5. Inclusive engagement - research findings

5.1.1. The inclusive engagement findings are based on:

• The disabled street user focus groups (detail included in Appendix B), from which key messages were drawn - referenced with the code 'FGE'.
• Online survey of the designers, implementers and promoters (details included in Appendix D), from which key messages were drawn - referenced with the code 'DIP'.
• Consideration of good practice examples (detail included in Appendix F), from which key findings were drawn - referenced with the code 'GP'.

5.1.2. While the research used a combination of methods, it was reliant on the personal perspectives and insights of the participants into inclusive engagement. These perspectives allowed the research to identify consistent themes across groups, whilst acknowledging there may be a variation in perspectives between groups.

5.1.3. This chapter presents the key findings in relation to inclusive engagement. In the following chapter this report derives the principles and recommendations for inclusive engagement from these key findings.

5.2.1. The findings on inclusive engagement derived from this research can be summarised under five key themes:

• Theme 1 - Stakeholder identification.
• Theme 2 - The scale and nature of the engagement process, including timing and notification.
• Theme 3 - Accessible engagement.
• Theme 4 - Maintaining a record.
• Theme 5 - Establishing and maintaining a good working relationship.

5.2.2. The findings against each of these themes are summarised below in the remainder of this chapter against the summary of key messages and findings described in Appendices B, D and F.

5.3.1. The key messages pertaining to Theme 1 are:

• FGE2 - While contacting DPOs is a practical route for inviting views on designs, it should not be seen as the only route to access feedback from disabled people. In order to gain more representative input to the process, more local views should also be sought by direct contact with local residents, including those with impairments and those with recent or a temporary disability.
  • This should be via more targeted local activity, such as calls for contributions via written and spoken media, posters in local areas and harnessing networking opportunities in local communities.
  • Input should be proportionate and seeking views from only one interest group or one pan-disability group should be avoided.
• FGE3 - While using internal accessibility officers or equivalents within local authorities may be a useful first step to consulting on the inclusivity of designs, it should never be used alone as a means of 'proof checking' designs.
  • More objective and representative input is required.
• FGE4 - Proactive attempts to engage with older adults in local communities will help to make street design even more accessible and should be pursued as a matter of course.
  • The progressively aging population was seen as a relatively new challenge. The needs of older adults, who represent an increasingly large proportion of the population, should be specifically addressed in any updating of existing guidance or writing of new guidance.
• FGE22 - Engagement activities should include proportionate representation from pedestrians as well as cyclists and vehicle users to ensure that all voices are equally heard.

5.3.2. Interviews with designers, implementers and promoters found that, in their view, Access Panels are particularly successful in allowing people to contribute fully to the project during the initial stages of planning and design. This is contrasted by the views of some disabled street users in the Focus Groups that Access Panels can be 'patchy', with variable levels of representation of different needs, and varying levels of dynamism, funding, interest and buy-in from local authorities across the country.

5.3.3. The feedback from designers, implementers and promoters yielded the key messages that:

• DIP1 - Good practice should be to form an inclusive design working group (in the absence of an active Access Panel) at the project inception stage of any project or programme which may result in alterations to the street design.
  • This working group should then be encouraged to discuss and agree upon subjects such as: how the relevant users are represented, the appropriate forms of engagement that will be undertaken, as well as the timing and scale of engagement activities.
• DIP2 - Collaborative design practices help to ensure that the local community, including disabled and vulnerable users, feel able to influence the design of the spaces and places in which they live, work and play.
  • This approach can also break down the 'them and us' perception, which is often associated with professional designer-led approaches and encourages shared decision making and conflict resolution.

