CNR ITC & CIB WG84 INTERNATIONAL MEETING, ROME 2002

Moving from Theory to Practice in Inclusive Design

Rita Newton, Marcus Ormerod, Andy Lewis and Erika Leho

SURFACE (Salford University Research Focus on Accessible Environments)
Bridgewater Building, Meadow Road Salford M7 1NU, United Knigdom
Tel. +44 (0) 161 2955405, Fax +44 (0) 161 2955011
[Link]
[Link]@[Link], [Link]@[Link]

Abstract
The aim of this paper is to provide an overview of the work of SURFACE and to summarise
the main findings from the different research methodologies adopted in their research. The
work of SURFACE has been in seeking to bridge the gap between theory and practice in
inclusive design. Throughout the research the SURFACE team used a variety of research
techniques to obtain information from designers, building owners, access groups and
voluntary organisations to investigate how inclusive design approaches could be
incorporated into the architectural design process. The results of the research demonstrate
that designers are keen to incorporate inclusive design principles but there is a knowledge
gap particularly when designers are dealing with complex design problems; that users want
to be involved in the design process but feel they have a limited amount to contribute due also
to a knowledge gap; that there are a number of concerns relating to the implementation of the
Disability Discrimination Act in October 2004 and in particular, what is ‘reasonable’
provision remains uncertain. The authors propose that further consideration needs to be
given to how designers and professionals can achieve innovation in inclusive design solutions
in the built environment, and for the need to have an integrative approach to inclusive design.

Keywords: accessibility, disability discrimination act, inclusive design

1. Introduction
SURFACE (Salford University Research Focus on Accessible Environments) is a centre of
excellence with the Research Institute of Built and Human Environment at the University of
Salford. SURFACE was originally supported by the EPSRC (Engineering and Physical
Sciences Research Council) through a feasibility study into creating accessible environments
within the briefing process of design (£40k). This grant built on previous work by Professor
Peter Barrett investigating the process of briefing. This feasibility work led into a larger
project again funded by EPSRC under EQUAL that looked at bridging the gap between
theory and implementation in accessibility – a best practice approach (£230k). The output
from the research has been published design notes, a legal and procedural guide, a better
practice design guide, a national framework on inclusive design education, development of a
Masters programme in Accessibility and Inclusive Design, and networking activities. Also a
practice updating service will be launched shortly.

2. Context
2.1 An inclusive approach in undertaking research
It has been accepted for some time, not only in England and Wales but also in other countries,
that accessibility of the built environment is critical in order to create a socially inclusive
society. Buildings facilitate social inclusion for people with disabilities and older people. If
people are excluded from buildings that provide education, employment, leisure,
entertainment, services and amenities then not only does discrimination occur but also
opportunities for integration are lost. The social model of disability, which was a basic

2 LEISURE AREAS 2.1 R. Newton et al 1

 CNR ITC & CIB WG84 INTERNATIONAL MEETING, ROME 2002

premise of this research, identifies that it is the barriers that society creates that are the
disabling factor, rather than a person’s impairment (Oliver 1996).

This aspect is taken up by universal design (Ostroff & Presier 2001) in trying to create
environments that the majority of people can use. Imrie goes on to suggest that inclusive
design takes universal design further by broadening it to:

challenge the social and institutional, as well as technical, relations of design and
building processes. Inclusion in the design and development of the built environment is
not a disability issue per se; it is an equity and quality (of life) issue for everyone. (Imrie
& Hall 2001)

In Europe the term “design for all” is used to replace earlier terms such as barrier-free design
and non-handicapping. Whilst this may all seem to be purely semantics, the use of labels to
categorise people in the past has led to a dehumanising of issues and divisions in society that
have left disabled people either marginalized or completely excluded from the decision
making processes. The work of SURFACE uses an inclusive design approach and the social
model of disability as the basis for the research, together with emancipatory research methods
(Finkelstein (1985), Oliver (1992), Barnes & Mercer (1997)) to work with disabled people at
the centre of the research activities.

2.2 Current UK guidance and legislation

In accordance with Part III of the Disability Discrimination Act1, from October 2004, service
providers will have to make reasonable adjustments in relation to the physical features of their
premises to overcome physical barriers to access. Part III of the DDA deals with the provision
of goods and services to the public in the UK. Education is not covered in the DDA but this is
redressed in England and Wales by the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act (2001)
[SENDA], where physical adjustment duties come into force in 2005.

