Appendix B: Perspectives of disabled street users on inclusive engagement

Appendix B: Perspectives of disabled street users on inclusive engagement

15. Introduction

15.1.1. This Appendix to the main research report entitled "Inclusive Design in Town Centres and Busy Street Areas" summarises the following:

• The engagement methodology used to undertake Stage 2 of the study consultation with disabled street users through a series of focus groups to discuss inclusive engagement approaches and public realm features that enable and disable them.
• The perspectives of disabled street users in relation to inclusive engagement.

16. Methodology for consulting with disabled street users

16.1 Overview and research approach

Approach

16.1.1. A focus group approach was adopted for undertaking the consultation with disabled street users. It was considered that this would allow the greatest opportunity to engage with a wide range of individuals and discuss inclusive design experiences and views face-to-face and in-depth. A survey or alternative quantitative approach would have been less effective at exploring the themes at the detailed level. It would also not have allowed for the same level of in-depth probing or follow-up explanations to be given by participants that the focus group format allowed.

16.1.2. It was determined that convening focus groups would potentially allow for engagement with a greater number of individuals within the research timeframe, compared to a one-to-one interview approach. It also allowed individuals with similar or shared street user experiences to discuss the themes together and compare / contrast their experiences.

Recruitment of participants

16.1.3. Recruitment took place throughout December 2019 and January 2020, primarily via email invitations to working group members and third sector organisations, who were invited to share information about the research with adults living with physical, sensory or other disabilities.

16.1.4. All participation was on a self-selection, opt-in basis, and all participants were asked to specify any communication or other support needs that would assist them in taking part. Copies of the research questions were issued to participants in advance in standard format and alternative formats of research materials were made available on the day of focus groups (including copies of the questions in Braille and large print formats). All sessions were recorded using digital voice recordings with the permission of those present.

16.1.5. A total of seven focus groups were convened:

• One group with individuals with a hearing impairment: Three participants took part, including one British Sign Language (BSL) user, one with a partial hearing impairment (using a hearing aid and assisted by an e-notetaker) and one representative from the Mobility and Access Committee for Scotland (MACS) with experience of engaging with those living with hearing impairments.
• Two groups with blind and visually impaired individuals: A total of 10 participants took part across the two groups, with impairments including full visual impairment, partial sight loss (both peripheral and central) and ongoing progressive sight loss. Five guide dog users took part and attended sessions with their dogs;.
• One group with deafblind individuals: Two adults attended, including one deaf guide dog owner using hearing aids and lip reading, and one older individual with progressive hearing and visual impairments.
• Two groups with individuals with reduced mobility: A total of eight participants took part, including one participant in an electric wheelchair, four long cane and crutch users, and three adult users of manual wheelchairs.
• One group with learning disabilities and those with non-visible disabilities: This included three adults with learning and physical disabilities, one older adult and three representatives of organisations that work with adults with dementia and other learning difficulties.

16.1.6. Although specific age data was not requested during recruitment, there was a reasonable mix in age of participants, (25y - 65y). The table below shows the total number of participants, by gender, across all groups:

	Group	Male	Female	Total
Group 1	Hearing Impairment Group	2	1	3
Group 2	Visually Impaired	3	4	7
Group 3	Blind and Visually Impaired	3	-	3
Group 4	Deafblind	1	1	2
Group 5	Reduced Mobility / Blind and Visually Impaired	3	1	4
Group 6	Reduced Mobility	3	1	4
Group 7	Learning Disabilities / Non-Visible Disabilities	5	2	7
Total		20	10	30

16.1.7. In addition, four separate communication professionals^[59] attended across different sessions, as well as one personal support assistant, and each contributed to the discussion to varying degrees. This included sharing their experiences of accompanying or working with adults with a range of disabilities in previous engagement activities, as well as more general observations of street design features that are enabling / disabling for assistants, when working with their clients. This offered valuable additional insight.

16.1.8. Many of those who attended focus group sessions also provided contact details for onward follow-up discussion of some of the more personal or nuanced issues (mainly around physical design measures) that they raised in group sessions (i.e. to allow group sessions to remain focussed and allow all those present to contribute, without conversations becoming side-tracked, yet still capturing unique individual experiences in the research).

16.1.9. All sessions were held at neutral and fully accessible venues with support put in place to enable maximum attendance. This included provisions for personal assistants, communication professionals to aid facilitation of discussions, booking of taxis to allow for independent travel and reimbursement of travel and other reasonable expenses, including lunch and refreshment provision. Participants received a £10 voucher in appreciation of their time and input^[60].

16.2 Research caveats

16.2.1. It is important to stress that the groups were not mutually exclusive. For example, one participant who chose to attend a session for those with visual impairments was deafblind and could have equally selected to take part in an alternative session. Similarly, one individual who took part in the group for those with reduced mobility was also deafblind but opted to join that group for ease of access. Indeed, a flexible approach was adopted to meet the individual preferences of all those who contributed, allowing them to join the session which they preferred.

16.2.2. While the numbers of participants may appear small, it is worth stressing that this part of the overall research project was qualitative in nature, the focus being on capturing breadth and depth of experience, rather than capturing large volumes of similar data. While increasing the overall numbers of participants may have introduced slightly more reliability and perhaps more nuanced or subtle variation to the main findings, it became clear towards the end of the fieldwork that a saturation point had been reached with regard to the main themes around inclusive engagement in particular.

16.2.3. As a qualitative exercise, it was also not appropriate to attempt to quantify the feedback, for example, by counting the number of times that different views were expressed across the groups or by stating the proportion of participants who did or did not agree with each of the different sentiments expressed. Instead, in reporting, it is the themes that arose most often which have been given the greatest weight and, where opposing or minority views were expressed, this is indicated in the text.

16.2.4. It should also be noted that while a broad range in views was sought, the researchers did not attempt to recruit a statistically representative sample. This would not have been appropriate for a qualitative exercise of this kind, nor would it have been possible since the demographic profile of the total eligible population for participation was not known (including the age profile). While there was some small differentiation in views expressed by some of the older and younger participants who attended sessions and between gender groups, this variation was negligible and did not impact directly on the main findings.

16.2.5. Finally, it is important to stress that, throughout the sessions, participants were asked to consider 'public realm projects', i.e. the design of public spaces, such as streets in urban areas. While this was the focus for sessions, there was some (perhaps inevitable) discussion of more rural and suburban street designs and experiences, reflecting the different areas of the country in which participants were resident (many living in rural and suburban areas out-with the Central Belt). Given the small volume of data that was generated in this regard, however it has been presented alongside the main findings, rather than being reported separately.

