Appendix D: Designer, implementer and promoter perspectives

Appendix D: Designer, implementer and promoter perspectives

Introduction

24.3 Background to the project

24.3.1. This Appendix to the main research report entitled 'Inclusive Design in Town Centres and Busy Street Areas' summarises the consultation with designers, implementers and promoters. The consultation was undertaken through a series of one-to-one consultations and online surveys to understand how designers, implementers and promoters consider inclusive engagement and design.

25. Overview of the research methodology

25.1 Introduction

25.1.1. The experience and views of designers, implementers and promoters were considered as part of this research. We have defined designers, implementers and promoters as follows:

• Designers - designers of street design schemes.
• Implementers - local authorities commissioning and overseeing the delivery of public realm schemes.
• Promoters - budget holders and funders of public realm schemes, who are not local authorities.

25.1.2. This research group is actively involved in the design and delivery of projects which alter the built environment in some way. Therefore, their role in designing and / or delivering schemes has a direct or indirect effect on users and their ability to access and navigate through public spaces and streets.

25.1.3. An online consultation approach was undertaken to engage with designers, implementers and promoters. It was considered that this would allow the greatest opportunity for different parties to contribute to the research.

25.1.4. The online survey comprised a series of open questions (Appendix D.1) that allowed participants to respond in detail to the questions that were most relevant to their role. This approach allowed for themes to be identified from the participants, as well as identifying any variation between participants' profession, sector and geographic region.

25.1.5. Online participants were invited to leave their contact details if they wished. This allowed for additional one-to-one interviews to be undertaken to further explore the qualitative survey responses, where necessary. A number (n=7) of one-to-one interviews were subsequently undertaken and the additional information provided has been incorporated into the survey findings presented in Section 7.2.

Overview of the survey period

25.1.6. The online survey was open from 29 January to 16 February 2020. The research team were contacted by several participants who requested a short extension to the submission deadline, which was granted. The last submission was received on 18 February 2020.

Survey participants

25.1.7. Promotion of the online survey was focussed to ensure that it received contributions only from designers, implementers and promoters. Candidate organisations were approached and asked to circulate the survey within closed groups. It should be noted there was no obligation by these organisations to circulate / promote the survey if they chose not to. The full list of candidate organisations originally targeted is presented below (*denotes organisations that confirmed wider circulation of the survey):

• RTPI - The Royal Town Planning Institute.
• ADEPT* - The Association of Directors of Environment, Economy, Planning & Transport.
• SCOTS* - Society of Chief Officers of Transportation in Scotland.
• Sustrans*.
• Living Streets.
• RIBA - Royal Institute of British Architects.
• RIAS - The Royal Incorporation of Architects in Scotland.
• A&DS- Architecture and Design Scotland.
• NRAC* - National Register of Access Consultants.
• CIHT* - Chartered Institution of Highways and Transportation.
• HOPS* - Heads of Planning Scotland.
• ICE - Institution of Civil Engineers.

25.1.8. In total, 106 responses were received. Table 12 to 15 below provide a summary of the composition of the designers, implementers and promoters study group. Any survey submissions which did not provide written responses to any of the open questions (Q6 to Q12) were removed from the analysis (76 in total). This reduced the total number of valid responses to 30 responses.

Table 12 - Q1. Are you responding as:

Category	Number	Percentage (%)
Individual	10	33%
Public Sector Organisation	11	37%
Private Company	9	30%
	30	100%

25.1.9. As shown in Table 13, the main role of the majority of participants was consultant or designer.

Table 13 - Q2. What is your or your organisation's role in the design process? (please tick all that apply):

Role	Number	Percentage (%) (n=30)
Consultant / Designer	21	64%
Standard / Guidance Body / Organisation	2	6%
Statutory Authority	8	24%
Promoter / Implementer - Non-Government	1	3%
Promoter / Implementer - Local Government	8	24%
Promoter / Implementer - Regional Government	-	0%
Promoter / Implementer - National Government	-	0%
Promoter / Implementer - Regional Transport authority	1	3%

25.1.10. Table 14 shows that the survey participants, as a group, covered a broad range of technical areas of expertise.

Table 14 - Q3. What is your / your organisation's area of expertise? (please tick all that apply)

Role	Number	Percentage (%) (n=30)
Urban Design	14	42%
Landscape Architecture / Urban Designer	13	39%
Engagement / Stakeholder management	13	39%
Transport Planning	10	30%
Town Planning	10	30%
Highway / Civil Engineer (Designer)	10	30%
Master Planning	8	24%
Access Consultancy	7	21%
Multi-disciplinary consultancy	6	18%
Building Services	4	12%
Architecture	3	9%

25.1.11. As shown in Table 15, the majority of participants were based in Scotland and practiced in Scotland. Approximately one third of participants were based in England, with over one third of participants practicing in England.

Table 15 – Q4 & Q5. Please say where is your main base of work and place of work for undertaking Public Realm work

Location	Number	Base of work (%) (n=30)	Number	Place of work (%) (n=30)
England	10	33%	11	37%
Scotland	18	60%	18	60%
Wales	1	3%	0	0%
Northern Ireland	1	3%	1	3%
Outside of the UK	0	0%	0	0%

25.2 Limitations to the designers / implementers / promoters research

25.2.1. The online survey sought to allow designers, implementers and promoters the opportunity to outline their approaches to inclusive engagement and design, as well as the challenges they face. This was achieved through the use of open questions. Therefore, the analysis of survey responses is purely qualitative, with main themes identified, rather than being quantitative in nature.

25.2.2. Based on a review of the responses provided, it is considered by the research team that approximately 25% of the participants to the open questions had a good level of appreciation (depth, breath and level of response) of inclusive design and / or engagement. There was representation from each role within this sub-group. The other participants to the online survey had less confidence in their responses in particular with regards to inclusive engagement. This outcome could in itself illustrate the disparity in the level of experience in the wider industry and the need for improvement. This may require further consideration.

25.2.3. It should also be acknowledged that the response rate per question varied as all questions were optional. Some questions were answered by more participants than others. The level and detail of responses also varied between questions. Despite this, all relevant responses were considered to inform the research findings and conclusions.

25.2.4. Throughout the research project as a whole, opportunities were taken (where appropriate or requested) for one-to-one engagement. This approach was also extended to designers, implementers and promoters. To enhance the findings of the online survey, additional one-to-one interviews were undertaken to better examine and consolidate the underlying issues which emerged from the survey responses. The review of the survey findings highlights where these additional conversations were used to assist with interpreting the online survey responses (as necessary).

26. Approaches to engagement

26.1 Introduction

26.1.1. The findings of the survey and additional engagement relating to approaches to engagement are presented in this section. The survey questions covered under this section are Questions 6 to 9.