Section 21 (2) in Part III of the DDA provides that ‘Where a physical feature (for example,
one arising from the design or construction of a building or the approach or access to
premises) makes it impossible or unreasonably difficult for disabled persons to make use of
such a service, it is the duty of the provider of that service to take such steps as it is
reasonable, in all the circumstances of the case, for him/her to have to take in order to-
(a) remove the feature;
(b) alter it so that it no longer has that effect;
(c) provide a reasonable means of avoiding the feature; or
(d) provide a reasonable alternative method of making the service in question available to
disabled persons.’2

It is the service providers who owe the duty to make ‘reasonable’ adjustments. However, both
the DDA and SENDA impact on the built environment as the majority of public services,
service transactions, employment and education are carried out in buildings or their
surroundings. Within the DDA there is no definition of what is ‘reasonable’ or how this is
determined and approached. There has been much consideration of this. In February 2002,
for example, the revised DDA Code of Practice was published. This deals with the October

1
As noted in the revised Disability Discrimination Act 1995 Code of Practice: Rights of Access - Goods, Facilities, Services and
Premises (published by the Disability Rights Commission in February 2002)
2
On 1 October 2004 duties (a) to (c) (referred to in this paper as ‘the October 2004 Part III duties’) come into force. The
fourth duty, (d), has been in force since 1 October 1999.

2 LEISURE AREAS 2.1 R. Newton et al 2

 CNR ITC & CIB WG84 INTERNATIONAL MEETING, ROME 2002

2004 Part III duties and, as stated by the Disability Rights Commission, this Code “provides
detailed advice on the way the law should work…”

In England and Wales currently the Building Regulations Part M – Access and facilities for
disabled people and its accompanying Approved Document provide minimum guidance on
accessibility. This only covers new developments and does not apply to alterations or changes
to existing buildings. The guidance is based on a 20 year old British Standard BS 5810:1979
which has now been superseded by BS 8300: 2001 Design of buildings and their approaches
to meet the needs of disabled people – Code of Practice. A consultation exercise on proposals
for amending Part M is currently being undertaken by the Office of the Deputy Prime
Minister on behalf of the UK Government (27 August to 29 November 2002). The proposal
for Part M is that it will take on board a considerable amount of the guidance contained within
BS 8300 thus making this compulsory for service providers. The revised Part M will not
however include management issues related to buildings (currently included in BS 8300)
since this will be difficult to control through the building regulation process. The situation in
Scotland and Northern Ireland differs from England and Wales. In Scotland, the information
from their former equivalent Building Regulation Part T is now dispersed into each of the
relevant parts of the Scottish Deemed to Satisfy Provisions. Also unlike Part M the dispersal
of access regulations in the Scottish approach means that it already applies to existing
buildings. In Northern Ireland Part R of the Building Regulations closely mirrors that of Part
M (England and Wales), however different terminology, illustrations and anti-discrimination
legislation are used.

2.3 Issues
A preparatory stage of the research has been an exploration of the issues. This exploration
was undertaken informally by talking and discussing the context of inclusive design with a
wide range of people, and from a content analysis of structured interviews (from a different
research project), and from a literature review.

Construction processes How up-to-date

are we?
The brief Access features
Access When should
User When should
officer Project Definitions access be
involvement decisions be
Participant of disability made? considered?
relationships
training

Who What When

Poor
communication Lack of
research When should What is
client architect
legislation guidelines consultation take reasonable
place? provision?

Figure 1: Exploration of issues relevant to accessibility

3. Assessing Practice in Inclusive Design

3.1 Questioning designers
Over a 3 month period questions were developed, tested and piloted to 100 architecturally
related people and these responses were used to shape a final questionnaire. The questionnaire
comprised 27 separate questions containing 105 variables. A variety of questions were used to
give both closed and open responses. Definitions were provided for key terms and
information was provided in a form to be readily understood by building designers. Cross-
checking questions were used to establish consistency of respondent answers. The length of
the questionnaire was kept to 4 sides of A4. Whilst a more comprehensive questionnaire may

2 LEISURE AREAS 2.1 R. Newton et al 3

 CNR ITC & CIB WG84 INTERNATIONAL MEETING, ROME 2002

have yielded more data, it was felt that the response rate would fall dramatically. The
questionnaire was divided into sections that established the profile of the respondent; their
design practice; extent of consideration of access issues; knowledge of current and future
legislation; and level and nature of training on accessibility.

A sample provided by the RIBA of UK architectural practices was used for distribution that
represented 23% of the architectural and building design practices in the UK, a total of 2017
questionnaires being distributed initially and 1327 in the follow-up. The first round yielded
690 responses and the second 478, a total of 1168 (58%). The useable questionnaires from
this were 961 (48%). The response to each question was analysed and cross tabulations were
made using SPSS version 9.0. The significance of this analysis was then assessed, and the
conclusions that could be drawn from this and the subsequent case studies are given in figure
5.