5.3.4. The key findings from the good practice examples include the following:

• GP1 - A common theme to all examples is that the inclusive engagement has been driven by a group formed and maintained by members who are from the disabled community and have a broad interest in supporting accessibility.
• GP2 - The bespoke formal disabled user groups included in the good practice examples have established recruitment and training processes to ensure that their membership is balanced and supports the wider accessible agenda (thereby ensuring a pan-disability focus and reducing the risk of a few 'louder' voices being disproportionately catered to).
  • For example, the Edinburgh Access Panel had a number of participants in the disabled street user focus groups who give wider representative views of different disabilities.
• GP3 – Behaviours: there are a number of factors that have contributed to the success of the good practice examples identified, including:
  • The presence of a strong chairperson / leadership role within the engagement groups.
  • Seeking to avoid a 'them and us' culture.
  • Ensuring the groups conduct themselves in a proactive and solution-led manner, as well as being reasonable and considerate of other disabled street users' needs.
  • Ensuring that welfare needs of participants are in place.
  • A clearly defined meeting etiquette and process including agreement on the manner in which material is to be presented in an accessible manner.

5.4.1. There was a consensus amongst the focus group participants that they had typically been involved too late in the process i.e. once designs had already been developed. Designs are often drawn up before engagement processes begins and this already limits the opportunity that people have to input to their development, i.e. input is sought 'after the event'.

5.4.2. Initiating engagement before designers put pen to paper was seen as key and ideally at concept stage.

5.4.3. The key messages pertaining to Theme 2 are:

• FGE1 - Engagement should begin as early in the project design process as possible and ideally at the concept stage, before plans are drafted, with early discussions around the broad plans to develop street spaces, and an opportunity for individuals to raise initial concerns which may impact on how plans are subsequently developed.
• FGE8 - A programme of proportionate and effective engagement should be included as part of the project commissioning and scope with an appropriate allocation of project budget (or equivalent).
• FGE16 - Engagement should be regarded as a multi-stage process.
• DIP4 - Working with local stakeholders and the community, including disabled and vulnerable users, can help ensure that the correct scale of engagement and engagement forms for a project are undertaken and at the most suitable times.
• DIP9 - In order to address the challenge of time and budget constraints, a programme of proportionate and effective engagement should be included as part of the project commissioning and scope.
  • The allocation of an appropriate level of project budget (or equivalent) to remunerate consultees and those supporting consultees for their time and expenses during the engagement process will significantly increase the capacity of voluntary groups and individuals to attend and contribute to engagement events and activities.
• DIP13 - Sufficient budget needs to be in place at the commissioning stage of a scheme to ensure that an adequate range of engagement approaches and tools can be applied.
  • Guidance on engagement needs to be explicit as to the inclusive engagement requirements to avoid a 'gap' between funders, implementers and designers.
• GP5 - The key findings from the good practice examples are that the process of providing feedback to the users through an established disabled user group supports the management of expectations from both the disabled street users and the designers.

5.4.4. The research team have concluded from the feedback and good practice examples that the members of the disabled street user groups seek reassurance that their needs and concerns are being recognised, while the designers seek valued input to the design process.

5.4.5. By ensuring that the design team responds visibly to the comments (e.g. 'you said, we did' reports) it demonstrates that the user group membership views are valued, heard and, if necessary, consulted further upon to collaboratively address issues raised.

5.5.1. The focus group participants raised concerns that designers and planners often offered unrealistic deadlines for people to feed into the process. Further, the participants commented that plans and designs are often not 'realistic' and that what is presented on paper is often very different from the disabled street users' experience of the space i.e. the implications are not apparent on paper, and that producing plans and designs in accessible formats (such as virtual reality, computer visualisation, tactile plans, 3-dimensional models and different coloured plans) was seen as being an 'afterthought' for most planners / designers.

