Property Management

Heritage property, tourism and the UK Disability Discrimination Act

Brian Goodall Gaye Pottinger Tim Dixon Henry Russell

Article information:

Downloaded by EKB Data Center At 11:04 01 October 2016 (PT)

To cite this document:

Brian Goodall Gaye Pottinger Tim Dixon Henry Russell, (2004),"Heritage property, tourism and the UK
Disability Discrimination Act", Property Management, Vol. 22 Iss 5 pp. 345 - 357
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02637470410570734
Downloaded on: 01 October 2016, At: 11:04 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 28 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 3322 times since 2006*

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:

(2012),"The voice of tourists with mobility disabilities: insights from online customer complaint websites",
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 24 Iss 3 pp. 451-476 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/09596111211217905
(2011),"Dimensions of hotel experience of people with disabilities: an exploratory study",
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 23 Iss 5 pp. 571-591 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/09596111111143340
(2009),"Maintenance for historic buildings: a current perspective", Structural Survey, Vol. 27 Iss 3 pp.
210-229 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02630800910971347

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:614218 []

For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com

Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0263-7472.htm

Heritage property, tourism

and the UK Disability
Discrimination Act
Brian Goodall

Heritage
property, tourism
and the UK DDA
345

School of Human and Environmental Sciences, University of Reading,

Reading, UK, and

Gaye Pottinger, Tim Dixon and Henry Russell

College of Estate Management, Reading, UK
Downloaded by EKB Data Center At 11:04 01 October 2016 (PT)

Keywords Heritage, Buildings, Tourism, Disabled people, United Kingdom

Abstract Heritage tourism depends on a physical resource based primarily on listed buildings and
scheduled monuments. Visiting or staying in a historic building provides a rich tourism experience,
but historic environments date from eras when access for disabled people was not a consideration.
Current UK Government policy now promotes social inclusion via an array of equal opportunities,
widening participation and anti-discrimination policies. Historic environments enjoy considerable
legislative protection from adverse change, but now need to balance conservation with public access
for all. This paper discusses the basis of research being undertaken by The College of Estate
Management funded by the Mercers Company of London and the Harold Samuel Trust. It
assesses how the 1995 Disability Discrimination Act has changed the legal obligations of
owners/operators in managing access to listed buildings in tourism use. It also examines the key
stakeholders and power structures in the management of historic buildings and distinguishes other
important players in the management process.

Introduction
Disability is an issue at the forefront of the social and political agenda. Societys
approach is changing to focus on the inclusion of disabled people[1] and is embodied in
legislation to promote equal opportunities, widening participation and
anti-discrimination policies. This approach, based on the social model of disability,
regards society and its operational environment as imposing constraints that prevent
disabled people from running their lives in the same way as non-disabled people.
In the UK Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA 1995), a person is defined as
disabled if:
. . . he has a physical or mental impairment which has a substantial and long-term adverse
effect on his ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities[2].

The DDA 1995 is specific about the categories of persons deemed to be disabled
(Schedule 1, s7) and therefore covered by the legislation. For example, holding a
certificate of registration is deemed conclusive evidence of being disabled, or
falling within a prescribed description within regulations that may be made under the
Act. In this paper, the DDA definition of disabled and disability applies throughout
and it is assumed that other sources referenced have also followed this definition.
Disability is therefore the social and economic disadvantage resulting from societys
failure to respond to the needs of disabled people rather than a consequence of any
impairment on the part of a disabled person (Burchardt, 2003). However, societal

Property Management
Vol. 22 No. 5, 2004
pp. 345-357
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0263-7472
DOI 10.1108/02637470410570734

PM
22,5

Downloaded by EKB Data Center At 11:04 01 October 2016 (PT)