3.2 Using case studies of the design process

Seven case studies were successfully undertaken and for each case study a copy of the brief
and outline drawings was obtained, a structured interview was undertaken with the architect
(or their representative) and a representative from the client team. Cross case comparisons
were then made (Yin 1994), and the results from this were fed into the overall analysis of
results (figure 5). It was found that there is consistency between the literature and practice in
how designers assimilate and operationalise their knowledge base on accessibility. It can be
concluded that the model of effective briefing for accessibility from the analysis of
questionnaires (see previous) is equally applicable throughout the whole design and
construction process. Additionally, it was found that:

• Everyday environments are disabling, even to non-disabled people, and designers produce
disabling environments for everyone (Reason 1990, Norman 1998)
• There is a need for good design, effective communication and human-technology
interactions,
• Designers predominantly use their own personal experience of disability, if they have it,
and they build on Part M in applying this; if designers have little or no experience, they
are reliant solely on Part M
• There is limited capacity to absorb new knowledge and make use of it
• Little emphasis is placed on accessibility because designers see it as only one of many
priorities
• Designers find difficulty in handling the wealth of design information available to them

3.3 Maximising expert opinion through user participation

A range of expert opinion has been sought on a wide variety of inclusive design issues
following a Delphi (Dalkey & Helmer 1969), Linstone & Turoff 1976) methodology
approach. The study was split into two expert panels, one comprising representatives from
national charities with an interest in accessibility of the built environment (although they did
not necessarily have the resources or expertise to influence this), and a second panel of
members of Access Groups.3 Each panel member was sent a questionnaire on a range of
issues that was subsequently analysed by the research team. This analysis was fed back to the
panel members in a second round questionnaire to see if members changed their views in the
light of feedback, and to add in new emerging issues that may have been introduced by a
panel member. A third round followed the same format, and the fourth round was a workshop
to bring together the participants and to present the findings. There is always a difficulty is

3
Access Groups are voluntary organisations, typically comprising disabled people with an interest in the promotion of
disability and of access issues. Access groups tend to focus on their local area and have limited experience of larger building
projects.

2 LEISURE AREAS 2.1 R. Newton et al 4

 CNR ITC & CIB WG84 INTERNATIONAL MEETING, ROME 2002

ensuring that panel members remain committed to the process, and a key part of the
methodology and analysis was ensuring that results did not become affected by participant
drop-out. The level of involvement of the participants is illustrated in the table below

Panel Round No of responses

National Charities One 11
Two 9
Three 9
Four 11
Access Groups One 14
Two 9
Three 8
Four 5

Figure 2: Illustration of level of participation from Delphi participants

From this process emerged both key advances in the understanding and application of the
Delphi methodology (particularly strengths and weaknesses), and advances in our
understanding of reasonableness and consensus in accessibility. Particular emerging themes
were those of professional practice, education and user involvement. This latter theme became
particularly prominent in that everyone felt that user involvement was fundamental yet there
appeared to be a significant knowledge gap amongst users and user organisations.

3.4 Action Research

The SURFACE team worked with designers on projects at pre-tender stage, including a sports
centre, internet café, library, cinema and IT resource centre. The designs of these projects
were followed from the initial briefing process, through concept and detailed design, to tender
by contractors for construction. The work is currently on-site and a review will be undertaken
with the design team on handover and a final review of the inclusiveness of the buildings will
be conducted two years after opening. This will allow time for the users and client to work
through the practicalities of the buildings. Additionally, this will be after Part III of the DDA
(1995) has come into force and the potential for claims of discrimination exist, whilst the
SENDA (2001) will not become applicable for a further year, allowing opportunity for
adjustments to take place on this project.

Through the outcomes from the Delphi process panels, professional interviews and this action
research, the importance of design guides to help architects develop accessible buildings
became apparent. As Barrett indicated, those in industry often want best practice guidance to
tell them what to do in the form of short, punchy “how to do it” guides and that:

Best practice advice, although seemingly attractive, is almost certain to be superficial

with a rationalistic emphasis. This is understandable as it is rather more complicated
and unseemly to make proposals that fully reflect the messy, human reality of
organisational life. (Barrett 2001)

The approach taken in the action research phase was to develop design notes that created ‘a
technology transfer process in which the industry partners are active agents in assimilating
and adapting the ideas to their particular context.’ (Barrett 2001). A series of 30 design notes
covering major features involved in the design of the specific projects were created as detailed
below:

2 LEISURE AREAS 2.1 R. Newton et al 5

 CNR ITC & CIB WG84 INTERNATIONAL MEETING, ROME 2002

External Internal Communication Emergency

Evacuation
Parking Circulation Signage PEEP’s
Pedestrian / vehicle Doors Sound enhancement Electronic door
routes systems closers
Street furniture Lifts Wayfinding systems Evacuation stairs
Changes in level Stairs Colour / tonal Refuges
contrast
External steps Office environments Lighting levels
Ramps Reception desks and Natural light
counters
External surfaces Seating and waiting Visitor information
areas provision
Toilets
Changing facilities
Floor finishes
Use of glass
Acoustics

Figure 3: Range of Design Notes

The design notes were created from a social model approach to disability, to allow the
architects and specialists creative freedom and at the same time infuse inclusive design
principles within their approaches. The original view of the design team had been that the Part
M Approved Document of the Building Regulations was adequate, however, on reflection at
the end of the design process the architects involved had found better practice solutions and
were keen to apply the design notes to future projects. Also, as was confirmed from the
questionnaire and case study research, the earlier an inclusive design approach can be
implemented the easier it is for all those involved to design inclusively. Ideally this needs to
occur at the initial briefing stage between client and designers.