17. The perspectives of disabled street users in relation to inclusive engagement

17.1 Introduction

17.1.1. The first part of the focus group sessions concentrated on inclusive engagement within the context of street design, i.e. engagement which proactively and appropriately takes on board the full range and diversity of views that may be represented in communities and puts in place information and support to facilitate this.

17.1.2. All focus groups followed the same topic guide which was designed to guide discussions rather than structure them and additional topics were often raised naturally in the course of sessions, which were unprompted. The topic guide is presented in Appendix B.1.

17.1.3. The structure of this chapter follows the main themes covered by the topic guides, which were:

• Participants' previous participation in street design and reflections on their experience in previous engagement activities.
• Views on the most appropriate ways of inviting individuals to contribute to street design development / engagement activities.
• Views on what works in inclusive engagement (and what does not).
• How to make street designs more accessible / easier to understand.
• How to record individuals' contributions to engagement activities.
• Information and support that would assist people in getting involved in the design of public spaces.

17.1.4. The main findings (noted as 'key messages' received from the users) in relation to each theme are presented below and include participants' suggestions for 'good practice' (either current or potential) which could be used to inform the development of guidelines on inclusive engagement for street design in the future.

17.2 Existing engagement guidance

17.2.1. Comprehensive existing guidance on engagement exists. Examples include:

• National Standard for Community Engagement (2016)^[61].
• UK Government Community engagement: guidance for local authorities (2019)^[62].
• Engaging with disabled people: An event planning guide, EHRC (2018)^[63].
• Scottish Government, Shaping better places together: Research into the facilitation of participatory placemaking (2017)^[64].

17.2.2. Whilst the focus of this document is to reflect upon the user experience as reflected through the focus groups, the findings and draft recommendations were drawn up reflecting consideration of the existing guidance.

17.3 Previous participation and experience in street design

17.3.1. There was an equal split in terms of those participants who had previously engaged in public realm design projects and those who had not. Examples given included input to designs for many of the main streets in Glasgow and Edinburgh, as well as wider experience of consultation on large Scottish railway stations and airports.

17.3.2. Several participants had also input into recent decisions in Edinburgh to reduce use of A-Frames and other street clutter. Other participants had experience of advising on building designs for improved access or on making public transport services accessible but had no specific street design consultation experience.

The timing of when people are invited to get involved

17.3.3. Among those with previous experience, there was a consensus that they had typically been involved too late in the process i.e. once designs had already been developed. There was consensus that 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'. Initiating engagement before designers put pen to paper, ideally at concept stage, was seen as key.
Key Message (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.

17.3.4. Participants also described being 'listened to', but rarely being 'heard'. Many participants had experience of raising concerns about designs that had already been drawn up and the feeling that there was resistance to change them:

• Participant comment: "Often your concerns are sympathised with, but not acted upon, because it is too late." [blind male]

17.3.5. In addition to being invited to contribute to or comment on designs 'too late', there was consensus that voices / opinions and experiences were often not listened to. Even where people had been involved in developing design principles, or had commented on early plans, they felt their inputs were overlooked:

• Participant comment: "Every consultation I've ever been involved in, it seems as though they are very dismissive of the disability community, and they'll try and come in and sell you the idea, rather than hear from you. I've always felt like that." [visually impaired male]

Initiating contact

17.3.6. Many users highlighted the difference between being invited to contribute to designs or 'consulted' versus having to proactively contact local authorities to raise concerns and complaints. Views were put forward that individuals are often only listened to after problems emerge or when local authorities had identified something that was not working and wanted advice at a later stage.

17.3.7. In other cases, participants had been proactive in highlighting (what were in their view) street design errors / faults to authorities. Indeed, there was a view that disabled people and their advocates had to be proactive and use their own initiative to make any inroads to influencing practice. Tenacity was seen as key to being heard, but people should not feel it was an 'uphill struggle' - a more open-door policy is required.

Representative and proportionate input

17.3.8. The most common means of being invited to contribute to street design (and other) consultations were via Disabled People's Organisations (DPOs) or invitations issued via other large charitable organisations or equalities / access committees and disseminated to their members.

17.3.9. While using these groups as gatekeepers was seen by most to be an effective way of reaching a reasonably wide range of individuals (especially deafblind individuals), there was agreement that this can often lead to 'local' views being overlooked and more 'hidden' groups not being represented in engagement activities.

17.3.10. Often, such groups are served by volunteers and individuals with significantly more experience of engagement than the wider populations that they represent.

17.3.11. It was suggested that individuals who become disabled in later life (or were temporarily disabled) can have strong views as they are still assimilating the required personal adaptation required to their change in circumstances. Such individuals may have different views from those with longer-term impairments or experiences of impairments and are often more 'vocal' in their views which may not be representative.

17.3.12. The participants noted that a network of local access panels exists across Scotland (based on the perspectives of the focus group participants who are based in Scotland) which comprise of groups of local volunteers, including disabled people, who come together to improve access in their local communities. Local access panels, although welcomed as one means of gathering input to inclusive design, were criticised by others as being '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:

• Participant comment: "There is a string vest of organisations across the country that goes under the auspices of local access panels. But it is a string vest - it is full of holes. In different communities, it works to different degrees." [visually impaired male]

17.3.13. Concerns were raised by a minority of focus group attendees that there may currently be an over-reliance on local access panels and, in some cases, community councils to provide input and advice to design processes, but that this was again lacking in objectivity and representativeness. Local access panels could be supplemented by a wider list of individuals with personal knowledge gained through direct, first-hand experience of disability (covering a range of disabilities) who may be willing to be consulted as part of specific plans, but who are not interested in having more formal membership of a panel or being involved in consultation activities on a regular basis.
Key Message (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. Consulting with DPOs is welcomed, but input should be proportionate, and seeking views from only one interest group or one pan-disability group should be avoided. Adults with experience of living with an impairment(s) should be regarded as 'the experts'.

17.3.14. There were also perceptions that many planners, designers and local authorities have a narrow focus on what 'consultation' means, with some utilising their own internal accessibility officers to make assessments of plans and considering that this met equalities consultation requirements.

17.3.15. Participants welcomed the use of internal accessibility officers as a starting point, but it was highlighted that this practice can often be skewed or biased, especially if accessibility officers are inexperienced. More independent and objective feedback should be sought wherever possible.
Key Message (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.