346

attitudes and especially its built environment change only slowly. Disabled people still
face social exclusion and suffer discrimination, not least in areas of discretionary
consumption such as leisure and tourism. Heritage environments may also be
particularly difficult to adapt to allow inclusive access for disabled people, either as
independent visitors or in an integrated group of family and friends.
Heritage is a major tourism resource on a global scale and is recognised in the UK as
the backbone of our tourism industry (DCMS and DTLR, 2001). The historic
environments concerned range from battlefields to fields systems, through castles,
cathedrals, churches and stately homes, gardens and parks, and industrial buildings to
historic towns and settlements and places associated with famous people and events.
The numbers of sites in England in 2001 are summarised in Table I.
Visits to UK historic environments, over most of the last decade, have exceeded 50
million per annum, with domestic tourists making up some two-thirds of the total (Star
UK, 2003). In 2002, nine of the top 20 major paid admissions attractions were historic
environments, including the Tower of London, Edinburgh and Windsor Castles and
Stonehenge (Star UK, 2003). In the first comprehensive attempt to measure the
economic importance of the historic environment, The National Trust (2002) suggests
that 40 per cent of the UKs tourism economy depends on high-quality, well-maintained
historic environments.
Disabled people are under-represented as visitors to the historic built environment
(PLB Consulting Ltd, 2001) and English Heritage (2003) estimates that only 8-9 per cent
of visitors to its properties are disabled. The Government, however, envisages a
historic environment accessible to everybody (DCMS and DTLR, 2001), which
underpins its social inclusion agenda, and a key objective is to achieve the widest
possible access to the contemporary and historic built environment as part of our
cultural heritage (DCMS, 2002). Moreover, the added value of widening access for
disabled people to the historic tourism market is estimated to be significant and a
Touche Ross (1993) report estimated that in the European Union (EU) it would be
worth 17 billion per annum. Further, according to the Disability Rights Commission
(DRC, 2003a) and the ODPM (2003), disabled people in the UK have an overall spending
power of over 50 billion per annum.
Historic environments, representative of earlier cultural, technical and social
conditions, were not designed with independent access for disabled people in mind.
Type of historic environment
Recorded ancient monuments

Table I.
Historic environments in
England, 2002

Numbers of sites

300,000, of which 6 per cent (19,347) are scheduled

and a further 12 per cent have some form of
protection, usually listed
Listed buildings
376,094, covering an estimated 500,000 individual
properties: 2.5 per cent Grade I; 5.7 per cent Grade
II*; and 91.8 per cent Grade II
Designated conservation areas
9,027
Sites on the register of historic parks and gardens Over 1,500
Sites on the battlefields register
43
World heritage sites
15 (with a further 11 on the tentative list)
Source: DCMS (2003)

Downloaded by EKB Data Center At 11:04 01 October 2016 (PT)

Understanding the factors which constrain or prevent disabled people from

participating in visits to historic environments is therefore essential if heritage
tourism property managers are to develop policies and implement plans to improve
access for disabled visitors. Although these factors affect disabled peoples
participation in services generally (Goodall, 2002; Goodall and Bright, 2002), their
relative importance differs in the case of historic environments because conservation
has to be balanced against improved physical access. Many heritage tourism
properties are protected under conservation planning legislation, for example, as listed
buildings or scheduled monuments.
The balance between conservation and access interests has shifted following the
DDA 1995. This Act places the onus on the service provider to remove, alter or avoid
any physical feature that makes it impossible or unreasonably difficult for a disabled
person to access that providers service. The emphasis is on the provision of the
service, irrespective of the type of property from which it is provided. Reasonable
improvements and alternatives to remove physical barriers need to be in place by
October 2004. This duty applies to all services, even those provided free of charge, for
example, entry to listed churches or smaller National Trust properties like King Johns
Hunting Lodge and West Pennard Court Barn. Changes to policy, practice and
procedures by service providers, that is non-building adjustments, should have been
in place by 1 October 1999. These latter changes, for example the acceptance of
assistance dogs, are much less likely to conflict with conservation values.
No systematic evidence exists to determine the extent to which heritage tourism
service providers (nor tourism service providers in general) are on course to comply
with their DDA obligations for October 2004. On a wider front it appears that service
providers in general, especially small businesses (which are common in the tourism
sector), are ignoring the DDA (Leisure Opportunities, 2003a, b). Current levels of
physical access to the historic environment largely reflect past decisions of service
providers in developing heritage properties for tourism. DDA compliance requires
reconciliation of the conservation and access issues (where a heritage tourism property
needs to be physically altered), and doing so at a cost that makes good business sense
for the tourism service provider. The DDA does not intend that the cost of compliance
should put service providers out of business, as suggested in recent press reports and
refuted by the Disability Rights Commission (DRC, 2004b; Judge, 2004). However, since
the DDA requires service providers to make reasonable adjustments to overcome any
physical barriers, those operating heritage tourism properties are placed in a position
of some uncertainty as to what is reasonable in the light of their duty to protect
conservation values.
Therefore the research by the College of Estate Management into the response of
service providers operating heritage tourism properties to the DDA seeks to address
this lack of evidence in the case of historic environments protected under conservation
planning legislation as listed buildings. Such listed buildings in tourism use may be
tourist attractions in their own right or provide a base for tourism support services,
particularly the provision of tourist accommodation. The research, discussed below,
examines the role of the various stakeholders and the interaction of the DDA with the
statutory process governing listed building consent. Further research, now underway,
using case studies based on South Oxfordshire as a tourist destination, is exploring
more fully the extent to which heritage tourism service providers are aware of the

