RNIB response to the Department for Transport’s Transport Accessibility Action Plan (Accessible Streets and Shared Space)Response to Action 1: accessible streetsWe welcome the updating of Inclusive Mobility and in fact have been asking DfT to review it for some years now. We formally called for the update in 2015 when we published our ‘Who Put That There?’ report and are disappointed that progress is still only at the planning stage. It is essential that blind and partially sighted people are involved in the review of any guidance relating to Inclusive Mobility or tactile paving from an early stage. Shared space schemes and cycling infrastructure need to also be tackled within Inclusive Mobility. We call for a moratorium on all new shared space schemes until their impact on disabled people, especially those with sight loss, has been assessed and addressed within relevant guidance and regulations. In fact, the progress on inclusive environments indicated at 4.4 of the action plan is being completely undermined by the spread of shared spaces.

With regard to the tactile paving review, our understanding is that the results of the previous consultation showed a need to review this guidance and that a decision has already been taken to deliver new guidance. RNIB, along with other sight loss organisations, was invited to sit on a working group scoping out the proposed review, however, this work seems to have abruptly ended with no notice to participants. Like Inclusive Mobility, we believe there is a clear need to review this guidance and work should be undertaken on this as a matter of urgency (in conjunction with the Inclusive Mobility work). In the absence of updated guidance, local authorities will continue to ignore existing guidance leading to a further deterioration in the position of tactile paving. We note, for example, that TfL will shortly put out their own consultation on tactile paving in the absence of action from the Government. As the consultation document points out, consistency in this area is vital and so the Government must take a lead.

Enforcement and compliance with regulations and guidance is an ongoing problem. There are many stations and streets which still do not comply with the current Inclusive Mobility guidance. Our recent survey showed that over one third of respondents said that the lack of tactile strips on train station platforms made it difficult for them to travel. Inclusive Mobility sets out that tactile strips should be used, but at many stations they are not.

Recommendations: DfT must update both Inclusive Mobility and tactile paving

guidance urgently, involving blind and partially sighted people in the process

DfT must ensure that the guidance is promoted extensively and it is monitored to encourage compliance

Accessible streets - Additional PointsThe AAP must address the way blind and partially sighted people are excluded from consultation processes due to inaccessible information We have received multiple complaints about the inaccessibility of local consultation processes in relation to public space and cycling planning schemes.

In practice, most public consultation processes seem to have routinely failed to communicate accessibly with the public via notices, documentation and maps in accessible formats such as large print, audio, braille and accessible digital formats, which are crucial to enable blind and partially sighted people to participate.

The lack of properly considered accessibility provisions directly impacts blind and partially sighted people’s ability to know about, and participate in, the consultation process. It leaves them partly or wholly excluded from these consultations. Failure to reach out and engage with the wider community who may be affected, means only very narrow sections of the local population who are blind or partially sighted are reached.

When consultations are over and schemes go on to be constructed and completed, reports from people who contact us reveal there is typically a lack of viable on-the-ground accessible systems enabling blind and partially sighted people to accessibly alert and

report any adverse experience or incident. This results in the loss of critical feedback from this often severely affected section of the public.

For example, local notices promoting feedback opportunities communicate only by visual means alone, as do online and social media opportunities, meaning blind and partially sighted users of the public space remain unaware of these opportunities to feedback.

In addition, Apps provided by local authorities that could promote and enable feedback on the accessibility of recently completed public space developments are typically not fully accessible and/or cater only for sighted users and fail on specific usability requirements of blind and partially sighted people. For example, Apps do not facilitate users who cannot visually identify the precise location of an incident or the nature of a vehicle(s) involved in an incident.

Ensuring the AAP speaks to planners and architects so they understand “appearance” is a multisensory concept that includes tactile and touch perception of public spacesWe believe the DfT’s AAP is a great opportunity to improve the accessibility of Britain’s public spaces for blind and partially sighted people by recognising and promoting that the use of the term “appearance” and the meaning of “well designed” throughout all related communications is, critically, more than just about visual concepts.

‘Accessibility’ is not and should never be treated as a requirement to be bolted-on to the end of a design process or as a mitigation against a separate criteria. Accessibility is a natural human requirement that exists in the population.

