This response to the House of Lords Call for Evidence has been submitted on behalf of the Access Association.
The Access Association is a membership organisation for access professionals and experts from a variety of backgrounds, including the private sector and local authorities. The Association’s current membership breakdown stands at:
• Public Sector: 44.7%
• Private Sector: 44.1%
• Voluntary Sector: 8.7%
• Local Authority: 29.8%
We are a national network of individuals who are passionate about access and inclusive design. The Access Association’s aim is to improve access and facilities for disabled people, and consequently for all people who would benefit from an accessible and inclusive environment. The Association is about providing peer support, sharing knowledge and having an influential voice.
Policymaking, integration and coordination
2. How well is policy coordinated across those Government departments that have a role to play in matters such as housing, design, transport, infrastructure, sustainability and heritage? How could integration and coordination be improved?
Guidance, policy, particularly inclusive design guidance, and creating an accessible environment for the diverse population of this country, including disabled people, have always been provided by a range of Government departments. It is felt that, at times, the co-ordination between departments and sectors could be improved, and, if a more integrated approach were achieved, the result could well be a more inclusive environment for everyone - including disabled people.
For example, access for disabled people and inclusive design are covered by:
Planning: the national planning policy framework and planning policy guidance. However, no design guidance is attached to this and British Standards documents are generally used as ‘the latest best design guidance’ under the planning process – however, the link to this guidance is not explicit.
Building Control: the Building Control process and the Building Regulations ‘cover’ access for disabled people at a fairly minimal level via Part M and Approved Document M of the Building Regulations. This standard cannot be described as providing ‘inclusive design’ solutions, and it is very possible to design an environment or development in accordance with Part M of the Building Regulations which is not inclusive – one which segregates disabled people and non-disabled people at the entrance to a building, providing a secondary entrance for disabled people, so allowing ‘design discrimination’ to occur on a daily basis.
It is felt that Part M and Approved Document M of the Building Regulations require updating to not only remove barriers to access which disabled people experience on a daily basis, but also reflect a more ‘inclusive design approach’ which creates successful, sustainable environments which are suitable for the population of this country, with no segregation on the grounds of any ‘protected characteristic’, including disability / impairment.
The Building Regulations are one of the few ‘statutory’ processes in terms of creating an accessible environment, and play an essential part in the creation of the built environment. For this reason, an update to the design guidance found in Approved Document M, and to Part M’s ‘approach’ to access and inclusion, is desperately needed, and fundamental in terms of creating a successful and future-proofed environment for everyone, including disabled people.
Department for Transport: guidance on the highways environment. This is essential and plays a crucial part in creating a single environment which is well connected and provides the necessary links, following and going beyond ‘Lifetime Neighbourhood’ principles. The DfT’s guidance document ‘Inclusive Mobility’ is well used, but desperately needs updating, again, to reflect inclusive design principles and provide further guidance given disabled peoples’ improved mobility and (rightly) increased expectations in terms of the environment they live in.
Contradictions do exist in the design guidance provided by the above three departments / sections. For example, there are a number of different designs cited for something as simple as a disabled person’s parking bay. Contradictions in guidance and standards which are in need of updating causes significant confusion, often resulting in environments which can exclude, are not suitable for or can segregate disabled people.
Standards need updating to reflect the increasingly diverse population the environment has to, and should, accommodate.
Consistency between standards will simplify the design process and remove confusion - (i.e. highways require one standard, planning another and building control another again) - and will also result in a higher quality, more suitable, and barrier free environment.
High level policy and political backing will add weight to the ‘case’ for the creation of a high quality, sustainable and inclusive environment which is suitable for the increasingly diverse and ageing population of this country.
Both nationally and locally, and within local authorities and on specific development schemes, it is felt that the use of access professionals - both Local Authority Access Officers and access consultants - is essential in co-ordinating the many sectors involved in creating a single, inclusive environment. The Government should be promoting the use of specialist knowledge and the employment of Access Officers and professionals, to guarantee that the needs of the population, including disabled people, are taken into account at every stage of the development process and across every sector, to ensure that a future-proofed, barrier free, truly inclusive environment is created.
National policy for planning and the built environment
3. Does the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) provide sufficient policy guidance for those involved in planning, developing and protecting the built and natural environment? Are some factors within the NPPF more important than others? If so, what should be prioritised and why?
