Public Petitions Committee

Meeting date: Thursday, November 10, 2016

Official Report 443KB pdf

---

Continued Petition

---

Shared Space Schemes (Moratorium) (PE1595)

Agenda item 2 is consideration of a continued petition—petition PE1595, by Alexander Taylor, which calls for a moratorium on shared space schemes.

We will take evidence on the petition from Humza Yousaf, the Minister for Transport and the Islands. The minister is accompanied by two officials: Jill Mulholland of Transport Scotland and Sandy Robinson of the Scottish Government. Welcome to our meeting.

Before we turn to questions, I invite the minister to make any opening comments that he would like to make.

Thank you, convener.

The Scottish Government is committed, through “Scotland’s Road Safety Framework to 2020”, to achieving safer road travel in Scotland and protecting vulnerable road users such as children, pedestrians, pedal cyclists and people with disabilities, including those with visual impairments.

The framework includes a commitment that stated that the Scottish Government would publish national guidance on designing streets that would focus on the needs of pedestrians of all abilities. The national guidance, “Designing Streets”, which was published in 2010, provides Scottish local authorities with key considerations and guidance for the design and redesign of new and existing streets. It sets out a street-user hierarchy that considers pedestrians first and private vehicles last. It states clearly that the design of all streets and spaces should be inclusive and should provide for all people, regardless of age or ability.

“Designing Streets” acknowledges the important and complex role that streets play in supporting communities and in meeting ambitions in a number of policy areas, from supporting active travel options and improving public health to reducing emissions, increasing footfall and social interaction and, importantly, reducing the speed and dominance of vehicles and creating spaces that all people can access and enjoy. To do that, it promotes a collaborative approach that is based on balanced decisions and the importance of local context and local views.

“Designing Streets” includes information on shared space and sets out some of the design principles behind that concept. It does not actively promote or recommend shared space; instead, it highlights the potential benefits of creating streets that reduce vehicle dominance, encourage social interaction and create a positive sense of place.

An important element of the guidance in “Designing Streets” is the emphasis on the need to ensure that design is inclusive and the need to consider the needs of those with a disability, particularly people with a visual impairment. The guidance acknowledges that if shared spaces are not designed and developed in careful conjunction with road users, they can pose problems for some blind or partially sighted people, and it emphasises the importance of recognising that people with a disability may require additional supportive measures.

The detailed design of particular schemes that are developed by a local authority must recognise and respond to the needs of all users. Design should be collaborative, and representatives from local disability groups and access panels should be invited to provide input from the early stages and throughout the development stages.

“Designing Streets” sets out the national policy perspective and key design considerations, but how it is implemented and interpreted is a local matter, which needs to respond to the specific circumstances and the local context.

Scotland’s first accessible travel framework, which I launched in September, contains the vision that

“All disabled people can travel with the same freedom, choice, dignity and opportunity as other citizens.”

To achieve that vision, we are committed to listening to people with a disability and involving them in making travel more accessible.

Disabled people told us that this is not just about transport, but about making sure that they can get to transport. Accessible paths and roads, bus stops and stations must be part of that. That is why I am keen that the roads authorities—Transport Scotland for trunk roads and local authorities for their local roads—collaborate and have on-going engagement with local residents, including those with a disability and their representatives, to design better streetscapes for all.

I am, of course, happy to take questions.

Thank you.

You have established a national policy and you say that it is for local authorities to implement it. I understand that the physical implementation of shared spaces makes sense, but why should there be local interpretation of the policies if simple issues of the rights of disabled people apply throughout the country?

There is also some helpful and useful guidance that goes alongside “Designing Streets” and the guidance associated with that. The Society of Chief Officers of Transportation in Scotland has produced from a local level its national roads development guidance, which it thinks should apply to all 32 local authorities, and inclusivity of shared spaces is very much a part of that.

There are examples where shared spaces in local authority areas have worked well and the inclusivity of people with disabilities, including visual impairments, has been part of that from the early inception stage right the way through to development, and there are clearly areas where it could be done better.

We have worked in collaboration with local authorities and SCOTS has produced its guidance, but that is not to say that my mind is closed to seeing how that guidance can be improved. That is why we are here and we have an interest in Mr Taylor’s petition.

I am trying to establish whether you recognise the national context of the rights of all disabled people, wherever they live, to planning that meets their needs. There might be room for local expression of what shared spaces look like, but there must be pretty fundamental, basic things about the rights of disabled people that apply generally. If schemes are identified that seem to be in contradiction with that, do you see a role for the Scottish Government in addressing that problem?

