it costs up to £10 million a year in Leeds to reduce the impact of city-centre works, for example.

Other effects are hard to quantify nationally, but have a clear impact at local level. There is increasing criticism, for example, of ‘street scars’ - where a contractor leaves behind an ugly, inappropriate surface instead of reinstating a like-for-like material. This speaks to the strong evidence that pride of place and economic confidence rests on a high-quality public realm, and is undermined by poor-quality streets and buildings. 

Councillors will be familiar with complaints about streetworks being badly-planned. But often citizens are unaware that this is outside local authorities’ control. 

Planning and sequencing streetworks is difficult due to a combination of legal, market and capability factors. 

Legislation and governance

Legislation and governance makes it hard to coordinate streetworks thanks to: 

• The number of organisations wanting to do work. A wide range of organisations have the legal right to undertake streetworks with separate permits. In the UK these utilities are privatised industries with a diverse range of companies. They have no requirement to work together.
• Weak incentives to coordinate. Fixed penalty notices can be issued for incorrect end dates on permits, failure to notify authorities of works, and other process failures. There are also charges specifically for overruns, known as Section 74 fines. The fines are small and have not kept pace with inflation. When streetworks are such a high cost anyway, there is a strong incentive to carry out works in the quickest and cheapest way, and treat any fines as a cost of doing business. There is no strong incentive to work together to reduce overall disruption to road users.
• Strong incentives to declare work ‘emergencies.’ Utilities firms have their own planned works schedule, but may have little reason to share those plans. For example, if they have important work that needs to be done within 2-3 weeks, they can wait until the works start and then declare them emergency works (which have separate rules), rather than alert authorities in advance.
• No clear regulator for streetworks. Communications, energy and water all have separate regulators. In general streetworks are a low priority for them, compared to the cost of services to consumers, safety and market competition.
• Competing objectives within government. Utilities provide an essential service. Many places are committed to the policy goals of faster broadband, more EV charging, and infrastructure-led economic growth. These goals can conflict with goals of reducing disruption and making public transport more reliable.
• Weak regulatory tools. Most authorities now run permit schemes. These allow them to refuse work. But utilities firms have the legal right to undertake work, and may determine works to be emergencies if denied permits. Compliance practice varies and often councils have limited inspection resources to check if companies met permit conditions. Permits are rarely applied for more than a few months in advance. All of this means permits are a rebalancing of power towards authorities, but have significant limits too. 

Market structures

Utilities firms vary significantly. Some firms’ practices make it harder to plan streetworks including:

• Choices over infrastructure types. Digging a trench is often more expensive than running wires, or sharing ducts with other services. Most companies default to doing it anyway, through a combination of risk-aversion and wanting to protect infrastructure by burying it, and bias to established ways of doing things in design and delivery.
• Differences in newer industries. Established utilities are regulated, are typically large listed firms, and have been maintaining infrastructure for decades. New types of infrastructure such as EVs and internet firms are much newer. They may have less understanding of established streetworks practice. Their business models may be based on investor-funded infrastructure to win large market share before becoming profitable, creating a strong incentive to act quickly and alone.
• Subcontractors may vary in quality. Some may be paid by the metre or by time, giving them an incentive to increase the scale and scope of work. Subcontractors are often smaller firms, which can reduce economies of scale, quality assurance processes, and innovative capacity. Contracts can sometimes devolve all responsibility for quality to subcontractors, meaning commissioning firms lose any strong incentives to maintain quality.
• Planning cycles. Few companies have multi-year budget planning cycles. They may have asset management approaches which show them required work in 12+ months’ time, but do not know when exactly they will happen.
• Spending controls. Capital spending controls in utilities firms can incentivise constant repairs of infrastructure, rather than replacement - which would be more invasive but overall less disruptive. Fines can be factored in as a minor cost. 

Skills and capabilities

Streetworks require engineering, urban design and management knowledge. Skills and capacity gaps include:

• Staff shortages. Contractors’ industry bodies report workforce shortages, reducing their ability to plan ahead and on occasion slowing down work.
• Mapping. The UK’s underground infrastructure is being brought into a single mapping tool, discussed below. But right now it is often poorly mapped - or not mapped at all. Sometimes it is not clear who owns what. This slows down planning and undertaking work. The Department for Transport reports that workers wait on average 6 days to find out who owns infrastructure.
• New technical situations. Individual places have unique features such as rock types, water flows, archaeology or historic underground structures. This can create unique and time-consuming problems to solve.
• Local authority capacity. Many councils have limited budgets to cover large areas. National policy can sometimes limit their options, such as mandating certain levels of funding specifically for potholes instead of broader streetworks. Streetworks teams can sometimes be separate to transport and procurement colleagues who want to adopt new innovations in road engineering.
• Early-stage technology. There are promising technologies - but generally at an immature stage. This is discussed more in section 3, below.

