Guidance

DPTAC position on ‘shared space’

Published 13 June 2018

Here we explain the background to our discussions on the issue of ‘shared space’ and set out our recommendations to DfT.

Background

1) As we will all be acutely aware, Shared Space is a subject that evokes strong opinions and emotions in the wider disabled community, as evidenced by the number and content of responses to the recent AAP consultation.

2) There are probably 5 key documents in this field, which warrant some observation:

• LTN 1/11 - this local transport note on ‘shared space’ provides the current guidance. It is widely argued to be inadequate and in need of fundamental revision
• Accidents by design - a report by Lord Holmes of Richmond (2015) - this influential report is critical of Shared Space schemes, calling for impact assessments and accessibility audits, together with a review of LTN 1/11
• The Women and Equalities Committee (WEC) report - building for equality: disability and the built environment (2017) - this is arguably the most thorough and cogently argued contribution on the subject, resulting from detailed evidence gathering and making a number of well-thought recommendations, including a call for a moratorium on new shared space schemes
• CIHT report Creating Better Streets (2017) - some had expected this report to recommend new guidance, potentially to replace LTN 1/11. However, the report recognises the lack of evidence on, and evaluation of, existing shared space schemes. The report therefore - sensibly - recommends further evidence-gathering, but falls short of the impressive set of recommendations set out in the WEC report.
• the government response to the WEC report (2018) - while stated to be a response to the WEC report, it does not cover the majority of recommendations relating to shared space made in the WEC report

3) Shared space features prominently in the recent DFT Accessibility Action Plan (AAP) consultation.

The DPTAC response argues that LTN 1/11 is ‘not fit for purpose’ and refers positively to the recommendations set out in the WEC report, emphasising the urgent need for revised guidance.

DPTAC comments on the reports

1. There seems to be a unanimous view, of all parties interested in Shared Space that LTN 1/11 is in need of urgent revision. This can form a very straightforward recommendation.
2. Lord Holmes’ report provides some useful evidence, but perhaps lacks the objectivity of the WEC report.
3. The WEC report stands out as the most persuasive report on the subject, due to its objectivity, and its evidence base. Its various recommendations (36 to 41 in the report) strongly assert the interests of disabled people. In particular, it helpfully emphasises the Public Sector Equality Duty, and the duty to implement reasonable adjustments. Furthermore, it suggests bringing in a legal right to challenge shared space schemes.
4. CIHT report - this is a welcome report on Shared Space, but is somewhat less ambitious in its recommendations than the WEC report. While helpfully recommending more evidence gathering and analysis on existing schemes, it does not go as far as the WEC, which recommends ‘calling a halt’ to shared space schemes. The report calls for the term ‘shared space’ to no longer be used, and the names for the individual type of scheme to be used instead. This suggestion has been discussed by a sub-group of DPTAC Personal Mobility Group members, and rejected, as the term is generally well understood and any change would only lead to confusion and misunderstanding.
5. Government response to the WEC report - the section of the response covering shared space seeks, somewhat unconvincingly, to justify not calling on local authorities to bring in a moratorium on the implementation of shared space schemes. The response omits to comment on much of the content of the WEC report, and the majority of its recommendations.

Shared Space – our general observations

1. The advocates of Shared Space suggest that it slows traffic and provides a safer environment. However, the evidence provided to the WEC and referred to in Lord Holmes’ report seems to be to the contrary. There seem to be over optimistic expectations of the behaviour of drivers and a lack of understanding of disability on the part of shared space’s supporters.
2. The DFT and CIHT tend to focus on blind and partially sighted people. However, the WEC correctly emphasises the reported negative effects of shared space schemes on people with neuro-diverse or mental health conditions, or those with a learning disability. It is well-established that many people from these groups rely on regular and well-patterned sets of behaviour. They understand the division between pavement and road and the clear instructions given at a pelican crossing. The free-for-all environment of shared space does not sit well with their needs.
3. A classic example of where shared space and disability collide is so-called ‘courtesy crossings’. The expectation appears to be that drivers will establish eye contact with pedestrians. Clearly, this is a non-starter with blind people, but the fact that many people with neuro-diverse and mental health conditions, and those with a learning disability have difficulties with eye contact, seems to have been overlooked.
4. DPTAC is absolutely committed to representing the interests of those with non-visible conditions. Therefore, any research and guidance ultimately to be issued, must take into account the interests of these groups.
5. The WEC report recognises the interests of those with a wide range of conditions and disabilities who might be adversely affected by shared space schemes. This is one of the main reasons why its recommendations are to be supported and endorsed.
6. The WEC report is particularly positive on its references to the Public Sector Equality Duty, the duty to apply reasonable adjustments and the recommended ability to make a legal challenge to shared space schemes.
7. The WEC report emphasises the importance of disabled people being involved in all stages of the shared space process, from planning and design, through implementation to evaluation. DPTAC is well placed to develop a pivotal role in this work.
8. The WEC also sensibly recommends joint working between the DFT and DCLG to develop a co-ordinated approach to shared space.
9. The CIHT report’s recommendation of evidence gathering on existing schemes and evaluation of their success (or otherwise) should be supported.
10. Many respondents to the AAP consultation, and the WEC, have called for a moratorium on new shared space schemes.

DPTAC Recommendations

1. The government - via collaborative working between the DFT and DCLG - should take a lead role in the shared space agenda, including commissioning further research, and should not leave matters entirely to be dealt with by local authorities.
2. LTN 1/11 should be replaced by new guidance, with extensive input from disabled people.
3. Existing shared space schemes should be the subject of detailed independent evaluation, evidence gathering and impact assessments, with the involvement of disabled people.
4. Evidence gathering should include accidents occurring within shared space schemes, together with comparative data from other road layouts. This could be achieved by redesigning the STATS 19 form used by the police to record road traffic collisions.
5. The implementation of shared space schemes should be paused, until the independent evaluation referred to above has taken place.
6. If shared space schemes are to continue in the future, disabled people need to be fully involved in their conception, planning, design, implementation and evaluation.
7. Those involved in shared space schemes need to be cognisant of the need to comply with the Public Sector Equality Duty and the duty to implement reasonable adjustments.
8. The interests of those with a wide range of conditions, including mental health and neuro-diverse conditions, and learning disability, need to be considered in the wider context of shared space schemes.
9. The government should bring forward regulations under section 22(2) (a) of the Equality Act 2010 to specify that organisations which fail to comply with new shared space guidance will not be considered to have taken reasonable steps for purposes of the duty to make reasonable adjustments, in order to make it easier for disabled people to establish discrimination contrary to section 21 of the Equality Act 2010.
10. The government should ensure that advice is readily available on how to challenge local authorities on existing or new shared space schemes which exclude or have the potential to exclude disabled people.
11. There should be a public education campaign to promote safer and appropriate use of current shared space by all (pedestrians, wheelchair users and motorists included).
12. The term shared space should be retained. However, there needs to be a clear and agreed definition of what is meant by ‘shared space’.

Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee

May 2018