We are always happy to see whether our guidance can be improved. We recognise that level surfaces can cause difficulties for those with a visual impairment, for example, but there are things that can be done to address that. I can come on to that later. If local policy is not meeting the national standards, there is redress. Let us remember that local authorities have public sector duties and have to adhere to the Equality Act 2010, the arbitrators being the Equality and Human Rights Commission and ultimately the courts, and there is redress if either the Scottish or the United Kingdom national guidelines are not being adhered to.

If the suggestion is that the guidance needs to be improved and further flesh needs to be put on it, I am happy to explore that, but there should not be local schemes that contradict national policy. As I said, there are some fundamental duties that local authorities have to adhere to, and if that is not happening, there are enforcement measures.

It seems quite a significant escalation that somebody has to go to the courts to enforce their rights. I suppose that I am trying to establish the extent to which the Scottish Government, in its planning guidance, is able to identify basic issues around disability.

I will give you a simple example and seek your response. “Designing Streets” says that there is a preference for controlled crossings for older and visually impaired pedestrians. I think that we would agree that the word “preference” suggests that there is a stronger liking for one option but that other options would be accessible. That characterisation differs from the strong opinions that we have heard and that come across in submissions on the petition. Will you consider changing the language in “Designing Streets” to reflect the strength of opinion that we have heard? It is not a question of a slight preference for one option or the other; there is a strong preference for controlled crossings.

If the committee would like me to do that, I will of course do so. I think it is an eminently sensible suggestion. The reason why the word “preference” is used is that there can be other options. For example, there can be tactile paving or very small delineations in the road—25mm, for example—that do not constitute a kerb but are enough of a marked delineation to help somebody who uses a stick.

I am absolutely more than happy to look at the guidance. Having looked at Mr Taylor’s petition and some of the very genuine concerns that he has raised—indeed, I had the chance to speak briefly to him before coming in here—I explored with my officials whether we could work with our partners at Edinburgh Napier University and its transport research institute and perhaps set up a seminar to examine the exact concerns in the petition and find out how we might strengthen the existing guidance notes. There is our own guidance and the SCOTS guidance and, as members might be aware, the United Kingdom Government is doing some work on the back of the report of Lord Holmes of Richmond. If we can take that approach and look at suggestions such as changing some of the wording, as the convener has suggested, or having more detailed discussions on the petitioner’s concerns, I am more than happy to explore that.

I declare an interest, as I am backing the campaign in my constituency with regard to the scheme.

Part of the whole shared space concept seems to be the expected behavioural change by drivers, pedestrians and other users of the space, and a number of submissions talk about the role of eye contact in the use of non-controlled crossings. However, many people such as the visually impaired or those with cognitive issues, learning disabilities or other conditions are simply not in a position to make such a change.

You used the word “inclusivity” a lot in your opening statement, and you have now mentioned guidance. The scheme that I am talking about is about to go live with a four-way non-controlled crossing, the very thought of which my constituents, particularly the less able, will—to be frank—find terrifying. I know that visually impaired groups and others were not consulted by the local authority in this instance; indeed, that is part of the petition’s whole premise. What could happen if there was no consultation and a scheme went ahead regardless? If people have not been consulted or listened to, is that not a contravention of their rights?

As the member will understand, I am reluctant to get into the nitty-gritty of every local decision on every local high street. I cannot, as a Government minister, mandate what happens on every local high street.

That said, I absolutely understand the member’s concerns about the scheme that she as a local representative has highlighted. If what she has described is the case, that is deeply worrying. Whether it is our own guidance, the SCOTS guidance, which is produced by local authorities, or even the Department for Transport guidance, which, although not necessarily applicable, still produces very helpful outputs, it all talks about collaboration with local access panels, local disability groups and so on.

I should point out that “Designing Streets” is predominantly aimed at residential and what we call lightly trafficked streets—although that is not to say that it is not applicable to town centres. As a result, if “Designing Streets” and its associated guidance are being implemented in vehicle-dominated and vehicle-heavy areas such as town centres, consideration will have to be given to those with disabilities and visual impairments. If that has not been done and if the proposal could be dangerous for those people, we would certainly urge the local authority to do more, reconsider things and have further conversations.

In direct answer to what might have been the member’s question, I cannot overturn the local authority’s decision, particularly if there is no planning element. In some regards, that brings us back to the petitioner’s request for a moratorium and in part to why such a measure would not be effective. Many shared space schemes do not require a change in planning, because such spaces have already been designed in that way.

We are always happy to have conversations with local authorities, in this case with East Dunbartonshire Council. The Equality and Human Rights Commission could also be asked to look into the matter if it was felt that the public sector duties were not being adhered to.

09:45  

I do not mean to put you on the spot, but will you write to the local authority to express your concern about the issue?

