Appendix J: Principles and recommendations on inclusive engagement
Appendix J: Principles and recommendations on inclusive engagement
37. Appendix J – Principles and recommendations on inclusive engagement
This Appendix to the main research report entitled 'Inclusive Design in Town Centres and Busy Street Areas' summarises the principles and recommendations on inclusive engagement.
| NR | Principle / Sub-principle | Recommendation | Good practice / notes / comments | Evidence |
| 1 | The individuals and groups representing the views of local disabled street users who will be affected by the proposed changes to the street design should be identified during the planning of the inclusive engagement process. | LR1, LR2, FGE2 | ||
| 1.1 | Sub-principle: Local disabled street users who make use of the street space, and whose existing level of amenity may be impacted by the proposed changes to the street design, should be included in the engagement. | "Existing Level of Amenity" refers to the current use of the street space by disabled street users. The engagement process should identify the impact of the proposed street design changes upon this level of amenity and identify proposed mitigation / reasonable adjustments to be incorporated. | LR1, LR2, FGE2, FGE3, FGE4 | |
| 1.2 | Sub-principle: The identification of local disabled street users can be achieved through a combination of accessible media promotion and organisations that represent and / or support local street users. | Further research is recommended into the development of a GDPR-compliant stakeholder list (including preferred communication methods) to improve stakeholder identification / engagement. The GDPR-compliant mailing list could be passed to the designer (under conditions of use) at the start of a project. | Organisations that represent and / or support local disabled street users include Local Access officers, Disabled People's Organisations and Pan Disability organisations. Local stakeholder / community facilities include Health Centres, GPs and Post Offices. | LR1, LR2, FGE2, FGE3, FGE4, DIP10 |
| 1.3 | Sub-principle: Input from any one stakeholder group should be proportionate and seeking views from only one interest group should be avoided. | It is recommended that more training be given to designers and promoters in respect of the broad range and complexity of different disabilities. This will support a greater appreciation of how disabled street users' perspectives may differ and encourage a wider range of views to be sought. | LR1, LR2, LR12, FGE2, FGE3, FGE4, FGE14, FGE15, DIP21 | |
| 1.4 | Sub-principle: The use of internal accessibility officers or equivalents within local authorities to 'proof check' designs instead of undertaking engagement should be avoided. | LR1, LR2, FGE3, DIP21 | ||
| 1.5 | Sub-principle: Engagement should include proportionate representation from a broad range of local street disabled users, including older adult disabled street users, disabled pedestrians and disabled cyclists to ensure that all voices are heard equally. | Further research is recommended into engagement with older adults with age-related disabilities in order to support the inclusive design for lifelong conditions and the needs of an aging population of disabled street users. | LR1, LR2, FGE2, FGE3, FGE4, FGE22 | |
| 2 | Utilising established local groups (where there are no Access Panels) who represent the views of locals disabled street users will benefit the planning and delivery of inclusive engagement. | Further research is recommended to examine different approaches to the efficient and effective establishment of such local groups where Access Panels are not in place or inactive. | The good practice examples illustrate the collaborative working benefits of the formation of an inclusive design working group (in the absence of an active Access Panel). In areas of regular and / or significant street design development it is important to value, maintain and support local user / stakeholder contribution in the design process, as the re-recruitment and identification of disabled street user representatives can be challenging. The formation of a working group of local disabled street users that supports and values these contributions throughout the project life cycle will improve engagement and will allow for expectations to be set (for both the users and the designers) with regards to the scale and nature of engagement on a project. | LR1, LR2, DIP1, DIP5, DIP7, GP1, GP2 |
| 3 | Engagement should be undertaken from the start of the design process, ideally at scheme conception. | LR1, LR2, FGE1, DIP4 | ||
| 3.1 | Sub-principle: Local disabled street users should have the opportunity from early on in the design process to provide input to the design process, to outline how they use the space, and to describe their existing level of amenity. | "Existing Level of Amenity" relates to how street use currently use the street space. This principle emphasises the need to understand this "amenity" and how the scheme may impact upon the ability of disabled street users to use the space in future. | LR1, LR2, FGE1, DIP4 | |