17.3.16. Other examples were cited of planners / designers seeking the views of just one or two representatives of national organisations in what was described as being a rather 'tokenistic gesture.' Examples were given of one organisation offering a response and providing comments on 'general design features' and this being taken as affirmation or approval of designs, and thus interpreted by the designers as negating a need to consult more widely. Statements that plans had been 'approved' following conversations with just one (niche or pan-disability) organisation were commonplace and were seen as wholly unacceptable. This is especially true when some such organisations also act as service providers for sub-contracted services to the same local authorities who are overseeing plans / designs as there may be an inherent conflict of interest.

17.3.17. A point was made in several focus groups that the views and experiences of older people are also often overlooked because they are not considered to have a disability or be in need of particular attention.

17.3.18. Older adults were not considered to be a 'minority' by planners and designers, it was suggested, and so are often not seen as having needs that may be different from the majority of the population - a belief which several participants viewed as being misguided. Age related needs may include joint pain / fragility which can make walking on particular surfaces challenging, as well as issues associated with poor concentration in areas with high volumes of sensory stimulation, making it difficult to navigate busy street areas.

17.3.19. Generally poor or declining hearing and / or eyesight were also seen to affect large proportions of the older population, meaning that they may similarly struggle with many of the sensory challenges presented to those with more significant impairments. This lack of thought to the needs of the aging population was seen as a key oversight and older people and their representative organisations should also be included routinely in engagement.
Key Message (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 and one which may therefore be overlooked in traditional training and awareness raising around inclusive engagement and design principles. 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.

17.3.20. Several participants were also keen to highlight what they perceived to be an 'over-burdening' of disabled people, who are often sought out to give views on a wide variety of social issues (accessible street design being just one). Designers should avoid viewing disabled people as being there to provide "free expert advice" and be sensitive to demands on their time.

17.3.21. This was similar to views that access panels are also often seen as the 'go to' place for advice, with the same people being invited to contribute each time, but also perhaps highlights that providing opportunities for as many people as possible to take part is key, with individuals being able to choose, without obligation, those activities where they wish to have a say. By opening up consultation opportunities to a wider pool of individuals, there should be a reduction in consultation fatigue for any one group or individual:

• Participant comment: "It's important to safeguard individuals and their time." [female with reduced mobility]

17.3.22. A balance must be found so that people feel free to give an input through choice, rather than feeling obliged to give input by virtue of their personal circumstances / life experience. Rewarding individuals for their input and time was suggested and while most participants expressed a preference for small personal financial rewards, it was noted that other rewards, such as charitable payments, may also be appropriate. The latter would, perhaps, reduce the risks of bias which can be introduced where personal financial rewards are offered as incentives to take part. The use of prize draws may also offer a more cost-effective way of thanking participants in cases where it is not financially feasible to provide individual rewards for all.

17.3.23. Finally, participants expressed a preference for the notion of 'inclusive engagement' rather than 'consultation', since they perceived that consultation had fewer positive connotations, often referring to policies and plans that were close to being completed. Some participants indicated that they viewed 'engagement' implied a more interactive, two-way and ongoing discussion.

Advertising engagement opportunities

17.3.24. There was a shared view that opportunities to feed into plans and designs were often limited, and that advertisement of engagement opportunities was inadequate. Calls for inputs were seen as often being 'hidden' (e.g. on council websites) or as being advertised inappropriately. One blind or visually impaired participant gave an example of a newspaper advertisement calling for their input, i.e. written text which they were unlikely to (independently) see or read.

17.3.25. It was noted that a wide range of accessible communication routes do already exist, including numerous electronic and online communication tools, although there may be limited awareness of these. Suggestions were made, for example, for talking newspapers to advertise planning applications for those with visual impairments, e-books and use of YouTube or other online videos to reach a wide audience and engage them in design processes. Such resources can be easily tailored to reach either national or local audiences:

• Participant comment: "We're in an era where consultation and engagement should be far easier to manage, to get voices from different user groups and to get their experience." [male cognitive impairment organisation representative]

17.3.26. Although not unique to disabled people, overreliance on using internet advertising was highlighted and was seen as particularly problematic for those with sensory impairments, as well as older people, some of whom may not use or have access to the internet. While online sources do provide an adaptable and accessible communication route for some, they should never be the only route and complementary hard copy resources were welcomed, where required. Similar issues applied to what was seen as an ever-increasing reliance on social media and assumed access to smartphones, which presents challenges not only to disabled people, but to others too:

• Participant comment: "It's simply not good enough to say that you've used Facebook and Twitter. By all means use it, but also think about those who don't use social media." [dual sensory impaired male]

17.3.27. There was a difference, it was stressed, between 'access to' information and 'accessible' information; a distinction often not well understood by those undertaking engagement activities.
Key Message (FGE5): The promotion of consultation and engagement opportunities should be multi-sensory, with consideration given to using television (including sub-titles) 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.

17.4 How would disabled street users like to participate in street design?

Different engagement mechanisms

17.4.1. Participants' preferred methods of engagement were public or one-to-one, face-to-face meetings, to allow them to engage with the process more fully through asking questions of designers / planners in person and articulate on the spot the full range and complexity of their needs. Being able to ask questions was seen as essential and not easily facilitated by written engagement methods.

17.4.2. The deaf community in particular expressed the importance of face-to-face meetings since, for many, their first language was not English (some using BSL, Makaton, sign supported English, signed English, fingerspelling and lip reading, amongst others). The need to be present in the room with planners / designers to have plans interpreted for them and communicate their interests was seen as essential.

17.4.3. There were mixed views on whether 'disability specific' engagement events should be offered or whether inclusive events were preferred, where everyone could share views at the same time. Some individuals with communication challenges indicated that they would be overwhelmed in large group settings and would not be able to contribute sufficiently as a result, including feeling that they would be spoken 'over' or spoken 'about' rather than being spoken 'to':

• Participant comment: "Other people talk for us when we have the passion to speak for ourselves." [female with reduced mobility and learning disability]

17.4.4. Such individuals expressed a preference for one-to-one, individual interviews to make them feel more comfortable. This was also seen as necessary for those with a hearing impairment and those with communication requirements who need additional time to process information being translated quickly and who may miss the window of opportunity to respond or contribute in a large group setting, where others are able to respond or interject more quickly. Experience suggested that sessions were often not sufficiently well moderated to allow for delays in interpretation to be accommodated.