It is felt, by many Access Association members, that there are significant national geographical inconsistencies in terms of the interpretation of the NPPF, and of how that guidance is translated into local plans.
The creation of a barrier free, inclusive environment is essential to protecting it and ensuring its continued suitability and effectiveness for the population in the future.
Some plans lead the way in terms of the application of NPPF policies and guidance on Inclusive Design and providing suitable access for disabled people. Other core strategies / local plans do not appear to adequately address access or inclusion for disabled or older people.
It is felt that access and inclusion for disabled people, and the creation of an inclusive environment which is fit for purpose given our current population in terms of disabled and older people, and also our future population, should be prioritised. This prioritisation should also ensure a more consistent geographical approach, avoiding inconsistencies in terms of planning policy and Inclusive Design.
An inclusive environment is an environment which can be used by everyone. It should be seen as a baseline essential to all developments, and one which should be specifically addressed in all local plans, to a high standard and consistently throughout the country. Only this will allow people genuine choice in terms of where they choose to live, work or visit.
Disabled people and older people are often excluded from many activities due to an unsuitable built environment and barriers. These are often as basic as a step to a shop or no disabled persons’ toilet being provided. However, these will mean that many disabled people cannot use that service - or spend their money there. In terms of choice and the wider economy, planning should require that the highest standards in terms of inclusive design and access for disabled people are applied.
The provision of suitable access for disabled people cannot be left to a ‘civil’ approach such as the Equality Act 2010 - making it a disabled person’s responsibility to ‘enforce’ legislation - placing the ‘blame’ for the discrimination on them because they are disabled.
The planning process has a vital role to play in ensuring that all new developments are accessible and usable for the population as a whole, and that they do not segregate or discriminate against any group, including disabled people, due to their design.
Buildings and places: New and old
6. What role should the Government play in seeking to address current issues of housing supply? Are further interventions, properly coordinated at central Government level, required? What will be the likely effect upon housing supply of recent reforms proposed for the planning system?
The recent Housing Standards Review (in which the Access Association was involved) has created new optional Building Regulations in terms of accessible housing. This is felt to be a positive step forward, ensuring consistency in standards and in what consumers can expect from accessible housing. However, the application of the optional Building Regulations is dependent on local plans and the planning process ‘requiring’ (and conditioning) the provision of these optional standards. There will be a significant time lag in the implementation of these standards in terms of local authorities revising their local plans, and, even when plans are revised, they may not incorporate any accessible housing requirements.
The ‘basic’ Part M standard (M4(1)) is not suitable for most disabled people to visit or live in. It is therefore disappointing that higher standards are optional and that some of the higher accessibility requirements were not incorporated in the basic M4(1) standard, as many of these benefit the population as a whole - older people, families with young children, and disabled people with a variety of impairments.
To help address this, it is felt that the Government, centrally, could do more to ‘encourage’ or help local authorities to understand the importance of providing suitable accessible housing, and how they should go about this. The potential cost savings in terms of health costs and adaptation costs and wider societal benefits should be highlighted, and attention should be drawn to the NPPF guidance, emphasising the need to provide suitable housing for the population. This could also be strengthened in terms of accessible and wheelchair accessible housing, given the volume of the country’s housing stock which pre-dates any such standards, and the poor level of choice available for people who require accessible housing.
7. How do we develop built environments which are sustainable and resilient, and what role should the Government play in any such undertaking? Will existing buildings and places be able to adapt to changing needs and circumstances in the years to come? How can the best use of existing housing stock and built environment assets be made?
For built environments to be sustainable and resilient, they need to be inclusive and accessible for the diverse population of the country, including disabled and older people. They need to be suitable and inclusive, and not segregate some people. This country has an ageing population to accommodate, and the incidence of disability does increase with age. Unless inclusive design and access for disabled people is adequately addressed now, the built environment will not be resilient, sustainable or suitable for the population. Planning and building control processes therefore have an essential part to play in the creation of suitable inclusive environments.
The Equality Act 2010 (EA) and its predecessors, the Disability Discrimination Acts 1995 and 2005 (DDA), have made a difference to the life of disabled people, and have acted to raise awareness of many of the barriers disabled people can face in society. However, there are still areas relating to both the built environment and transport systems which need to be tackled, and which need to work much better, if disabled people are to have the same access to employment opportunities and to goods, facilities and services, (including key areas such as transport and education), and the same opportunities to contribute to the economic success of the country as people who are not disabled.