For a design process to be ‘social model’ rather than ‘medical model’ every design should evolve inclusively, rather than have inclusion bolted on at the end.

The definition of “appearance” must fully include tactile and touch into the definition by proactively educating and re-directing the ‘shared space’ development community away from

visually biased concepts and towards a multi-sensory comprehension of the term.

The AAP must reinforce that accessibility is an end-to-end design process and not a bolt-on process of mitigation.

We think all design guidance starting with LTN 1/11 must not only sharply distinguish but practically direct the different design requirements of a. partially sighted people and b. blind people, as related but experientially separate user groups.

Design guidance must ensure each group’s differing requirements, often poorly understood and inevitably confused by architects and planners, are practically addressed in engaging and deliverable ways for those developer communities.

We think that by addressing the lack of clarity that LTN 1/11, Manual for Streets and Inclusive Mobility guidance has unfortunately left between the needs of these separate user groups, the Department for Transport will be able to improve understanding and therefore motivation amongst architects and planners, which should result in improved adherence to the guidance.

Urgent need for AAP to reverse the loss of controlled crossings and standard kerbsQuote from member of the public:“This has huge implications for my independence and wellbeing. I and other members of the Northumberland Low Vision Action Group are registered blind, some of us are guide dog users, and others use a long cane. Blind and partially sighted people, particularly guide dog owners and long cane users, use the kerb as a navigation clue to know where they are in a street and which way they are facing.”

“The removal or reduction of the delineation between the pavement and carriageway poses great difficulty for people who are blind or partially sighted. Many blind and partially sighted people, disabled and elderly people including myself feel unable to use and thereby avoid shared surface areas.

“Most of us can only use controlled pedestrian crossings i.e. they must have visual, audible and tactile signals as well as the correct tactile paving surfaces.”

Through public space consultations and multiple examples of the feedback above, we know signal controlled crossings and standard kerbs are being systematically reduced and removed from public spaces around the country. This is due to ‘shared space’ design approach, which resists signal control crossings because the fundamental philosophy places eye-contact at the heart of the space sharing and traffic flow mechanism. It also replaces conventional kerbs with flush or near-flush surfaces.

We know signal control crossings are fundamentally important as a reasonable adjustment for all blind and partially sighted pedestrians who, due to their disability, often cannot make the necessary eye-contact with cyclists and motorists as other pedestrians.

While the green pedestrian signal is protected and as DfT state in this consultation document “so that people know they can cross with safety” which we agree is a critical factor to blind and partially sighted pedestrians, we therefore believe that: The AAP must proactively address and act to reverse the

reductions and loss of signal control crossings by explaining their crucial importance as both a “safety” and an “an accessibility” adjustment in all public space and cycling scheme designs, retrospectively as well as in planning and construction.

We think the AAP has a crucial role to make this issue prominent throughout DfT advice and guidance relating to accessibility infrastructure, in order to help turn-around the losses of signal control crossings that have taken place, and consequently impacted the ability of blind and partially sighted people to be in personal control of their own safety when attempting to make a pedestrian journey through a public space.

We are also aware of signal control crossings that have been installed in public spaces but, due to the share space design approach, are rendered unavailable to blind and partially sighted pedestrians due to the failure of the design to incorporate high contrast and tactile “findability” of these crossing facilities.

We think the AAP should instigate action to address these critically important issues by setting up a taskforce to address and reverse the loss of signal control crossings in recent public space re-developments, as well as advise, advocate and

support resolution of issues arising from schemes being planned and consulted on.

The loss of standard kerbs has also taken place across the country as a result of public space re-developments, and also minor changes to road junctions where ‘raised tables’ are installed.

We think the AAP must proactively address the loss of standard kerbs by restating the real value to blind and partially sighted people of these design features, for example:

By setting out that standard height kerbs and kerb upstands of 60mm and higher are detectable by blind and partially sighted people and to draw attention to the recent Judicial Review of Lisburn council (Northern Ireland) in relation to the difficulties caused by lowered kerbs.

Explain that kerbs of standard kerbs provide unequivocal and binary information as to the status of the adjacent surfaces, unlike tactile strips which cannot convey this level of information as a stand-alone feature, and subsequently have multiple meanings.

