RNIB response to “Interim changes to the Guidance on the use of Tactile Paving Surfaces”

About RNIB

RNIB is the largest organisation of blind and partially sighted people in the UK. We are a membership organisation with over 14,000 members. Our members are predominantly blind, partially sighted or have friends and family who have sight loss. Over ninety per cent of RNIB Charity trustees and UK member forum representatives are blind or partially sighted.

We campaign for the rights of blind and partially sighted people in each of the UK’s countries. Our priorities are to:

  • Be there for people losing their sight.
  • Support independent living for blind and partially sighted people.
  • Create a society that is inclusive of blind and partially sighted people's interests and needs.
  • Stop people losing their sight unnecessarily.

We provide expert knowledge to business and the public sector through consultancy on improving the accessibility of information, the built environment, technology, products and services.

RNIB regularly supports blind and partially sighted people to make the built environment more accessible. We also advise decision makers, such as local authorities, on how to make the built environment more accessible for blind and partially sighted people.

RNIB welcomes the opportunity to respond to the Department for Transport consultation on ‘Interim changes to the Guidance on the use of Tactile Paving Surfaces’.

About sight loss in the UK

Almost two million people in the UK are living with sight loss that has a serious impact on their daily lives and activities. This equates to almost one person in thirty, whose ability to access the pedestrian environment is potentially limited or compromised by their visual impairment. It is predicted that by 2050 the number of people with sight loss in the UK will double to nearly four million.

Although sight loss affects people of all ages, as we get older we are increasingly likely to experience sight loss and in the UK one in five people aged 75 and over are living with sight loss. This rises to one in two people over the age of 90.

Around 360,000 people are registered blind or partially sighted in the UK.

Introduction

The original ‘Guidance on the use of tactile paving surfaces’ was published in 1998 following extensive research and consultation with organisations representing blind and partially sighted people.

Despite the very thorough research and consultation that preceded the publication of the Guidance it has not been universally followed by local authorities either deliberately or through a lack of understanding of the principles contained within it

In 2012 a blind campaigner judicially reviewed the London Borough of Newham’s decision to depart from the Guidance. Newham proposed to only lay grey tactile paving at controlledcrossings with no tails and only two rows deep.

The Court held that it was unlawful for Newham to have departed from the National Guidance without good reason (the Court found that they had none). The decision emphasised the need for uniformity in tactile paving across the country andthat the Guidance had been subject to extensive research and consultation prior to publication:-

“In this case the relevant national guidance was produced at a high level and involved those with considerable experience and expertise in the applicable area. Considerable research was undertaken by skilled workers before the guidance was finalised. Those producing the guidance specifically recognised that other groups would be affected. For example, it was acknowledged that those with physical conditions could well suffer pain and discomfort from walking on tactile paving, but the risk to life and limb of the visually impaired was considered sufficient to justify the measures set out in the guidance. The guidance was furthermore issued against the background of the equality duty, by which the needs of the disabled, in casu, the visually impaired had to be given due regard. Finally, as shown by the relevant cited passages from the national guidance, the measures are set out in imperative terms, largely because … there is in the present context a compelling longer term need to achieve an acceptable level of uniformity and consistency throughout all localities”.

(Mohammed Mohsan Ali v. Newham London Borough Council)

However, since the Newham decision some authorities have continued to depart from the Guidance with, in particular, the use of grey tactile paving at controlled crossing becoming much more common. For example, in Westminster they have a streetscape policy to use charcoal rather than red, they use the “Westminster kerb” and they do not have tails at controlled crossings.Transport for London has also recently published streetscape guidance which contains substantial departures from the Guidance. It is not at all clear that these authorities, together with other authorities around the country who regularly depart from the Guidance, have followed the very clear requirements laid out in the Guidance for those organisations wishing to depart.

“Where local authorities consider implementing policies which deviate from the advice given in this document, they are strongly recommended to consult the Mobility Unit of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions or the Joint Mobility Unit run by the Royal National Institute for the Blind and the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association (see Contacts section) before proceeding. Where local site conditions are such that the guidance contained in this document cannot be implemented, further advice should be sought.