5.5.2. The key messages pertaining to Theme 3 from the disabled street user focus groups are:

• FGE5 - The promotion of consultation and engagement opportunities should be multi-sensory, with consideration given to using television (including subtitles) and radio for reaching a wide audience, in addition to newspapers (printed and audio), social media and printed material, especially in public information spaces, including on public transport and at transport hubs. All printed materials should follow accessibility principles.
• FGE6 - Street user requirements differ - some prefer individual one-to-one interviews, whilst others desire to learn from fully inclusive events about the needs of a wide range of people and to share knowledge. However, the number of people at consultation events needs to be managed to ensure all voices are heard.
• FGE9 - Sufficient warning of upcoming engagement events and activities needs to be provided to allow potential contributors to request that materials and information be translated into appropriate formats, which can take time.
  • Notice for upcoming engagement events should consider the requirements for planning independent travel and the requirement to give advanced notice to assistants and communication professionals.
• FGE10 - Plans should be interpreted into different formats (depending on the type of project this could include computer visualisation, tactile plans, 3-dimensional models and different coloured plans) so that people can independently make an assessment of them instead of being reliant on someone else to interpret on their behalf.
• FGE11 - Producing plans and designs in accessible formats (depending on the type of project this could include Virtual Reality, computer visualisation, tactile plans, 3-dimensional models and different coloured plans) should be addressed in any development of new guidance, or revision of existing guidance going forward, since there are a multitude of aids and supports already available to make designs more accessible.
  • The main perceived issue by the focus groups was that plans and designs in accessible formats are currently underutilised. Indeed, participants stressed that 'communication' in itself is not a barrier, rather it was a lack of understanding, creativity and innovation in the application and use of different communication methods that presents problems.
• FGE12 - The use of walk-throughs should be encouraged for disabled street users; however, single use walk-throughs will not provide sufficient insight into the experience of the full range of users or how the street may change in different conditions. Multiple walk-throughs are to be encouraged as well as use of video simulations (with subtitles), where appropriate.
• FGE13 - Designers should seek to maximise use of existing innovations in the presentation of plans and street designs, including adopting walk-throughs and allowing 'hands on' exposure to materials for use.
• FGE17 - A range of different ways for people to contribute to the design engagement process should be offered and support put in place to facilitate this (including practical, financial and communication support).
• FGE18 - Prior to carrying out engagement activities, advice should be sought on the full range of communication preferences and needs that are likely to be presented, including advice from communication / language professionals on practical issues around planning costs and support for breaks, etc. Communication strategies to support ongoing engagement should be drawn up.
• FGE19 - When undertaking inclusive engagement, planners and designers should be proactive in identifying communication preferences and needs, rather than seeking to respond to needs on the day or putting in place a standard level of provisions which assumes the needs of the participants.
• FGE20 - When undertaking inclusive engagement, planners and designers should be proactive in identifying suitably accessible venues to accommodate adults with different types of impairment. Again, accessibility needs should be identified early in the process, to ensure suitability of venues.
• FGE21 - New schemes need to be accompanied by wider public awareness raising in relation to how the space should be used. This includes education of all road users - pedestrians, those wheeling, cyclists and drivers - to ensure that the space is used as intended.

5.5.3. The focus group participants commented that the quality of previous engagement experiences was variable but, in general, the experience of most groups was that consultants, or those leading engagement activities, are often unprepared and rely on 'visual' methods of communication. Participants stressed the difference between 'access to' information and 'accessible' information.

5.5.4. The survey feedback from designers, implementers and promoters yielded the key messages that:

• DIP3 - Stakeholders and community representatives should be encouraged and supported to review and assess local places and spaces using a simple and easy to use method such as the 'Place Standard Tool'. This should be undertaken early on in the project lifecycle to help agree the scope of the project and inform the project objectives and the development of options.
• DIP5 - Engagement activities which involve the project team going to places where different user groups are based, including disabled and vulnerable users, is often more effective than expecting users to come to meet the project team. This approach often ensures that a more balanced representation of views is achieved and inputs from a wider range of users can inform the project outcomes.

5.5.5. The key findings from the good practice examples are:

• GP6 - In addition to ensuring that all the material is in accessible formats, a key success factor has been the willingness of designers to go to the disabled user group meeting venue. This ensures that the group are fully supported in terms of accessible venues, translation, personal assistance and welfare facilities.

5.6.1. The Equality Legislation Overview in Appendix G highlights that the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) can be demonstrated by the recording of engagement, appropriate consideration of needs and concerns and how they have been addressed. Maintained records can further inform the with EQIA requirements in the design process.