3.6 Learning lessons from others

A literature review and initial semi-structured interviews with a small number of experts was
undertaken for the area of fire safety for comparison, since both fire safety and inclusive
design have primary legislation (eg Fire Precautions Act and DDA 1995) as well as Building
Regulations and Approved Documents, Codes of Practice and British Standards.

Fire legislation was found to be more voluminous and more fragmented than inclusive design
legislation and in the past changes have been made to address areas that have become
outdated, or need clarification or to take on board European Directives, which already seems
to be happening with the DDA. Also, there are valuable lessons to be learnt from the way
changes in fire safety legislation and procedures have been handled. For example, since the
early 1990’s, following a government commissioned report by Bickerdike Allen and Partners,
which reviewed fire and building regulation, there has been comprehensive national guidance
to support fire safety legislation and procedures. Additionally, changes in fire safety
legislation and technology have been supported by design guidance material (eg Approved
Documents, British Standards). As with inclusive design there are many different ways of
achieving an adequate standard of fire safety since there are many design variables.

2 LEISURE AREAS 2.1 R. Newton et al 6

 CNR ITC & CIB WG84 INTERNATIONAL MEETING, ROME 2002

The comprehensive analysis (further literature review and semi-structured interviews)

concludes that there should be two guides similar to those recommended by Bickerdike Allen
and Partners in 1990, namely (1) a national guide to the legislation and procedures and (2) a
comprehensive inclusive design guide capable of forming a basic educational resource for
professionals in the field. The first for example, would explain the relationship between the
building regulations (Part M and Approved Document), the DDA Part III and the new
BS8300. The second guide would reflect the better practice guidance resulting from the
research.

The analysis also demonstrated the need for a National Framework on Inclusive Design
Education as well as a network of educational establishments offering courses in the same.
For fire safety, both of these emerged in the UK in the early 1990’s and by 1997 UK
vocational fire education enjoyed “a position of international leadership and a reputation as
the finest and most progressive worldwide”. (Brian Booth, V.C., University of Central
Lancashire).

4.0 Implementing Better Practice

As a result of the research, SURFACE has introduced a variety of approaches to encourage
the take up and implementation of better practice. These are summarised in the table below:

Implementing Better Practice Volunt Access Design Research Policy Society

ary Group Professi Commu Maker
Orgs s on nity s
Design notes  
Updating service     
Legal and procedural guide    
Better practice design guide  
National framework on Inclusive    
Design education
Development of Inclusive Design    
courses
Networking activities      

Figure 4: Implementing better practice in inclusive design

4.1 Design Notes

In the action research phase the design notes were further refined and it was established that
this material should be augmented with an information and support (updating) service to
clarify issues and investigate more complex problems. A sample design note (16 Changing
Facilities) is included at the end of this paper.

4.2 Information and Support (Updating) Service

The aim of this service is to provide an easily accessible information and support service on
inclusive design. The objectives (adapted from Fairclough 2002) would be to:

2 LEISURE AREAS 2.1 R. Newton et al 7

 CNR ITC & CIB WG84 INTERNATIONAL MEETING, ROME 2002

1. assist service users to keep in the forefront internationally and learn from other
industries and overseas, and document and demonstrate the benefits of inclusive
design
2. assist service users to learn from the best by providing a variety of ‘how to’ guidance

The service would provide a constant review of legislation and advice as it is published.
Additionally a mechanism to identify research opportunities and seek out specific solutions to
complicated accessibility problems could be offered through this.

4.3 Legislative and Procedural Guide

Although the 2001 Regulations explain the interaction of the Approved Document to Part M
of the Building Regulations and the DDA, and the 2002 Code of Practice also attempts to
explain this interaction, there is a need for one separate procedural guide setting out the
interaction between the building regulations, the British Standard and the legislation. This
guide describes how the various documents relate to each other and provides guidance on the
issue of reasonableness.

4.4 Better Practice Inclusive Design Guide

The format for the design guide is similar to that being prepared by the Fire Safety
Engineering Task Group in relation to fire safety engineering, namely guidance at various
levels that will be of value to a wide range of construction professionals. As with fire safety
engineering, inclusive design tends to be in the hands of a few, and guidance should aim to
enhance the connectivity between all the guidance documentation available at the various
levels. The guidance will similarly enable a mix of design criteria ‘to be more logically
established to deliver better performance and increased value’. It includes selection of the
most appropriate materials, use of simple techniques such as an effective stepping stone
towards a more sophisticated approach, consideration of the value of adopting a more
performance based approach against a more prescribed codified approach, and broad
considerations that will affect the ease with which disabled people are able to use a building.
Further to the BRE Best Practice Guides: Structural Fire Engineers section, it is considered
appropriate for the inclusive design guidance to similarly be supported by a detailed
description of the background theory used and a number of worked examples.