I will certainly have a conversation with the local authority and I will report back to the member on that. I have no concerns about doing that. Ultimately, I would have to leave the decision on the shared space to the local authority, but I am more than happy to have a conversation with it about the matter. Having read its written submission to the committee, I suspect that it would characterise what it has done on the matter slightly differently from others. Again, it is not for me to be the arbiter in that regard, but it seems to me that if there are genuine concerns about the shared space, the utmost should be done to resolve those and give reassurances in particular to our more vulnerable road users—in this case, those with a disability or a visual impairment.

Having looked at examples of shared space schemes that have been introduced in Scotland, we understand that some schemes have had controlled crossings added retrospectively. Deafblind Scotland’s submission on the petition notes the difficulties experienced by people who can neither see nor hear traffic and highlighted that deafblind people

“rely on controlled crossings mainly with rotating cones and tactile markings to alert them to cross the road safely.”

Deafblind Scotland argues that, without such crossings and other elements of street design, a shared space scheme might take away people’s independence,

“leaving them feeling unsafe and lacking confidence, also excluding them from their town centre.”

Deafblind Scotland asks why aesthetic appeal should be given priority over safety. Can you respond to that point and set out how the Scottish Government supports the development of design that protects the safety of all users?

I do not agree with the premise that aesthetics takes priority over the needs of vulnerable road users. The guidance does not suggest that having a controlled crossing would mean that a space was no longer a shared space, but I know that some have that opinion. If level crossings have to be added to a shared space for the benefit of vulnerable road users, there is no reason why that cannot be done at the design stage. That is why the guidance encourages collaboration and discussion with local access panels and disability groups such as Deafblind Scotland right from the conception or inception stage of a design idea. If level crossings are necessary in a shared space, there is no reason why they should not be in the design from the very beginning as opposed to being added retrospectively.

The other element of shared space schemes is the use of level surfaces. We appreciate that there is a balance to be struck because level surfaces might be beneficial to some but not others. However, a particular concern has been raised about what level surfaces mean for people who use guide dogs or long sticks or canes to navigate the streets, with kerbs being an essential part of that navigation. If there is no kerb, those people cannot feel when they have got to the edge of the pavement. That point is recognised in “Designing Streets” under the heading “Inclusive design”, which sets out the role of quality audit and the place for collaborative design. Would you consider strengthening “Designing Streets” or providing supplementary guidance in respect of that issue?

Yes is the short answer. Given what committee members have said and the concern that Mr Taylor has raised in his petition, there is definitely merit in our examining all the concerns that have been raised. I have suggested that the best forum for doing that is probably through our working with Edinburgh Napier University’s transport research institute. I invite committee members and the petitioner to be involved in that discussion.

Other measures, such as tactile paving, have been put in place in some shared spaces where there is no kerb. Even a slight delineation in the road—a small one of 25mm, for example—has been shown in some instances to provide the necessary delineation to enable somebody using a stick or a guide dog to notice a difference in the level of surfaces, however subtle it might be. Certainly the member’s suggestion of exploring that further is a sensible one. We should do that, and I think that we certainly will.

As I mentioned, the DFT is now doing some work on the back of Lord Holmes’s report on shared space. Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon is the minister who is leading the response. That is due at the end of the year and I will be very interested to see the outcomes and outputs, which can inform our own discussions here in Scotland.

It would be helpful to know the timescale for arranging the forum.

It would make sense to wait for the DFT response, which is due at the end of the year and could help to inform us. I will of course speak to Edinburgh Napier University—I do not want to commit it to a timescale that it is not able to meet—but I think that we should look to arrange the forum early next year. If it can be arranged earlier and the committee thinks that there is merit in doing that, I will explore the timescale.

One of Sandy Taylor’s concerns relates to the sources of funding that are available to assist local authorities in meeting redevelopment costs. Specifically, he mentioned funding allocated by Transport Scotland to Sustrans. His view is that the weighting given to applications for Sustrans funding has contributed to greater focus on meeting the needs of cyclists rather than the needs of other users. I would be interested to hear your view on that.

I spoke to Mr Taylor about that before we walked into the meeting and tried to reassure him. In my first six months in this job, I have had many a conversation with Sustrans, as you would imagine. Its commitment to inclusivity and accessibility is beyond question. In everything that the organisation does, it always takes into account how it can assist and include the most vulnerable. That is part of its ethos, primarily in relation to cycling, but it also works with Paths for All and other organisations so walkways and footpaths are part of that conversation.

