Dear All
I was directed to this conversation by a couple of different people as I have a large personal and professional interest in this provision.
I’m so sorry if this message sounds grumpy or adversarial as that’s not how I want to be at all – I want to see innovation! I think there are lots of options for positive inclusive design solutions, however I’m really sad to see quite a negative thread of comments, even here in the access world. I know there are issues with the ClosOMat Space to Change solution, but I wonder, has anyone tried to work with them? I know nobody has been in touch with their partner in the campaign, Firefly, because I know Claire Smyth well and she is very enthusiastic to work to develop a way to increase facilities.
This lack of provision isn’t an issue that affects individuals, for example, this affects my whole family of 4 – how can we go on an outing to somewhere that my daughter has no access to a toilet?
I think much of this is due to an ingrained attitude in society. It feels like people with complex needs are still seen as an ‘extra provision’. That people like my daughter are destined to live in care homes and be happy with outings to day centres. This is one reason I think that it’s parents who are leading this campaign – we want inclusion for our families. We don’t want our kids to be limited by societies views of disability. As our kids grow out of the baby change provision, we are seeing them growing apart from the ability to be included in society, included in activities with our wider family and friends.
The BS for changing places itself is written in a very exclusive way – in that changing places should be locked and ‘normal disabled people’ and parents with children should be directed to the ‘normal toilets’ – I paraphrase here, but that is the jist of it.
The Changing Places standard has everything thrown in, including a shower (surely a location specific need – would you expect a shower in any other toilet provision at the cinema for example?)! There are various diagrams for standard accessible toilets and showers and a combined WC and shower in part M – yet as soon as a bench and hoist is mentioned it’s lumped together with a peninsular toilet and a shower. Why no middle ground? Why turn it into an exclusive, expensive ‘extra’ that no business wants to install.
I asked this series of questions in the Access Association Linked In group and have had no response in there....
“I do not think it is acceptable that there are only 2 toilets (that I know of, other than at her school) that my daughter can use in our whole city (despite the hard work of our access officer and local disability groups). There are none that I know of in my local authority at all.
I am actively campaigning and trying to raise awareness of changing places among fellow architects, and my local area, but I'm struggling with several things:
1. That omission of provision for people who need assistance in the loo still seems to be an acceptable compromise - do we know why? Why does protection from discrimination not apply to those with more complex needs?
2. The size of the changing places standards - 12sqm - is this really a reasonable adjustment? And is this, therefore, the reason why compromise is being accepted in away from home loo provision? Does anyone know where the 12sqm standard has come from? What are the minimum parameters (I cannot find any detail about this in the BS, in the way that there is about the unisex accessible WC). I can't find any similar sized sanitary provision in BS8300 guidelines - e.g. Fig 46 an assisted bathroom with peninsular toilet is 7.75sqm - why the jump to 12sqm when away from home?
3. Finally, why the exclusive nature of what should be a facility to create inclusion? Why can older child and adult changing facilities not be combined with accessible baby changing, for example, to create a 'family changing' facility? - surely more inclusive - and (I'd argue) that if a facility is beneficial to more user groups then it would be more 'valuable' to a venue and therefore it's more likely more would be installed by multiple organisations?
I'd be really interested to hear your thoughts and if you could signpost me to where I can find out the background on the standards and what research has been done.”
Again I apologise if this is perceived as a bit of a rant, and maybe I am too close to this issue, but when toilets with changing bench and hoist don’t even get a paragraph of their own in part M (and in that paragraph are listed after luggage!), it does feel there is an element of put up and shut up about it.
Regards
Vaila
www.theinclusivehome.co.uk
(PS we parents may well use unsafe lifting methods, but that is because we have no choice, and we know only too well that our kids will grow into adults and will be further denied access to society if things do not change).
----------End of Message----------
Run by SURFACE for more information on research, teaching and consultancy:
http://www.surface.salford.ac.uk
Archives for the Accessibuilt discussion list are located at http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/accessibuilt.html
|