Technology could help improve many different aspects of streetworks.

In particular it can help to:

• Prevent streetworks in the first place, through better monitoring, new types of material, and management of infrastructure
• Plan streetworks more effectively - from mapping the physical location of underground infrastructure, to software to plan works.
• Provide streetworks in faster, more efficient or less intrusive ways, from tools for teams on the ground to better information to the public. 

Six technologies councillors should know about 

1. Public systems for live disruption data, approval and mapping

There are three government-backed technology systems in development:

• Street Manager is the platform used by anyone planning or managing roadworks. Its data can be used by other organisations, such as technology firms, to see where roadworks are planned. It was originally launched in 2019. Most people in the streetworks sector think the tool was limited at first, but has gradually improved its capability and ease of use. The Department for Transport has a roadmap for adding further functions.
• The National Underground Asset Register is a single database of all the infrastructure in the UK underground, with locations, age and type. This is recently live and available across the country, with more organisations and asset owners uploading data.
• Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs) are being digitised. TROs are the individual notification that traffic is being rerouted or delayed. A consultation in early 2025 proposes a new requirement on authorities. They will have to make TROs available in a digital format. This will, in time, mean there is a single standardised database covering all new road closures, parking bays and cycle lanes. This will be made available to app developers so that any mapping or satnav tool can show real-time information on changes. 

These systems are not yet mature. They are also standalone: Street Manager and NUAR do not currently interact or harmonise their data. But if they are integrated and continue to be developed, they create the possibility of a single data system on streetworks, infrastructure, and live updates in the next few years. 

2. Live communications for teams conducting works

Everyone accepts that some work on the roads is inevitable. But poor communication about work makes it harder for businesses, drivers and transport operators to plan. 

Real-time data on where and when works are planned could address this. But plans change - works may start late, finish early, or not take place at all. On-the-ground teams need to be able to alert their managers, and public authorities, to the real situation. 

Mobile apps have been developed to meet this need, allowing teams to take photos of works, look up compliance standards, and confirm jobs have been started or finished. Most major engineering contractors use some kind of app. Some allow teams to input live location data. This helps improve data accuracy on underground infrastructure - one company claims it reduced gas pipe strikes by 80% by using an app.

3. Platforms to manage approvals, public communication and planning in one place

Software platforms are already available which offer planning and information in one place. These often take data from Street Manager, and add wider transport management, communications and permitting for utilities, public communication and management of authorities’ own infrastructure into a single system. This streamlines all the relevant data into a single package, allowing for automatic updates and seamless communication. 

4. Infrastructure without the digging

A range of techniques have been invented to avoid having to dig up the roads. 

Instead of installing a new pipe in a fresh trench, a pipe can be forced or dug through from a hole at one end. This is known as pipe jacking, pipe ramming or microtunnelling. 

‘Keyhole’ approaches to maintenance and repair are similar. These use tools such as sensors, robots or remotely-operated equipment to inspect and fix underground infrastructure, without requiring a trench. 

5. New types of road

Streetworks typically require digging a trench because 95% of the roads in the UK are made of asphalt. New types of material are under development which might change this. 

‘Self-healing’ concrete has been globally hyped, and one of the most significant trials to date was in the UK.

In other countries such as the Netherlands, Germany or Denmark, many local and less-frequently used roads are paved with brick or paving slabs. These are easier to dig up and replace without affecting the quality of the surface.

6. Connected and remote monitoring

Streetworks are increasing partly because our old infrastructure is ‘dumb’: sometimes no-one knows where it is, who owns it, whether it’s working, or when it will need to be replaced.

‘Smart’ infrastructure aims to change this by creating information on its performance. Sensors can be attached to pipes, ducts and structures to monitor stresses, temperatures, movements and pressures. Whole simulations can replicate real-world systems in digital models, allowing managers to identify likely maintenance and replacement needs. 

Infrastructure can now be monitored in new ways, too.  Underground radar, drones, and satellite monitoring are all cheaper, more capable and accurate than ever before. 