The AAP should highlight to planners, architects and local authorities that providing equivocal information as to the status of adjacent surfaces is unacceptable and that as a general rule, a kerb with an upstand of 125mm is the only unequivocal way of installing the necessary adjustment for blind and partially sighted pedestrians.

AAP must create a strongly practical and implementable version of inclusion and move beyond simply encouraging others to work it out for themselvesIn the consultation DfT state that wide -ranging guidance on street design that they provide to practitioners includes references to the need for inclusive design. For example ‘Manual for Streets’ and ‘Manual for Streets 2’ published in 2007 and 2010 respectively.

We cannot agree with this because we cannot see how inclusion is clearly covered. This is a crucial area that we think the AAP can act to correct.

Inclusive Mobility guidance is fundamentally important but the AAP needs to address guidance such as Manual for Streets that directly contradicts it.We agree with DfT that Inclusive Mobility is a key piece of guidance, and should enable local authorities to deliver accessible public realm environments.

We strongly support DfT’s objective to ensure that it is used consistently by all local authorities.

We think DfT must act to give Inclusive Mobility strength and prominence in the AAP.

However we think DfT must also ensure that the flexibility that Manual for Streets guidance espouses in relation to the need for adherence to the Inclusive Mobility guidance is addressed, to end the current contradictions between these two sets of guidance that are undermining the essential need for universal standards.

Extracts from Manual for Streets Guidance that contradict the importance of adhering to Inclusive Mobility Guidance:“2.6.1 A major concern expressed by some highway authorities when considering more innovative designs, or designs that are at variance with established practice, is whether they would incur a liability in the event of damage or injury.”

“2.6.2 This can lead to an over-cautious approach, where designers strictly comply with guidance regardless of its suitability, and to the detriment of innovation. This is not conducive to creating distinctive places that help to support thriving communities.”

“2.6.3 In fact, imaginative and context-specific design that does not rely on conventional standards can achieve high levels of safety. The design of Poundbury in Dorset, for example, did not comply fully with standards and guidance then extant, yet it has few reported accidents. This issue was explored in some detail in the publication Highway Risk and Liability Claims.14”

The above entries in Manual for Streets guidance are concerning when it comes to issues of disability equality because many of the requirements are “standards” based and revolve around the need for consistency. An example of this issue which we frequently

come across is the use of ‘setts’ rather than a kerb (or corduroy paving). The use of setts is entirely untested as a delineator and no testing has been done on detectability and the necessary widths and the impact on people with mobility difficulties.

The “innovative” approach espoused by Manual for Streets guidance is also problematic because it means that each area is using different materials for different purposes which limits the ability of blind and partially sighted people to move around freely between areas. This is an issue emphasised by the DfT in its consultation on the Accessibility Action Plan and is behind the standards based approach.

Also the reference made in 2.6.3 above from Manual for Streets to ‘Poundbury’ is unhelpful as the design of this town almost entirely ignored the requirements set out in the DfT’s Inclusive Mobility guidance.

The AAP must recognise the contradictions caused by Manual for Streets guidance highlighted above, the problems they cause and undertake to correct them.

Inclusive Mobility guidance is also hindered by the problems that exist in LTN 1/11 and that by resolving the problems in LTN 1/11 there will be a great opportunity for Inclusive Mobility to positively influence public space design as originally intended.

DfT’s review Inclusive Mobility guidance must take account of societal changes We believe the guidance must now also be revised to take into

account the way UK public spaces are changing as policies on de-carbonisation, public health and driverless vehicle technology take effect.

The replacement of “easily hearable” vehicles with “extremely difficult or impossible to hear” vehicles (bicycles, electric vehicles).

The introduction of new street obstacles such as electric charging points.

The introduction of driverless vehicles and pods.

Response to Action 2: shared spaceWe welcome DfT’s involvement with CIHT on their work on shared space. However, this review has been ongoing for a number of

years and it is not clear when it will conclude. In the meantime many schemes are being planned or are in-development by local authorities across the country, that involve a shared space design approach.

We therefore urge the Government to implement the recommendation of the Women and Equalities Committee.

Recommendations: DfT must write to local authorities requesting that they cease

implementation of shared space schemes in particular any scheme that involves the removal of kerbs and controlled crossings

DfT must ensure kerbs and crossings are retrofitted to all shared space schemes.