17.4.5. Others offered a counter view that it was helpful to share their views in a wide, diverse forum, not least to help raise awareness of what 'accessibility' and 'inclusion' meant among the wider public. Fully inclusive events would also make other street users more sensitive to the purpose of different design features when implemented:

• Participant comment: "I enjoy public consultations, and I enjoy watching people's face as they learn something new." [mobility and sensory impaired male]

17.4.6. It should be noted that many of those who attended working groups indicated that they themselves would be able to learn from fully inclusive events about the needs of a wide range of disabled people. They stressed that they would welcome this cross-over and knowledge exchange.

17.4.7. Managing numbers at consultation events was also seen as key to ensure that all voices were heard, but local residents, local businesses and people with accessibility needs were all seen as essential user groups to be consulted and should always be accommodated.
Key Message (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 disabled people and to share knowledge. But the number of people at consultation events needs to be managed to ensure all voices are heard.

Recording engagement inputs

17.4.8. Most participants who had experience of input to design processes were typically not advised how their input had been used.

17.4.9. Focus group participants described limited experience of receiving any feedback from their previous consultation inputs and described feeling like their views had "disappeared into a vacuum". Again, examples of good practice already exist, in particular in the fields of social and market research, which dictate that participants / contributors should always be given, as a minimum, information about how and where they can find out how their contributions have been used.

17.4.10. While the preferred means of receiving such feedback would be proactive, personal feedback given to individual contributors, it was recognised that this may not always be practical and that expectations should be managed. Contact details should, however, be made available to contributors to allow them to pursue follow-up information if desired.

17.4.11. Most focus group participants indicated that project timescales and budgets restricted such a feedback process at present, although others indicated it was lack of professionalism or common decency that acted as the barrier:

• Participant comment: "If people had to answer to their decisions, maybe they would be less likely to ignore us. I get the impression that they're never intending to use our information - they are simply there to tick a box." [mobility and sensory impaired male]

17.4.12. Providing explanations for not taking on board design suggestions was also seen as key. This explanation should ideally be provided in person, as well as in writing, to allow them to be translated / interpreted into different formats depending on individuals' needs. This was especially true in cases where different disability groups may put forward conflicting views. Understanding how these have been reconciled by design teams was seen as important so that people can see that a 'balanced' decision has been reached.
Key Message (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.

17.4.13. A related point was that those who undertake engagement and consultation are often too far removed from those who make the final decisions on what plans to implement, thus meaning that messages get lost as they move up the management hierarchy. Similarly, it was identified that while planners and designers may take on board feedback during consultations, messages may get lost at construction / implementation stage, especially where contractors and sub-contractors are involved.

17.4.14. Participants spoke of 'consultation hierarchies', with feedback from councillors and government officials being perceived as given more weight than feedback from residents, instead of all contributions being treated with equal importance.

17.4.15. Finally, views were expressed that local authorities often justify plans on the basis that they comply with 'existing guidance' (although no specific guidance was mentioned). Their perception was that such guidance was likely to be dated and not, therefore, suitable for informing current and future designs.

Financial barriers

17.4.16. A lack of finances was seen as the single biggest reason for not implementing recommendations or introducing design features that are more inclusive for disabled people. Penalties associated with changing plans and designs were similarly seen as something which meant that designers were reluctant to consult more widely in case it resulted in feedback that they could not ignore but could not afford to act upon.

17.4.17. Even where people had been consulted before contractors had been appointed or works had begun, the costs of resubmitting plans, as well as introducing the suggested design features, were both seen as prohibitive to taking views on board.

17.4.18. Views were expressed that there was a false economy in not carrying out robust inclusive engagement since the cost of changing and adapting street features after they have been built was often more costly than if they had been avoided in the first place (i.e. through correct engagement). Consulting earlier in the planning and design process could ultimately save money, but this principle may not be well recognised by designers / planners.
Key Message (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).

Time planning

17.4.19. Another common feature of discussions was that the amount of notice given for engagement or consultation activities was often too little. Participants described finding out about consultations often 'at the last minute'.

17.4.20. Participants indicated that, ideally, there should be a minimum of two months' notice ahead of any public engagement activities, to allow people time to prepare and plan ahead for their attendance (allowing them an opportunity to put in place transport plans, book support assistants to attend, request information in alternative formats, etc.).

17.4.21. This should be achievable if consultation activity is built into original project planning as standard, rather than be added as an afterthought once the other project activities have been scheduled. Disabled People's Organisations (DPOs) and access panels also often get together on a monthly or quarterly basis and could discuss opportunities at their regularly convened meetings, if sufficient notice was given.

17.4.22. For engagement events with specified dates, it was suggested that reminders should be issued to anyone expressing an interest in attending roughly one week ahead of the event. To make them 'inclusive', an absolute minimum of two weeks' notice for engagement events was suggested.
Key Message (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.

17.4.23. Almost all participants indicated that designers and planners offered unrealistic deadlines for people to feed into the process, and that this was often constrained by their own delivery deadlines:

• Participant comment: "Taking time to do proper engagement and consultation would have put the designers out of their work timetable that they presented to the local authority. That, alone, should never be justification for not engaging." [visually impaired male]

17.4.24. Building more time into the design and planning process as standard was seen as essential to overcome existing limitations of engagement as, without it, participants perceived consultation would remain a 'tick box exercise'.

Making plans accessible

17.4.25. Information about the anticipated changes, outcomes and impacts on different street users of any plans is required, as a minimum, to be conveyed in simple language without technical jargon and acronyms.

Articulating design

17.4.26. It was recognised by focus group members that one of the biggest challenges in current street design is trying to present a technical drawing to someone who has limited vision. Indeed, a key gap at present is suitable means of 'articulating design', allowing blind and visually impaired individuals a chance to access visual designs without relying on vision:

• Participant comment: "Meaningful consultation means not just standing up and presenting an architect's drawing…There needs to be some way of making what is a very busy, pictorial, diagrammatic format meaningful to somebody who has no sight and no way of understanding that information." [deafblind male]

17.4.27. Only two participants had experience of tactile drawings / representations and gave mixed feedback. These were seen as particularly challenging for those who have experienced blindness or have been visually impaired since birth and could not imagine how the plans would translate (but may be more accessible for those with progressive sight loss).
Key Message (FGE10): Plans should be interpreted into different formats (depending on the type of project this could 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.