26.2 Question 6

Q6. Please define your current approach to public engagement to inform the inclusive street design development process. Can you outline how you have planned, promoted, recorded these public engagements to make them inclusive for the community, in particular for disabled people and other vulnerable street users or similar?

26.2.1. 29 responses were received regarding the approach each organisation has towards public engagement, and responses could be grouped into four key themes.

• Forms of engagement.
• Proportionate engagement.
• Funding requirements.
• Education and training.

26.2.2. The responses relating to each of these issues are summarised below.

Forms of engagement

26.2.3. Responses suggest that the most common forms of engagement are public and stakeholder engagements by way of open-access consultation activities and focussed workshops with invited participants.

26.2.4. Among participants, several had developed their own strategy when approaching engagement. These strategies had been based upon their own previous experience, or from working alongside / with other engagement groups, as well as from the processes set out in the Scottish National Standards for Community Engagement^[75].

26.2.5. Key individuals and organisations generally involved in the engagement groups were local authorities, local organisations, individuals with local experience and disability groups.

26.2.6. Engagement examples undertaken by participants were proportionate to the scale of the specific project or programme and included:

• Setting up inclusive design working groups for the duration of a project.
• Full day conferences for disabled stakeholders who wish to input their views in early stages of design.
• Organised 'walkabouts' with small groups of disabled stakeholders to understand how each of them uses the streets and spaces and what needed to be tackled.

Access panels / project steering groups

26.2.7. Access panels include local groups made up of pan-disability representation. Several of the participants (designers and engineers) engage with the local Access Panels and run steering groups to ensure each relevant project is able to mitigate any local issues which form key barriers for disabled groups.

26.2.8. Access panels were identified by the participants as being particularly successful in allowing people to contribute fully to the project during the initial stages of planning and design. These groups provide a valuable insight that may otherwise not be incorporated into the design. Access panels are also invited by some designers to audit the outcome once construction has ended:

• Participant comment: "As part of construction process auditing, we invite experts / local panels in order to deal with any faults and collect information for lessons learnt." [principal designer]

26.2.9. The survey responses indicate that local panels are regularly involved in engagement events and are often asked by various bodies to take part in new projects.

26.2.10. In one-to-one discussions with two participants, they outlined that they had developed a working relationship with the local Access Panel; they regularly attended meetings and presented to them. The two participants valued the local perspective and broad range of disabilities that the Panel represented, as well as allowing for national disability organisations perspectives to be reviewed in context with other disabilities.
Key Message (DIP1): Form an inclusive design working / steering group (in absence of an active Access Panel) at the project inception stage of any project or programme which may result in alterations to the public realm. This working group will then be able to discuss and agree on the relevant users to be represented, the appropriate forms of engagement required to be undertaken, as well as the timing and scale of engagement activities.

Collaborative design

26.2.11. Collaborative design has potential to help put disabled and vulnerable users at the heart of the decision-making process. Designers, consultants and authorities have been implementing these schemes and setting up a joint governance structure between the stakeholders that includes representation from local Access Panels. According to some of the participants, it has been found that this form of working is most effective for large-scale projects where all groups must come together with equal opportunity to input their views and needs throughout the project:

• Participant comment: "Meaningful engagement and collaborative design are undertaken at all stages of the project from inception to construction." [principal designer]

26.2.12. This approach also reduces the intrinsic barriers and loss of information between the different stakeholders. As one respondent identified, on occasion local authorities do not get enough information from discussions between designers / consultants and vulnerable users, which translates into a lack of understanding from the decision makers of the needs and insight of disability groups.

26.2.13. In one-to-one discussions with one participant, they indicated that their approach was less collaborative, involving consultation only, as they considered this approach to be more successful in informing design, and not setting expectations that the needs of all disabilities as well as other street functions (e.g. movement of traffic) can be achieved between existing building lines. It also allowed them to take a view on conflicting needs between different disability perspectives.
Key Message (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.

Place standard tool

26.2.14. Several strategies are used to initiate engagement in events, with a number of participants mentioning that the Place Standard Tool^[76] has been used effectively in informing discussion and appreciation of other perspectives with stakeholders, councils and community groups.

26.2.15. The Place Standard Tool is widely used by several organisations to initiate the interactive activities when running workshops and events with people from different organisations and disabilities, as it helps all parties understand the differences each person faces within the same situational context. This approach can highlight the measures which are considered beneficial for some groups, but which can have a negative impact on others. This tool can therefore help inform discussions between parties in a way that assists in collaboration / dialogue to identify potential options which may have a more positive outcome for more people:

• Participant comment: "Experience of using the Place Standard Tool has given the local community a voice in the process as they can easily demonstrate the issues they face as well as suggesting ways of changing those issues." [local government officer]

26.2.16. Participants identified that all the different forms of engagement discussed were most successful when implemented in the early stages of the project (RIBA Stages 1 and 2) and carried throughout the lifecycle of the project.
Key Message (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 scheme options development process.

Proportionate engagement

26.2.17. A number of participants stated that the scale of their engagement approach was dependent on the size or scale of the project. However, their view was that although the scale and strategies may vary, engagement should always include all vulnerable groups' insights and start in the early stages of the project, then be maintained throughout the lifecycle of the project:

• Participant comment: "Holistic approach to public engagement, with the scale dependent on the size of the project. Generally, engagement has included two elements: stakeholder and public. Stakeholder engagement includes key individuals and organisations impacted by the scheme and who could dictate the success of the scheme." [principal designer - multi-disciplinary consultancy]

26.2.18. It was widely accepted that the level of promotion of events would also depend on the type of event that was being held, but would typically include promotion via the project website, social media, local press, posters throughout the project area, leaflets to residents, posters in windows, pop-up tents in the street, stakeholder communications channels, phone calls and emails.

26.2.19. In the one-to-one interviews, one organisation outlined the extensive community engagement programme they had undertaken, which included early engagement, 'walkabouts' and regular engagement with local groups, including the local Access Panel and disabilities groups. They felt there was a need for guidance on when organisations had undertaken sufficient / reasonable level of engagement.
Key Message (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.

Funding requirements

26.2.20. One of the survey responses, which was from a funder, highlighted that funders are not usually directly responsible for designing or delivering engagement strategies for projects. However, they require, through their funding guidelines, that those involved in running engagement activities do so according to best practice, as well as requiring an Equality Impact Assessment (EQIA) to be initiated in the early stages of a project and maintained as a live document throughout the development of the project:

• Participant comment: "The EQIA's should be backed up by robust community engagement that endeavours to reach seldom heard groups, as set out in our own community engagement guidance, which is sent to all projects that receive funding." [funding body representative]

26.2.21. This funding body said that they worked with partners to identify target groups that may have been missed during community engagement events to feed into the EQIA. In larger projects, evidence of engagement with people from a broad range of demographics was expected to be included in the reports and support for running accessible workshops was provided.

