From the steps at the front to the cramped lift and complete absence of an accessible loo, a property we assessed recently was a near-perfect example of how not to do accessibility
In such a scenario, the need to inform people about the barriers to access becomes all-important, but this building failed that test as well.
Even the online information is lacking when it comes to presenting an effective access statement, although ironically, it does provide details of the accessibility of the website itself.
The problems have arisen from the building being a certain age and lacking the space for the sort of redevelopment that would improve accessibility.
The building is Grade II listed, with parts dating back to the 18th century and other areas added in the 1960s. It has offices and meeting rooms on the ground floor and three upper floors, and there’s a lecture theatre in the basement. Numbers in the building can vary from about a dozen to more than 100 if there’s an event taking place.
The physical features which present problems are the flight of steps at the entrance, the lack of space in the only lift in the building, and the loos, none of which are accessible.
The idea of creating a workaround by meeting in a room on the ground floor isn’t really feasible. Even if a way could be found to help wheelchair-users –or other people who have limited mobility – into the building, that’s where their journey ends. The loos are in the basement and on the first floor. They aren’t accessible anyway, and neither is the route people would have to take. So even if there was space for a ramp at the front steps, there’s no point adding one.
The issues can be overcome if you throw enough money at them, but there’s rarely an appetite for that.
If you can overcome the obstacle presented by the steps at the entrance, you then need to address the inadequacies of the lift. There are all sorts of advice available around what makes a lift accessible – controls, mirrors, clear information about which floor you’re on – but the starting point is size.
The lift has to be able to accommodate a wheelchair and the person in it. This one can’t do that, and fitting a bigger one would mean increasing the size of the lift shaft.
That would no doubt generate questions about the possible impact of that work on the rest of the building. If you make the lift shaft bigger, will you lose space elsewhere? Will you damage the structure of the building? Is it affordable?
You also need to add an accessible WC. Ideally, this should be in the same area as the other loos, noting of course that it will only be accessible if people who need it are able to use a functioning lift to get to it.
In planning the programme of work, you should take a long-term view, anticipate future needs and do it properly. That will mean considering planning, conservation, and building control, and also getting approval from the people who operate the building.
In the background, when all of the work is done and the new features are in place, you need to make sure accessibility is covered in the emergency evacuation plan.
This property doesn’t have evacuation chairs, which, in any case, are only one element of an emergency evacuation plan. Nor does it have refuges, which at least offer a temporary place of safety while building managers carry out the evacuation of all occupants.
The fact that the occupier of the building has a Personal Emergency Evacuation Plan (PEEP) for the sole employee they know to be disabled demonstrates their awareness of that person’s needs. But the absence of more general information, which would be of use to visitors and newcomers, is a concern.
They are unlikely to know the accessibility needs of all their visitors in advance, and they should be aware that the needs of the people they work with every day can change very quickly, whether permanently or temporarily, as a result of an accident or illness.
Where a building presents such problems, the starting point for overcoming them is to build it into the management plan
The operators should be providing clear, prominent information in an access statement which tells visitors about the use of the building and about any accessibility issues people might face on entering, moving around, and leaving the property.
They should also tell people how they can receive further information or assistance should they need it. Online is the perfect tool for this, but it needs to tell people about the journey around the building rather than just the fonts and colours on the website.
The post Communication is the key in a building full of accessibility barriers appeared first on Planning, Building & Construction Today.