17.4.28. A more general point was made 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):

• Participant comment: "Sometimes things, whether they are on a map or on a computer screen, are not the same as what they are 'live'. Well, that's my experience, anyway." [blind male]

17.4.29. There is a tendency for planners / designers to make maps and models visually appealing and to focus on aesthetic features of street design which, when implemented in practice, look less attractive and can be more difficult to navigate than that proposed (see discussions regarding street furniture, especially trees and hedges, below). 'Visual representations' were often caveated as being not entirely accurate, and sometimes the divergence between drawings and reality was particularly extreme, it was suggested:

• Participant comment: "I think if they're going to have artists impressions, then they should be closer to what the finished article is." [DPO representative]

17.4.30. Producing plans and designs in accessible formats (including any accompanying documentation) is seen as being an 'afterthought' for most planners / designers.

Key Message (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 new guidance, or revision of existing guidance, since there are a multitude of aids and supports already available to make designs more accessible - the main perceived issue by the focus groups being that they 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.

Walk-throughs

17.4.31. A preferred way of gaining meaningful feedback on designs for those with visual impairments was via means of on-site 'walk-throughs' (including the existing site) to discuss any future change proposals, wherever possible. For those without visual impairments, video walk-throughs and 3D Virtual Reality simulations were also seen as useful alternatives.

17.4.32. Similarly, if there are other areas where designs similar to those being proposed have been implemented, walk-throughs of these areas would be helpful. Walk-throughs were seen as particularly useful for those with guide dogs to show planners / designers how they would respond to different streetscapes:

• Participant comment: "Why can't we go out there? If we can go out there and put our canes down, put our dogs down, go for a walk, it would make such a big difference." [mobility and sensory impaired male]

17.4.33. Walk-throughs provide an opportunity to show how space is intended to be used but also allow street users to give feedback in situ of the limitations of plans and give better insight to how they may be disabling. This was seen as serving the dual purpose of improving street design while enlightening designers / planners too:

• Participant comment: "I think it would make quite a big difference to the consultants, as well, that are involved in the process…It would have quite a big impact to actually see the results of their lack of consultation, maybe." [DPO representative]

17.4.34. Suggestions were made that planners and designers should, when developing ideas, make use of SimSpecs^[65] that mimic various visual impairments and ear defenders that simulate hearing impairment to help them understand the experiences of different street users, and inform their plans.

17.4.35. Despite being popular, walk-throughs were not seen as being without fault. To maximise their utility, they should be employed with people with different levels of visual and sensory impairments, at different times of day (including night) and in different conditions (including low / high traffic flow, low / high pedestrian flow and different weather conditions, etc.). The experience of the space can also be different depending on whether users are accompanied by a friend / assistant, are with / without their guide dog or are completely alone, it was stressed.

17.4.36. Consideration also needs to be given to the needs of hearing-impaired users when implementing walk-through approaches, as extra time and space is needed for users to observe their interpreters / communicators as well as to look at the space being discussed. Mobile hearing aids and supports also need to be considered to facilitate on-site consultations with hearing impaired adults (for example, live video links with interpreters).
Key Message (FGE12): Use of walk-throughs should be encouraged for those with different forms of impairment; 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 sub-titles), where appropriate.

17.4.37. On a related point, walk-throughs can be good for highlighting to planners the value of 'milestones', 'landmarks' or 'markers' for those with visual impairments, it was stressed. These can be invaluable for adults with sight loss who often rely on tactile landmarks, as well as landmarks defined by other senses (e.g. smell) to navigate familiar spaces. If new street designs interfere with such markers, this can be disorientating, and a walk-through allows this to be highlighted.

17.4.38. Offering walk-throughs as complementary to more traditional engagement events / activities would seem important and may provide a means by which some individuals would prefer to get involved in the planning and design processes, i.e. instead of having to attend more formal events. The relative value of offering walk-throughs as complementary to more traditional engagement activities would vary on a project-by-project basis.

17.4.39. Overall, a better level of participation can be achieved through better preparation by consultants / designers, more accurate artist representations, use of walk-throughs and Virtual Reality as well as other mixed-sensory tools to support participants in understanding designs.

Handling materials

17.4.40. Several participants stressed the importance of people with sensory and mobility impairments being able to 'feel' or have 'hands on' exposure to various materials that are proposed for use in street design (including samples of tactile paving, examples of different coloured surfaces, etc.) Having a chance to interact with materials was seen as key in allowing people to envisage what designs might look and feel like in practice and should involve testing of different materials in different conditions (e.g. in light / dark / partial light conditions, different weather conditions, etc.).
Key Message (FGE13): Designers should seek to maximise the use of existing innovations in the presentation of plans and street designs, including adopting walk-throughs and allowing 'hands on' exposure to materials to be used.

Lack of awareness and understanding

17.4.41. There was a perceived lack of awareness and understanding around both the complexity and diversity of different disabilities and how to engage effectively / appropriately, with a narrow focus for engagement activities, as a result. Views were expressed among many that some planners and designers may 'fear' or be anxious about engaging with hard to reach groups. This fear may result from not knowing how best to meet the needs of different street users in communication and so result in avoidance. It was highlighted that the fear of engaging needs to be tackled:

• Participant comment: "There's a lot of misunderstanding about what 'people with a disability' means, and I think a lot of planners think only of someone in a wheelchair." [Mobility Access Committee representative]

17.4.42. Overall, the diversity of the disabled community was described as wide and complex, with very limited awareness among the general public per se around the full range of needs that require to be considered in effective engagement. This limited awareness was reflected among street design professionals too:

• Participant comment: "People tick the box when they think they've done enough, which is often very superficial." [visually impaired male]
  
  Key Message (FGE14): Increase awareness 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.

17.4.43. One way to achieve this is through better training of future planners and designers, as well as engaging those already in post (including local authority staff):

• Participant comment: "The planners who are planning these things, in general, they have no mobility training whatsoever, and yet they are planning for us." [visually impaired male]

17.4.44. Views were given that existing equalities training is not sufficient, making up only a very small part of what planners and designers are taught as part of their formal education. It was perceived that few local authority staff, including planners, are required to undertake robust equalities training.