AI is also being used to monitor and manage infrastructure. Traditionally, surfaces had to be inspected manually. Now cameras installed in vehicles use AI to automatically identify and record surface defects. This is in its infancy - at the moment it cannot measure depth of any road defects - but the potential for any authority vehicle to become an AI-driven monitoring tool is clearly there. 

This applies to traffic management too: a new generation of temporary traffic light uses a much more sophisticated form of AI-driven monitoring to sequence light changes. One company claims that this can increase flow of traffic by up to 50% compared to more traditional sensory technology. 

Streetworks is clearly shaped by legislation, funding, and the practice of utilities firms. But local authorities can also take the initiative. This section sets out a range of practices to improve the coordination and delivery of streetworks. These fall into three categories:

• Process: tweaks to the planning, management and coordination of streetworks
• Policy: using existing policy tools to change behaviours
• Leadership: creating effective internal management 

Process: changing the planning, management and coordination of streetworks

Best practice in planning

The best authorities take the lead and cajole, encourage and inspire their local roads systems to reduce disruption. Their ideas include:

• Clarity on responsibility. The legislation is clear that authorities are responsible for coordination. The best authorities take this as a mandate to lead.
• Voluntary policies to share works. A ‘dig once’ policy is a voluntary arrangement to plan works together, with the aim of accessing one road for all services at the same time. This rests on good communication, and utilities firms seeing a financial benefit from reduced costs. ‘Trench sharing’ is similar but using the exact same trench. This requires a clear agreement on liability and responsibility for restitution. In some places, ‘dig once’ policies have been agreed across multiple authorities - such as 6 councils across Berkshire coming together to make a trench-sharing guarantee on digital infrastructure works.
• Early finish alerts. It costs utilities little to let authorities know if work finishes early. If authorities reassure them that there will be no negative consequence for doing so - for example any changes to permits approved - utilities can be encouraged to keep authorities up-to-date.
• Promote ‘optimum times’ not just ‘maximum times’. Many places only put maximum times on permits. But they can also add detail on when the best times are - encouraging the least-disruptive times and allowing different stages of work to be planned in more detail. Surrey County Council, for example, sets out the ideal time for works to take place in its permits - giving a clear steer on when it would like work to happen.
• Advance work windows. Local authorities can lead by example and give other organisations details on when they expect to undertake works. This means that other organisations have a clear window in which to complete works, avoiding returning to the same road again.

Best practice in working with promoters

Relationships with organisations undertaking streetworks can also be better managed. Tools include:

• Public visibility on who is doing work. Often the public does not realise who is undertaking work. Simple tools such as a sign giving the name of the lead organisation and the duration of the works can help.
• Structured stakeholder management. Utilities firms vary. They can be informally graded by their culture, practice and attitude towards streetworks - with management approaches adapted as appropriate.
• Quarterly planning. Most places have quarterly meetings with all the main utilities firms. This creates a clear forum for streetworks plans to be discussed and shared.
• Stepping outside of day-to-day discussions to think strategically. Major strategic projects such as a place plan, creation of a design code, or transport strategy, can be opportunities to help utilities understand strategic ambitions and win buy-in for reduced disruption as serving the public.
• Sampling and compliance. Compliance is still important. Authorities can go above the 30% minimum sampling and let utilities firms know that they are much more likely to have their work checked. Some places elsewhere have tough compliance schemes: New York even has a 24-hour inspection team. 

Best practice in transport and traffic management

Local authorities have different contexts in transport and public transport responsibilities. Policy is also changing, with new powers available to oversee bus routes in particular. Tools available to all councils include:

• ‘Bus briefings’ and ‘bus champions’. A single point of contact or a single meeting with bus operators. This lets them know about planned works, and allows any major concerns to be communicated to streetworks. This is particularly useful in locations which combine dense urban and more dispersed suburban/rural areas: places like Oxfordshire or Plymouth, for example, both have focussed points of contact for bus disruption.
• Accessibility considerations. Streetworks can be extremely disruptive for walking, wheeling, and people with limited mobility. The best councils go beyond the bare minimum required, and actively think about how drop-kerbs, diversions and pavement surfaces will affect people on bikes, scooters or wheelchairs. 

In the immediate future, some places may be able to consider two financial tools:

• Financial incentives. The Netherlands has experimented with small payments for drivers to avoid driving at peak times. Places considering varieties of road, parking or congestion charging may be able to adopt something similar where streetworks and driving demand are coordinated.
• Transport costing. The cost of streetworks can be factored into public transport planning and built into oversight. For example, payments for reliability or service frequency can be adapted in times of significant streetworks. This is both fair to bus operators, but also creates more visibility on the financial impact of streetworks. 