| 3.2 | Sub-principle: Engagement should be regarded as a multi-stage process and invite ongoing contributions from those affected by proposed changes. | This principle emphasises the need to understand the "amenity" and how the scheme may impact upon the ability of disabled street users to use the space in future. | LR1, LR2, FGE16 | |
| 3.3 | Sub-principle: Working with local stakeholder and the community can help ensure that the correct scale of engagement forms for a project are undertaken and at the most suitable times within the project cycle. | Further research could be considered regarding the minimum and recommended scale (number of, timescales) and nature (forms) of engagement that should be undertaken, in relation to the type of project being considered. This research could inform the procurement process and support a proportionate approach to the project type and scale. | LR1, LR2, FGE8, DIP4 | |
| 4 | The scale and nature of the engagement should inform the project commissioning with budget and timescales established to meet these requirements. | LR1, LR2, FGE8, DIP9, DIP13 | ||
| 4.1 | Sub-principle: The approach to inclusive engagement should be proportionate to the size and type of project. | The good practice referenced under Principle 2.0 reflects an approach wherein the expectations, timescales and requirements can be established collaboratively with a working group of disabled street user representatives. | FGE8, DIP9 | |
| 4.2 | Sub-principle: Sufficient budget should be set aside to allow for the full inclusive engagement process (from concept stage onwards). | Further research is recommended into the costs for inclusive engagement on completed projects in order to benchmark reasonable and realistic budgets for engagement on different types of projects. | Understanding the full range of communication preferences prior to the procurement of a designer will support budget setting prior to procurement. Alternatively, planning for street design schemes could include a pre-engagement stage in which to scope out the engagement requirements. | LR2, FGE8, FGE9, DIP9 |
| 4.3 | Sub-principle: The project programme should allow for the identification of stakeholders, time for stakeholders to mobilise and attend engagement events, and time for responses to consultation throughout the engagement. | Timescales should be realistic to allow stakeholders to respond to the consultation process to support stakeholder identification, forward planning (mobilisation) for accessible venue booking, support services including personal assistants, accessible venues and interpreters. The research team found during the recruitment process that participants with different needs have different requirements in terms of timescales and communication, which influenced the timescale for mobilisation from a range between two to six weeks, with a small number responding over 8 eight weeks after the initial contact. | LR2, FGE8, FGE9 | |
| 5 | Media promotion should be multi-sensory and should recognise the limitations of certain media format to those with sensory impairments. |
Further research is recommended into: i) Determining the response / value of accessible media promotion through local TV, radio, audio newspapers versus DPO spoken media (RNIB Radio) for different project types. ii) Determining the response / value of making a press release to DPOs to promote engagement / stakeholder identification standard practice. Use could be made of participant records from future engagement as to how they became aware of the engagement event and feedback on efficacy of approaches adopted. |
LR1, LR2, FGE5 | |
| 6 | The use of different communication methods can improve access and understanding during the inclusive engagement process. | The format of engagement and an appreciation of communication preferences will support a wider range of disabled people to make an independent assessment of street design proposals instead of being reliant on a third party (i.e. personal assistant) for interpretation. | LR1, LR2, FGE9, FGE10, FGE11 | |
| 6.1 | Sub-principle: Inclusive engagement is supported through the provision of different ways of physically interacting with the proposals, such as walk-throughs and material samples. | Potential engagement formats include walk-throughs through the site (including multiple walk-throughs at different times of day / varying lighting conditions), the provision of early access and / or separate consultation events, the provision of street design (e.g. paving patterns) material samples, tactile plans and 3D plans of key locations or features. | LR1, LR2, FGE10, FGE12, FGE13 | |