17.4.45. Several participants also 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.

• Participant comment: "The local authorities know who to contact, they just choose not to." [visually impaired male]

17.4.46. Improving training and making it a requirement for more staff involved in local planning and design processes is also seen as potentially alleviating current problems with staff turnover and negative attitudes. Participants gave examples of having previously worked well with named officers in local authorities who were well versed in equalities and diversity, but who moved on and were replaced by staff with less knowledge or expertise in the field.
Key Message (FGE15): Training should be introduced for planners and designers in inclusive design principles, including how to approach inclusive engagement. This should include teaching around current technical advances and products to aid accessibility as well as coverage of equalities legislation. Greater training may reduce the risk of 'professional snobbery' and reduce the reluctance for designers to engage with disabled street users.

17.5 Other considerations for inclusive engagement

The importance of ongoing and regular engagement

17.5.1. Engagement should not just be 'one off'. Participants stressed the point that ideally, at various stages (i.e. beginning, middle and end), it should include specialists and people with personal knowledge gained through direct, first-hand experience of disability. This includes:

• Input to the design of engagement tools / activities.
• Direct contribution to the consultation / engagement activities as participants.
• Being invited to review the findings from the consultation before changes to the design or plans are made.
• Monitoring and evaluation of the outcomes / impacts of the engagement work and any design changes (and design implementation) over the short, medium and long term.

17.5.2. Participants agreed that, in any future consultations, it is not enough to say that everyone was given a chance to contribute: there should be proactive and visible efforts to try to recruit people from different interest groups. The difference between 'consulting' people and 'involving' people is key: for the work to have maximum impact, disabled street users should be involved in planning at every stage^[66]. Continuous engagement would lead to continuous improvements.
Key message (FGE16): Engagement should be understood as a multi-stage process and invite ongoing contributions from those affected by proposed changes.

17.5.3. Participants noted that people should also be given an 'option' to be 'kept in the loop' (recognising that some may not wish to have ongoing engagement). This would address current concerns that often only large organisations^[67] and official committees receive updates and feedbacks on plan / design developments (rather than individual contributors), which can make some people feel that they are being 'excluded' from the process after making their initial contributions. As a minimum, participants should expect to be told how their contributions will be used and be provided with information on how and where they can access information about project progress following (and linked to) their input.
Key message (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).

Communication preferences and needs

17.5.4. 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.

17.5.5. It was reported that, even where information is sent in advance of consultation events, including plans, maps, etc. (even in alternative formats), often further information can be presented 'on the day' which is not in accessible formats and which participants have not been given a chance to digest. This includes presentations reliant on PowerPoint which are most often not accessible. Sending videos to contributors in advance of meetings was suggested, to allow them to be 'up to speed' with any information presented in person.
Key message (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.

17.5.6. Communication professionals who were present in the groups suggested that, based on their own experience, there was limited contact from planners, designers or local authorities in relation to exploring communication options and supports available to aid consultation activities or to make plans accessible.

17.5.7. A wide range of needs were represented across the groups, including a diverse mix of communication needs. Collectively there was a consensus view that all communication regarding engagement opportunities, invitations to contribute to designs and materials used in engagement activities should be made available in a range of alternative formats including (as a minimum):

• large print;
• easy read;
• braille; and
• spoken word.

At events, consideration should be given to the need for access to (as a minimum):

• Induction and hearing loops.
• BSL interpreters.
• Tactile communicators.
• Screen reader software.
• E-notetakers or palantypists.
• Typetalk / TextDirect.

17.5.8. Support to take part in engagement over the phone and provision of information in other languages was also highlighted. Other specialised communication preferences, including haptics, were also highlighted, i.e. non-verbal communication that allows people to interact via the sense of touch. It was recognised, however, that demand for these alternatives is less common.

17.5.9. Importantly, it was stressed that organisers of engagement events should not make assumptions about the needs that will be represented. This can be costly and result in unnecessary expenditure (for example, provision of BSL, where no BSL users are present). The important thing, therefore, is to ask all those attending or planning to attend engagement events what their individual needs are to allow events to be tailored appropriately.
Key Message (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.

17.5.10. Other practical issues were also raised. Knowing who is in the room can be empowering in discussions but is something that is not always apparent to those with sight loss, it was stressed. The simple courtesy of allowing people in the room to know who else is present and what interests are represented is key.

17.5.11. A final key point is that participants wanted to be able to contribute independently, wherever possible. Enabling and empowering people to contribute without having to rely on assistance, or getting others to ask questions on their behalf, or read documents aloud, etc., was seen as key. This links to earlier comments made about the need to offer both fully inclusive events to meet the preferences of some, while also offering more tailored events for those who feel more comfortable engaging in smaller groups with people who have shared disability experiences. Offering choice was the underlying theme to emerge rather than offering only one means of contributing.

Practical preferences and needs

17.5.12. A crucial point on making engagement inclusive was the need for organisers to offer appropriate accessible venues to facilitate involvement of a full range of street users' views. Examples were given of public consultation events that precluded disabled people by virtue of being held in non-accessible buildings.

17.5.13. As a minimum, venues should be accessible by public transport, have accessible parking, have vehicle drop-off available close to the building, have accessibility ramps and step-free access, and have suitable toilet facilities. Sufficient space to accommodate wheelchairs of different sizes / models, as well as guide dogs was also seen as key.
Key Message (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.

17.5.14. At present, engagement events are often only made accessible by DPOs stepping in to assist their members in accessing transport, assistants and other suitable supports to allow them to attend. Organisers of events should be equipped to do this directly, to reduce burdens on DPOs and to place responsibility for inclusive engagement with those organising events. Direct experience of running truly inclusive engagement would 'upskill' planners and designers, it was suggested, and so have intrinsic value in itself.

Utilising existing guidance

17.5.15. A wealth of advice and guidance already exists around effective and inclusive engagement. Participants agreed that there was no need to 'reinvent the wheel', but rather to signpost and make planners and designers aware of the good practice that already exists.

17.5.16. The list of existing engagement guidance is included at the start of this document in section 3.2.

17.6 Wider considerations

Public education and awareness raising

17.6.1. Participants were keen to stress that, while inclusive engagement in the planning and design process may result in more user-friendly public and shared spaces, this alone would be insufficient to ease concerns about the public realm being and feeling safe. In particular, it was seen as important to make the general public even more aware of how different street features should be used, e.g. cycle lanes, controlled and uncontrolled crossings, dropped kerb, refuge islands, etc.