It is essential to legislate in this area. A ‘market’ or ‘litigation’ based approach does not work in terms of ensuring an equitable and ‘fair’ society for all members, including disabled people. (This is demonstrated by the fact that disabled people are still facing barriers to access and inclusion). In terms of how that legislation works, it is essential to address certain areas, specifically in terms of the enforcement of the legislation and how service providers and employers provide and/or maintain facilities to enable disabled people to access and use services and places of employment.
The discrimination of disabled people (whether direct or indirect) should remain unlawful; however, it is felt that ‘responsible people’ should be identified to carry out the task of enforcement. These might be Local Authority Officers, possibly Trading Standards Officers, or Environmental Health Officers when checking food premises’ ratings locally. These officers should have the power to, and should be required to, follow up any suspected breaches of the EA in relation to specific and identified areas of the duty to provide or alter a physical feature to enable access for disabled people.
A local authority should be able to request the provision of facilities which enable disabled people equality of access, and should be able to enforce the maintenance and continued provision of these facilities. One particular example which is often cited by our members is the provision of a disabled person’s toilet in a restaurant, pub or café. Often, as space is at a premium, these facilities are used as storage areas for cleaning equipment or beverages, making them unavailable for people who need to use them. In such instances, the EA requires the individual disabled person who experiences this discrimination to raise the issue with the service provider, which could eventually result in the disabled person having to take legal action against the service provider. In reality, many disabled people will often not bother going through this process, as it seems lengthy, costly and difficult - and the question should be asked: “Why should they ?”.
The EA method of enforcement is reminiscent of the now very dated ‘medical model’ approach to disability. The medical model school of thought placed ‘blame’ on disabled people, considering that, if they could not access a building, or any of the facilities and services in society that are available to non-disabled people, then it was their ‘fault’. In contrast, the approach currently adopted and followed puts ‘blame’ on the wider society, or the people responsible for an inaccessible building or service for not designing and providing for the diversity of population we have today, including disabled people.
The EA method of enforcement could be said to actually build upon the medical model approach, by stating that, if a disabled person cannot access a facility or service, then they should do something about it and address the issue themselves - as the reason they cannot gain access is because they are disabled. A more ‘up to date’ and equitable approach would be to accept that providing a suitable environment and services for the entire population of this country, including disabled people, is everyone in society’s responsibility – which includes service providers and Local Authority Officers.
Disabled people should be able to live an independent life, without facing barriers to their inclusion and participation, and without the extra burden of having to enforce the removal of any barriers which society places in their way. They should be able to go to work, visit facilities, access services and enjoy leisure, should they wish to do so, and not have to spend their time writing letters to every establishment that denies them equality of access. The fact that the EA expects disabled people to do this could, in itself, be seen as discriminatory, as non-disabled people do not have this expectation placed on them.
If a service provider is identified by a disabled person as not providing, or maintaining, the facilities they require to access the service, then the disabled person should be able to notify the relevant Local Authority and request that they follow up the issue. Another possible solution could be through licensing processes that local authorities undertake. Entertainment and alcohol licensing regulations could be amended to require a local authority to assess premises applying for, or renewing, a licence in terms of access for disabled people, and to require an establishment or event to provide suitable access and facilities for disabled people before a licence is granted or renewed. Currently, there is no such requirement, and the fact that many entertainment and alcohol licences are granted to establishments or events which do not provide suitable access and facilities for disabled people is a missed opportunity, and this should be addressed.
Even though some local authorities ‘encourage’ some applicants to look into access and facilities for disabled people, they currently do not have powers to refuse the granting of a licence on these grounds. To ensure national consistency, suitable access and facilities for disabled people should be added to the minimum requirements for the granting of, or renewal of, a licence. Again, this would prevent disabled people from having to spend their time complaining to, and possibly taking legal action against, the said service providers.
Therefore, to allow disabled people the same opportunities as non-disabled people, to live an independent life, this country should not expect disabled people to spend their own time fighting for physical access to services. It should be provided by local authorities, via the licensing system, and enforced through existing legislation.