DfT must urgently replace LTN 1/11 with new guidance which reinforces universal accessibility standards involving blind and partially sighted people in the process

Shared Space - Additional pointsAAP must clarify the need for safety and accessibility adjustments to facilitate “sharing” for blind and partially sighted pedestrians in “shared space”.

The AAP must address the loss of safe places to cross roads and cycle lanes in existing public spaces and planned developments by clarifying the need for signal control crossings as an “eye-contact substitute” wherever a scheme has removed a signal control crossing or wherever consultation with local blind and partially sighted people establishes a reasonable request for one.

AAP must re-assess the way it describes the conditions where the removal of kerbs (making road and cycle lane flush with footway) is appropriate and what “very low traffic volumes and speeds” actually means.

The AAP must ensure thorough consultation in relation to these matters on the criteria and thresholds with advocates and organisations representing blind and partially sighted people before stating in what circumstances footways can be safely made flush with areas where vehicles and bicycles are moving.

LTN 1/11 to be made fit for purpose.

We cannot agree with DfT’s stated position that Local Transport Note 1/11: Shared Space, does effectively address the issues that blind and partially sighted people face with today’s public space re-developments (see Appendix1 for a detailed critique of this document).

We think the DfT’s failure to engage with the Women and Equalities Committee recommendation, made in April 2017, in the AAP consultation which was published in August 2017, must be proactively addressed by the AAP. The committee stated there was an “urgent need to address the exclusion of disabled people from places where 'shared spaces' street design is used.”

The Committee received a significant amount of evidence on this issue and called for a halt to the introduction or expansion of such schemes, pending fit for purpose guidance from the Department.

We fully support the Women and Equalities Committee call for a halt to further “shared space” type public space developments pending the review of this guidance.

We think LTN 1/11 needs thorough overhaul and re-development to make it fit for purpose.

The revised version of LTN 1/11 must reinforce universal accessibility standards and not divert issues into local public consultations to fill-in the grey areas that LTN 1/11 unnecessarily left open.

We disagree that the guidance provided in the Local Transport Note (LTN 1/11) is fit for purpose (ref to 4.12).

The CIHT has not yet delivered its review of shared space and other street design projects by the time the AAP consultation will close. We think there must be a comparable opportunity for public

scrutiny and consultation on the DfT’s response to the CIHT review, to compensate for the loss of opportunity to comment on this as part of the AAP

ConclusionsThe UK’s public spaces are fundamentally changing and it is crucial that the DfT’s AAP understands, recognises and acts to

preserve and enhance the freedom, equality and independence of blind and partially sighted citizens.

In this response we have set out how blind and partially sighted people are, due to the nature of the impairment, reliant on accessible information, and that public consultations that fail to thoroughly embed accessibility will also fail to reach the very people they most need to reach. We think this explains why so many blind and partially sighted people have only started to find their voice on the deteriorating accessibility of UK public spaces in the last year or so.

We have provided a detailed extra section (attached) where we set out the problems in the local transport note (LTN 1/11) which we think have contributed to the deterioration of the accessibility of UK public spaces, and that this AAP has a crucial role to resolve.

We have also described how DfT’s guidance on accessibility and inclusion on the one hand espouses flexibility and innovation, but on the other the need for standards and consistency. These tensions create instability and confusion at the heart of the principles of accessibility and inclusion. One set of guidance makes an example of a public space re-development, which fails to adhere to another set of DfT guidance. We think the AAP must urgently resolve these contradictions.

Finally, we as a society are on the edge of a paradigm shift in the way we move around, which has already started to radically reduce, and even eliminate, the audibility of moving vehicles.

For blind and partially sighted pedestrians, the audibility of a bicycle or motorised vehicle is as crucial as the visibility to sighted pedestrians. However, this fundamental necessity for this section of society is being lost, diminished and confused in the white heat of progress. This progress must develop and evolve for the mutual and equal benefit of everyone, not just for sighted people.

With this shift comes the absolute need and vital importance of footways and walkways, which blind and partially sighted people can “read with total confidence” and use fully independently of the need for any other person. Every citizen has the right to walk alone, to walk in a way that they control their own safety, and to walk with freedom.