Education and training

26.2.22. As with the street user focus groups, there are several survey responses relating to the lack of training of design professionals, consultants, authorities, engineers and contractors that are not directly involved in inclusive design, but who still have a role to play in ensuring that designs and resulting outputs are accessible.

26.2.23. The survey responses and one-to-one interviews suggest that there are often efforts to ensure that disabled groups are engaged with throughout all (RIBA Plan of Work) stages^[77] of a design project.

26.3 Question 7

Q7. Can you give any examples of where you have undertaken engagement on street design with a representative selection of the community, in particular with disabled people and other vulnerable street users or similar? Please highlight what worked well and what did not work well.

26.3.1. A substantial number of responses stated that project steering groups were good to engage with local stakeholders, including vulnerable user groups. Respondents indicated that interactive group activities allow people to directly input their views and need to be included into the design process. These groups provide valuable local knowledge regarding local trip generators and attractors, desire lines, and other streetscaping elements, it was suggested.

26.3.2. Several participants mentioned the importance of having interactive group activities, such as workshops and 'walkabouts'. These types of activities tended to be reported as working well, however there was concern raised that some people do not actively voice their views and opinions when a counter view is being discussed. It was identified that this issue can be effectively mitigated by ensuring enough time and space is provided for everybody to openly voice their views.

26.3.3. Participants outlined that, while developing engagement strategies, it was important to ensure representation from a wide range of disabled people / groups. This gives much more valuable inputs to the design process. Therefore, it was reported that it is often easier to do specific smaller events rather than one larger scale event.

• Participant comment: "For a project in the (location removed) we held an event in an accessible shopping mall, which successfully reached a number of disabled people with views on the project being delivered." [funding body representative]

26.3.4. Participants outlined that keeping people engaged / involved throughout the project has been a key element for the success of the strategies. As an example, the redesign and layout of a suburban town centre had people with visual and physical disabilities inputting their opinions throughout the different stages, including design, materials and delivery of the project.

26.3.5. The benefits from this approach showed that communities were more engaged, even after completion of the project, by feeling they had a level of 'ownership' of the area and a better sense of responsibility to help with maintenance and upkeep.

26.3.6. On the other hand, participants stated that the resources and time associated with these engagement strategies were often high, and so engagement can sometimes be limited due to budget constraints.

26.3.7. One planning consultant participant outlined that they had applied three different techniques throughout recent projects in Scotland, which varied depending on the nature of the area being developed:

• For city centre areas, as well as key arterial / suburban town centres, a combination of setting up (i) design working groups, (ii) full day conferences with disability groups and (iii) walkabouts with smaller groups have been shown to work positively, responding to the need of each particular project.
• For town centre areas, (ii) full day conferences have not been implemented.

26.3.8. This variety of approaches shows the importance of understanding the needs of each project and how to best engage with vulnerable users and the wider community in the most appropriate ways to ensure they are able to play a full part in the process.

26.3.9. One response from a Local Authority participant outlined that they followed the Scottish National Standards for Community Engagement, always working alongside the local Access Panel as well as stakeholders and vulnerable street users, including children. These engagement activities tended to be organised in schools or council offices, ensuring facilities were fully accessible for everyone, so that no group's needs were better represented than others, in order to guarantee the best output possible from the sessions:

• Participant comment: "We ensure that all of our consultation events are accessible to all people." [local government officer]

Key Message (DIP5): Engagement activities which involve the project team going to places where different user groups are, 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 be used to inform the project outcomes.

Success stories and opportunities for improvement

26.3.10. Positive feedback from a project in London also included a mix of engagement techniques, with the key being early engagement to include views and needs from the first stages of design. These techniques included round table sessions, visual presentations, co-development of access principles, on site 'walkabouts' and dynamic activities with all the engaged groups to design the streetscape. All these engagements and visits had been recorded in various forms in compliance with the Equality Act.

26.3.11. Some of the challenges mentioned by a number of participants were that, when organising workshops and events with disability groups, it was typically observed that not all of the disabilities were represented and that on some occasions the needs of some disability groups generated barriers for other groups. Indeed, making sure that certain groups are not underrepresented was a common theme from the responses.

26.4 Question 8

Q8. During this engagement, how did you respond to comments on design by street users with a disability? How was it recorded, and did you successfully or unsuccessfully address the issue raised? What was the final outcome for the street user?

Meeting minutes and feedback

26.4.1. A number of participants (n=4) stated that they recorded 'issues and comments' in meeting minutes from the discussions held with disability groups. These were then considered in the design process and translated into risk mitigation by disability groups. Summaries and notes were also used to note down the comments, with feedback provided to all those involved in the engagements. The feedback was often verbal or written, with designers making a record and following up as necessary. One consultant reported that they record all presentations (verbal or written), also presenting consideration relevant to the design process in a 'design register', recording the action to be taken:

• Participant comment: "On large projects we report back a 'you said - we did' summary in exhibitions and online." [multi-disciplinary consultant]

26.4.2. One Scottish Local Authority designer who had undertaken public realm interventions outlined the benefits of engagement with vulnerable groups, including disabled people, by way of 'walkabouts' to identify the improvements within the existing public realm which would have the greatest benefit for all users. This had generated good results for the final scheme, where most local users could now move easily and in an accessible way, showing the benefits of engagement activities from early design stages.

26.4.3. One English Local Authority that responded undertook street audits as well as analysing travel plans and recorded the inputs in a tabular form which was then circulated for feedback from the stakeholders. Efforts were made to accommodate most, if not all, of the needs stated by the vulnerable street users.

26.4.4. Other organisations reported using a similar way of noting down the key findings in spreadsheets and tables.
Key Message (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.

Alternative ways of recording engagement

26.4.5. One of the consultants that took part in the survey used methods such as photos and videos of accessibility audits and detailed maps which are cross-referenced with the audit reports. As with other designers and consultants, formal notes of workshops and meetings with stakeholders are circulated amongst those involved, encouraging feedback for key aspects.

26.4.6. In one-to-one interviews, when questioned on accessible formats, they responded that they had made it clear that these were available but had never been asked for any alternative formats to be provided.
Key Message (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.

EQIA and other regulations

26.4.7. A number of designers surveyed online and in the one-to-one interviews included the use of the "ongoing EQIA reporting to capture key inclusive design issues and reasonable adjustments" as outlined in Transport Scotland Roads for All guidance 2013^[78].