The Equality Act approach is therefore not adequate on its own to address access for disabled people, and it is felt that additional measures and powers should be put in place as soon as possible.
Another route / method to address issues of access for disabled people within the existing building stock would be to re-evaluate / investigate the ‘limits of application’ of the Building Regulations. There is a fairly common misconception among many people, including some disabled people, that ‘Part M’ covers all building works - it does not. Part M of the Building Regulations is limited in terms of the types of building works it can be applied to under the Statutory Instrument that is the Building Regulations. Aside from new-build schemes, the building works to which Part M applies could be seen as being quite limited. If the scope or type of works that Part M applies to were increased, (for example, in relation to existing buildings, i.e. change of use or material alteration applications), then there could be significant improvements to the existing building stock in terms of access for disabled people. It is felt that an opportunity exists via the building control system which could be investigated further.
This would also apply to the creation and provision of accessible housing. Currently, the new ‘optional’ building regulations M4(2) and M4(3) are also limited in their potential application by the Building Regulations. Part M of the Building Regulations in terms of residential developments would generally not apply to dwellings created via a Change of Use application or a Material Alteration, and this has been a disappointment to a number of Access Association members. If the limits of application of the Building Regulations were altered and did not exclude this type of application, then more accessible homes suitable for the diverse and ageing population of the country now, and in the future, could be created (pending local planning policies).
8. To what extent do we make optimum use of the historic environment in terms of future planning, regeneration and place-making? How can more be made of these national assets?
England has a rich and diverse range of designated and non-designated heritage assets which contribute to its world class status and popularity as a unique visitor destination. The importance of the historic environment and national assets is recognised, and it is felt that crucial to the preservation of England’s national assets is the careful protection and adaptive re-use of heritage buildings and their settings.
“Easy Access to Historic Buildings” (English Heritage, June 2015) highlights the importance of ensuring that the diverse and changing population can access and use these assets now and in the future, as the following quotation illustrates:
“Historic Buildings, landscapes and places exist for the enjoyment and appreciation of everybody. Too many people think of the historic environment as being inaccessible. Historic England knows that this need not be the case. On the contrary, we know that good quality access can enhance our understanding of the historic environment and ensure its sustainability. What we have learnt is that with the right kind of thought and discussion a way can be found around almost any barrier. We also recognise that people’s expectations- and the technical opportunities to meet them- are constantly evolving.
While the needs of disabled people must be a priority, we also know that easier access will benefit almost all of us at some stage in our lives. Whether during pregnancy, as a parent pushing a buggy or an older person who is finding steps a bit harder to manage, we all value thoughtful and effective design for our access needs.
We want to see the broadest possible public access to the historic environment and to the interpretation that makes it come alive. For that reason we will continue to promote good quality solutions that make access easier while simultaneously encouraging responsible care of the historic places that matter to us all.”
Access Association members often report back on developers, service providers or building owners citing a building’s ‘listing’ as a reason why access for the diverse population, including disabled people, cannot be achieved. This is very, very rarely the case, although it is a regularly cited ‘excuse’ for providing and maintaining barriers for disabled people.
For heritage assets and listed buildings in this country to have a sustainable future, they need to be accessible to as many people as possible, including disabled people.
It is felt that stronger planning policy via the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and specific planning guidance via Planning Policy Guidance (PPG) should be provided which covers the issue of access and the historic environment, for example along the lines of: when considering re-use or refurbishment of heritage assets, historic or listed buildings, opportunities should be explored to identify potential modifications to improve levels of inclusion and access for disabled people. This can be successfully achieved, adding a new layer of history to our historic buildings and landscapes, and ensuring their use into the future.
Many access professionals, including Access Officers and access consultants, have specialist knowledge in this field and can advise in this area. The use of such specialist advice should be encouraged and will ensure that successful design solutions can be achieved.
It is felt that, for too long, the ‘excuse’ of a building having a listed status has been (wrongly) used as a reason to exclude disabled people, and additional guidance is required, at a high, national and strategic level, via the planning system. This will dispel this myth and encourage the removal of barriers in the historic environment, to ensure a future for these assets and allow a diverse population, including disabled people, to access and enjoy them.
Funding allocated to the removal of physical barriers (as per the Equality Act) to heritage assets would assist many building owners and organisations responsible for such assets in ensuring that high quality, successful and inclusive solutions are achieved.