We think the DfT’s AAP has a once-in-a-generation opportunity, and responsibility, to secure the accessibility of UK public spaces, as our society transitions away from combustion engines, through the mixed transport infrastructure we are entering now made up of noise-making and low noise / noiseless vehicles, and to the low carbon low / no noise transport infrastructure of the near future.

Appendix 1 - Briefing on RNIB’s concerns regarding LTN 1/11 Shared Space

1. This briefing outlines RNIB’s concerns regarding the contents of LTN 1/11 in particular its failure to address the difficulties that public realm schemes which remove controlled crossings and detectable kerbs cause blind and partially sighted people.

Guidance note for local authorities: access to blind people in towns SS14012. By way of introduction, we note that the Government has,

despite the views expressed in the AAP consultation, already admitted the shortcomings of the guidance when it comes to blind and partially sighted people.

3. On the web page which includes the LTN and the research on which is it apparently based, one of the related documents listed towards the bottom of the page is a document produced by our colleagues at the National Federation for the Blind “Additional guidance note to Local Authorities to assist the creation of streetscapes which are fully accessible to blind people as required by the Public Sector Equality Duty.” In March 2015 the then Minister, Baroness Kramer, wrote to all local authorities enclosing a copy of this document and stating that it should be “read in conjunction with the Department for Transport’s Guidance documents Manual for Streets and Local transport Note 1/11 Shared Space…”.

4. In RNIB experience, local authorities are not referring to this document and in many cases are not aware of its existence. It lacks the status of formal guidance. Given the importance placed on it by the Minister and the need for Local Authorities to consider its contents alongside Manual for Street and LTN 1/11 it is surprising that it is not more prominent on the page. In any event, if the Government accepts the shortcoming of LTN 1/11 (and Manual for Streets) when it comes to the needs of blind and partially sighted people, it is surprising that the Government should think that the LTN still remains fit for purpose especially in light of its own Public Sector Equality Duty.

Who was responsible for writing LTN 1/11?5. The LTN does not indicate who was part of the project team

responsible for writing it. RNIB’s understanding is that the authors of this document included architects and transport designers who are regularly engaged as consultants in the designing shared space schemes. There is therefore considerable potential for conflict of interest and may explain the rather rosy view of shared space that it conveys and why it does not properly address the difficulties that these schemes cause blind and partially sighted people.

6. It is essential that any document drawn up by the Department in relation to the built environment is co-produced with disability organisations in order to ensure that it reflects disabled people’s needs and experiences and also references existing legislation, guidance and standards on accessibility which are crucial to ensuring the built environment is accessible to all.

7. RNIB’s involvement in the project was limited to providing a training session on the needs of people with sight loss which involved taking members of the project team out on the street with SIM specs and/or blindfolds. It had been suggested that we might put a training package together for local authorities which would help them think through the issues for disabled people but that part of the project was scrapped.

Standards v. Innovative design8. The LTN refers to Chapter 2 of Manual for Streets in relation to

risk and liability. Manual for Streets states as follows:

“2.6.1 A major concern expressed by some highway authorities when considering more innovative designs, or designs that are at variance with established practice, is whether they would incur a liability in the event of damage or injury.”

“2.6.2 This can lead to an over-cautious approach, where designers strictly comply with guidance regardless of its suitability, and to the detriment of innovation. This is not conducive to creating distinctive places that help to support thriving communities.”

“2.6.3 In fact, imaginative and context-specific design that does not rely on conventional standards can achieve high levels of safety. The design of Poundbury in Dorset, for example, did not comply fully with standards and guidance then extant, yet it has few reported accidents. This issue was explored in some detail in the publication Highway Risk and Liability Claims.14”

9. The above entries in Manual for Streets guidance are concerning when it comes to issues of disability equality because much of the requirements are “standards” based and revolve around the need for consistency. An example of this issue which we frequently come across is the use of ‘setts’ rather than a kerb (or corduroy paving). The use of setts is entirely untested as a delineator. No testing has been done on detectability and the necessary widths and the impact on people with mobility difficulties. Most blind and partially sighted people will not recognise that the setts are being used as a delineator in the absence of a kerb.