• Participant comment: "It's a case of education - people in this country simply aren't aware." [male with reduced mobility]

17.6.2. One of the main perceived dangers of new street designs was the failure of other road users to alert sensory and other impaired street users to their presence (for example, not hearing bikes approaching from behind, not hearing slow moving vehicles, etc.). Educating the general public about the need to be considerate street and road users was seen as going hand-in-hand with making designs more accessible.
Key Message (FGE21): New schemes and changes to street designs 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, cyclists and drivers - to ensure that the space is used as intended.

17.6.3. More generally, educating the general public around non-visible disabilities was seen as particularly important in order to challenge what was seen as the mainstream misconception that disability relates only to physical impairments.

Valuing pedestrians

17.6.4. Several participants were reliant on walking, wheeling and public transport as their main mode of travel, given the nature of their impairment, which precluded them from driving or cycling independently. Several participants spoke of feeling 'undervalued' as pedestrians and suggested that there is a general perception that pedestrians were at the bottom of the road user hierarchy, with private car drivers and commercial vehicle drivers often at the top followed by cyclists. There is a need for local authorities, in particular, to place more value on the pedestrian and value them as equally valid street users:

• Participant comment: "Our world is geared towards motorists. Pedestrians are not economically viable." [blind female]

Key Message (FGE22): Engagement activities should include proportionate representation from pedestrians as well as cyclists and vehicle users to ensure that all voices are equally heard.

Supporters of active travel

17.6.5. Several participants were keen to stress that they were supporters of active travel and so did not, in principle, reject aspirations of planners to increase the active travel infrastructure and encourage more walking and cycling.

17.6.6. The biggest concern was that some of the early attempts at creating 'shared space' (as a street design concept) had been ignorant of the wide range of users' needs, and there was concern that these may nonetheless be used as 'exemplars of 'positive' shared space when, in reality, they were disabling for many street users.

17.6.7. Some participants stressed the dangers of developing 'templates' for shared spaces which are replicated across the country, without considering whether they had been effective in meeting users' needs. There was a genuine concern that (in their view) some mistakes in street design that had already been made in certain locations around Scotland might be copied elsewhere without cognisance of the limitations of the design principles:

• Participant comment: "What I have seen is that some street designs are really restricting the active travel choices of some disabled people and I am really concerned that that becomes the vanguard that people are aspiring too, because it is really problematic." [deafblind male]

17.6.8. Overall, there was agreement between the focus groups that it would be very difficult to 'please all of the people all of the time' but that it should be possible to reach a consensus among most. Key to this is diversity and transparency in the consultation / engagement process and communicating clearly in appropriate ways the basis on which decisions have been taken.

18. Inclusive engagement – summary and conclusions

18.1.1. The key messages drawn from the disabled street user engagement are included in the table below alongside a review of the alignment between the key message and existing guidance.

Table 3 – Key messages from disabled street user focus groups on inclusive engagement

Nr	Key message	Review against existing guidance
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.	Covered under existing guidance, including "The National Standards for Community Engagement", "Shaping better places together: Research into facilitating participatory placemaking", "Community engagement: guidance for local authorities", and "New Conversations 2.0: LGA guide to engagement".
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. Consulting with DPOs is welcomed, but input should be proportionate, and seeking views from only one interest group or one pan-disability group should be avoided.	Covered under existing guidance. This aligns with the 'Inclusion' and 'Communication' standards set out within the "National Standards for Community Engagement".
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.	Covered under existing guidance. Aligns with the 'Planning' standard set out within "National Standards for Community Engagement" as well as in the 'Trust and Democracy' section of "New Conversations 2.0: LGA guide to engagement".
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 and one which may therefore be overlooked in traditional training and awareness raising around inclusive engagement and design principles. 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.	Covered under existing guidance, specifically "Engaging with disabled people: An event planning guide". The LGA guide to engagement and "Shaping Better Places Together" report specify the need to consider how to engage with 'hard-to-reach' or seldom heard communities. This is covered more broadly by the Inclusion Standard of the NSfCE.
FGE5	The promotion of consultation and engagement opportunities should be multi-sensory, with consideration given to using television (including sub-titles) 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.	The need for objective and representative input is covered under existing guidance including "New Conversations 2.0: LGA guide to engagement" (Section 1: The Basics), "Community engagement: guidance for local authorities" and the 'Communication' standard set out within the "National Standards for Community Engagement".
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 disabled people and to share knowledge. But the number of people at consultation events needs to be managed to ensure all voices are heard.	Covered under existing guidance. 'Age' is a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010 and therefore the same approach to age-related issues should be taken as proposed for disability. The guidance provided by "Engaging with disabled people: An event planning guide" may be considered appropriate.
FGE7	Contributions to design processes should be formally recorded, with contributors 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 practice.	Covered under existing guidance, specifically "Engaging with disabled people: An event planning guide".
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).	Covered under existing guidance. This aligns with the 'Inclusion' and 'Communication' standards set out within the "National Standards for Community Engagement" as well as "New Conversations 2.0: LGA guide to engagement" (Section 1: The Basics).
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.	Covered under existing guidance, specifically under the 'Communication' standard, which is one of the seven standards of the "National Standards for Community Engagement".
FGE10	Plans (depending on the type of project this could computer visualisation, tactile plans, 3-dimensional models and different coloured plans) should be interpreted into different formats so that people can independently make an assessment of them instead of being reliant on someone else to interpret on their behalf.	Covered under existing guidance, specifically under the 'Planning' standard of the "National Standards for Community Engagement" which states the need for involving partners at the start of the process and ensuring there are sufficient resources to undertake effective engagement.
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 new guidance, or revision of existing guidance, since there are a multitude of aids and supports already available to make designs more accessible - the main perceived issue by the focus groups being that they 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.	Covered under existing guidance. This aligns with the Planning standard set out within the "National Standards for Community Engagement" and is also covered in other guidance such as "Engaging with disabled people: An event planning guide".
FGE12	Use of walk-throughs should be encouraged for those with different types of impairment; 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 sub-titles), where appropriate.	Covered under existing guidance. This aligns with the Planning standard set out within the "National Standards for Community Engagement" and is also covered in other guidance such as "Engaging with disabled people: An event planning guide".
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.	Covered under existing guidance. This aligns with the Planning standard set out within the "National Standards for Community Engagement" and is also covered in other guidance such as "Engaging with disabled people: An event planning guide".
FGE14	Increase awareness 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.	Covered under existing guidance. The Methods standards of the "National Standards for Community Engagement" states that methods used should be appropriate for the purpose of the engagement.
FGE15	Training should be introduced for planners and designers in inclusive design principles, including how to approach inclusive engagement. This should include teaching around current technical advances and products to aid accessibility as well as coverage of equalities legislation. Greater training may reduce the risk of 'professional snobbery' and reduce the reluctance for designers to engage with disabled street users.	Covered under existing guidance. The Methods standards of the "National Standards for Community Engagement" states that methods used should be appropriate for the purpose of the engagement. Walk-throughs are one specific example of a design engagement method and therefore their use should be considered alongside a wide range of other methods. 'Walk & Talk' site visits are mentioned in the "Shaping Better Places Together" report.
FGE16	Engagement should be understood as a multi-stage process and invite ongoing contributions from those affected by proposed changes.	The considerations for undertaking engagement with people with a range of disabilities is covered within "Engaging with disabled people: An event planning guide". "Inclusive Mobility" identifies the need for improving awareness of the wide spectrum of disability and relevant training.
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).	Covered under existing guidance. The "Shaping Better Places Together" report states that engagement facilitation is a skill set which is primarily based on experience, although it can be enhanced by training. The report highlights the lack of training for facilitators as an existing issue in Scotland. "Engaging with Disabled People" states that disability equality and deaf awareness training for engagement staff is "essential".
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.	The Basics section of "New Conversations 2.0: LGA guide to engagement" discusses the benefits of continuous engagement.
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.	"Covered under existing guidance. The 'How to choose the right level of engagement' of "New Conversations 2.0: LGA guide to engagement" discusses different ways for people to contribute to the engagement process.
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.	The 'Working Together' standard of the "National Standards for Community Engagement" states that different methods of communication should be used to meet the needs of all participants."
FGE21	New schemes and changes to street designs 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, cyclists and drivers - to ensure that the space is used as intended.	Covered under existing guidance. This aligns with the Planning standard set out within the "National Standards for Community Engagement" and is also covered in other guidance such as "Engaging with disabled people: An event planning guide".
FGE22	Engagement activities should include proportionate representation from pedestrians as well as cyclists and vehicle users to ensure that all voices are equally heard.	Covered under existing guidance. This aligns with the Planning standard set out within the "National Standards for Community Engagement" and is also covered in other guidance such as "Engaging with disabled people: An event planning guide".