26.4.8. One Scottish Local Authority had implemented measures through their own street design guidance, which included inputs from the local Access Panel in the final project, aiming to ensure that pedestrians and disability groups were given the highest priority when designing streets and public realm in the city. Kerb heights, tactile paving and other measures for all new projects have been agreed jointly by collaborating with the local Access Panels and recording the information in accordance with the city's street design guidance:

• Participant comment: "This aims to ensure that pedestrians are at the top of the hierarchy of street user needs and that people with accessibility needs are provided for within this." [principal designer - local government]

Key Message (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. More than this, the EQIA / Access Audit (or similar) can also be an important tool in documenting how the design process has considered the needs of all users throughout the project lifecycle, and where and how reasonable adjustments to the design have been made.

Impacts on Design

26.4.9. A little over half of participants who identified as having a designer project role reported that they used meeting minutes and formal notes to record the views and needs from groups, which had been obtained throughout different engagement sessions. On occasion, these minutes and notes were circulated for final feedback and approval. A few participants described how they record and take forward these responses:

• Participant comment: "We recorded the information from the engagement which specifically affected how we designed the height of kerbs from carriageways, material types, finishes and colours, and tactile paving." [principal designer]

26.5 Question 9

Q9. What are the main challenges you face to undertaking engagement as part of the planning / design process for inclusive design? Were you successful in overcoming these challenges, or what lessons were learned for the next project?

26.5.1. A review of the responses to this question identified that there are four main challenges in developing meaningful engagement that need to be targeted. These challenges are discussed below.

Challenge 1: time and budget

26.5.2. That there is often a constraint in resources and time is a view which is shared by several participants, stating that, although early and in-depth engagement is beneficial, there is usually not enough time or budget to allow for this, which mirrors comments from the street users who took part in the focus groups:

• Participant comment: "Our picture across Scotland is that meaningful engagement that reaches communities including seldom heard groups is resource intensive. This often leads to partners trying to deliver light touch engagement without sufficient opportunity to involve communities in the design decisions." [funding body representative]

26.5.3. When not enough programme time and budget is allocated to engaging with vulnerable groups, there is a missed opportunity to identify key aspects that would greatly improve the project's outcome. It is usually voluntary groups and organisations that push for consideration of all users during design. It was explained, however, as there is often no remuneration made available for time, travel and support staff costs, this limits the number of projects which these groups can provide input to as well as the extent to which they are able to input into specific projects.
Key Message (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.

Challenge 2: Wider representation of disability groups

26.5.4. Participants reported that representing all the users' needs is particularly challenging when working across different areas and with different guidelines. A common response from local governments, designers, promoters, disability Access Panels and other stakeholders was that disability groups have a great variety of needs which are not always easy to identify and therefore fully take into consideration.

26.5.5. When working on smaller projects, which have proportionally smaller budgets for all activities, including engagement, the number of vulnerable users that are able to input into the project is often limited to those who are aware of the engagement / project and able to give time to provide this feedback.

26.5.6. A key part of the engagement and feedback is that it is developed in a conscious way, with true interest in getting valuable information for the design and implementation of schemes. Concern was raised by some participants that some projects develop engagement strategies to fulfil the promoter's requirements and not to fully understand the needs of inclusive design:

• Participant comment: "Rushing local people through a process never results in high quality inclusive design! We MUST begin to treat local people as equal partners - they are the end users. Service, political and other changes should not impact on the amount of time set aside for engagement. The council process and hierarchy has resulted in a reduced amount of engagement and definitely more tick-box than quality conversation and learning from local people." [local government officer]

26.5.7. Projects with a larger scale and with greater resources in time and budget can have better engagement with a wider group of disabled users. Again, however, responses suggest that, although efforts are made to encourage all disabled user groups to take part, there are occasions when certain groups are under-represented. These groups included younger age disabled people, people with mental health issues and people living with dementia. It was recognised that visible and non-visible disabilities should all be considered, but that this was not always achieved.
Key Message (DIP10): In order to address the challenge of ensuring a wider representation of disability groups, an effective process is necessary to allow designers, implementers 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 designer / promoter / implementer maintaining a live GDPR compliant, mailing list of organisations and community representatives who agree to be contacted early in the project lifecycle. There is then also an onus on the relevant contacted parties to decide whether they wish to engage with the project or focus their time and resources elsewhere.

Challenge 3: Outdated guidance and practice

26.5.8. A number of participants noted that some design guidance is out of date and that there may be a culture of not challenging the status quo within the industry. There was concern that many designers, consultants, engineers, project managers and others involved in delivering inclusive projects are not up to date or directly involved with the requirements of truly inclusive design. Participants identified that a lot of valuable comments are not taken forward due to lack of design guidelines and a lack of people with the necessary knowledge to deliver against the comments provided during construction.

• Participant comment: "The industry needs more specific training in how to continue engagement throughout and the skills required to deliver." [principal designer]

Key Message (DIP11): In order to address the challenge of outdated guidance and practice, updated design guidance which has the broad support of different disability groups and users is necessary to allow designers to make more informed design decisions. The new guidance should also aim to reduce the burden on disability groups and users to provide similar feedback on similar issues on each project they are consulted on. This will allow more focus and attention to be given to the consideration of, and feedback on, new and innovative design features.

Challenge 4: Negative views / distrust

26.5.9. The final challenge that was highlighted in survey responses related to a lack of positive communication and trust, where some street users / consultees have bypassed the formal engagement process and disseminated (sometimes inaccurate) information about a project to other groups or the media. This does not support an environment where views are openly shared.
Key Message (DIP12): In order to address the challenge of negative views and distrust 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.

27. Public realm / street features

27.1 Introduction

27.1.1. The findings relating to public realm and street features, which includes responses to survey questions Q10 and Q11, are summarised in this section.

27.2 Question 10

Q10. We would be grateful if you can outline the public realm / street features you have included and excluded to support inclusive design on our high streets and busy streets, and how you have reported your decision making within the design process. You may wish to consider outlining the design considerations you made in relation to the type of disability, as well as other factors, i.e. vehicle movements, different transport mode, speed, etc.

27.2.1. The answers received in the survey included views and previous experience from designers, implementers and promoters who gave their insights of the best ways of implementing inclusive design throughout the different stages of a project. However, the emphasis was mainly on the engagement with disabled groups in design stages of a project (rather than at implementation or post implementation stage). This reflects the responses from the type of participants who are primarily involved at the earlier stages of street design.

27.2.2. A range of engagement approaches are required to meet the needs of all stakeholders. Some participants identified that there are limits to implementing these approaches by organisations due to budgetary constraints (for example there may be insufficient budgetary allowance to allow for walk-throughs to support inclusive engagement). Funders stated that they push for some measures but are not fully in control of implementation as they are not directly involved in undertaking the engagement, design or scheme implementation.
Key Message (DIP13): Sufficient budget needs to be included 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.

