Dear Helen

I understand how difficult it is to find best practice guidelines and this
is partly because BS 8300 is out of date and in many places, based on the
medical model. Part M is a slight improvement but still allows for
different interpretations.

We wrote Design for Access 2 to give clearer guidance to city council
designers and those involved in refurbishments and ordering products
although, even in the manual, because of space, as Julienne indicated in
her project, we also summarised some elements. This was also because
Manchester has Access Officers and a DDA compliance team who can provide
additional advice. When we do audits, we will often use additional
specifications.

The images project arose because it is easier to explain to designers what
the existing problems of interpretation create if we use images. Often
designers compromise on very important access issues because they don't
always understand how users access facilities.

The designs for baby changing areas and for adult changing facilities, also
for accessible facilities in schools, which we are also working on, result
from a lack of information elsewhere in national guidelines or regulations.
(I recognise that the new Bulletin 77 has recently provided additional
guidance but that is for another discussion!)

It is probably best to meet requirements of the DDA to go for best practice
wherever possible, as the definitions of "reasonableness" are likely to
become more stringent as time goes on. Part M, BS 8300, Lifetime Homes and
most of the CAE guidelines are the minimum that should be provided but it
is often possible and no more expensive to go for better standards, as we
have tried to do with Design for Access 2 which had a very long
consultation period with City Council departments and others. As an access
group, we didn't get everything we would have liked, including parking and
accommodation, but they are still better than the national standards
referred to above!

I feel that the reason the national standards have always been so minimal
is because the government doesn't want to be accused of costing businesses
too much money. We also know that building from new is always easier than
adaptations. But until we get a civil rights approach, we are likely to get
fudges and mailing lists such as this one, is really useful to share
information.

I had hoped that the DRC consultation with access groups would take on
board our recommendation in our focus groups and interview for, amongst
other things, a more coherent approach to accessing best practice standards
but unfortunately it wasn't included in the recommendations so no change
there then!

I understand that BS 8300 is about to be reviewed and revised but expect
that any publication will be some time away.

It would certainly be helpful for there to be a collection of standards
which go beyond the national ones where we know of them.

We would be happy to host them on our website if that would be helpful.