Appendix B.1

Focus group guide

Focus group – blind and partially sighted users
Theme A - approaches to engagement

Introduction

Thank you for meeting with us today as part of a research project for Transport Scotland, the Scottish Government and Department for Transport about inclusive engagement in street design projects. I am an independent researcher who has been asked to carry out this work - I do not work for the Scottish Government or Transport Scotland.

The conversation today is informal and should be relaxed - we are simply interested in hearing your views and learning about your experience of inclusive engagement. There are no right or wrong answers and you are not obliged to answer any questions that you do not want to.

Any personal information, like your contact details that you have given to us, will be held according to the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). This means that it will be kept completely confidential and will not be shared with anyone outside of the research team. All personal information will be deleted at the end of the project.

With your permission, we would like to voice record this session today. We will treat all of your comments anonymously and will never use your name when reporting our findings.

Once the project is complete, the recording will be destroyed.

At the end of the session, we would like to give you a gift token to thank you for your time. We can also reimburse any reasonable travel expenses incurred by you to attend today (this includes anyone who has accompanied you to this session).

Before we start, can I just check that you have received and read the information sheet (copy sent in advance), that you understand what taking part will involve, how your feedback will be used, and that you are content to continue (verbal consent)? Please let me know if you have any questions.

Start of exercise

To begin with, I should make clear that we appreciate that some of you may have a greater deal of experience in public engagement for street design, compared to others in the group. We are keen to hear your views, regardless of your level of experience, even if you have no experience at all.

We are using the term 'public realm projects' during this exercise. You may be unfamiliar with this term, but it refers to the design of public spaces, such as streets in urban areas. It is important to ensure that such spaces meet the needs of their users, that they are accessible and do not present any barriers to using the space.

The feedback you provide today will help us to establish best practice principles, which designers can use in the future when speaking with people about public realm projects.

1

Question 1. Have you ever been involved in public realm project design before? (i.e. have you had a say in how public spaces are designed?)

Yes / No

If Yes: Discuss questions 2A

If No: Discuss question 2B

2A

A. What are the main reasons why you have not previously been involved in public realm designs / engagement before? [Prompt: Have you ever been asked?]

B. What have been the main barriers to your involvement?

2B

What public realm project was it?

When was it?

In what way(s) did you get involved? (for example, made a written contribution, attended a public meeting, or attended an engagement event?)

3B

A. How did you find out about the public realm project in your area? [Prompts: Online, letter, TV/Radio, word of mouth]

B. When you found out about the project, was this at the right time, too late or too early? [Prompt: Why do you say that?]

4B

A. Did you contribute to the design brief (i.e. prior to the initial design) or was your involvement later in the project?

B. Did the design team set out how the design would be developed and how your views would be taken into account?

C. If your views weren't taken forward in the design, was the reason for this explained to you? If so, how was this done?

D. After the initial contact with the design team, how often did they re-engage with you, if at all?

5B

A. What were the good things / positive aspects of your overall experience or involvement in the design process?

B. What were the negative aspects / weaknesses of your overall experience or involvement in the design process?

ALL attendees will be asked the following questions…

We would now like you to think about your future involvement in public realm design…

6

A. In the future, how would you like to find out about public realm projects in your area? [Prompts: Online, letter, word of mouth]

B. When would you like to be invited to get involved in the design process? [Prompt: Before initial design / later in the design process]

C. What would be the best way for designers / design teams to invite you to get involved in the design process?

7

A. In the future, what more could design teams do to make the designs easier for you to interpret / understand?

B. In the future, what types of information would you like to know if you were getting involved in the design of a public realm project?

C: What kinds of support would you need for you to get involved in the design of a public realm project? [Prompt: Information in alternative formats, events that follow a particular format?]

D. What would be the best way to record your involvement in the design process? [Prompt: By email, letter, audio file, another format]

Concluding remarks

Thank you again for taking part in this work, and for sharing your views and experiences with us.

I do not have any further questions for you.

Is there anything else that you would like to add about your own experience of involvement in public realm design projects, or about inclusive engagement in general, that I have not given you a chance to say?

If you do think of anything else you would like to add, you can contact the research team at any time using the email or telephone number on the information sheet that was given to you.

Thank you.

Previous Page | Next Page