27.2.3. The range of experiences from one organisation to another was reflected in the answers from the survey. This provides an understanding of where the key challenges are, as well as the success drivers that improve inclusive design in the public realm. From this range of experience and answers it was possible to categorise the responses into sub-categories where comments were grouped together into:

• Pedestrian priority.
• Design principles.
• Street furniture.
• Accessibility.
• Reporting and decision making.

Pedestrian priority

27.2.4. Pedestrian priority refers to all the measures that have been implemented or are currently being tested to make spaces that put pedestrians at the centre of design processes. Designers, consultants, promoters and funders all mentioned some of these measures as a key factor to making streets and the public realm a safer and more welcoming environment and creating areas which are accessible to vulnerable users.

27.2.5. The most common answer in this category was designing clear footways with sufficient width to allow users to move freely without any obstacles and allow enough space for disabled street users.

• Participant comment: "Ensuring a clear footway width was provided throughout the scheme to mitigate conflicts with visually impaired users." [engineering firm team member]

27.2.6. Several responses recommended that footways should be designed as continuous areas, avoiding any form of obstacles such as railings that would interrupt the flow of pedestrians and obstruct the desire line. In a one-to-one interview with one Local Authority designer, it was reported that based upon their experience, while the footway can be continuous it does require some form of tonal contrast and tactile demarcation (highlighting where the footway crosses the carriageway) to make it user friendly for some groups of street users.

27.2.7. Another element that was highlighted by a funder to avoid when designing inclusive streets were courtesy crossings, as they do not represent the highest street user hierarchy of provision for pedestrians which is required when making a safer environment. Instead, signalised crossings or crossing facilities at junctions that stopped general traffic and confirmed by tactile or audio signal should be implemented where needed.

27.2.8. It was also recommended by some survey participants to have raised tables on side roads at junctions in order to protect pedestrians. Alternatives, such as courtesy crossings were not supported among survey participants as it was considered that these features retain priority for motor vehicles over pedestrians.
Key Message (DIP14): In England and Scotland the policy position is clear that the needs of pedestrians should be considered first when making decisions on street design.^[79],^[80],^[81] On this basis, street features which reinforce this priority should be given the greatest consideration when making design decisions relating to high streets and busy streets.

Design principles

27.2.9. In recent decades, in town centres and busy street areas, shared space (as a design concept) principles have been implemented as a way of reducing speed and making streets not only for cars but for active modes of transport. These principles to create shared space are primarily based upon a reduction in the delineation and / or segregation between street user zones. There was a range of opinions throughout the survey on shared space, which included differentiating levels of segregation between pedestrian and vehicle areas. However, there was a consensus towards the need for protecting pedestrians from all other moving vehicles, including bicycles.

27.2.10. According to the participants, streets have often been designed for car use, placing other street users at a lower level of the street user hierarchy. Car dominated streets were not considered friendly spaces for vulnerable road users such as children and elderly pedestrians, and even less so for disabled groups who face challenges while navigating the streets and public realm.

27.2.11. Achieving a reduction in traffic speeds in shared space (as a design concept) areas was recommended by three participants to make conditions safer for all users including the most vulnerable users. However, no participants identified specific measures to achieve this.

27.2.12. Cyclists have often been accommodated in shared space (as a design concept) areas without restrictions and on occasions are permitted to use a footway / cycleway with pedestrians rather than use the carriageway. Participants highlighted that cyclists can be a hazard for pedestrians and disabled street users. In some contexts, it was suggested that it may be necessary for cyclists to dismount or have a segregated area to protect pedestrians and vulnerable users who may be unaware of the presence of a cyclist.

27.2.13. There were recommendations from participants to avoid the implementation of level surfaces and delineate areas with physical features such as having different heights along streets for each type of user, e.g. kerb demarcation.

27.2.14. The participants' proposals for the optimal height of upstands (kerb demarcation) to mark the difference between user spaces ranged between 25mm to 60mm. It was considered important that upstand heights are sufficient to create guides for disabled users while still allowing the easy movement of pedestrians and cyclists throughout the area.

• Participant comment: "A detectable upstand height (25mm) reduces the risk of users entering the carriageway accidentally if the same grade was retained for the footway and carriageway." [multi-disciplinary consultancy team member]

Key Message (DIP15): Schemes which reduce segregation between vehicles and pedestrians through the use of techniques such as level surfaces should only be considered appropriate where vehicle speeds and volumes are 'perceived' as low. Even if these criteria are met there should be provision for clear pedestrian-only movement corridor(s) within the space with tactile or other types of demarcation, i.e. planters, seating etc. In other circumstances, i.e. where vehicle speed and / or volumes are perceived as high then a form of demarcation is required, such as kerb or kerb with tactile. Further consideration needs to be given to the definition of 'low flow and low speed' situation.

Street furniture

27.2.15. Street furniture was also mentioned in the survey responses. The main issue identified was that streets are often too cluttered, and this impedes free flow of movement for all types of user, particularly people with visual impairments who can find it difficult to navigate spaces with many obstacles.

27.2.16. Decluttering public spaces and streets does not necessarily mean removing all the street furniture, it was suggested, but it requires the pedestrian desire lines to be identified so that movement corridors are kept clear of potential obstacles for disabled users. Street furniture can then be located in a defined zone and the unobstructed width for pedestrians is maximised.

27.2.17. It was recognised that street furniture plays an important role in enhancing the sense of place of a street and can be the gateway to certain areas. Some participants recommended including seated areas with a variety of seat heights, back rests and armrests to allow for pedestrians and disabled users to rest, if necessary, in a safe and comfortable environment. Soft landscaping and sheltered green seating areas were also encouraged.

27.2.18. Participants also noted that there are essential elements of street furniture, such as street lighting and public transport stops. It was considered difficult to eliminate these elements altogether, but alternative solutions can be found which can reduce obstructions along the pedestrian corridors.
Key Message (DIP16): A collaborative design approach between designer and street users which helps to identify the requirements and location of different types of street furniture is recommended to maintain a clear pedestrian corridor. This approach can help ensure that the use of street furniture is rationalised in terms of number and location and best meets the needs of the people most likely to use it and benefit from it.

Accessibility

27.2.19. The three topics described above focused on making streets safer for pedestrians while creating an easier environment to move around. However, participants also highlighted that there are specific measures that need to be considered and implemented for vulnerable groups and disabled street users. These interventions aim to make it easier for people who have either a physical or mental disability while trying to make streets friendlier environments for all.

27.2.20. Tactile paving and surface treatments provide information, delineate areas for visually impaired users and help reduce tripping hazards along the street. Clearly contrasting tones are recommended to emphasise the limits of a footway or footpath and when approaching higher risk areas.