On the criteria for shared space schemes, any bid that Sustrans supports must comply with the national policy and the design guidance that I have described already—the SCOTS guidance and our own national guidance. That is part of what Sustrans does. I do not think that there is a conflict for it. If a scheme receives assistance and funding from Sustrans, that definitely does not give it carte blanche to ignore the needs of pedestrians and to favour the needs of cyclists, for example. In fact, Sustrans is aware of the road user hierarchy, which puts pedestrians first and the private motor vehicle last. I have read the Sustrans submission to the committee and I thought that it was very powerful. I have no concerns about any potential conflict in relation to shared space schemes.

Sarah Gayton, a campaigner who has looked at shared space schemes across the UK, has raised concerns about the collection of data on accidents in shared space schemes. Have any such concerns been raised with the Scottish Government?

You spoke about the schemes being primarily in residential areas. The area that the petitioner is referring to is one of the busiest junctions in the west of Scotland, with cars and lorries going through it at alarming speed. It is also a big bus route. It is far from being a residential area.

I reiterate that the guidance in “Designing Streets” focuses primarily on lightly trafficked residential spaces. That is not to say that it explicitly excludes town centres or busier areas, but it makes it clear that in such areas the needs of vulnerable road users must be taken into account and individuals must be reassured as far as possible.

I can tell from reading the written submissions to the committee that disability groups and local access panels are not convinced by the local authority’s plans. As I said, I have given the member a commitment to speak to the local authority about that, because it is evident that it is not just the petitioner who is voicing such concerns.

Thankfully, the trajectory of pedestrian injuries and casualties is heading downwards, although even one casualty or fatality on our roads and in our shared spaces is of course one too many. On the member’s question, we do not have statistics for casualties that are specific to shared spaces. I will speak to colleagues at Transport Scotland to explore whether it is possible to break down the statistics in that way. I am not convinced that it will be all that easy to do so, but there is no harm in exploring that aspect.

Following on from that point, if it was feasible to collect reliable accident data to enable us to understand whether the shared space scheme is creating a higher risk, and if certain features of the shared space were found to be associated with a higher risk of accidents, where would you see a role for Scottish Government guidance in reflecting that risk?

It is not my understanding that there is a risk, and I have not had any correspondence to suggest that there is one. However, if—hypothetically speaking—the data that we collected showed that there was such a risk, national guidance would have to reflect the reasons for that.

If vulnerable road users were the victims of such incidents, we could use the national guidance to ensure that we put in place additional measures to give those users the reassurance that they needed. For example, we could look at stipulating that level crossings should be put in place, or any other measure that would help to reduce casualties. However, that scenario is uber-hypothetical. We do not yet have the data, and we do not know whether we are able to collect it or what it would reflect. Thus far, I have not had any correspondence to suggest that the existing shared space schemes are more or less dangerous than other spaces on the roads.

I want to flag up another issue that Sustrans has raised. In its response to the committee on the petition, it states:

“We contend that the introduction of controlled crossings into an infrastructure project in the urban realm causes that project to cease to be considered a shared-space scheme and become a standard, orthodox treatment for the urban environment, such as can be seen on many high streets in Scotland.”

We have already discussed the fact that “Designing Streets” refers to a “preference” for controlled crossings, and you have accepted that you may need to strengthen the wording. Sustrans contends that putting in place a controlled crossing would stop a street being a shared space. Does that match your understanding of shared space as set out in policies and statements such as “Designing Streets”?

Not necessarily—that is simply the opinion of Sustrans. “Designing Streets” does not go into a definition of what a shared space necessarily constitutes and what exactly it is. We give general guidance and it is for local authorities and others to interpret that. If a level crossing was put in a shared space to make it more accessible for vulnerable road users, that should not take away from its being a shared space. I do not share the exact interpretation that Sustrans has set out.

It is not a level crossing but a controlled crossing.

Yes—a controlled crossing or indeed a level crossing. A shared space can have other characteristics and yet still be a shared space. What we are looking at in a shared space is the reduction of vehicle dominance. If that can be produced as the final output, I do not see why it should not be a shared space.

Do you think that there is an issue in that you fund Sustrans and it has a view that is directly opposed to yours about what happens if controlled crossings are put into shared spaces? It seems to argue that that stops the space being a shared space, and you say that it does not. The petitioner and others are concerned that, because they presumably support Sustrans’s view that we cannot have controlled crossings in shared spaces, their concerns are not being addressed.

10:00  

It comes down to a matter of interpretation. That is why the recommendation from the petitioners and members round the table to see if we can strengthen the guidance is good, and Sustrans and local authorities should be part of that conversation.