10. The “innovative” approach espoused by Manual for Streets is also problematic because it means that each area is using different materials for different purposes which limits the ability of blind and partially sighted people to move around freely between areas. This is an issue emphasised by the DfT in its consultation on the AAP and is behind the standards based approach.

11. Also the reference made in 2.6.3 above to ‘Poundbury’ is unhelpful as the design of this town almost entirely ignores the requirements set out in the DfT’s Inclusive Mobility guidance.

Inclusive v. accessible design12. RNIB notes the numerous references in the LTN to ensuring

that any design is “inclusive” but we would query whether the understanding of this term by those involved in designing public realm schemes is the same as that of disability organisations and as it is used in “Inclusive Mobility”.

13. In Manual for Streets ‘Inclusive Design’ is defined as follows:

The principles of inclusive design:

Inclusive design places people at the heart of the design process; acknowledges diversity and difference; offers choice where a single solution cannot accommodate all

users; provides for flexibility in use; and provides buildings and environments that are convenient and

enjoyable to use for everyone.

14. We believe that this is the way that the term is generally used in the LTN and is not the same as creating a design which is accessible to disabled people. It means that when blind people complain about the accessibility of a scheme, they are often told that it is regrettable that the scheme excludes them but that it works for the majority of other users i.e. designers still consider it to be inclusive. This clearly is not in keeping with the requirements of the Equality Act.

The requirement of the Equality Act15. The guidance provided by LTN 1/11 on the Public Sector

Equality Duty is vague and doesn’t explain to local authorities about the need to conscientiously undertake an Equality Impact Assessment in order to eliminate unlawful discrimination and advance equality of opportunity.

16. In addition any local authority reading the shared space guidance would be forgiven for thinking that they would meet the requirements of the Equality Act by considering their Public Sector Equality Duty. It does not highlight for example the substantive provisions of the Act and alert local Authorities to the fact that in designing and implementing these schemes they will be exercising a public function and that they are required to comply with the duties under sections 29, 15 and 21.

17. There is also no mention of the Human Rights Act.

Eye contact 18. One of the main complaints that RNIB receive about the

guidance is what it has to say about the need for eye contact in shared space schemes. Paragraph 2.21 states that during the research, “no instances” of negotiation via eye contact

were observed. It goes on to state that eye contact cannot be relied upon and that this point needs to be understood in order to avoid undermining the confidence of blind and partially sighted people using shared space. These paragraphs are regularly quoted back at blind an partially sighted people expressing concerns about the accessibility of shared space schemes planned and implemented in their area.

19. We do not believe that this section of the guidance accurately reflects the findings of the research or the reality of shared space schemes. On this issue the research states as follows:

“Other potential forms of communication identified were eye-contact, hand gestures, drivers flashing their headlights and drivers using their indicator lights. However, no clear observations of direct eye-contact were observed during the accompanied journeys and very few instances of these other behaviours were observed [emphasis added]”.

20. So rather than there being “no instances”, there were in fact “no clear observations”. In any event in RNIB’s view there is considerable anecdotal evidence of negotiation via eye contact in these schemes.

21. What is also clear, and reflected in the results of the MVA research, is that sight is essential in order to use the schemes as pedestrians need to “look for approaching vehicles” as the guidance makes clear. The guidance states that this is no different than in a conventional street but misses the point that in a conventional street those who are not able to look for vehicles will be able to utilise a controlled crossing. Sight is also essential to see hand gestures and flashing lights as identified by the research.

Controlled crossings 22. Shared space schemes advocate the removal of controlled

crossings. This clearly disadvantages blind and partially sighted people who rely on these crossing to know when it is safe to cross. The difficulties that the removal of crossing cause blind and partially sighted people are well documented and yet LTN 1/11 has little to say on the subject (in contrast to the significant space given over to level surfaces) beyond

saying that the inclusion of crossings cause drivers to behave in ways not entirely compatible with the shared space ethos.

23. The MVA research on this issue is far from supportive of the removal of controlled crossings. At 6.2.79 it states for example that:

“Some participants found it very difficult to cross the shared space while others found it fairly easy, particularly if there was a controlled crossing. Participants tended to cross at controlled crossings if they were available and in some situations went back on themselves or further out of their way to ensure they could cross at one [emphasis added].