The role of consultation

Tactile paving installers will benefit from consulting with others prior to installation taking place. Such consultation should only take place with those who can demonstrate a good understanding of the ways in which tactile paving should be used.

As previously mentioned, deviation from the principles set out in this document should not take place without prior consultation with the Mobility Unit of the Department of the Environment, Transport

and the Regions, or the Joint Mobility Unit of RNIB/GDBA”

Whilst the Joint Mobility Unit no longer exists RNIB (and Guide Dogs for the Blind Association) continues to work in this area and yet we are rarely formally consulted on proposed departures from the Guidance. It is also most disappointing that the Department chose not to consult with RNIB about the proposed changes to the Guidance at an early stage.

It is, however, recognised that principles in street design have moved on since the Guidance was published with the increasing use of shared space, removal of railings, use of different paving surfaces, increasing provision of cycling infrastructure etc and RNIB agrees that the Guidance needs to be reviewed and updated to ensure that it is fit for purpose. We have urged the Department to begin this process as a matter of urgency. However, we are concerned that piecemeal changes to the Guidance could further undermine its application and lead to increasing departure in circumstances where much of the Guidance still remains relevant.

RNIB does recognise that some of the changes to the Guidance that are proposed may be considered helpful and so in drafting our response we have sought to obtain the views of blind and partially sighted people as well as taking soundings from rehabilitation and mobility workers and those representing local authorities in order to understand whether the changes proposed were the right ones and should be made prior to a full review of the Guidance.

Section 5

Relaxation of the requirement for the back edge of an area of blister paving to be perpendicular to the crossing direction with two options – straight or curve edge.

RNIB is concerned about the loss of the long back straight edge which was previously included so that blind and partially sighted people could align themselves correctly in the direction of the crossing. We further believe that the curved approach provides insufficient tactile information and visual contrast in order to aid navigation.

We are also concerned that the curved approach may be impractical because it will require those installing the tactile paving to have to cut many more tiles to achieve the correct shape. We understand that it is also more difficult to lay tarmac around a curved edge (many pavements around the country are laid with tarmac).This impacts upon costs as well as the time taken to lay the paving. If the paving is not installed correctly this could lead to increased trip hazards and there may be maintenance issues.

We are concerned that the stepped approach, although an improvement on the curved edge proposal, could also cause confusion, and lacks the simplicity that a clear straight line provides.

We believe that the current design remains the best design for ensuring that blind and partially sighted people can align themselves correctly in the direction of the crossing and the most practical for installation and maintenance. We therefore do not agree that this change should be made.

Section 6

Replacement of the requirement for the blister paving at a controlled crossing to be red with a requirement for at least a 50% contrast ratio with the surrounding paving

RNIB recognises that the continued use of red may no longer provide sufficient contrast with the surrounding paving to be beneficial to partially sighted people (although we would remind the Department that the Guidance does suggest that where there is insufficient contrast a border is applied).

We also recognise that providing a minimum level of contrast in dry and wet conditions is potentially more helpful and that grey and charcoal tactile is being used increasingly by authorities.

We are however, concerned that the use of minimum contrast rather than a specific colour undermines the principle of uniformity (highlighted in the Newham case). It could lead to considerable confusion not only for visually impaired visitors to an area but also blind and partially sighted residents as it could potentially mean that a number of different colours are used with a local authority area to denote a controlled crossing depending on the colour and tone of surrounding paving. For example in one area with grey paving a local authority may decide that charcoal tactile paving is appropriate for a controlled crossing. Whereas in another part of the borough, where pavements are tarmac, light grey may be used. The use of contrast rather than colour could also potentially lead to confusion as to what is a controlled and what is an uncontrolled crossing since the current Guidance (which Local Authorities are obliged to follow) states(at 1.5.2.1) that

“… the blister surface [at uncontrolled crossings]should be buff or any colour other than red which provides a contrast with the surrounding footway surface[emphasis added].

This proposed change therefore means that there will be no colour differentiation between a controlled and an uncontrolled crossing. As the current guidance states:-

Each type of tactile paving surface should be exclusively reserved for its intended use and consistently applied…Visually impaired people are becoming increasingly mobile , both within their local area and more widely and it is therefore very important that conflicting and confusing information is not conveyed.”

