Agenda item

The Director of Planning Transport and Development submits a report outlining the approach taken to accessibility design relating to proposed highway and transport schemes in and around the city centre.  The Commission is recommended to note the report and comment as appropriate.

The Director of Planning, Development and Transportation submitted a report outlining the approach taken to accessibility design relating to proposed highway and transport schemes in and around the city centre. 

The City Centre Streets Programme Manager introduced the report, drawing attention to the following points:

·           It was believed that Leicester had one of the largest pedestrianised areas in the country in its centre.  Although it was necessary to admit vehicles to this at times, care was taken to ensure that the area was not dominated by vehicles;

·           Healthy streets assessments were undertaken, which included Healthy Streets Audits to determine how conditions could be improved for all street users, and consideration of how streets could be made safer by design.  Work was ongoing to extend this beyond the city centre, as part of the Council’s work to move away from the dominance of cars in the city;

·           Almost all bus stops in the city centre now had level access.  A shallow sawtooth layout was used to ensure that buses could pull up parallel to the kerb at bus stops;

·           Drivers with disabilities who held a “blue badge” were able to park on single yellow lines for up to three hours;

·           It was recognised that provision needed to be constantly reviewed, as the city centre changed constantly; and

·           It was intended to look at accessibility in the north-west and south-west of the city next, before moving on to the rest of the city.

At the invitation of the Chair, Maureen Peberdy, representing Labour Disability, addressed the Commission, making the following points:

o    Almost a quarter of people in the United Kingdom were registered as disabled, but there were many more with disabilities who were not registered;

o    A recent World Organisation study recognised that places were missing a large economic gain from people with disabilities.  For example, it was estimated that in the United Kingdom the “purple pound” was worth £249billion.  However, none of the cities ranked highest for accessibility were in the United Kingdom;

o    The walk round the city centre to gain an impression of accessibility, on which she had accompanied Councillors and Council officers, had been very useful in helping to identify aspects of accessibility that were working well and those which could be improved;

o    Many people did not use certain businesses due to poor accessibility, barriers to entry, or poor customer service for disabled people;

o    Some people were not able to navigate cluttered environments, so did not use the city centre;

o    Investment in digital democracy could be an important aid to encouraging disabled people to use the city centre.  For example, an app could be created enabling people to plan accessible routes, possibly using crowd-sourced information;

o    The provision of Changing Places toilets was very welcome, but these were only located in the city centre and at least one further one was needed there in order to spread the locations more evenly across the city centre;

o    A safe space was needed for people who needed to move away from a crowded and/or noisy environment for a short time;

o    Induction loops and audio-assistive systems needed to be introduced;

o    Ramps should be used where possible rather than steps;

o    In general, toilets in the city centre were very badly sign-posted;

o    A booklet sign-posting people to facilities would be very useful.  This could be stocked by the Information Bureau, as it already received requests for this information; and

o    Ability needed to be considered as well as disability.

Ms Peberdy strongly encouraged the Council to consider entering the Access Award, which was a European Union award recognising cities that became more accessible to their citizens.  At present, Chester was the only city in the United Kingdom to have received this award, so it could be useful to examine how it had achieved this.  However, it was noted that entries for this year’s award needed to be submitted by September.

Ms Peberdy noted that she had only addressed accessibility in the city centre and expressed the hope that issues in the outer areas of the city could be discussed at some point.

The Commission welcomed the analysis of city centre accessibility and considered how people could be moved around it.  One suggestion was the use of electric golf-cart style vehicles or a land train on set routes, but it was recognised that care would have to be taken to ensure that people could get on and off these.  People using walking aids could not easily get on to moving things, such as moving pavements, so any means of transport would have to stop completely to pick up and set down.  Consideration also would need to be given to the implications of introducing vehicles to areas that currently were vehicle-free.

In considering these suggestions, the City Mayor noted that consideration was being given to whether a workplace parking levy should be introduced, (see minute 24, “Workplace Parking Levy”, below).  If this was introduced, income from the levy could be a potential revenue source for alternative forms of transportation, including initiatives such as accessible transport around the city centre.

The Commission noted that, as set out in the report, various issues had been identified during a walk around the city centre.  The following points also were made in relation to this:

§   A lot of shops had steps at their entrances, preventing wheelchair users from going in.  Some premises were not able to use a ramp over these steps and some had bells that could be rung from service, but it was acknowledged that this this did not remove the disadvantage to disabled people;

§   Some parking bays designated for disabled drivers would be hard for wheelchair users to use, as the bays had high kerbs which could not be mounted by a wheelchair;

§   Some road crossing points had drains close to them, which could catch the wheels of wheelchairs;

§   It appeared to be relatively straightforward for wheelchair users to manoeuvre on and off buses.  Bus companies were willing to let disabled users try this out by appointment at the bus station;

§   In response to concerns that cars often parked at certain bus stops, preventing people from using the raised kerb, Highways officers were introducing parking restrictions to address the situation;

§   In some locations, cars parked in front of dropped kerbs, restricting access to those kerbs; and

§   Items on pavements, such as rubbish piled up next to litter bins or A boards outside premises, restricted the useable area of those pavements.

AGREED:

1)    That the Director of Planning, Development and Transportation be asked to consider the suggestions recorded above to make the city more accessible and report back to this Commission as appropriate;

2)    That all Councillors be invited to advise Highways officers of locations in their Wards at which parking at bus stops prevented bus users from using the high kerbs at the bus stops and that Highways officers be asked to take appropriate action in response to such notifications; and

3)    That the Director of Planning, Development and Transportation be asked to liaise with the Chair and Vice-Chair of this Commission to arrange a walk around areas outside of the city centre to assess the accessibility of those areas.