“This to me is the safest place to cross because you've got a zebra crossing here and you've got the dots [tactile paving] … well they have to stop it’s a zebra crossing isn't it and they have to stop its my priority.” (Visually Impaired, White Cane user, Clapham)

"If there was a crossing that’s where I'd always go to, I'd never cross without a crossing because it's not safe.” (Visually Impaired, Guide Dog user, Plymouth)

"If I'd been on my own it would have been a bit more daunting because I'd have to keep listening for traffic …I always go out of my way to find a pedestrian crossing.” (Visually Impaired, Guide Dog user, Leeds)”

24. There are further examples in the research of the importance of crossings.

25. It is therefore surprising that LTN 1/11 provides no advice whatsoever on the needs of disabled people and blind and partially sighted people in particular when it comes to deciding whether signal controlled crossings are a necessary part of the scheme.

26. We would also seek clarification of the evidence which shows that the inclusion of crossings are not compatible with the shared space ethos. When we have requested this from designers and local authorities they have, so far, been unable to provide it.

Low kerbs27. One of the increasingly common features of shared space

schemes is the lowering of standard height kerbs. We regularly see shared space designs with kerb heights of 20, 30, 50 and 60mm. According to Inclusive Mobility standard kerb heights range from 125mm to 140mm. However, there is nothing in the LTN which provides guidance on the lowering of kerbs and the impact that this can have on blind and partially sighted people who use kerbs as navigation features and who may easily miss a lowered kerb accidentally ending up in the carriageway.

28. The Department will no doubt be aware of the case of Lisburn City Council and Toner which involved shared space schemes where the kerb had been lowered to 30mm. This case found that the Council had acted unlawfully in not equality impact assessing the decision to lower the kerb heights to 30mm. The Court placed considerable reliance on research commissioned by Guide Dogs for the Blind and published in 2009.

29. This research, Effective Kerb Heights for Blind and Partially Sighted People, had been conducted by University College London at their Pedestrian Accessibility Movement and Environment Laboratory (PAMELA). It clearly concluded that the minimum height necessary to ensure that a kerb was always detectable was 60mm. A 20mm kerb was not detected at all 30% of the time i.e. on 3 out of 10 occasions participants walked across the kerb without realising that they had, effectively, entered the road until researchers told them. A further 30% of the time participants only realised that they had crossed a kerb once they had stepped on to the road. Obviously even this could have catastrophic consequences. Even if no traffic was present it would be hugely disorientating and distressing for a blind person to find themselves in the road. Guide dogs are taught to navigate between the building line and the kerb and to stop at kerbs but they are unlikely to recognise a kerb below 60mm as a kerb.

30. Even the installation of kerbs at 60mm or above should be approached with caution because even a kerb of this height

may not be sufficiently detectible for certain groups or at times of low illumination etc. As the Guide Dogs research points out:

“The effects of lighting, weather, additional cognitive loading, and the practicality of using the kerb to assist navigation were not considered in this trial. All these and issues relating to other groups such as children and people with learning difficulties, would need to be the subject of further research”.

31. Given the relevance of the research, it is surprising that no reference is made to it within the shared space guidance.

Building line32. There are a number of occasions in the guidance that refer to

blind and partially sighted people mainly navigating using the building line. This appears to be part of the justification for the removal of kerbs and is apparently based on the research findings. However, this presents a very partial view of the research because it is absolutely clear from the research that a considerable number of blind and partially sighted people and other disabled people (e.g. those with learning disabilities) considered the kerb to be an important navigation feature sometimes more important than the building line.

33. Our discussions with rehabilitation professionals i.e. those involved in providing mobility training to disabled people, also confirm that it is inaccurate to suggest that the building line is the most important navigation feature.

Tactile paving 34. The DfT’s AAP discusses the importance of the tactile paving

guidance and the need for consistency in the use of tactile paving and yet the LTN specifically endorses the non-standard use of tactile paving e.g. using contrasting colours rather than the colours set out in the Guidance (with a contrasting border).

35. Despite referring to the testing which took place on Exhibition Road which recommended the use of an 800mm, the picture included at 6.6 is of 400mm. The Guidance also states that an examination of the research suggests that there may be scope for reducing the width to 600mm. We do not consider it

appropriate to have included this statement within the Guidance. This would clearly require more expert testing. In RNIB’s experience, 400mm of tactile is frequently used.