4.5 National Framework on Inclusive Design Education

In the long term the key is held in education, as identified by the Council of Europe and the
European Commission who are both currently seeking consultation on design for all
curriculum development. SURFACE is currently involved in both these processes and is
working with North Carolina State University USA, Buffalo University USA, Global
Universal Educator’s Educator’s Network to deliver the Universal Design Education Online
web site to enable educators to interact with each other on inclusive and universal design
issues. SURFACE is also involved in the LTSN CEBE special interest group on this issue.

4.6 Development of an Accessibility and Inclusive Design Post-graduate Programme

As part of the national framework on education referred to above, it is important that
appropriate training and courses are provided to assist practitioners to keep up to date and to
further develop their skills in better practice. Currently there is demand for such courses and
SURFACE have developed an internet distance taught programme in accessibility and
inclusive design. It is likely that as inclusive design education becomes more mainstream at
undergraduate level that demand for programmes at post-graduate level will dimish.

2 LEISURE AREAS 2.1 R. Newton et al 8

 CNR ITC & CIB WG84 INTERNATIONAL MEETING, ROME 2002

4.7 Networking
As previously discussed, there is a considerable amount that we can learn from the fire safety
industry. Since 1990 a network of universities and colleges offering fire courses has emerged
and this has been extremely successful in putting the UK on the map as a world leader in fire
safety education. In contrast, at present there are only a limited number of institutions offering
courses in accessibility and inclusive design and the level of networking between course
providers has not reached the levels seen in the fire sector. The UK is near the top but is not
yet seen as a world leader in accessible design. However, with the development of the idea of
inclusive design, if like the fire industry the UK is able to network its courses and link
academic institutions with industry and user participants, then there is theoretically no reason
why they should not become world leaders. This is just one of example of the possible
benefits of networking, others can be seen for example from the success of the EQUAL
([Link]) network and Accessibuilt ([Link]/lists/accessibuilt).

5.0 Future Directions

5.1 Can built environment professionals be innovative in inclusive design?

People have a very varied view of what innovation is and even what it means, for example,
what is innovation in one company is standard practice over a number of years in another
company. According to Flanagan (1999) invention, innovation and research & development
are often confused but he considers that ‘innovation can be defined as the transformation of an
idea into a product or service that is marketable’ and he supports this by citing the Department
of Trade and Industry who describes innovation as ‘the successful exploitation of new ideas’.

Construction in the UK is one of the leading economic sectors and as such there is strive for
constant improvement to its processes and product. The problem is not that there is no
innovation but that the rate of innovation and subsequent change lags behind other industries
and appears to be falling further behind (Winch 1998). Recent studies of innovation in the UK
construction industry have indicated poor performance in the generation and adoption of
technological (product and / or process) (Nan & Tatum 1997, Ove Arup 2000) innovation
(Latham 1994, Egan 1998). Additionally Gann (cited in Winch 1998) argues that ‘innovation
efforts in the industry are disproportionately orientated towards product enhancement rather
than process improvement’. Also recent studies (Cripps 2002) suggest that many of the
perceived barriers relate to frustration with the built-in culture and nature of the construction
industry. It is felt to be risk adverse and overly conservative. The way in which projects are
set up and run does not support innovation, especially in terms of time and resources for
creative thinking. The tradition of tension between the different players in the project team is
also a problem, with a lack of understanding and respect for others being a part of this
problem.

However, construction innovation offers potential for significant company, industry, and
societal benefits (Slaughter 2000) and the industry needs to be better at demonstrating this.
The benefits arising from an individual innovation may be relatively small, but when several
are realised together their cumulative impact can be considerable (EPSRC 1999). An example
of successful innovation in inclusive design is achieved in product design by the Helen
Hamlyn research centre. An example of a recent award for good inclusive design in the built
environment was recently given by the Adapt Trust that honours excellence in access
provisions to arts and heritage buildings. The award was made to Malcolm Fraser Architects
for their work on Dance Base, a dance studio in Edinburgh, about which the judges
commented:

2 LEISURE AREAS 2.1 R. Newton et al 9

 CNR ITC & CIB WG84 INTERNATIONAL MEETING, ROME 2002

‘The project presented the architects with a site in the Old Town, Edinburgh, not
renowned for its accessibility. The result has proved that access issues do not preclude
the aesthetics of good design and what impressed most was the way facilities for
disabled people have been seamlessly incorporated throughout the building …. Basic
physical access has been provided to all levels, but it is the design detail that has made
this building special. Particular attention has been given to colour effects, signage and
hearing assistive systems making it a joy for people with sensory impairments to use’.