Local authorities should use our national guidance, which we have produced in “Designing Streets”, and the guidance that SCOTS has produced. That should be the overarching guidance, and it suggests that any approach to a shared space should include disability groups. If a level crossing or a controlled crossing is included, calling that a shared space would give me no concern from a governmental point of view. It is a matter of interpretation. However, I am happy for the guidance on that to be strengthened.

With respect, it should not be a matter of interpretation. If you are funding Sustrans to deliver on national policy, we would expect it to have a position that understands that. I recognise that you are clearly saying that there is a place for controlled crossings. Sustrans says that, if there is a controlled crossing, that means that there is no longer a shared space. Would it be worth while your exploring with Sustrans its understanding of the impact of putting in controlled crossings on your commitment to shared spaces that are also safe for people with disabilities?

Yes. I am more than happy to have a conversation about that with Sustrans. It receives our funding, as many organisations do, but local authorities should look towards the national guidance that we produce and the guidance that SCOTS produces when they are designing their shared spaces, and not necessarily the guidance or interpretation of third-party organisations. They should look at the guidance in “Designing Streets” and the guidance that SCOTS has produced. However, I am, of course, more than happy to take your suggestion, convener, and have a conversation with Sustrans about its understanding of a shared space.

I want to clarify for my own peace of mind a point that was made earlier. If local authorities are deemed to have contravened an inclusive policy, what would be the Scottish Government’s position on potential action?

We are talking about guidance as opposed to what is in statute. As I mentioned earlier, organisations and individuals can seek redress through the Equality and Human Rights Commission. Every local authority must live up to its public sector duties, and if a local authority is seen to be in contravention of that, redress can be sought. There may also be the last resort of going to the courts but, as the convener suggested, the matter should not have to get there. I hope that there would be a resolution before the matter got to that stage. Petitions allow some of the issues to be aired, of course, but as a Government minister, I would not look to impose my view on every high street and local authority in Scotland, for example.

I am more than happy, as has been suggested, to have a conversation with a local authority, where that is appropriate, to express concerns that have been expressed to me and see whether we can come to a resolution on the matter. However, the guidance at the national and local levels is clear that the best approach is to include disability groups and access panels from the very beginning.

It seems to me that the petitioner has had to go through quite an arduous process to get his views aired. I know that we cannot speak about specifics and that you have already committed to speaking to the local authority, but it seems to me to have been an arduous process. My concern is that many people in the same position would probably give up before they got here.

That is a fair point. Perhaps that can be one of the issues that we discuss in the seminar that I have committed to arranging to explore the issues. If there are real issues or concerns rather than just one lone voice—in this case, it seems to me that a number of people share concerns—the process for appealing should be made easier.

Essentially, it is up to local authorities to choose whether to listen to those voices. I say again that I am not making a judgment on a specific or individual case but, if 10 or 20 disability organisations and local access panels are saying the same thing, it would be an abdication of responsibility for the local authority to ignore those concerns or sweep them to the side—that would not be a particularly wise approach. I stress again that I am speaking in general terms and am not making a judgment on the specific case that the petition deals with.

Local authorities should listen to those voices. However, if the guidance needs strengthened to try to encourage that more strongly, we can explore that.

We now have to think about how to take the petition forward.

The minister says that the guidance is clear, but it seems that, at a local level, it is not clear. There is certainly some dispute with Sustrans and others about what the guidance means. I suggest that we ask the Scottish Government to get back to us with information on how it will seek to strengthen the guidance and respond to the concerns that have been raised. I would also be interested to know whether the Scottish Government will raise the issue in general terms with local authorities. I recognise that we cannot deal with the specific case that is raised in the petition, but we can address the issue more broadly.

Further, I think that we welcome the establishment of the forum, but it would be good if the Scottish Government could get back to us about when it envisions that happening, what the forum’s aims will be and what is expected to come out at the other end of the process. Do members have other suggestions?

I agree with everything that you have said, convener. I would also like to raise the petition with the Equalities and Human Rights Committee, because I believe that the council that we are talking about is not complying with the Equality Act 2010. It would be good if that committee could give an opinion in that regard.

I am not sure how we would do that. I think that we need to deal with the issue as opposed to the local authority, because it has not been able to argue its position. The question is whether the guidance is strong enough to protect the rights of people with disabilities and whether shared spaces as an idea are problematic in terms of equalities. When we get information back from the Scottish Government, we might want to refer the petition to another committee. At that point, we would let go of it, as it were.

I agree with that approach.

We have also heard from the minister today that there are avenues by which the petitioner can take the issue forward.

As there are no other suggestions, I thank the minister and his officials for their attendance and for the commitments that they have made with regard to addressing the petition. This has been an interesting discussion.

10:07 Meeting suspended.  

10:11 On resuming—