Skills and design
9. Do the professions involved in this area (e.g. planners, surveyors, architects, engineers etc.) have the skills adequately to consider the built environment in a holistic manner? How could we begin to address any skills issues? Do local authorities have access to the skills and resources required to plan, shape and manage the built environment in their areas?
It is felt that all professionals involved in the creation of the built environment should have some understanding of, and training in, Inclusive Environments and access for disabled people. A more inclusive approach to inclusion should be promoted!
For many years, access for disabled people and inclusion have been seen as an ‘add on’ or ‘added extra’, rather than a fundamental and basic requirement which should be addressed and incorporated at the start of the design process. It is felt that additional training is required in this area, and it is important that all professionals involved in creating the built environment undertake it and understand it.
The Design Council (CABE) is are currently putting together an Inclusive Environments CPD training programme which will be freely available. The Access Association has supported this project, both financially and ‘in kind’, from its inception, and is keen to promote the finished product. It is felt that the Government, via all relevant routes and departments, should endorse and assist in actively promoting this training to all relevant sectors, ensuring a baseline level of knowledge is achieved throughout the industry.
All local authorities should employ an Access Officer / Access Specialist to oversee all departments and processes involved in shaping and creating the built environment, to provide guidance and to check that inclusive design is addressed at every stage of the development process, and it is felt that the Government should be promoting such an approach.
Developers should be able to identify where specialist access advice, for example from Access Consultants, is required on large scale schemes, and this should be seen as an ‘essential component’ of the design process.
10. Are we using the right tools and techniques to promote high quality design and ‘place-making’ at the national level? How could national leadership on these matters be enhanced?
The Building Regulations and the Building Control process play an essential part in creating an inclusive environment. Part M of the Building Regulations, both volume 1 (housing) and volume 2 (non-dwellings), do have the potential to promote and help provide good quality design and an inclusive environment, consistently, throughout the country. Part M volume 2 should be updated in terms of adopting a more suitable approach towards Inclusive Design, e.g. in avoiding the segregation that revolving doors can create. However, the Building Control process does potentially provide a nationally consistent tool which could be effectively used to shape the built environment.
Many Access Association members do have concerns in terms of how consistently the requirements of the Building Regulations, in particular Part M of the Building Regulations, are applied, and in terms of individual officers’ interpretation of ‘reasonable provision’ in accordance with the regulations. Experiential evidence has shown a lack of consistency in the application of certain clauses of the Approved Documents, one example being the provision of Lifts. Approved Document M is quite clear in terms of stating what type of lift should be provided, and where. The provision of level access via lifts is fundamental for the inclusion of many disabled people, including people who require level access.
Members often report back on Building Control Bodies - not necessarily from the private or public sectors - allowing developments to proceed and be completed without the provision of a lift (where it is felt one should be provided, in accordance with the approved document). One reason for this could be the ‘competitive environment’ in which Building Control bodies work. Building Control Bodies can be Local Authority based, or can operate in the private sector as Approved Inspectors. Due to this, bodies are competing for work, and this competitive environment may not always be the most effective environment in terms of ensuring that standards are met. Access for disabled people has been cited by some of our members as one of the areas that could be compromised as part of these negotiations.
Community involvement and community impact
11. Do those involved in delivering and managing our built environment, including decision-makers and developers, take sufficient account of the way in which the built environment affects those who live and work within it? How could we improve consideration of the impacts of the built environment upon the mental and physical health of users, and upon behaviours within communities?
It is felt that there is a lack of connectivity, communication and links between the various sectors and departments which are either involved in creating and managing the built environment, or involved in providing health and social services for the population using the built environment. The built environment in which people live has, for many, a profound effect on their health, wellbeing and ability to live their day to day life without barriers.
A more accessible environment, including the availability of suitable accessible housing, has the potential to save health services significant amounts of money, through allowing people to stay in communities and their homes for longer. Local authorities can also make adaptations to people’s homes via the disabled facilities grants process.
There is both a moral and financial ‘case’ for creating a more accessible environment, both in the short term and the long term.