Heritage
property, tourism
and the UK DDA
347

PM
22,5

Downloaded by EKB Data Center At 11:04 01 October 2016 (PT)

348

Figure 1.
Stakeholders with
interests in listed
buildings used for tourism

issues and the ease or difficulty they are encountering in balancing access for disabled
people with the conservation of listed buildings.
Understanding access issues
The main stakeholders with interests in access to listed buildings managed for tourism
are illustrated in Figure 1. The stakeholders are grouped according to the primary
interest they represent, that is in tourism, disability and conservation. A fourth group
has multiple interests, including local government and funding bodies which have an
important gatekeeper role in facilitating access to listed buildings and enabling
service providers to comply with the DDA where building adjustments are needed:
local government through exercising its powers over the grant of planning permission,
building regulation approval and listed building consent; and funding bodies in cases
where adaptations to listed buildings are costly.
In Figure 1 the tourism service provider is shown closely associated with the listed
building, because in practice the delivery of the service and use of the building are
closely entwined, more so than with some other businesses. For example, online
retailing and banking are becoming mainstream services, but access to the service does
not necessarily involve physical access to a building, whereas a tourism service is
consumed on the service providers premises.

Downloaded by EKB Data Center At 11:04 01 October 2016 (PT)

The service provider therefore needs to be clearly identified: in many cases this is the
building owner, for example ranging from a public company operating a heritage hotel
chain, organisations with charitable status such as the National Trust, to individuals
running a family guest house; and in other cases it is the tenant, as with certain public
houses, or the franchisee, as with Kentucky Fried Chicken outlets. Where there is a
landlord-tenant relationship, the landlord cannot unreasonably withhold consent for
changes to the building to be made to improve access for disabled people.
Barriers preventing/limiting disabled persons from visiting historic environments
must also be considered from the tourism service providers viewpoint as well as the
various viewpoints of disabled people, and may be summarised as follows:
(1) Barriers common to service providers and disabled visitors:
.
The existing physical environment and facilities of the listed building, which
for those with mobility impairment includes features that can impede access
such as steps into and within a building (spiral staircases in particular),
narrow doorways and corridors, heavy doors lacking opening mechanisms,
deep pile carpets, lack of seating/resting points, standard toilets. For those
with sensory impairment, difficulties can be caused by uneven or low
lighting levels, inadequate colour contrasts, restrictions on touching surfaces
and restricted ability to respond to standard alarm signals. This can be a
particularly significant barrier where the physical environment is the key to
the listed buildings conservation value.
.
Lack of accurate and comprehensive information in appropriate formats,
which relates to both pre-visit information to help a disabled visitor decide
where to go and what they can do on a visit (for example the extent to which
a listed building is accessible to a person using a wheelchair) and the
availability of on-site interpretative information, such as audio and Braille
guides. This also reflects limitations of the service providers marketing and
presentation/interpretation policy.
.
Communications difficulties, especially where the disabled persons have
sensory impairments or learning difficulties (for example a listed building
serving as a hotel may not have a textphone service to assist persons with a
hearing impairment).
.
Personal attitudes of managers and staff providing tourism services from a
listed building (and also of non-disabled visitors. Often this stems from
embarrassment at the presence of disabled visitors, compounded by
ignorance of how best to serve customers with a range of disabilities, but can
also arise from prejudice. In a recent NOP survey for the Disability Rights
Commission, 40 per cent of disabled persons prioritised a positive attitude
from staff above other considerations such as value for money in the general
context of service provision (DRC, 2003c).
(2) Barriers exclusive to service providers:
.
Lack of awareness of the needs of visitors with disabilities and of what can
easily be done to improve access, which is demonstrated by the inadequate
information availability, communications difficulties and even the personal
attitudes noted above.