27.2.21. Although it was recommended that courtesy crossings should be avoided, participants also reflected that it is important to keep dropped kerbs where needed to allow those with reduced mobility to be able to cross streets where other options such as raised tables at junctions are not technically feasible. These measures are in line with keeping level changes to a minimum, which are physical obstacles for disabled groups who cannot easily overcome the level changes.

27.2.22. Other measures which were identified by participants included accessible and sensory play equipment as part of a wayfinding strategy for the streets and public realm. In addition, proximity sensors (such as radio frequency identification) that share information to disabled users on locations and destinations in the nearby area, as well as conceptual design for background sounds and noises to help people identify what section of the street they are in were supported in the survey responses.

• Participant comment: "Accessibility - we still design our public realm around car provision and many of the city's streets and centres are not child friendly, disability friendly, age friendly, cyclist friendly or indeed people friendly." [local government officer]

Reporting decision making

27.2.23. Several participants detailed the way in which design decisions are recorded throughout the process.

• Participant comment: "Design decisions were included in design development logs and hazard registers (residual hazard of conflicting with street furniture still present but reduced)." [multi-disciplinary consultancy team member]

27.3 Question 11

Q11. When considering inclusive design, public realm / street features, what has worked well in a design project and / or what has not worked well?

27.3.1. As in the previous questions, the wide range of experience and expertise among participants raised several positive elements in designing inclusive public realm and streets, and areas of opportunity to explore in future projects.

27.3.2. Examples that have worked well included replacing public utility covers with recessed covers (paving flaps, tactile paving) and anti-skid covers which provide safer environments for pedestrians and cyclists, reducing the risk of skidding and tripping. Comments from a multi-disciplinary consultant, however, highlighted that there are challenges when liaising with public utility providers over such resources as there seems to be a lack of understanding of the impacts on vulnerable users.

27.3.3. One participant stated that metallic tactile studs can help visually impaired people, but they are a trip hazard as they become very slippery under wet conditions and other alternatives with increased grip would be safer to use.

27.3.4. Another positive element identified by participants was early engagement with specific groups, such as the Mobility and Access Committee for Scotland (MACS)^[82], and getting them involved in the decision-making process while actively seeking to improve policies and designs based on best practice from engagement with disability groups.

27.3.5. Participants highlighted that although projects are making improvements and working towards more inclusive design, there are still a lot of project delivery improvements that need to take place to create better spaces for all users, including disabled groups. Crucially, there remains a lack of hierarchy for implementing measures when two or more required elements are in opposition with each other. It is unclear which one takes precedence and designers find it difficult to select options as there is no clear guidance on who should be making these decisions and how the decision is to be made:

• Participant comment: "Still a long way to go to create an inclusive city and a long, long way off inclusive design." [local government officer]

27.3.6. Key Message (DIP17): There remains a lack of guidance on how to decide which measures to implement when two or more required elements are in opposition with each other.

27.3.7. It was recognised that input from disabled groups has a great impact, as they are most affected by the decisions made during the design of spaces. Regarding previously discussed topics, the views from one local Access Panel were that shared footway / cycleways or paths do not always work best for all users and having segregated cycleways could be a better option when implementing new schemes.

27.3.8. Finally, participants felt that understanding the community and their specific needs through the design process is key for the success of the measures implemented:

• Participant comment: "The project example is still within design phase, but what has worked well so far has been the engagement with the disability Access Panel group and the discussion / ideas this has prompted." [local government officer]

Key Message (DIP18): Undertaking a post-implementation project review can be an important part of the inclusive design process and hand over to the client. This ensures that promoters and designers are able to take forward the lessons learned about what worked well and what could have been improved. This helps to inform subsequent design projects. Including the disability groups and users engaged during the design phase in the review allows their views on the engagement, design process and outcomes to be considered as well as building on these relationship for the next project.

28. Potential changes to inclusive engagement and design features

28.1 Introduction

28.1.1. The findings relating to potential changes to inclusive engagement and design features, based on the responses to survey question Q12, are summarised in this section.

28.2 Question 12

Q12. Reflecting on your public realm design experience, what changes would contribute to better inclusive design, both in terms of engagement and design features? You may wish to consider the guidelines, statutory requirements, standards, policies, procurement / budget / timescales, training and appreciation of different needs of disabled people in terms of design and engagement.

28.2.1. Several participants agreed that there must be greater research on the interaction between user groups on different type of paths, such as paths where different users are separated by an upstand, paths where spaces for different users are delineated with lining, and paths with no delineation or segregation between different users.

28.2.2. Three participants stated that there is also the need to understand the interactions of continuous footways and bus stops and bypasses and how they impact disabled and vulnerable street user groups.
Key Message (DIP19): There is a need to understand the interactions of continuous footways, bus stops and bypasses and how they impact disabled and vulnerable street user groups.

28.2.3. Promoters, designers and funders identified that that there should more widely available inclusive engagement training for designers and all those involved in the decision-making process.

28.2.4. One participant stated that 'decision makers' do not always have an adequate understanding of the needs of communities and groups with a wide range of different disabilities to fully understand the various needs associated with both visible and non-visible disabilities. There needs to be greater involvement with local disability groups and organisations, allocating sufficient time and resources in the project to allow meaningful feedback to happen and avoid making decisions that would have a greater impact without taking appropriate consultation first.
Key Message (DIP20): There should more widely available inclusive engagement training for designers and all those involved in the decision-making process to encourage a fuller understanding of the needs of communities and groups with a wide range of different disabilities and the various needs associated with both visible and non-visible disabilities.

28.2.5. Another comment identified that guidance should be developed to outline how best to engage with a wide range of disability groups and how to include their views and needs in the projects that are being developed. Good practice guidance and case studies for engagement from previous EQIAs / Accessibility Audit (or similar) could be carried out as joint work to publish guidelines that would work as a platform for future projects.

28.2.6. Finally, support was given to updated guidelines and street design guides which should include specifications on the use of inclusive design and busy street environments to give confidence to vulnerable users of a space that is safer and easier to use:

• Participant comment: "Clear guidelines for engagement and an emphasis placed on ensuring any engagement captures all relevant local stakeholders." [engineering firm team member]

Key Message (DIP21): There is a need for clearer guidance on both inclusive engagement approaches and inclusive physical design measures to aide designers and to increase their confidence in the development of practical and applicable inclusive design solutions that encourage disabled street user confidence / comfort in the use of a space.

29. Summary

29.2.1. The key messages drawn from the designers, implementers and promoters are shown in the table below alongside a review of the alignment between the key message and existing guidance for Inclusive Engagement and Inclusive Physical Design measures.