The disappointment was that the prize was offered separate to the major Stirling Prize when
innovation in inclusive design could have been an integral element of the judging process.
Despite this, the ability to demonstrate the validation of innovation techniques is essential, as
new ideas generally have to be proven to offer significant advantage before they are adopted.
Projects that are identified as innovative and leading edge in inclusive design provide an
opportunity for stakeholders in the construction industry to rise to the challenge of designing
environments for everyone to use and environments that ultimately improve quality of life.

6.0 Conclusion
It is proposed that a way forward for achieving inclusive design of public buildings is to be
bolder and more innovative in how we seek to achieve this, and this will form the basis of
further SURFACE research. Ove Arup (2002) have recently demonstrated that in order to
become and remain truly innovative we continually strive to learn from others with
fundamentally different ways of thinking. However, we can only seek to do this if the
foundations are laid with which to achieve this.

The research to date has shown that the key would seem to be effective legislation
underpinned by practical guidance in the form of design notes, information service, legislative
and procedural guide, better practice inclusive design guide or similar. In order for these to
have impact and to be adopted by designers there needs to be appropriate network, and a
national framework for inclusive design education.

References
Barrett, P. (2001). Research as microscope, telescope or periscope on practice. Journal of
Building Research and Information.
Barnes, C. & Mercer, G. (1997). (eds.) Breaking the mould? Doing disability research. Leeds:
Disability Press.
Bickerdike Allen and Partners (1990). Fire and Building Regulation. London: HMSO
Cripps, A. (2002). Facilitating the benefits of technical innovation. Final Report to DTI.
London: Buro Happold
Dalkey, NC. & Helmer O. (1963). An experimental application of the Delphi method to the
user of experts. Management Science. 9 (3). Pp 458-467
Egan, Sir J. (1998). Rethinking Construction. London: HMSO
Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council. (1999). Innovation. Spring. Swindon:
EPSRC
Fairclough, J. (2002). Rethinking Construction Innovation and Research. London: DTI
Finklestein, V. (1985). Unpublished paper given at the World Health Organisation meeting.
June. Netherlands.
Flannagan (1999). CiB W55, W65 & W92 Joint Triennial Symposium, Cape Town, South
Africa.
Imrie, R. & Hall P. (2001). Inclusive Design. London: E & FN Spon.
Latham, Sir M. (1994). Constructing the Team. London: HMSO

2 LEISURE AREAS 2.1 R. Newton et al 10

 CNR ITC & CIB WG84 INTERNATIONAL MEETING, ROME 2002

Linstone, H. & Turoff, M. The Delphi method : techniques and applications. Addison-Wesley
Miller, J. (1996) Access audits: advisory notes. Access by design. 69. Jan-Apr. pp 14-15.
Nan, CH & Tatum, CB. (1997). Leaders and champions for construction innovation.
Construction Management and Economics. 15 pp259-270
Newton, R., Ormerod, M. and Lewis, A. (1999) Harmonisation through a socially inclusive
built environment. Proceedings of CIB W92 and TG23 entitled Harmony and Profit. Chang
Mai, Thailand.
Norman, D.A. (1998). The design of everyday things. London: MIT Press.
Oliver, M. (1992). Changing the social relations of research production? Disability, Handicap
and Society. 7 (2). P101-114
Oliver, M. (1996). Understanding Disability: From Theory to Practice. Basingstoke:
Macmillan.
Ostroff, E. & Presier, W. (2001). Universal Design Handbook. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Ove Arup and Partners (2000). The contribution that technological change could make to
meeting the objectives of rethinking construction: assessment in relation to product. CRISP
Over Arup and Partners (2002). Knowledge sharing and innovation.
th
[Link] sourced on 27 May.
Reason, J. (1990). Human Error. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Slaughter, ES. (2000). Implementation on construction innovations. Building Research and
Information. 28 (1) pp 2-17
SURFACE (Salford University Research Focus on Accessible Environments) sourced at
[Link]
Winch, G. (1998). Zephyrs of creative destruction: understanding the management of
innovation in construction. Building Research and Information. 26 (4) pp 268-279

2 LEISURE AREAS 2.1 R. Newton et al 11

 CNR ITC & CIB WG84 INTERNATIONAL MEETING, ROME 2002

Figure 5: Summary of findings from case studies and questionnaires

ACCESSIBILITY WHO WHAT WHEN IMPROVEMENT

ISSUE

Defining disability  Personal experience of  the social model of  Adopt a more holistic
disability has influenced disability is not a strong approach to design i.e.
[social/architectural the way some architects influence on design cater for a wider range
model is more design  design caters of peoples needs
enlightened,  Only one case study brief predominantly for  holistic approach
religious/medical model defined disability wheelchair users (parking,
is more restricting on level approaches, toilets)
design] over other access features
(acoustics, colour, braille)
that would assist people
with sensory impairments