5.6.2. The key messages pertaining to Theme 4 are:

• FGE7 - Contributions to design processes should be formally recorded, with contributors being given a chance to review notes from meetings to ensure that their views have been accurately captured. Explanations for advice and views that are not taken on board should be provided, as standard.
  • Focus group participants identified that they were typically not told how their inputs to the design process would be used. Participants expressed that they felt that project timescales and budgets restricted the feedback process, and some felt it was due to a lack of professionalism or common decency.
  • This aligns with the findings from the good practice examples.
• DIP6 - All outcomes from engagement events and activities should be recorded in a clear and concise accessible form (simple spreadsheet / word table).
  • These outcomes should be shared with those parties who have taken part in the engagement activities, if they have consented to receiving further communications.
  • At future project stages, the engagement outcomes of previous project stages should be reviewed to ensure that relevant issues are carried forward i.e. 'you said, we did'.
  • This will demonstrate to consultees how previous engagement has helped shape the project to date and will help increase confidence and interest in the process, particularly on longer projects and projects with time gaps between stages.
  • This aligns with the findings from the disabled user focus groups and the good practice examples.
• DIP7 - The approaches to recording and maintaining engagement outcomes should be appropriate to the scale and needs of each project. New and innovative methods for recording and presenting engagement outcomes should be considered, where appropriate, and their success reviewed as part of a process of continuous improvement and learning lessons.
• GP5 - The key findings from the good practice examples include the recording of meetings of the representative disabled street user group as part of meeting etiquette. This is then shared amongst the membership and the designers in a format to suit their requirements. This enables the designers to respond ('you said, we did') and discharge their duties in terms of the Public Sector Equality Duty.

5.7.1. The key messages pertaining to Theme 5 are:

• FGE14 - Focus group participants provided feedback that awareness has to increase among designers and promoters of the broad range and complexity of different disabilities, ensuring that all disabled street users' views are considered with equal weight to fully ensure inclusive participation.
• FGE15 - Training should be introduced for planners and designers in inclusive design principles, including how to approach inclusive engagement.
  • Focus group participants spoke of negative professional attitudes, arrogance or 'professional snobbery'. There was a shared view that some designers were reluctant to consider the views of street users who they viewed as lacking the technical expertise to provide valid input.
• DIP8 - The EQIA / Access Audit (or similar) should form the central document for demonstrating compliance with the relevant legislation and regulations associated with inclusive design and engagement.
• DIP10 - In order to address the challenge of ensuring a wide representation of disability groups, an effective process is necessary to allow designers and promoters to identify those groups who should be engaged with as part of forming the engagement strategy for a new project.
  • This could be achieved by the maintenance of a live, GDPR compliant mailing list of organisations and community representatives who agree to be contacted early in the project lifecycle.
• DIP12 - In order to address the challenge of negative views and mistrust held between different disabled street users and / or between street users and designers, a collaborative design approach should be used to encourage different groups to consider the needs of all users and resolve potential points of conflict together.
• GP2, GP3, GP4, GP5 - The good practice examples highlight the importance of dedicated disability user groups in larger projects and the benefit from establishing communication and engagement requirements. Within these groups, the selection of membership, application of training and the establishment of a culture of respect and collaboration contributed to a better design process.
  • The good practice examples represent larger projects with longer programmes and larger budgets, which facilitated the investment and development of these groups over a length of time, but the findings from these examples are relevant.

5.8.1. There is a wealth of advice and guidance around effective and inclusive engagement. This includes, but is not limited to, the guidance listed in Appendix I.

5.8.2. Appendices B, D and F include detailed reviews of the key messages from the focus groups and designers against existing guidance, from which it has been concluded that existing guidance does cover most of the points raised in some form.

5.8.3. It is, however, clear from the focus group and designer feedback that despite the presence of existing guidance (spread across a range of different documents) there are gaps in the implementation of the guidance.

5.8.4. A level of dissatisfaction was expressed by the disabled street user focus groups with their expectations not being met.

5.8.5. Frustration was expressed by designers in relation to a lack of guidance as to what these expectations are and what is required in terms of the scale (number of) and nature (type of) engagement.

5.8.6. These requirements are dependent on number of factors, including the type of scheme, how it is being procured and implemented, etc. and this creates difficulties for designers in trying to follow the existing guidance. The outcome of this is that the perception, by disabled street users, of the implementation of and / or effectiveness of existing guidance can be negatively impacted.

5.8.7. In conclusion, there is current guidance which covers how to engage with groups. However, it appears that guidance is not always followed for street design projects and there are some specific inclusive engagement requirements for street design projects.

Previous Page | Next Page