Table 16 – Key Messages from Designers, Promoters and Implementers on Inclusive Engagement and Physical Design measures in relation to existing guidance

Nr	Engagement / Design	Key Message	Review against Existing Guidance
DIP1	Inclusive Engagement	Form an inclusive design working / steering group (in 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 will then be able to discuss and agree on the relevant users to be represented, the appropriate forms of engagement required to be undertaken, as well as the timing and scale of engagement activities.	Current guidance does not specifically cover the formation of inclusive design working / groups. There are Local Design Review Panels (A&DS) in Scotland and similar groups in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Further research is required to determine the level of detail and coverage.
DIP2	Inclusive Engagement	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.	Covered under existing guidance, including 'The National Standards for Community Engagement' ('working together'), 'Shaping better places together: Research into facilitating participatory placemaking', 'Community engagement: guidance for local authorities', and 'New Conversations 2.0: LGA guide to engagement' (co-production).
DIP3	Inclusive Engagement	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 optioneering process.	Covered under existing guidance, including 'The National Standards for Community Engagement' which refer to the place standard tool. 'Shaping better places together: Research into facilitating participatory placemaking', 'Community engagement: guidance for local authorities', and 'New Conversations 2.0: LGA guide to engagement'.
DIP4	Inclusive Engagement	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.	Covered under existing guidance, including 'The National Standards for Community Engagement' and 'New Conversations 2.0: LGA guide to engagement' with relation to budget constraints and expectations.
DIP5	Inclusive Engagement	Engagement activities which involve the project team going to places where different user groups are, 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 be used to inform the project outcomes.	EHRC 'Engaging with disabled people: an event planning guide' suggests venues that are familiar with attendee and using existing groups for recruitment. Similar to 'Community Planning Toolkit - Community Planning' which suggests the same approach. The other guidance covers accessible consultation / venue – there is however no mention of making use of existing community groups who regularly meet.
DIP6	Inclusive Engagement	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 would demonstrate to consultees how previous engagement has helped shape the project to date can help increase confidence in the process and maintain interest, particularly on longer projects and projects with time gaps between stages.	Covered under existing guidance, 'The National Standards for Community Engagement' and 'New Conversations 2.0: LGA guide to engagement' through communication plans. Although there is little emphasis on recording, assessing and responding.
DIP7	Inclusive Engagement	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.	Covered under existing guidance, 'The National Standards for Community Engagement' and 'New Conversations 2.0: LGA guide to engagement' through communication plans. Although there is little emphasis on recording, assessing and responding.
DIP8	Inclusive Engagement	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. More than this, the EQIA / Access Audit (or similar) can also be an important tool in documenting how the design process has considered the needs of all users throughout the project lifecycle, and where and how reasonable adjustments to the design have been made.	Transport Scotland 'Road for All' Guidance outlines the requirement for an EQIA. The DfT Traffic Advisory Leaflet (TAL 05/11) 'Quality audit in the street design process' outlines the requirement for Accessibility Audits and EQIA's.
DIP9	Inclusive Engagement	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.	Covered under existing guidance 'New Conversations 2.0: LGA guide to engagement' which covers budget constraints and expectations. 'The National Standards for Community Engagement' outlines where budget could be required to support engagement but is silent on budget constraints and expectations.
DIP10	Inclusive Engagement	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 promoter / implementer maintaining a live, GDPR compliant, mailing list of organisations and community representatives who agree to be contacted early in the project lifecycle. There is then also an onus on the relevant contacted parties to decide whether they wish to engage with the project or focus their time and resources elsewhere.	Covered under existing guidance 'New Conversations 2.0: LGA guide to engagement' which suggests undertaking stakeholder mapping on a project by project basis. 'The National Standards for Community Engagement' is vague on this subject.
DIP11	Inclusive Engagement and Physical Design Measures	In order to address the challenge of outdated guidance and practice, updated design guidance which has the broad support of different disability groups and users is necessary to allow designers to make more informed design decisions. The new guidance should also aim to reduce the burden on disability groups and users to provide similar feedback on similar issues on each project they are consulted on. This will allow more focus and attention to be given to the consideration of, and feedback on, new and innovative design features.	Not covered in existing guidance.
DIP12	Inclusive Engagement	In order to address the challenge of negative views being held between different disabled street users, 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.	Covered under existing guidance, including 'The National Standards for Community Engagement' ('working together'), 'Shaping better places together: Research into facilitating participatory placemaking', 'Community engagement: guidance for local authorities', and 'New Conversations 2.0: LGA guide to engagement' (co-production).
DIP13	Inclusive Engagement	Sufficient budget needs to be included at the commissioning stage of a scheme to ensure that an adequate range 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.	Covered under existing guidance 'New Conversations 2.0: LGA guide to engagement' which covers budget constraints and expectations. 'The National Standards for Community Engagement' outlines where budget could be required to support engagement but is silent on budget constraints and expectations.
DIP14	Inclusive Physical Design Measures	In England and Scotland the policy position is clear that the needs of pedestrians should be considered first when making decisions on street design. On this basis, street features which reinforce this priority should be given the greatest consideration when making design decisions relating to high streets and busy streets.	Transport Scotland National Transport Strategy 2 affirms pedestrian priority over other modes. DfT 'Gear change: a bold vision for cycling and walking' emphasises that cyclists are treated as vehicles and pedestrians have priority.
DIP15	Inclusive Physical Design Measures	Schemes which reduce segregation between vehicles and pedestrians through the use of techniques such as level surfaces should only be considered appropriate where vehicle speeds and volumes are 'perceived' as low. Even if these criteria are met there should be provision for clear pedestrian-only movement corridor(s) within the space with tactile or other types of demarcation, i.e., planters, seating etc. In other circumstances, i.e., where vehicle speed and / or volumes are perceived as 'high' then a form of demarcation is required, such as a kerb, or kerb with tactile. Further consideration needs to be given to the definition of 'low vehicle flow and low vehicle speed' situation.	Manual for Streets makes reference to the importance of kerb demarcation (parts 7.2.10 to 7.2.12). LTN 1/11: Shared Space (withdrawn) made reference to Equality and PSED in guidance on undertaking local consultation before removal of kerb demarcation / level surface. However, LTN 1/11 did not stipulate the height of a kerb.
DIP16	Inclusive Physical Design Measures	A collaborative design approach between designer and street users which helps to identify the requirements and location of different types of street furniture is recommended to maintain the pedestrian clear corridor. This approach can help ensure that the use of street furniture is rationalised in terms of number and location and best meets the needs of the people most likely to use it and benefit from it.	Covered under existing guidance, including 'The National Standards for Community Engagement' ('working together'), 'Shaping better places together: Research into facilitating participatory placemaking', 'Community engagement: guidance for local authorities', and 'New Conversations 2.0: LGA guide to engagement' (co-production).
DIP17	Inclusive Physical Design Measures	There remains a lack of guidance on how to decide which measures to implement when two or more required elements are in opposition with each other.	Transport Scotland 'Roads for All' gives a test reasonableness which could inform such decisions. However, there is lack of guidance on balancing two or more requirements to support different disabled street user which have opposing requirements.
DIP18	Inclusive Physical Design Measures	Undertaking a post-implementation project review can be an important part of the inclusive design process and hand over to the client. This ensures that promoters and designers are able to take forward the lessons learned about what worked well and what could have been improved. This helps to inform subsequent design projects. Including the disability groups and users engaged during the design phase in the review allows their views on the engagement, design process and outcomes to be considered as well as building on these relationship for the next project.	There is no existing guidance on this subject.
DIP19	Inclusive Physical Design Measures	There is a need to understand the interactions of continuous footways and bus stops and bypasses and how they impact disabled and vulnerable street user groups.	Current guidance is expected to be reviewed based up the TRL research (refer to Appendix E).
DIP20	Inclusive Engagement	There should more widely available inclusive engagement training for designers and all those involved in the decision-making process, to encourage a fuller understanding of the needs of communities and groups with a wide range of different disabilities and the various needs associated with both visible and non-visible disabilities.	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'. EHRC 'Engaging with disabled people: an event planning guide'. T here is no apparent training in the application of this guidance in street design development.
DIP21	Inclusive Engagement and Physical Design Measures	There is a need for clearer guidance on both inclusive engagement approaches and inclusive physical design measures to aide designers and to increase their confidence in the development of practical and applicable inclusive design solutions that encourage disabled street user confidence / comfort in the use of a space.	These are covered under existing guidance (as set out above) but the designer feedback indicates that more clarity is required in the guidance.

