About Access was recently asked to assess accessibility adjustments at a prominent UK heritage tourism site- and found some glaring omissions
The creativity and innovation which goes into curating the content at some of our finest cultural and heritage attractions is sadly not always applied when it comes to making necessary accessibility adjustments.
Some familiar issues emerged again recently when we studied facilities and throughfares at one of the more prominent tourism sites in the UK. Among them was evidence of a lack of understanding about making a convincing case between reasonable adjustments and unreasonable adjustments.
If you get that wrong you risk incurring far greater costs than if you just do the job properly in the first place.
Sites that are open to public have mandatory accessibility obligations
From the start it’s worth noting that many attractions – including the site which we visited – are public sector properties and therefore have a public sector equality duty (PSED).
All service providers are required to take an anticipatory approach when planning a project and demonstrate that they have considered all the protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010 and the effect the proposed policy will have on them.
Those which have a PSED also have to eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation and other prohibited conduct. In addition they are required to advance equality of opportunity between people who share a relevant protected characteristic and those who do not. They must also foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not.
Within that, it should be remembered that it’s not possible for a building to comply with the Equality Act because the requirements are about the service rather than the site. What matters is that the exhibits and overall experience are accessible and inclusive, and that every effort is made to present them in a different way if visitors encounter obstacles and barriers.
In delivering any products, services and experiences the supplier should be aware that achieving a fully accessible environment is not possible, but that shouldn’t stop them from trying. The challenge is that everyone is different and, even where individuals have the same disability, they may have different access requirements.
Accessibility adjustments are about more than wheelchair ramps
That’s why any consultations around accessibility should take a pan-disability approach. Installing a ramp is helpful for wheelchair users but you must also consider the specific needs of, for example, blind and partially sighted people and hearing impaired people.
In our example, many issues arose from the site operating at different height levels. There’s the question of how to ensure people can move safely between the floors, and whether the width of certain areas can be navigated in a wheelchair.
The older the property the more likely it is that you will encounter difficulties with installing lifts and accessible loos, or widening corridors. This takes us into the area of unreasonable adjustments and is where creativity and innovation can play a part.
Look for other solutions such as alternative routes or one-way systems, but always remember the need for emergency evacuation from any new accessible locations. Consider also how other forms of interpretation can be used to reach people who are prevented from enjoying the full experience.
But in preparing a case to say that certain physical adjustments to a site are unreasonable it is important to present strong evidence, because you should expect to face strong challenges to that position.
Think about what can be done, rather than what cannot
It’s not enough to say an adjustment would cause significant harm to the historic fabric, or would simply be unreasonable. Further detail should be made available and a paper trail to the decision-making process will help – it may form part of the defence if a challenges is ever mounted on the grounds of disability discrimination.
But first and foremost the aim has to be to make such premises accessible wherever possible rather than to try and justify them being inaccessible.
In our example we have identified three aspects to minimising barriers and creating an inclusive attraction. There may be more and they are likely to vary from one site to another, but they provide a good starting point.
You should set out to design and build a space and its features to be as barrier free as possible for as many people as possible. You should also put in place management procedures and systems to maintain levels of accessibility and address barriers which people might still encounter.
And on the basis that many people won’t know what is in store, you should manage expectations and provide information to visitors to ensure they know what to expect and how to access specific help with managing their individual requirements.
The post Evidence is essential in arguing against accessibility adjustments on heritage projects appeared first on Planning, Building & Construction Today.