The need for accessibility audits36. The LTN recommends that a Quality Audit should be

considered in all shared space schemes but makes no specific reference to the need for accessibility audits. RNIB believes these are essential given the very real issues shared space cause disabled people. In RNIB’s experience, quality audits generally only ever consist of a road safety audit which may or may not raise accessibility issues and are not generally undertaken by access professionals.

37. In Manual for Streets, quality audits specifically include an access audit. It is clear in this document that this is about disabled people’s access, as it does, for example, make reference to the needs of access auditors to take advantage of the advice given in Inclusive Mobility. However, in LTN 1/11 the reference to access audits is converted to an access audit for emergency vehicles and deliveries. Further down the list is the Equality Impact Assessment. We are sure that the Department will understand that an Equality Impact Assessment is quite different to an access audit. As noted above an access audit will examine the physical design of the scheme in detail and identify barriers to disabled people’s access and non-compliance with the standards set out in Inclusive Mobility etc. and so a breach of the Equality Act. An Equality Impact Assessment looks at whether a scheme eliminates discrimination and advances equality of opportunity. An access audit and EIA serve very different purposes.

38. We note that this confusion, between impact assessments and access audits, is repeated in the DfT Quality Audit guidance 5/11.

Training people to use shared space39. Another issue that crops up frequently is the view that mobility

and rehabilitation specialists employed by Local Authorities can provide training to disabled people, in particular blind and partially sighted people, to use a shared space scheme.

40. This is clearly perpetuated by the contents of the Guidance which states as follows at paragraph 4.14:

“…Where mobility officers are employed in an area, it might be worthwhile approaching them with a view to their providing familiarisation training for blind and partially sighted people when the scheme opens. Such training can be particularly helpful to those who may be initially concerned about using the street in its new form.”

41. It is not at all clear to RNIB from our discussions with blind and partially sighted people and rehabilitation workers that it will be possible to retrain people in order to use these schemes. For example, it unlikely that it would be possible to train a blind person to use an informal crossing because such crossings rely on being able to identify a crossing, see the traffic and judge when it is safe to cross. The only way for a blind person to know it is safe to cross is when a red light obliges traffic to stop.

42. Clearly blind people receive mobility training in order to help them navigate streets independently. However, they should not have to receive special training to use certain streets in an area; they should be able to apply the general training that they have received to any situation. It also does not address the situation of visitors to a shared space area. The AAP points out the need for consistency in accessibility to facilitate independent travel.

43. Rehabilitation teams are already hard pressed financially to provide the services that they are required to deliver by statute without requiring them to provide additional training to remedy the defects in accessibility of expensive public realm schemes.

44. Such an approach is also in conflict with the aim of a scheme being inclusive. It says that it is OK for accessibility to be a ‘bolt on’ at the end rather than a design evolving inclusively.

Accessibility of consultation materials45. Despite the Guidance alerting readers to the possible

accessibility challenges of consultation documents, it is extremely rare for accessible models/tactile plans etc. to be provided. On the handful of occasions that we are aware of accessible plans being provided, it is only because RNIB and other organisations representing disabled people have insisted and it usually only at an advanced stage of consultation (when concerns are being raised about the accessibility of the scheme).

46. Examples of where this has proved particularly problematic are in Kirkintilloch and Lisburn where the lack of accessible plans meant that blind and partially sighted people attending consultation meetings were not aware that kerbs were being reduced to 20/30 mm. This fact only then came to light when the plans/construction were at an advanced stage and in the case of Lisburn resulted in very long and very expensive Judicial Review proceedings where the blind Claimant, Joanna Toner, was ultimately successful.

47. This section of the guidance also fails to outline the legal requirements of the Equality Act to produce these materials in an accessible format.

Other issues48. We have numerous other concerns regarding the specific

contents of the guidance. We are also concerned about the shortcomings of the MVA research, the involvement of blind and partially sighted people when designing schemes and the need to plan for the needs of disabled people during construction work. We would welcome the opportunity to discuss these with the Department in further detail.

RNIB21 November 2017