Defining access  most architects feel it is  some (1/4) architects have  access issues are  architects should
their responsibility to received access training, constantly changing yet ensure that they are
[predominance of ensure that access is typically for ½ day few architects have trained in access issues
wheelchair design] considered at briefing  if cutbacks are to be made, received recent training  knowledgeable
 consultation is generally most architects consider  access issues may not be architect
undertaken with end users that accessibility should not mentioned in the brief  architects should
via drawings or meetings, be compromised but they can develop in ensure clients
but this only sometimes  clients are unaware of the the briefs indirectly over understand their
includes disabled people need for access to be time (e.g. colour responsibilities
 most architects agreed addressed at the briefing contrasts when deciding  empowered client
that they could learn from stage paint schedule)  Architect should
including disabled people encourage the client to
 access issues are be more explicit during

2 LEISURE AREAS 2.1 R. Newton et al 12

 CNR ITC & CIB WG84 INTERNATIONAL MEETING, ROME 2002

addressed more the briefing process

thoroughly where Access  empowered client
Officers are involved
 clients assume disabled
people will only be
visiting the building

ACCESSIBILITY WHO WHAT WHEN IMPROVEMENT

ISSUE

The Brief and the  most architects (3/4) think  most architects (2/3) do not  overwhelming  the brief needs a
process of briefing that they consider access use any form of checklist consensus that access commitment from the
issues on all projects for preparation of the brief issues should be client to provide full
[access is considered too  clients are actively  architects consider enough considered early on in access
late, generally on involved in briefing but detail is included in the the design process,  holistic approach
occupation] they rely on the architect brief to ensure effective preferably RIBA Plan  empowered client
to meet access access of Work Stages A and  As the brief develops
[remedial work is requirements  some (1/3) architects do not B through the RIBA stages
expensive] make reference to  some architects felt it of design, the level of
guidelines or standards in was difficult to be detail on access should
designing for accessibility specific on access develop
 reference to access in briefs issues in the brief  knowledgeable architect
is quite limited in terms of  evidence from all case or specialist
how it is addressed – studies that the brief  Clients should consider
typically just reference to has changed over time engaging specialists (as
Part M to take account of site in other areas of design)
 when access is not restrictions, changes in to assist with access
considered until requirements, cost issues
construction is started it implications etc, but no  knowledgeable architect
leads to compromises on evidence of changes in or specialist
access issues and increased access provision  empowered client

2 LEISURE AREAS 2.1 R. Newton et al 13

 CNR ITC & CIB WG84 INTERNATIONAL MEETING, ROME 2002

costs

Guidelines and
Legislation  clients seemed informed  architects predominantly  meeting Part M of the
of the existence of Part M use Part M as the standard Building Regulations in
[Part M been around a but were not familiar with for achieving accessibility the future may be
long time] the practical implications  some architects do design inadequate, given the
[Part M is not of this beyond Part M, and when scope of the DDA –
scientifically based]  architects were either they do, they tend to rely clients need to know
[impact of changing knowledgeable on the on personal experience to their legal liabilities
technology, hearing implications of the inform the change  empowered client
loops and cochlea Disability Discrimination  legislation or guidelines
implants] Act, or, unaware of the
[Part M recently implications (there was no
reviewed for housing] middle ground)
[Part M falls
significantly short of
peoples needs]
[DDA – need to make
reasonable provision]

2 LEISURE AREAS 2.1 R. Newton et al 14

 CNR ITC & CIB WG84 INTERNATIONAL MEETING, ROME 2002

Note 16 Changing Facilities

General Principles

A designated unisex changing and / or shower facility for disabled athletes will ensure privacy
for the user and also allow for assistance from a helper of the opposite sex when required. In
exceptional circumstances, where space is at a premium, it may be appropriate to use a curtain
rather than a door on the cubicle. This is far from the ideal solution and is not recommended
on new build projects.

Transfer and use

Disabled people will use the shower facility in ways that suit their individual capabilities
however the basic solution is a layout which enables the wheelchair user to transfer to a seat
in the ‘wet area’ and to keep the wheelchair dry and within reach for the reverse transfer.

The wet area

Water must be contained in the wet area without the introduction of complex falls that will
make standing or moving a chair difficult. Even the smallest up stand can render a shower
facility unusable. Shower curtains should be used to provide privacy and prevent splashing.

The dry area

A dry changing area should be provided to ensure a properly self-contained facility. The
basic design considerations are identified below.

Changing Cubicles

Main points to consider

Designated unisex accessible changing cubicles should be large enough to allow for
assistance where required.

The door should have a minimum clear opening of 1000mm to accommodate the wider type
sport chair. This should follow through on the routes where the people using sports chairs will
travel.

The door should be fitted with a kick plate and grab bar to enable it to be pushed open or shut.
The door furniture should be large and easy to grip. The door should be fitted with an easy
turn lock and an emergency release facility.