| 6.2 | Sub-principle: Inclusive engagement is supported by facilitating different forms of engagement (e.g. joint events and one-to-one interviews). | Different engagement approaches may be needed to support different types of local disabled street users. Some may prefer one-to-one interviews, while others may prefer single fully inclusive events covering the needs of wider range of street users (i.e. seeking the sharing of knowledge). Multiple approaches should be supported to ensure all views are recorded. The use of skilled and suitably experienced facilitators (with supporting staff) is important as different approaches cannot necessarily be fully anticipated and may require adaptation 'on the day'. | LR1, LR2, FGE6, FGE9, DIP3 | |
| 6.3 | Sub-principle: Inclusive engagement is supported by a clear definition of the different communication preferences of the disabled street users to be engaged with, and provision for these approaches to be adopted. | Communication preferences could relate to print media (including braille, large print, simplified plans including coloured and grey scale highlighting key features, word documents, etc. Consideration should be given to access to print media in advance of the engagement event, and to support for communication support tools including, but not exclusive to, BSL, E-note takers, etc. including provision for relief for supporting staff. Other hard to reach groups of disabled street users may require foreign language support. Local authorities (in order to meet their PSED obligations) should have existing facilities and services to provide support to certain of these elements. | LR1, LR2, FGE9, FGE10, FGE11 | |
| 7.0 | The sourcing of accessible venues that can accommodate participants with a range of impairments (in the group of disabled street users being engaged with) supports inclusive engagement. | Physically accessible venues should ideally be located close to public transport and be accessible by private vehicle (taxi, car) with adequate disabled parking provision. Welfare facilities (with fully accessible toilets, washing and changing facilities) and personal assistant support are viewed as essential, with accessible directions to the venue (i.e. map and text description) and support for personal assistants to meet users at a local rail station or similar. | LR1, LR2, FGE17, FGE20 | |
| 8 | Maintaining a record of engagement supports inclusive design and the designer's Public Sector Equality Duty compliance under the Equality Act. | It is recommended that guidance be updated to ensure designers maintain records which include the design response to inputs from the engagement, including design changes and reasonable adjustments made, or where no action has been taken, in order to inform the EqIA / Access Audit. 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. | The recording of engagement is a cornerstone of inclusive engagement and design. The level of existing amenity needs to be understood and recorded, along with stakeholder input on the impact of proposals on existing and future amenity, as well as suggestions for enhancing design proposals. Record keeping should include the design response to stakeholder input with regard to the level of amenity and any mitigation proposed. | LR1, LR2, FGE7, DIP6, GP5 |
| 8.1 | Sub-principle: The recorded input from the engagement process should be assessed and responded to (i.e., 'you said, we did'). | This will demonstrate to stakeholders how previous engagement has helped shape the project to date and help increase confidence in the process and maintain interest, particularly on longer projects and projects with time gaps between stages. | LR1, LR2, DIP2, DIP6, GP5 | |
| 8.2 | Sub-principle: Engagement input and feedback should be facilitated in the most accessible format for the participant, with associated record keeping. |
The formats should be reasonable, appropriate and accessible to both the receiver and the sender, examples of which are MP3 audio recordings and email utilising text to speech software. In circumstances where a participant cannot submit written input, the designer should record their input into written form (with the participant's permission) and that any response be similarly recorded. The response should be provided in a format agreed with the participant involved (for example using text-to-speech software, support from a participant's personal assistant or an audio recording). |
LR1, LR2, DIP6, GP5 | |
| 9 | A collaborative approach that encourages local disabled street users or representatives to consider the needs of other users supports inclusive engagement. |
The good practice examples illustrate the positive contribution of collaboration working, and the benefits are highlighted in the literature reviewed. A collaborative approach to the engagement process, enabling different types of participants to engage with each other and provide design input, would enable identification of potential points of conflict and collective resolution. This would minimise potential negative views and mistrust between participants. Transparent and open recording during the design process records the detail of collaborative engagement and its impact upon the design. |
LR1, LR2, FGE14, DIP16 |