Heritage
property, tourism
and the UK DDA
349

PM
22,5

Downloaded by EKB Data Center At 11:04 01 October 2016 (PT)

350

The perceived costs of making changes/adaptations to allow access for

disabled people are believed to be high. Indeed, sympathetic adjustment of a
listed building may be more expensive than a similar adjustment to a
non-listed building.
.
The perceived problems of compliance with other legislation and regulations
which may conflict with the requirements of the DDA: in the case of listed
buildings other regulations include not only general planning controls,
Building Regulations, and Health and Safety (Fire) Regulations, but also
targeted legislation, that is, Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation
Areas) Act 1990 and Regulations 1990.
(3) Barriers exclusive to disabled visitiors. Low aspirations/expectations of disabled
tourists many disabled persons have come to accept the difficulties or
impossibility of access and participation and have accepted coping strategies
(for example, in the case where a wheelchair and its occupant has to be lifted up
steps by helpers, the disabled person loses their dignity and their ability to be
independent).
.

The above summary of barriers hints at the range and severity of disabilities and the
solutions that need to be considered. Moreover, disabilities may be apparent or
hidden, severe or mild, singular or multiple, chronic or intermittent. The DDA
definition of disability covers a wide range of physical, sensory and cognitive
impairments (including mobility, dexterity, sight, hearing, speech, learning, long-term
illnesses such as asthma, diabetes and epilepsy, and degenerative conditions such as
cancer, HIV and muscular dystrophy). In terms of the severity of the effect of
impairment, currently the greatest numbers of persons are in the least severe
categories. For example, out of a UK adult population of 47 million, 8 per cent (3.76
million) have permanent mobility problems and of these 69 per cent cope with the aid
of walking sticks and only 9 per cent (about 340,000) use manual wheelchairs and just 2
per cent (about 75,000) electric wheelchairs (National Statistics, 2002). These figures
illustrate that although the percentages of people with certain impairments may appear
small relative to the total population, they still represent a substantial group of
potential customers for service providers.
A recent NOP survey for Disability Rights Commission shows 70 per cent of
disabled people find it difficult to access services offered on the high street and
concludes that businesses are generally ignoring the DDA (Leisure Opportunities,
2003a). Similarly a survey of small businesses by the Royal National Institute for the
Deaf (RNID) (including 26 small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in the leisure
industry) found 69 per cent of leisure businesses did not intend making any
adjustments as required under the DDA for October 2004: none of the businesses had
already made adjustments and 8 per cent were completely unaware of the DDA
(Leisure Opportunities, 2003b). The extent to which heritage tourism service providers
will be in the vanguard of access innovation is being explored by the CEM research.
While cost and complexity of addressing conservation issues may act as an additional
barrier to access improvements, particularly for small businesses, the need to generate
income and avoid complaints or legal action could act as a spur to improvements,
especially amongst the major operators.

Downloaded by EKB Data Center At 11:04 01 October 2016 (PT)

Prominent among questions to the Disability Rights Commission, especially from

small businesses, are concerns that the costs of making changes that could put them
out of business, why the government is not providing funding to help pay for the
changes, and the cost of access audits (DRC, 2003b). Lack of financial resources could
be a management constraint on action, especially for heritage tourism providers, but
lack of an evidence-based business case is a more likely reason for inaction.
Also, value-added tax (VAT), which currently applies to repairs and improvements
of existing buildings (but not to the development of new buildings), is, however,
regarded as a significant additional cost in the conservation of historic environments
(National Trust, 2002). Although VAT does not apply to alterations subject to listed
building consent, as pointed out in the report Power of Place published by English
Heritage (Historic Environment Review Steering Group, 2000), this provides an
incentive to make alterations requiring consent and stimulates unnecessary listed
building consent applications [that] clog an already under-resourced system. This
report (Historic Environment Review Steering Group, 2000) therefore argues for a
single harmonised rate of VAT at 5 per cent for all building work, regardless of its
nature.
Barriers, such as communication difficulties and attitudinal problems, are no more
serious for heritage tourism service providers than other service providers. They can
be readily addressed through appropriate human resource management practices,
information provision, marketing and public relations approaches. Lack of awareness
can be mitigated via training programmes, but central and local government, tourism
trade organisations and disability organisations have a role to play in promoting
access for all ideas and disseminating advice.
Adjustments to buildings
Defining what are reasonable adjustments to buildings is very important, especially
for historic buildings which may only be open to the public a few days a year (Bell,
2003) and where entry is free. Unfortunately there is no precise definition of
reasonable adjustments in the DDA, nor in the accompanying Code of Practice
published by the Disability Rights Commission. The fine line between what is
reasonable and unreasonable will only be clarified with time as tribunals and courts
pronounce judgement on disability discrimination claims brought before them by
disabled persons who believe they have encountered discrimination.
Meanwhile, the law provides some guidance on the factors to be taken into account
in deciding what is reasonable. These include the:
.
effect of the discrimination;
.
practicality of making adjustments; and
.
cost and disruption of the adjustment set against the available resource.
The provision that regard be made to the effect of the discrimination suggests that for
those properties or parts of properties that are less popular with visitors generally, it is
reasonable to have a lesser standard of access because discrimination will affect fewer
people. Put another way, it cannot be expected that every tourism service provider
operating from a listed building will make full adjustments to enable independent and
integrated access for disabled persons to every part of a building that is normally
available to visitors. However, this also suggests that if a listed building visitor