A changing bench, full length of the room and a minimum width of 700mm should be
provided. The bench should be padded, waterproof, non-slip and ideally be capable of
moving up and down, either electrically operated or manually. If this option is not taken then
a permanent bench should be fixed at a fixed height 500mm from the floor.

A full-length mirror should be provided in the room.

A shelf is useful for placing belongings on so as not to restrict circulation space.

15
 CNR ITC & CIB WG84 INTERNATIONAL MEETING, ROME 2002

A hook should be placed at a height of 750mm above the floor.

A panic alarm cord should be provided and this should be red so it can clearly be
distinguished from a light pull cord.

If the guidance for dimensions of the cubicle below is followed it may be possible to
incorporate a suitable shower in this type of room. However, there are other issues like
ventilation that will need further consideration.

Critical dimensions for a unisex accessible changing cubicle

• Compartment dimension should be a minimum of 2000mm x 2000mm

• Privacy should be ensured by using a door with a minimum clear opening of 1000mm.
• A full length mirror should be provided
• A horizontal grab rail adjacent to the seat fixed at 700-750mm from the floor.
• A shelf for belongings should be provided fixed at 500mm from the floor
• There should be a clear unobstructed area outside the cubicle of 1500mm

Critical dimensions for cubicle for disabled person not requiring assistance

• Compartment dimension should be 1600m x 1400mm

• A tip down seat fixed 450-475mm from ground.
• Privacy should be ensured by using a door with a minimum clear opening of 1000mm.
• A full length mirror should be provided
• A horizontal grab rail adjacent to the seat fixed at 700mm from the floor.
• A shelf for belongings should be provided fixed at 500mm from the floor.
• There should be a clear unobstructed area outside the cubicle of 1500mm

Shower cubicles

Main points to consider

A satisfactory shower facility will allow a wheelchair user to transfer to a seat for the duration
of the shower and back to the wheelchair with ease. A wall mounted tip down seat or a
shower chair in the cubicle will assist with this function. Consideration should be given to
making sure that grab rails and tip down seats can be fixed to solid walls.

It is important that it is possible to transfer onto the shower seat from the side, front or at an
angle.

Access to the compartment must not be impeded by any up stand and it is recommended that
in order to maintain the water in the cubicle floor channelling and flush drainage gratings are
used.

The floor surface should be slip resistant, even when wet, to ensure a safe transfer can be
completed.

16
 CNR ITC & CIB WG84 INTERNATIONAL MEETING, ROME 2002

The shower controls must be carefully positioned. The exact position will depend on the size
of the cubicle provided. Ideally, in a cubicle of the size recommended below, the shower
controls should be placed on the flank wall to the seat to avoid over-reaching.

The shower controls must incorporate a thermostatic mixing valve with anti scald setting.
Ideally there should be a separate control for water temperature and volume. The shower
controls should convey tactile information indicating on / off and hot / cold. This principle
should be adopted in all showers.

The showerhead should be height adjustable and have a long enough flexible hose for those
who wish to hold the showerhead.

The tip up seat provided should be fixed firmly to the wall at a height of 475mm.

Any soap dispensers provided should be reachable from the seat and close to the shower
controls.

Grab rails should be provided and care should be taken to make sure that they are not slippery
when wet. Grab rails and all fittings should contrast with their surroundings. Details on
colour contrast issues will be dealt with later.

A panic alarm cord should be provided and this should be red so it can clearly be
distinguished from a light pull cord.

If providing a separate designated showering facility (‘wet area’) it is essential that it is

located adjacent to the ‘dry’ changing area and that all drying areas are well heated in order
to avoid uncomfortable changes in temperature between wet and dry areas.

Critical dimensions for an accessible shower cubicle

• Compartment dimension should be a minimum of 1500mm x 1500mm

• Privacy should be ensured by using a full width cubicle curtain
• Horizontal grab rail fixed 700-750mm from ground. Vertical grab rail positioned between
900mm and 1400mm.
• Tip down seat fixed 450-475mm from ground.
• Shower controls located between 900mm and 1200mm.
• Showerhead should be capable of being moved between 1200mm and 2200mm from the
floor with a detachable head on flexible hose.
• There should be a clear unobstructed area outside the cubicle of 1500mm

Consideration should be given to the size and type of lockers being provided in the changing
rooms. They should be sufficiently large enough to accommodate prosthetic limbs.

Consideration should be given to the provision of a first aid room within close proximity to
the changing area.

Sources

Bone, S. (1996). Buildings for all to use. London: CIRIA

17
 CNR ITC & CIB WG84 INTERNATIONAL MEETING, ROME 2002

Design Note 26 (1997). Sports and Recreation Facilities. Royal Borough of Kensington
and Chelsea.
Designing for Accessibility (1999). London: CAE
Designing for Safety in Sports Halls – Part 8 First aid Provision (1991). London. Sports
Council.
Designing for Safety in Sports Halls – Part 9 Designing for people with disabilities
(1991). London. Sports Council.

18