Appendix F: Good practice examples of inclusive engagement

Appendix F: Good practice examples of inclusive engagement

33. Good practice examples of inclusive engagement and design

33.1 Introduction

33.1.1. This Appendix to the main research report entitled "Inclusive Design in Town Centres and Busy Street Areas" summarises good practice examples which have been identified through the study that demonstrate how key principles of inclusive engagement and inclusive physical design measures have been successfully applied. This Appendix sets out the key principles identified from these good practice examples, and these are drawn into the findings and recommendations from the research.

33.1.2. The three good practice examples are:

  • 1 – Transport for Greater Manchester – Disability Design Reference Group.
  • 2 – City of Edinburgh Council – Street Design Guidance.
  • 3 – Network Rail - Glasgow Queen Street Station Redevelopment.

33.1.3. These examples are described in greater detail below.

33.2 Good practice example 1 - transport for Greater Manchester - Disability Design Reference Group

33.2.1. Historic examples of good practice were illustrated by the "Achieving inclusive design: consultation with disabled people" Paper[86]. There was one example for inclusive design identified within this Paper which illustrates how effective inclusive engagement can influence good design.

33.2.2. This example is the Transport for Greater Manchester's Disability Design Reference Group (DDRG[87]) outlined below, including the relevant section of the Paper's extract.

33.2.3. Abstract: "Transport for Greater Manchester (TfGM) recognises the importance of continuing to innovate and improve accessibility across all modes of transport and associated infrastructure within the conurbation. In 2008, when work began to expand the Metrolink light rail system, TfGM established a consultative group entitled the Disability Design Reference Group (DDRG) to support this major civil engineering project. The DDRG enables TfGM to discharge its legal and ethical duties by providing a means of influencing the next generation of inclusive design by anticipating and proposing practical solutions in relation to gaps in existing accessibility guidance and standards. This Paper details the approach taken to enable the DDRG to support meaningful and appropriate consultation using the life experience and technical knowledge of disabled people to support delivery of tangible project outcomes. The DDRG consultation process, recognised as a model of best practice by the UK Equality and Human Rights Commission, encompasses the whole project life cycle, from concept design stage, through detailed design, through to physically testing the installed works. The Paper concludes with suggestions on how the model could be applied to other projects".

33.2.4. The DDRG is still active since its formation in 2008 and the Paper outlines how it was developed to support and inform inclusive mobility issues through design development:

  • The DDRG concept was proposed by TfGM. The group formation and management was undertaken by the pan-disability organisation Breakthrough UK[88] (BUK).
  • BUK is responsible for the member recruitment and requires prospective members to comply with the following criteria:
    • Familiarity and understanding of disability issues, especially in relation to travel and use of public transport in Greater Manchester.
    • The ability to work as part of a team and contribute constructively in meetings and group discussions.
    • Experience of using, or of trying to use, Metrolink (applications were welcomed from people who live, work, study and / or socialise in the proposed expansion zones).
    • Enthusiasm for and interest in making public transport accessible to all;
    • The ability to absorb, analyse and give feedback on information (with appropriate support as necessary).
    • A willingness to work flexibly; and
    • Personal experience of disabling barriers in relation to using public transport (applications were only sought from those who identified as disabled people).
  • DDRG members were made aware of what was required of them in terms of knowledge and conduct.
  • The consultation and involvement process was constructive and informed. It was considered essential that those involved in DDRG activities have knowledge of standards and best practice relating to inclusive design. TfGM have taken steps to provide members with information and training to provide this knowledge. The Paper goes into the detail of the format of the training as well as meetings.
  • DDRG meetings were held regularly, with information made available in advance (which was adapted / lessons learned) to make it more accessible to members.
  • Comments Tracker – the group developed a comments tracker to outline the nature of the comment and record 'resolution' responses. This became a key document, which enabled TfGM to demonstrate 'you said, we did' improvements back to the members.

33.2.5. This example illustrates that there are mutual benefits to undertaking quality engagement and that these benefits are not limited by design process.

"'The project life-cycle' approach, consultation with the DDRG has led to accessibility being built into the Metrolink expansion programme, offering value for money, while also ensuring the best possible product for the customer". (Section 8, P52 of "Achieving inclusive design: consultation with disabled people"[89] research paper).

33.2.6. TfGM's customer-first approach, which incorporates a 'you said, we did' philosophy, is summed up by the following quote by a DDRG member:

"I never thought, after the first couple of meetings (when I saw the quality of the discussions), that we were being ignored or just ticking boxes. I always thought that they were listening to every word and gave a proper, considered answer to everything… Yes, I always thought we were having an effect".

33.2.7. The working relationship with DDRG has been achieved through meaningful and appropriate consultation with DDRG. This extended throughout the scheme implementation process through to the delivery, in partnership with the project designers and contractors.

33.3 Good practice example 2 – City Of Edinburgh Council – Street Design Guidance

33.3.1. Another example of good practice is City of Edinburgh Council (CEC), which has developed a similar approach to TfGM by establishing a working relationship with the Local Access Panel through which CEC engages with the Local Access Panel at their regular monthly meetings, i.e. CEC 'goes to them'. The schemes discussed are generally street design schemes.

33.3.2. CEC officers have made a number of key decisions with the Local Access Panel, including sign-off of their "Street Design Guidance" [90]; the ban of A-frame signage (this was raised at almost all of the disabled street user focus groups); as well as agreement of 50mm chamfered kerb to demarcate between pedestrian footway and cycleways. The latter was achieved through CEC creating a real size (1:1) scale model of a street including a variable kerb height. The kerb height was altered and discussed with all stakeholders present in the meeting.