Heritage
property, tourism
and the UK DDA
351

PM
22,5

Downloaded by EKB Data Center At 11:04 01 October 2016 (PT)

352

attraction should grow in popularity and demand by disabled people increases, then
tourism service providers would need to review access provision in future, and this is
provided for in the continuing and evolving duty the DDA imposes on service
providers.
Two issues therefore need to be considered:
(1) the extent to which listed tourism buildings in any destination need to make
access improvements in order to satisfy demand from disabled customers; and
(2) the extent to which those making adjustments all need to cater for the most
severely disabled persons.
In theory, listed buildings which are tourist attractions and are generators of visits
are just as likely to be visited by disabled as non-disabled persons: all should therefore
make the effort if disabled visitors are to enjoy similar opportunities, experiences and
levels of satisfaction to other visitors. However, it might be suggested that listed
buildings with the greater national/international significance that already experience
the highest demand from all visitors should make the most effort to enable access by
disabled people, including the most severely disabled, and therefore face the greater
adjustments to ensure access. From observation and published materials, the more
innovative stakeholders have already taken measures to improve access, including
English Heritage (1995), The National Trust and the Historic Royal Palaces (especially
Hampton Court Palace). Even so, it must be acknowledged that fully independent and
integrated access cannot be created in every case, for example where there is no
alternative to spiral staircase access to a castles battlements/towers.
For listed buildings used as tourist accommodation, every hotel, guest house,
bed and breakfast and self-catering unit and every guest room does not have to be
equipped to fully accessible standards. To do so would create a situation of
oversupply of specially adapted accommodation and be wasteful of resources.
Disabled people can have the same choice of type and grade of accommodation
and a similar chance of securing a reservation as a non-disabled visitor where
only a proportion of the guest rooms are adapted (although public and circulation
areas should be fully accessible). Of those guest rooms adapted, some may cater
only for the less severely impaired and this is recognised in the National
Accessible Scheme (NAS), which now grades accommodation according to four
grades or levels of mobility impairment and two each for visual and hearing
impairment (Accessible Tourism, 2003). This scheme is criticised by the Disability
Rights Commission (DRC, 2004a) however, for its medical focus and neglect of the
social aspects of disability.
Which tourism service providers will adapt their listed buildings? The ease or
difficulty of making physical changes without damaging the buildings character could
be the determining factor. This applies both to whether any adjustment will/can be
made and the extent of the adjustments allowable to cater for varying levels of
impairment. One disadvantage of this approach is that it could concentrate disabled
visitors in certain accommodation at higher levels than their representation in the
population at large, although this may be acceptable where special provisions,
including carers, are needed for the most severely impaired persons.
What is considered reasonable will reflect not only how effective any proposed
adjustment will be in overcoming a barrier, but also how practicable it is for the service

Downloaded by EKB Data Center At 11:04 01 October 2016 (PT)

provider to make adjustments. The latter will take into account the size and resources
of the service provider. Thus a heritage hotel chain will be expected to do more than a
small, single, individually-owned hotel in a listed building. In other words, what is
affordable on the part of the service provider will be taken into account. In the case of a
building that is listed, what is considered reasonable may well be different from what
would be expected if the building was not listed and may only be clarified through the
courts and over time as the DDA takes effect. Listed buildings are not distinguished in
the NAS accreditation listings, but it is unlikely that disabled visitors have the equality
of choice indicated above.