Best practice in public communication

Digital traffic orders, mobile-enabled streetworks, and smart infrastructure will create more streamlined information in future. But simpler tools are available now.

Most people understand that work has to happen, but are frustrated at lack of planning, or insensitive times. Different people, organisations and places have different patterns of road use: some may prefer lack of disruption at the weekend, others may be able to accept work after hours, while others may prefer any disruption to be during working days. These patterns can be hyperlocal. Good authorities ask local stakeholders their preference through consultation events or online surveys. 

Local authorities can also post updates on their social media, websites and newsletters.

Best practice in placemaking and urban design

Streetworks are fundamental to the look and feel of a place. They often upset the public most when they leave a ‘street scar’ - a highly visible strip of asphalt over cobbles, paving or stone streets. These arise because utilities have little incentive to repair to previous standards. In some situations, unusual materials can be expensive or hard to replace. 

At the same time, authorities are adopting planning tools such as design codes to make placemaking more consistent and high-standard. 

This context means that the best authorities:

• Think in the round about streetworks and placemaking. The best authorities think hard about how materials, repairs and procurement interact. They emphasise quality of restitution with organisations carrying out streetworks. They also think about how new urban designs will use materials and can reduce the risk of future mismatches or street scars. Some countries, such as Denmark, have local planning systems which integrate streetworks with wider urban design - with permits covering everything from driveways and planting to installing new infrastructure. England’s permit system is much more focussed, and planning system more concerned with buildings: but with growing use of design codes, forward-looking authorities should still look to create much more integrated management of streets, planning and streetworks.
• Avoid asphalt where possible. Some roads need to be asphalt. But many suburban, residential, pedestrianised and speed-limited streets do not. In these contexts using materials such as clay setts, brick or small-scale paving has a number of benefits: it is often cheaper, no different to maintain, but allows for much easier underground access and with like-for-like replacement likely to be low cost. 90% of bricks dug up during streetworks can be reused, for example.
• Encourage accessible locations for future infrastructure. For example, in some locations it is appropriate to place infrastructure under one lane only, or under pavements. This enables any future work to take place without closing entire roads. 

• Create infrastructure-free active travel routes. If services run under roads - not pavements and pedestrian streets - then active travel, walking and wheeling can always be maintained even if road transport is affected. 

   

Policy: using regulation to change behaviour 

Local authorities do not need to wait for wider legislative change to try new regulatory tools. They have options now - ranging from extensions of current practice, to big changes in incentives. 

Discounts in permits for better behaviour

Permits can encourage utilities firms to behave differently, and statutory guidance actively encourages the use of discounts. This can include quality of finish, such as making an acceptable quality of reinstatement first-time. It can include safety, such as compliance with key manuals for safety. It can also include techniques to avoid unnecessary road closures, such as discounts for work timed to take place as other organisations’ existing plans, work booked far in advance to allow for transport systems more time to plan, or simply asking utilities firms to park their vehicles off-road where possible. 

Flexi-permits

Flexi-permits are the concept of allowing organisations to undertake work within a defined area covering multiple streets, under a single permit. This is intended to reduce administration costs and allow for work planned around locations. For authorities, a crucial benefit is the ability to be involved in planning at an earlier stage and influence delivery before detailed project plans are defined. 

Some local authorities oppose flexi-permits. They argue that flexi-permits give even more options to utilities to define the location, nature and time of streetworks - and ultimately lead to further loss of control and more disruption. 

The Department for Science, Innovation and Technology is holding trials across England from February to July 2025. A previous trial was held in Sheffield in 2021. This round of trials will inform future policy design, and understand how flexi-permits can lead to more collaborative working. The trial document pack recognises the range of views on flexi-permits. It suggests one purpose of the trials is to reconcile these competing views through real-world experience and experimentation.

One likely innovation is to see flexi-permits as part of a wider culture change - for example by using technology which allows authorities and promoters to jointly plan works in a set area on a shared map, with a single flexi-permit negotiated to cover the work. One trial led by Ealing Borough Council reduced expected occupancy of the road by almost a third. 

Another use-case is uncertain digging conditions. If there is an unusual underground feature, for example, or if there is limited information on the infrastructure, it may not be clear what kind of trenches or length of work is required. 

These uses could emerge as a potential future for flexi-permits: a particular tool, to be deployed when it makes sense for authorities. 