Appendix D.1

DIP Survey

This Appendix contains survey material used as part of the research.

The survey request was as follows:-

"Transport Scotland, working with the Department for Transport and the Scottish Government Planning and Architecture Division are currently reviewing guidance on what makes streets fully accessible for all. This work aims to address concerns raised about the accessibility of some town centres and busy areas, particularly in relation to the requirements of blind and visually impaired people."

"WSP has been appointed to undertake research into methods and approaches to help deliver inclusive street design environments within town centres and busy street areas. The outcome of the research will inform the development of future national guidance."

"The aim of the research is to propose recommendations and key principles on how inclusive engagement approaches and physical design measures can provide an inclusive environment for pedestrians and other users of high streets and busy street areas. "

"We would value your views as a promoter / implementer / designer of these public realm schemes, to understand what you have found to be successful and also less successful in your experience. Please take a few moments to share your thoughts with us."

"Any personal information, like your contact details that you provide 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 and client team. All personal information will be deleted after the report is drafted."

If you have any queries about the survey, please contact TSResearch@wsp.com

The opening date for the survey is 29th January 2020 (revised)

The closing date for the survey is 12th February 2020 (revised – 10 working days from when date live)

Q1. Are you responding as:

• i. Individual
• ii. Public Sector Organisation (please specify)
• iii. Private Company / Organisation (please specify)

Q2. What is your or your organisation's role in the design process (please tick all that apply):

• i. Consultant / Designer
• ii. Standard / Guidance Body / Organisation
• iii. Statutory Authority
• iv. Promoter / Implementer – Non-Government
• v. Promoter / Implementer – Local Government
• vi. Promoter / Implementer - Regional Government
• vii. Promoter / Implementer - National Government
• viii. Promoter / Implementer - Regional Transport authority
• ix. Other (please specify)

Q3. What is your / your organisation's area of expertise? (please tick all that apply)

• i. Multi-disciplinary consultancy
• ii. Architecture
• iii. Urban Design
• iv. Transport Planning
• v. Town Planning
• vi. Highway / Civil Engineer (Designer)
• vii. Landscape Architecture / Urban Designer
• viii. Master Planning
• ix. Engagement / Stakeholder management
• x. Access Consultancy
• xi. Building Services
• xii. Others (please specify)

Q4. Please say where is your main base of work (tick one)

• i. England
• ii. Scotland
• iii. Wales
• iv. Northern Ireland
• v. Outside of the UK

Q5. Please say where in the UK you mainly undertake public realm work (tick one)

• i. England
• ii. Scotland
• iii. Wales
• iv. Northern Ireland
• v. Outside of the UK

Introduction to the open questions

The remainder of the questionnaire is made up of a series of open questions. We would be grateful if you can share your views and experience on what inclusive design means in particular for disabled people and other vulnerable street users' or similar, through your perspective and experience as designer / implementer / promoter etc.

The questions are split into three areas, "approaches to engagement" and "inclusive design features" and the "challenges to inclusive design." We would value your views and experience of these areas and would ask you where possible to make reference to policy / design guidance / audits, you have used in the engagement and design development process.

The questionnaire is strictly confidential, and you have the option to provide your email if you would like to take part in a short confidential 1 to 1 interview over the phone.

Engagement

Q6 – Please define your current approach to public engagement to inform the inclusive street design development process. Can you outline how you have planned, promoted, recorded these public engagements to make them inclusive for the community, in particular for disabled people and other vulnerable street users' or similar.

Q7– Can you give any examples of where you have undertaken engagement on street design with a representative selection of the community, in particular with disabled people and other vulnerable street users' or similar. Please highlight what worked well and what did not work well.

Q8 – During this engagement, how did you respond to comments on design by street users with a disability? How was it recorded, and did you successfully or unsuccessfully address the issue raised? What was the final outcome for the street user?

Q9. What are the main challenges you face to undertaking engagement as part of the planning/design process for inclusive design? Were you successful in overcoming these challenges, or what lessons were learned for the next project?

Public realm / street features

Q10. We would be grateful if you can outline the public realm / street features you have included and excluded to support inclusive design on our high streets and busy streets, and how you have reported your decision making within the design process. You may wish to consider outlining the design considerations you made in relation to the type of disability, as well as other factors i.e. vehicle movements, different transport mode, speed etc.

Q11. When considering inclusive design, public realm / street features, what has worked well in a design project and/or what has not worked well?

Challenges to inclusive design (engagement and design features)

Q12. Reflecting on your public realm design experience, what changes would contribute to better inclusive design, both in terms of engagement and design features?

You may wish to consider the guidelines, statutory requirements, standards, policies, procurement / budget / timescales, training and appreciation of different needs of disabled people in terms of design and engagement.

Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey. Please provide your email address if you are happy for us to contact you to take part in a short confidential 1 to 1 interview over the phone

Previous Page | Next Page