Listed building requirements

Improving access for disabled visitors to a listed building currently used for tourism
purposes could also conflict with conservation aims, since listing protects both the
exterior and interior of a building, any object or structure fixed to it and any structure
within its curtilage. Any change to a listed building, other than routine maintenance
and like-for-like repair, for example provision of external ramped access for wheelchair
users to the main entrance of an historic house or installation of an accessible, en-suite
bathroom in a listed building used as a guest house, requires listed building consent
from the local planning authority (LPA) which is additional to any planning
permission or building regulation approval.
Listing ensures that LPAs make decisions with the interests of the built
heritage/historic environment clearly identified but, while conservation must be a
prime consideration in evaluating any application to alter, extend (or demolish) a listed
building, it is not necessarily a bar to future change. Indeed it can be argued that the
purpose of listing is to ensure a building of special architectural or historical interest
continues to be used purposefully: in support it may be noted that local authorities in
England receive some 32,000 listed building applications a year of which
approximately 90 per cent are approved (DCMS, 2003). The flexibility therefore
exists for creative alterations that improve access for disabled persons without
detracting from the listed buildings special character.
Planning legislation and health and safety regulations may take precedence over
disability discrimination legislation in the case of listed buildings used for tourism, but
this does not imply inaction in meeting DDA responsibilities. Indeed refusal of listed
building consent does not excuse a service provider from compliance with the DDA
(although it might be expected that such refusal would form part of any defence if the
service provider was subject to a discrimination action by a disabled person). Likewise,
even where a tourism service provider operating from a listed building has complied
with standards of access, such as those stipulated in Part M of Building Regulations
(1999) and, in the case of tourist accommodation, the National Accessible Scheme
(Accessible Tourism, 2003), this does not guarantee compliance with the DDA
(although meeting such standards would be interpreted as a step towards reasonable
adjustment).
Recent guidance from ODPM (2003), stems from a recommendation of the Disability
Rights Task Forces attempts to adopt an inclusive approach and show how all
stakeholders can play a role in creating environments suited to disabled people. In
relation to historic buildings the document suggests:

Heritage
property, tourism
and the UK DDA
353

PM
22,5

354

Downloaded by EKB Data Center At 11:04 01 October 2016 (PT)

Applicants should be encouraged to submit access statements with their

planning application showing their philosophy and approach to inclusive design,
key issues of the scheme (including any constraints within the existing structure)
and the sources of advice and guidance relied on.
Better joining-up is needed during the planning process between stakeholders
(e.g. English Heritage and others), both at development control stage and in
relation to building regulation consent.
Frequently conflicts arise in relation to implementing guidance (for example
PPG15), often caused by the perception that conservation and design officers in
Local Planning Authorities and English Heritage are inflexible and do not
support changes to historic buildings. Foster (1997) cites the case of a City
Councils refusal to provide planning permission and consent for a ramp to a
listed building in the city centre conservation area.

Currently PPG15 on Planning and the Historic Environment (section 3.8) argues the
need for economic uses if historic buildings are to survive and recognises that this will
often necessitate some degree of adaptation. The current emphasis is on the use of the
listing process to manage change to listed buildings, but the way that the planning
system relates to listed buildings is still often cited as a source of delay. As part of
government efforts to make the planning process more effective and reduce delay,
PPG15 is to be reviewed, with the intention that it be combined with PPG16
(Archaeology and Planning), but subject to the outcome of the DCMS consultation
Protecting Our Historic Environment (DCMS, 2003) that closed to submissions on 31
October 2003.

Non-building adjustments
The emphasis above has been on providing physical access to listed buildings, but the
DDA also allows for a reasonable alternative method of making the service available.
Where conservation values are paramount and/or costs of adaptation far exceed
benefits such alternative methods, focusing on intellectual access, offer acceptable
managed solutions to the problem.
For example, where it is impossible to provide mobility-impaired persons access
to floors other than the ground floor of an historic building, a virtual reality or
real-time, audio-visual tour of the upper floors (backed by photographs, models and
objects to handle), can provide the next best alternative. At Shakespeares birthplace, a
Grade I listed building, the photo-real virtual reality replica of the upper floor, that
allows disabled visitors to negotiate around rooms, open chests and examine fabrics
via a touch-screen panel, is acknowledged as a example of best practice (The Virtual
Experience Company, 2004). Other examples of virtual tours currently available off site
via the Internet include the Weald & Downland Museum in Sussex and tours of
archeological sites available on www.britarch.ac.uk Indeed, such improvements in
presentation and interpretation (as with improvements in physical accessibility)
benefit all visitors, not just disabled ones. Generally access improvements to provide
for disabled customers appear to make good business sense and even tourism service
providers operating from listed buildings (except, perhaps, those where access is free)
should be able to find solutions to DDA obligations.