33.3.3. As well as agreeing guidance and design principles, CEC engaged actively with local stakeholders and disability organisations during the design development, with at least two engagements at key design stages going through the proposed scheme plans 'end-to-end'.

33.3.4. CEC have not had any issues regarding accessibility of the material presented, as most organisations / representatives bring support to assist with interpretation of plans.

33.3.5. To inform this research, a one-to-one telephone consultation was undertaken with a design consultancy who were working on a CEC project. This consultation outlined how the design consultants had worked with both CEC's transport team and Council departments to identify all key stakeholders or organisations in the study area. This resulted in a comprehensive list of stakeholders and consultees. The design consultant also developed the following:

  • Communication and Engagement Plan – initiated at project inception and maintained throughout the project.
  • Equality Impact Assessment based upon the Transport Scotland "Roads for All" guidance – initiated at project inception and maintained throughout the project.
  • Comments Tracker (same as the DDRG example).
  • 'You said, we did' feedback (same as the DDRG example).

33.4 Good practice example 3 – Network Rail – Glasgow Queen Street Station Redevelopment

33.4.1. The redevelopment of Glasgow Queen Street Station was raised during a disabled street user focus group as another good example of inclusive engagement.

33.4.2. The research team held a one-to-one interview with one of the designers working on this project to investigate this further. The designer attributed the success of inclusive engagement and design to having an Access Consultant (who themselves had a disability) working on the project from the inception phase. The Access Consultant understood the issues related to inclusive design and coordinated discussions with relevant parties through the form of an inclusive engagement group. The designer stated that the presence of a very strong chairperson (who was able to ensure the inclusive engagement group retained focus) was a further important success factor.

33.4.3. The research team held a one-to-one interview with the ex-chairperson (who oversaw Queen Street) for the Network Rail "Built Environment Accessibility Panel"[91] (BEAP). They outlined they had also undertaken a recruitment process (similar to DDRG) to ensure that they had the right people on the group who were empathetic to wider disability needs and had a keen interest in improving accessibility. In a manner similar to DDRG they provided training, paid for the attendance / travel expenses / cost of a personal assistant for the panel attendees, as well as providing lunch. The chairperson would give guidance to designers in advance of any meeting on how to make the material accessible (similar to DDRG) and ensure that sufficient time was allowed for communication through BSL or similar. The chairperson outlined that there was an optimal size to the group not exceeding 25 participants.

34. Good practice examples – key findings

34.1 Introduction

34.1.1. The good practice examples outline engagement approaches, underpinned by dedicated or semi-dedicated disabled user groups which have supported the development of inclusive designs with robust input from disabled street users. The TfGM DDRG and Network Rail BEAP approach has been tried and tested over more than a decade. In Edinburgh, the CEC partnership working with the City Access Panel as well as DPO appears to work well based upon research feedback from independent discussions.

34.1.2. These groups provide value to the design process in discharging its legal (PSED) and ethical duties by anticipating and proposing practical design solutions, informing accessible design guidance / standards and by informing the design through the whole project life cycle.

34.1.3. The TfGM DDRG consultation process, recognised as a model of best practice by the UK Equality and Human Rights Commission, encompasses the whole project life cycle.

34.1.4. These groups are not a substitute for public consultation and engagement, but can provide valuable insight into the emerging design, and advice on the wider engagement. These groups are a good starting point for the designer to engage with disabled users and to seek advice on how the public consultation should be undertaken. The groups can support with direct and indirect promotion of consultation with the wider disabled community.

34.2 Key findings from good practice examples

34.2.1. The following aspects have been identified as being common to all three good practice examples.

Group formation and sustainability

34.2.2. GP1: Interested members – a common theme to all three examples is that the inclusive engagement has been driven by a group formed and maintained by members who are from the disabled community and have a genuine interest in improving accessibility.

34.2.3. GP2: Selectivity - the bespoke formal groups included in the good practice examples (the Transport for Greater Manchester's Disability Design Reference Group and the Network Rail Built Environment Accessibility Panel) have established recruitment and training processes to ensure that their membership is balanced and support the wider accessible agenda, thereby ensuring a pan-disability focus and reducing the risk of a few 'louder' voices being disproportionately catered to.

34.2.4. The Edinburgh Access panel has a number of participants in the Disabled Street user focus groups who give wider representative views of different disabilities and from their input it was evident that the individuals involved had a design background.

34.2.5. GP3: Behaviours - there are a number of factors that have contributed to the success of the good practice examples identified:

  • The presence of a strong chairperson / leadership role within the engagement groups.
  • A culture of seeking to avoid a 'them and us' attitude.
  • Ensuring the groups conduct themselves in a proactive and solution-led manner, as well as being reasonable and considerate of other disabled street users' needs.
  • Ensuring that welfare needs of participants are in place.
  • A clearly defined meeting etiquette and process including agreement on the manner in which material is to be presented in an accessible format.

Supporting the design process

34.2.6. GP4: Training – the membership of these groups has been trained in an appreciation in the design process, engagement, good meeting etiquette, their role, their chair's role, and the role of each person / designer attending.

34.2.7. GP5: Managing expectations - the process supports the management of expectations from both the disabled street users and the designers. The disabled street user group membership is seeking reassurance that their needs and concerns are being recognised, while the designers are seeking valued input to the design process. By ensuring the design team responds visibly to the comments ('you said, we did'), the group membership views are being valued, heard and, if necessary, consulted further upon to collaboratively address issues raised.

34.2.8. GP6: Accessible venue and materials – in addition to ensuring that all the material is in accessible format, a key success factor has been the willingness of designers to go to the disabled user group meeting venue. This ensures that the group is fully supported in terms of an accessible venue, translation, personal assistance and welfare facilities.

Previous Page | Next Page