RNIB is also concerned that local authorities may not have the resources or capacity to hold the necessary range of colours of tactile paving to achieve the necessary contrast in the variety of surfaces within a local authority area.

For the reasons outlined above, RNIB is reluctant to agree with these changes as it is not clear to us that this change will assist blind and partially sighted people in navigating the built environment. We are of the view that further research and consultation needs to be undertaken to ensure that it is appropriate.

However, from listening to the views of stakeholders including blind and partially sighted people and rehabilitation and mobility workers, we are aware that this change has been generally supported and so we would like to suggest that rather than replacing the existing provisions on colour, the Department issues supplemental guidance on the considerations that local authorities must take into account when considering deviating from the requirement to use red. Where deviation is considered supplementary guidance must require a minimum contrast (specifying how this is measured). Local authorities should also be required to assess the impact that deviation will have on uniformity, the potential for confusion with uncontrolled crossings etc. They should further be required to consult with blind and partially sighted people (and organisations representing their interests) and rehabilitation and mobility workers before making any change. We believe that there are other changes which could usefully be included in supplemental guidance which we outline briefly below.

Section 7

Introduce a universal requirement for the boundary between carriageway and footway to be demarcated with tactile paving wherever they are at the same level.

RNIB opposes this change. We believe that the best way of delineating the carriageway and the pavement is through the use of a kerb. In accordance with the requirements of Inclusive Mobility we believe that the kerb should be at least 125mm. We are concerned that this proposal gives the green light to the increasing use of flush surfaces.Highways department should always seek to use a kerb unless there is very good reason not to and they should always take professional advice from an access consultant and seeks the views of blind and partially sighted people and rehabilitation and mobility workers before removing kerbs.

Where it is established that it is necessary to remove a kerb, we agree that it is essential that a barrier is maintained or tactile paving is installed that is detectable. However there needs to be further research as to whether a tactile delineator is appropriate and what type of tactile is suitable (see below). Until this research is undertaken we do not believe that the Departmentshould recommend the use of tactile paving to delineate the pavement from the road.

As well as giving the green light to flush surfaces we also consider that the proposals are impractical and likely to lead to further confusion.We note that the consultation document does not appear to specify what type of tactile paving should be used only suggesting a minimum depth of 800mm and there appears to have been some confusion amongst consultees as to whether it was envisaged that blister or corduroy would be used or whether the Department was not recommending any particular type. If no typeis recommended then there will be no consistency in what is laid further undermining the Guidance and leading to confusion. Again we would remind the Department of the provisions of the current guidance as quoted above and restated approvingly in the Newham decision.

We also consider that laying 800mm of tactile is impractical in many areas because it will reduce the amount of usable paving substantially. It is not clear to us that this will lead to authorities abandoning the flush surface but it is more likely to lead to the use of narrower strips which are not detectable or no tactile delineator at all.

Where tactile paving has been laid in other schemes to delineate the kerb from the carriageway we understand that this has led to maintenance issues as a result of vehicles driving over the tactile. The tactile paving is not designed to withstand this and this has led to the paving cracking causing a trip hazard.

The difficulties outlined above regarding the practicality of the curved approach are also relevant to this proposal in that it will also potentially require those installing tactile paving to have to cut more tiles to achieve the correct shape etc. impacting upon cost, time and creating maintenance issues.

Rather than revising the guidance we would urge the Department touse supplementary guidance to (effectively) update the provisions in section 1.5.5.1 explainingthe importance of the use of a kerb and the potential discriminatory effect of removing it.Supplementary guidance could also emphasise(and remind authorities) of the need to consult with blind and partially sighted people and rehabilitation and mobility workers before decisions are made to remove kerbs (and replace them with an alternative delineator). This is entirely in accordance with the requirements of the current guidancebut appears to be often forgotten

Supplementary guidance could also address the apparently conflicting advice between what is in the tactile paving guidance and what is in Manual for Streets. It could also address the use of the 25mm kerb which is generally acknowledged to be of little value referencing Inclusive Mobility.

Section 8 - Suggestions for crossing improvements

Push buttons on both sides of a controlled crossing with rotating cones.