Downloaded by EKB Data Center At 11:04 01 October 2016 (PT)

Conclusions and further research

Tourism providers operating services from listed buildings, whether major visitor
attractions or small guest houses, face an additional challenge in addressing access
for disabled people where delivery of the service involves building adjustments. This
is because they must not only comply with statutory requirements that govern
alterations to any building, such as planning permission and building regulation
approval, but must also meet the requirements of listed building consent, which can
often be more rigorous and expensive to implement. Local planning authorities and
funding agencies are therefore significant gatekeepers in determining the
practicality of inclusive access to listed buildings. This applies not only to
established tourism use of listed buildings, but also to proposed new developments,
such as the 1.8 million scheme to develop the medieval Dragon Hall in Norwich as a
visitor attraction. The new scheme tells the story of the Hall and Norfolks historic
textile industry and includes provision for disabled access, but was only made
possible by a 1.36 million grant from the Heritage Lottery Fund (Leisure
Opportunities, 2003b).
Wider acceptance of the social model of disability has been paralleled by the
increasing availability of guidance on inclusive design including, in the case of
heritage properties, examples of good practice demonstrating how physical
adjustments can be made that are sympathetic to building conservation
requirements, see for example Foster (1997). However, implementation has been
slow and, from the available evidence, it is not clear whether this is because heritage
tourism service providers find compliance too complex and too costly (given the maze
of laws and regulations), because they are uninformed about the DDA requirements
or because they have failed to recognise the opportunities for serving disabled
visitors.
While opportunities for disabled people to visit historic environments have
undoubtedly increased, much therefore remains to be done. Unfortunately, from
observation, some service providers may well find that adjustments they have already
made are not adequate because they amount to special provision (e.g. separate
entrance for disabled visitors) and do not address the DDA requirements for inclusive
access. This may be the result of interpreting the DDA concept of reasonableness as
no more than a minimum standard and also because disabled people have rarely been
consulted directly.
Disabled visitors therefore still face a restricted choice and/or experience compared
to non-disabled visitors, the more so the greater the severity of their impairment.
Compromise solutions based on alternative methods of service provision may provide
the next best solution for disabled visitors in the case of listed buildings that are
established visitor attractions (but this is not possible if the service provides tourist
accommodation). Hence the need for the current research to examine in more detail the
impact of government policies for social inclusion expressed through the DDA and
their interaction with listed building requirements in relation to tourism destinations.
The research will explore in depth the extent to which tourism providers operating
from listed buildings, including SME businesses, are aware of the available
information, the steps they are taking towards ensuring inclusive access and the
difficulties they face in making any necessary adjustments in the run up to the October
2004 deadline.

Heritage
property, tourism
and the UK DDA
355

PM
22,5

Downloaded by EKB Data Center At 11:04 01 October 2016 (PT)

356

Notes
1. The phrase person with a disability is the choice of some organisations because it
emphasises the person rather than the disability, but disabled person is preferred by the
Disability Rights Commission because it reflects the social model (the person is disabled by
society) (Judicial Studies Board, 2004, pp. 5-7). This paper therefore refers to disabled person
or disabled people.
2. Disability Discrimination Act 1995 Section 1(1) and Schedule 1.
References
Accessible Tourism (2003), National accessible scheme for serviced and self-catering
accommodation, available at: www.accessibletourism.org.uk (accessed 22 October).
Bell, A. (2003), A Heritage Open Days Fact Sheet: The Implications of the Disability
Discrimination Act 1995 (The DDA), The Civic Trust and Drivers Jonas, London.
Burchardt, T. (2003), Being and Becoming: Social Exclusion and the Onset of Disability, CASE
Report 21, Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion, London School of Economics, London.
DCMS and DTLR (2001), The Historic Environment: A Force for Our Future, Department of
Culture, Media and Sport, London.
Department of Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) (2002), People and Places: Social Inclusion Policy
for the Built Historic Environment, DCMS, London.
Department of Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) (2003), Protecting Our Historic Environment:
Making the System Better, DCMS, London.
Disability Rights Commission (DRC) (2003a), Bringing the DDA to Life for Small Shops: Cafe
Case Study, DRC, Manchester.
Disability Rights Commission (DRC) (2003b), Frequently asked questions, available at:
www.drc.org.uk/open4all/about/faqs.asp (accessed 4 November).
Disability Rights Commission (DRC) (2003c), The Disability Discrimination Act 1995: What Do
Guest Accommodation Owners Need to Know?, DRC, Manchester.
Disability Rights Commission (DRC) (2004a), Disability rights, available at:
www.drc-gp.org/campaigns/campaigndetails.asp?id139 (accessed 14 January).
Disability Rights Commission (DRC) (2004b), Threat to local heritage is number one access
myth, says DRC, available at: www.drc-gb.org/newsroom/newsdetails.asp?id=652&
section=1 (accessed 21 April).
English Heritage (1995), Easy Access to Historic Properties, English Heritage, London.
English Heritage (2003), Visitors with disabilities, available at: www.english-heritage.org.uk
(accessed 15 September).
Foster, L. (1997), Access to the Historic Environment: Meeting the Needs of Disabled People,
Donhead, Shaftesbury.
Goodall, B. (2002), Disability discrimination legislation and tourism: the case of the United
Kingdom, in Arola, E., Karkkainen, J. and Siitari, M.-L. (Eds), Tourism and Wellbeing,
Jyvaskyla Polytechnic, Jyvaskyla, pp. 180-92.
Goodall, B. and Bright, K.T. (2002), Inclusive environments for tourism, paper presented at
Tourism Research 2002: An International Interdisciplinary Conference, Cardiff, 4-7
September.
Historic Environment Review Steering Group (2000), Power of Place: The Future of the Historic
Environment, English Heritage, London.
Judge, E. (2004), Laws to help disabled may shut heritage sites, The Times, 19 April.