Lane rental

Lane rental allows an authority to charge organisations for taking up road space. 

This is an extension of the principle of permits - that authorities have the right to say yes or no to work. But it adds a price element. The longer an organisation digs up the road, the more it pays. This creates an incentive to adopt new innovations, work together more closely, and minimise disruption. 

In this way, Lane Rental is a potentially exciting development: it is one of the few tools that offers the potential to systematically unlock innovation. Rather than using regulation or compliance-heavy approaches, it incentivises organisations to reduce disruption as much as possible - but leaving them free to find the technology, process and collaboration innovation needed to do so. 

Lane rental is a relatively new concept. Five authorities have created schemes so far. They typically apply the scheme to particularly important roads. 

This means that authorities need to understand how powerful a tool this could be - but also think hard about its real purpose. 

3 top tips for designing lane rental schemes

1. See it as culture change, not raising money
2. Don’t set a single blanket price
3. Integrate its management with streetworks team 

Lane rental does create income. Authorities charge organisations who want to dig up the road. But this means that the more money raised, the more disruption there is. The real value of lane rental is in creating stronger incentives to avoid disruption, not making money. 

To have the maximum possible effect, pricing needs to be right. If lane rental charges are set to the maximum across an authority then organisations have no incentive to prioritise or plan any differently. But if authorities give discounts for particular areas, times, types of road, or even use of new innovations, then they are much more likely to get a dynamic response from utilities firms. 

A new team could be set up to run lane rental. But the risk is that lane rental starts being seen separately to streetworks management and transport operation. Lane rental will have the biggest effect if its management is built into existing structures, not created as a new standalone team.

Leadership: better internal management techniques

Streetworks are difficult because they require thinking about internal processes, technology, regulation, and the behaviour of private companies at the same time. This is a complex task. It means that strategic leadership - and creating effective organisations - underpins more tactical techniques.

Innovation management approaches

Innovation is hard in local government because it requires rethinking procurement, policy and longstanding cultures. Techniques which could be relevant to more innovative streetworks include:

• Creating how-to guides for innovators. EV charging equipment can be totally new. Many companies are unfamiliar with long-established practices. Local authorities want to help these firms. Creating a simple guide for new place-based innovative firms could help reduce friction.
• Regional-level and shared procurement. Many technology systems are expensive. Many work best when they create a network at scale - such as software which can show an entire regional transport system. Authorities can work together to get the right scale for new innovations.
• SME-friendly procurement. Financial, intellectual property and liability can often be set in ways that manage risk and prioritises value. This is often appropriate with tried-and-tested products. But it can stifle new innovations. More flexibility on terms can help smaller and nimbler suppliers.
• Using challenge and Contracts for Innovation procurements. There are alternatives to traditional procurement which allow authorities to set open-ended challenges, and see what the market provides. Streetworks has numerous aspects where this could work. 

Leadership, culture and management

Wider system leadership could unlock better streetworks. Best practices include:

• Mission-led working. A management approach that structures teams and budgets around agreed priorities, making it easier to move past departmental silos and reconcile competing objectives. Balancing new infrastructure investment with smooth-flowing roads is a good example.
• Integrated teams. An internal group at operational leader level gathering key perspectives on streetworks would help agree authority-wide approaches. This should include people responsible for undertaking repairs, people responsible for managing streetworks, people responsible for transport networks, and people responsible for growth.
• Leading from the top on disability awareness. Internal awareness-raising for streetworks leaders should help them lead their promoters in more accessibility-friendly ways of working.
• Flexible roles offering progression. Demand can vary seasonally and over years. Flexible roles which include inspection and permitting offer staff greater progression and a more flexible workforce capable of responding to network needs.

Streetworks are a fact of life. But the current frustrations felt by councillors, the public, and road users are not inevitable. Future regulation will clearly play a role in reshaping the delivery of streetworks. The best councils will also look to act now - and understand that they can already make huge progress. 

This means using technology to prevent, plan and provide streetworks. 

Authorities can also look to best practice in process, policy and leadership. They can make smart choices about lane rental and permits to encourage more innovative, efficient behaviour. They can look at day-to-day processes in streetworks management, transport and highways, and creating internally-aligned teams. They can be astute in their use of urban design. And they can forge wider cultures of innovation and energy across their organisations. 

Streetworks are a system, in other words: the best thing councils can do is to push for change across different aspects of that system. They can start by assuming leadership.