The Equality Act 2010 (EA) and its predecessors, the Disability Discrimination Acts 1995 and 2005 (DDA), have made a difference to the life of disabled people, and have raised awareness of many of the barriers disabled people can face in society. However, there are still areas relating to both the built environment and transport systems which need to be tackled, and which need to work much better, if disabled people are to have the same access to jobs, goods, facilities and services (including transport and education), and the same opportunities to contribute to the economic success of the country, as people who are not disabled.
It is essential to legislate in this area. A ‘market’ or ‘litigation’ based approach does not work in terms of ensuring an equitable and fair society for all members, including disabled people. (This is demonstrated by the fact that disabled people are still facing barriers to access and inclusion). In terms of how that legislation works, it is essential to address certain areas, specifically in terms of the enforcement of the legislation and how service providers and employers provide and/or maintain facilities to enable disabled people to access and use services and places of employment.
The discrimination of disabled people (whether direct or indirect) should remain unlawful; however, it is felt that ‘responsible people’ should be identified to carry out the task of enforcement. These might be Local Authority Officers, possibly Trading Standards Officers, or Environmental Health Officers when checking food premises’ ratings locally. These officers should have the power to, and should be required to, follow up any suspected breaches of the EA in relation to specific and identified areas of the duty to provide or alter a physical feature to enable access for disabled people.
A local authority should be able to request the provision of facilities which enable disabled people equality of access, and should be able to enforce the maintenance and continued provision of these facilities. One particular example which is often cited by our members is the provision of a disabled person’s toilet in a restaurant, pub or café. Often, as space is at a premium, these facilities are used as storage areas for cleaning equipment or beverages, making them unavailable for people who need to use them. In such an instance, the EA requires the individual disabled person who experiences this discrimination to raise the issue with the service provider, which could eventually result in the disabled person having to take legal action against the service provider. In reality, many disabled people will often not bother going through this process, as it seems lengthy, costly and difficult - and the question should be asked: “Why should they?”
The EA method of enforcement is reminiscent of the now very dated ‘medical model’ approach to disability. The medical model school of thought placed ‘blame’ on disabled people, considering that, if they could not access a building, or any of the facilities and services in society that are available to non-disabled people, then it was their ‘fault’. In contrast, the approach currently adopted and followed puts ‘blame’ on the wider society, or the people responsible for an inaccessible building or service for not designing and providing for the diversity of population we have today - including disabled people.
The EA method of enforcement could be said to actually build upon the medical model approach, by stating that, if a disabled person cannot access a facility or service, then they should do something about it and address the issue themselves - as the reason they cannot gain access is because they are disabled. A more ‘up to date’ and equitable approach would be to accept that providing a suitable environment and services for the entire population of this country, including disabled people, is everyone in society’s responsibility – which includes service providers and Local Authority Officers.
Disabled people should be able to live an independent life, without facing barriers to their inclusion and participation, and without the extra burden of having to enforce the removal of any barriers which society places in their way. They should be able to go to work, visit facilities, access services and enjoy leisure, should they wish to do so, and not have to spend their time writing letters to every establishment that denies them equality of access. The fact that the EA expects disabled people to do this could, in itself, be seen as discriminatory, as non-disabled people do not have this expectation placed on them.
If a service provider is identified by a disabled person as not providing, or maintaining, the facilities they require to access the service, then the disabled person should be able to notify the relevant Local Authority and request that they follow up the issue. Another possible solution could be through licensing processes that local authorities undertake. Entertainment and alcohol licensing regulations could be amended to require a local authority to assess premises applying for, or renewing, a licence in terms of access for disabled people, and to require an establishment or event to provide suitable access and facilities for disabled people before a licence is granted or renewed. Currently, there is no such requirement, and the fact that many entertainment and alcohol licences are granted to establishments or events which do not provide suitable access and facilities for disabled people is a missed opportunity, and this should be addressed.
Even though some local authorities ‘encourage’ some applicants to look into access and facilities for disabled people, they currently do not have powers to refuse the granting of a licence on these grounds. To ensure national consistency, suitable access and facilities for disabled people should be added to the minimum requirements for the granting of, or renewal of, a licence. Again, this would prevent disabled people from having to spend their time complaining to, and possibly taking legal action against, the said service providers.
To conclude, to allow disabled people the same opportunities as non-disabled people, to live an independent life, this country should not expect disabled people to spend their own time fighting for physical access to services. It should be provided by local authorities, via the licensing system, and enforced through existing legislation.
16 October 2015