Downloaded by EKB Data Center At 11:04 01 October 2016 (PT)

Judicial Studies Board (2004), Equal Treatment Bench Book, 2004 ed., March, Judicial Studies
Board, London.
Leisure Opportunities (2003a), Businesses ignore DDA, 14-27 October.
Leisure Opportunities (2003b), Legislation falls on deaf ears, 28 October-10 November.
National Statistics (2002), Living in Britain: Results from the 2001 General Household Survey,
The Stationery Office, London.
National Trust (2002), Position Statement: The Historic Environment, National Trust, London.
Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) (2003), Planning and Access for Disabled People:
A Good Practice Guide, ODPM, London.
PLB Consulting Ltd (2001), Developing New Audiences for the Heritage: Research Study for the
Heritage Lottery Fund, PLB Consulting, Malton.
Star UK (2003), Major visitor attractions 2002, available at: www.staruk.org.uk (accessed
26 August).
Touche Ross (1993), Profiting from Opportunities A New Market for Tourism, Touche Ross,
London.
(The) Virtual Experience Company (2004), Disabled access at Shakespeares birthplace,
available at: www.virtualexperience.co.uk/disabled.htm (accessed 27 January).

Heritage
property, tourism
and the UK DDA
357

Downloaded by EKB Data Center At 11:04 01 October 2016 (PT)

This article has been cited by:

1. Syazwani Abdul Kadir, Mariam Jamaludin. 2013. Staff Assistance as a Crucial Aspect of Accessibility in
Public Buildings. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 101, 140-146. [CrossRef]
2. Jennie Small, Simon Darcy, Tanya Packer. 2012. The embodied tourist experiences of people with vision
impairment: Management implications beyond the visual gaze. Tourism Management 33:4, 941-950.
[CrossRef]
3. Simon Darcy. 2011. Developing Sustainable Approaches to Accessible Accommodation Information
Provision: A Foundation for Strategic Knowledge Management. Tourism Recreation Research 36:2,
141-157. [CrossRef]
4. Simon Darcy. 2010. Inherent complexity: Disability, accessible tourism and accommodation information
preferences. Tourism Management 31:6, 816-826. [CrossRef]
5. Daniel A. Guttentag. 2010. Virtual reality: Applications and implications for tourism. Tourism
Management 31:5, 637-651. [CrossRef]
6. Jonathan Rix, Ticky Lowe, the Heritage Forum. 2010. Including people with learning difficulties in
cultural and heritage sites. International Journal of Heritage Studies 16:3, 207-224. [CrossRef]
7. Jochen Wirtz, Robert Johnston and Khoe Sin SeowMatthew H.T. YapUniversity Centre Csar Ritz,
Brig, Switzerland Elizabeth M. InesonDepartment of Food and Tourism Management, Manchester
Metropolitan University, Manchester, UK. 2009. HIVinfected employees in the Asian hospitality
industry. Journal of Service Management 20:5, 503-520. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]