Best wishes

Flick





At 12:55 09/05/2005 +0100, you wrote:
>Dear Julienne and all
>I understand from Julienne's explanation that her research is comparing
>existing facilities to existing guidelines (be they minimum as well as
>minimal) in order to understand what the current standard is. At the same
>time further research is being carried out as to what they should be.
>This seems a valuable piece of work to me.
>
>Architects, such as myself, are struggling with what guidelines to follow in
>order to assist our clients with meeting their obligations under the DDA. I
>have to admit that it is not helped by every local authority re-iterating or
>re-writing the guidelines, despite the fact that I am pleased that they are
>paying serious attention to it.
>
>Surely we ought to be aiming towards one national set of guidelines? If not,
>architects will continue to defer to the building regulations approved
>document M which seems to be struggling to keep up with the latest thinking
>and best practice, and the situation will not improve. Very few projects use
>access consultants, and there are not enough to go around, so the better and
>clearer information we can provide building professionals with the better.
>
>Your comments welcomed!
>
>Helen Taylor
>
>On 9/5/05 12:19 pm, "Flick Harris" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> >
> > Hi Julienne
> >
> > Was just about to send you my comments added to David's amendments when I
> > read your comments.
> >
> > I take your point about an easy checklist for surveys which we also use
> > when we are not doing full access audits but surveys for tourist
> > information etc. However, I would consider David's points and ours to be
> > important for full audits of public premises and in helping providers to
> > meet the requirements of the DDA, where it is not possible to identify
> > users' preferences, particularly if the audits are part of an action
> > planning process and adaptations would follow.
> >
> > If standards are compromised too much for paper space, then service
> > providers and designers will continue to avoid meeting the requirements of
> > the DDA and our (disabled people's) need for better access. I am concerned
> > that the CAE have gone down this route as they are supposed to be
> > demonstrating best practice.
> >
> > I haven't included specifications for adult changing facilities (often
> > known horrendously as "hygiene rooms") but we are currently devising plans
> > and specifications with Manchester City Council who are about to provide
> > them in some public buildings as a result of recent requests. I can send
> > details to those interested. We have already provided specifications for
> > baby changing areas in our Design for Access 2 manual, which was co-written
> > with Manchester City Council and is available online on their website or
> > from a link from ours.
> >
> > We also have a set of images including examples of good and bad practice in
> > toilets and showers on our website, with additional images to add
> eventually!
> >
> > http://www.mdpag.org.uk/pubs.htm
> >
> > I hope you will find our comments helpful.
> >
> > best wishes
> >
> > Flick
> >
> > At 10:35 09/05/2005 +0100, you wrote:
> >> Dear David Croft and Accessibuilt members,
> >>
> >> David, thank you for taking the time to annotate the Toilet Audit
> >> Tool. Your notes are extremely helpful, but they do illustrate the
> >> difficulty of carrying out research in this area.
> >>
> >> Perhaps we should have made it clearer in our original communication
> >> that the tool is wholly based on the ADM, which is why we have
> >> restricted the dimensions cited in the tool to the most important of
> >> those given in the actual document, rather than adding to those
> >> recommendations additional standards based on what we already know to
> >> be limitations on access by, say, people with a baby buggy or in a
> >> powered wheelchair.
> >>
> >> Nor did we wish to add information based on what we know of users'
> >> own preferences in respect of design, to this particular tool. We are
> >> gathering information on users' requirements in a separate exercise,
> >> through the use of personas and through a separately designed user
> >> needs form. In this, we are eliciting users' preferred items of
> >> equipment and preferred dimensions. Needless to say, they vary
> >> widely. For example, we have already run focus groups with users in
> >> association with Pamis, who have been advising us about the project,
> >> but thank you for mentioning them as maybe not everyone on the
> >> network is aware of the sterling work they do. Again, what our
> >> Advisory Group tells us will be helpful, is to know the actual
> >> proportions of people who regularly use the different items of
> >> equipment provided, such as the drop down rail, or the vertical grab
> >> rails.
> >>
> >> Once we have gathered the information on what is provided and what
> >> the users want, in separate exercises, we will then compare the data.
> >>
> >> So far as the Audit Tool itself is concerned, we have already audited
> >> 60 premises owned or managed by private providers in Clerkenwell
> >> ourselves, and so we already know that most if not all of the
> >> premises we looked at ourselves have major design faults. What we are
> >> now trying to establish is which aspects of the recommendations in
> >> ADM are complied with by more or most providers, and which are
> >> observed the the least. This is really what the tool is for as a
> >> research instrument, but when we have fine tuned it, it should
> >> provide a checklist for providers to use on their own premises to
> >> check their own facilities. We are gathering our own material on
> >> this, but we hope to widen the resources at our disposal by gathering
> >> information from other networks of people with an interest in these
> >> issues, which is why we asked for Accessibuilt's help.
> >>
> >> The notes you have added to the basic tool illustrate another
> >> dilemma. We needed a tool that could be administered quickly, without
> >> too much fuss, by someone with minimal training, otherwise it will
> >> not be used. This is particularly true of the providers of accessible
> >> toilets, who would welcome something simple that they can use to
> >> check their own premises, but who will shy away from something that
> >> gives the impression of being too complicated and onerous. We have
> >> therefore taken the advice of the Centre for Accesible Environments
> >> on this and distilled the tool onto 2 sides of A4. This has meant
> >> that some of the recommendations have not been given in full, or
> >> shorthanded in qualitative terms like 'robust' or 'easy to use',  and
> >> others have not been mentioned at all. Your fuller version is 7 pages
> >> long. We also had long and detailed discussions with our Advisory
> >> Group, on how much detail to include and the consensus from this
> >> group was that we had got it about right.
> >>
> >> Howver, please be assured that I'll be going through your
> >> recommendations in detail. I have spotted some things that we
> >> definitely need to add, and other comments that are more akin to
> >> recommendations to extend the ADM, that will feed into the user needs
> >> side of the equation. Yet other comments will feed into the text that
> >> will accompany any end product from the project, which still has
> >> about 18 months to run. We are talking to in excess of 40 different
> >> user groups at present, including faith based communities and
> >> families with children at various ages, as well as older people and
> >> people with a very wide range of health concerns. For us to adjust
> >> the guidance in the ADM is therefore premature. I'll have to contain
> >> my impatience until we have finished the research and can support our
> >> final recommendations with the evidence provided by all our end-users
> >> and by everyone who has inspected premises as part of the study.
> >>
> >> Can I finish by saying that everyting that David has mentioned will
> >> be used in the study in some way, so if other people have information
> >> or recommendations that they feel we should know about, please
> >> contact us as everything adds to the weight of evidence that our
> >> current guidelines are inadequate and serve to exclude lots of people
> >> from using the public realm.
> >>
> >> Best Regards, Julienne
> >> --
> >>
> >> ----------End of Message----------
> >>
> >> Run by SURFACE for more information on research, consultancy and the
> >> distance taught MSc. in Accessibility and Inclusive Design programme
> visit:
> >>
> >> http://www.inclusive-design.it
> >>
> >> Archives for the Accessibuilt discussion list are located at
> >> http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/accessibuilt.html
> >
> > Chair, MDPAG (Manchester Disabled People's Access Group)
> > Office: [log in to unmask]
> > Website: http://www.mdpag.org.uk
> > Personal: [log in to unmask]
> >
> > ----------End of Message----------
> >
> > Run by SURFACE for more information on research, consultancy and the
> distance
> > taught MSc. in Accessibility and Inclusive Design programme visit:
> >
> > http://www.inclusive-design.it
> >
> > Archives for the Accessibuilt discussion list are located at
> > http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/accessibuilt.html
> >
>
>______________________________________________________________
>
>architecture plb  accepts no liability for non or partial arrival of
>electronic information.  Information on hard copies is to take
>precedent over that issued by email.
>
>While we do check for viruses, it is the responsibility of the recipient to
>check
>that this email and any attachment is virus-free.
>
>All information issued is subject to copyright and may not be used,
>copied or given to other parties without written permission of architecture
>plb
>
>----------End of Message----------
>
>Run by SURFACE for more information on research, consultancy and the
>distance taught MSc. in Accessibility and Inclusive Design programme visit:
>
>http://www.inclusive-design.it
>
>Archives for the Accessibuilt discussion list are located at
>http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/accessibuilt.html

Chair, MDPAG (Manchester Disabled People's Access Group)
Office: [log in to unmask]
Website: http://www.mdpag.org.uk
Personal: [log in to unmask]

----------End of Message----------

Run by SURFACE for more information on research, consultancy and the distance taught MSc. in Accessibility and Inclusive Design programme visit:

http://www.inclusive-design.it

Archives for the Accessibuilt discussion list are located at http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/accessibuilt.html