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.

It also examines the key stakeholders and power structures in the management of historic buildings and distinguishes other important players in the management process.htm Heritage property. s7) and therefore covered by the legislation. UK. However. based on the social model of disability. Historic environments enjoy considerable legislative protection from adverse change. 345-357 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0263-7472 DOI 10. Tourism. The DDA 1995 is specific about the categories of “persons deemed to be disabled” (Schedule 1.com/0263-7472. United Kingdom Abstract Heritage tourism depends on a physical resource based primarily on listed buildings and scheduled monuments.1108/02637470410570734 . This approach. Disabled people. widening participation and anti-discrimination policies. Introduction Disability is an issue at the forefront of the social and political agenda. Disability is therefore the social and economic disadvantage resulting from society’s failure to respond to the needs of disabled people rather than a consequence of any impairment on the part of a disabled person (Burchardt. a person is defined as disabled if: . holding a “certificate of registration” is deemed “conclusive evidence” of being disabled. Reading. but historic environments date from eras when access for disabled people was not a consideration.The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at www.com/researchregister The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www. 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. 22 No. Society’s approach is changing to focus on the inclusion of disabled people[1] and is embodied in legislation to promote equal opportunities. tourism and the UK Disability Discrimination Act Brian Goodall Heritage property. 2003). Reading. Visiting or staying in a historic building provides a rich tourism experience. In the UK Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA 1995). or falling within a prescribed description within regulations that may be made under the Act. societal Property Management Vol. 5. University of Reading. Buildings. widening participation and anti-discrimination policies. 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]. . 2004 pp. 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.emeraldinsight. and Gaye Pottinger. UK Downloaded by EKB Data Center At 11:04 01 October 2016 (PT) Keywords Heritage.emeraldinsight. Current UK Government policy now promotes social inclusion via an array of equal opportunities. . Tim Dixon and Henry Russell College of Estate Management. 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. the DDA definition of “disabled” and “disability” applies throughout and it is assumed that other sources referenced have also followed this definition. but now need to balance conservation with public access for all. For example. tourism and the UK DDA 345 School of Human and Environmental Sciences. In this paper.

The Government. 2002). including the Tower of London. either as independent visitors or in an integrated group of family and friends. Heritage environments may also be particularly difficult to adapt to allow inclusive access for disabled people.500 Sites on the battlefields register 43 World heritage sites 15 (with a further 11 on the “tentative” list) Source: DCMS (2003) . technical and social conditions.000. Moreover. and industrial buildings to historic towns and settlements and places associated with famous people and events.027 Sites on the register of historic parks and gardens Over 1. covering an estimated 500. 2001) and English Heritage (2003) estimates that only 8-9 per cent of visitors to its properties are disabled. which underpins its social inclusion agenda. 2003). Further. 2001).7 per cent Grade II*. In the first comprehensive attempt to measure the economic importance of the historic environment. 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. Disabled people still face social exclusion and suffer discrimination. with domestic tourists making up some two-thirds of the total (Star UK. The National Trust (2002) suggests that 40 per cent of the UK’s tourism economy depends on high-quality.PM 22. 2001). were not designed with independent access for disabled people in mind. not least in areas of discretionary consumption such as leisure and tourism. well-maintained historic environments. 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. representative of earlier cultural. 2002 Numbers of sites 300. The historic environments concerned range from battlefields to fields systems. through castles. Type of historic environment Recorded ancient monuments Table I. churches and stately homes.8 per cent Grade II Designated conservation areas 9.000 individual properties: 2. and 91. gardens and parks. of which 6 per cent (19.5 per cent Grade I. nine of the top 20 major paid admissions attractions were historic environments. over most of the last decade. In 2002. however. 2003). according to the Disability Rights Commission (DRC. Edinburgh and Windsor Castles and Stonehenge (Star UK.094. cathedrals. 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. have exceeded 50 million per annum.5 Downloaded by EKB Data Center At 11:04 01 October 2016 (PT) 346 attitudes and especially its built environment change only slowly.347) are scheduled and a further 12 per cent have some form of protection. 5. Disabled people are under-represented as visitors to the historic built environment (PLB Consulting Ltd. usually listed Listed buildings 376. disabled people in the UK have an overall spending power of over £50 billion per annum. The numbers of sites in England in 2001 are summarised in Table I. Visits to UK historic environments. envisages a “historic environment accessible to everybody” (DCMS and DTLR. 2003a) and the ODPM (2003). Historic environments in England. Historic environments.

However. Although these factors affect disabled people’s participation in services generally (Goodall. The DDA does not intend that the cost of compliance should put service providers out of business. for example. 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. Judge. 2004). The research. should have been in place by 1 October 1999. their relative importance differs in the case of historic environments because conservation has to be balanced against improved physical access. alter or avoid any physical feature that makes it impossible or unreasonably difficult for a disabled person to access that provider’s service. Such listed buildings in tourism use may be tourist attractions in their own right or provide a base for tourism support services. This Act places the onus on the “service provider” to remove. as listed buildings or scheduled monuments. Goodall and Bright. DDA compliance requires reconciliation of the conservation and access issues (where a heritage tourism property needs to be physically altered). using case studies based on South Oxfordshire as a tourist destination. Current levels of physical access to the historic environment largely reflect past decisions of service providers in developing heritage properties for tourism. as suggested in recent press reports and refuted by the Disability Rights Commission (DRC. These latter changes.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. On a wider front it appears that service providers in general. b). and doing so at a cost that makes good business sense for the tourism service provider. The balance between conservation and access interests has shifted following the DDA 1995. are much less likely to conflict with conservation values. discussed below. This duty applies to all services. Many heritage tourism properties are protected under conservation planning legislation. practice and procedures by service providers. 2004b. examines the role of the various stakeholders and the interaction of the DDA with the statutory process governing listed building consent. Further research. are ignoring the DDA (Leisure Opportunities. particularly the provision of tourist accommodation. especially small businesses (which are common in the tourism sector). entry to listed churches or smaller National Trust properties like King John’s Hunting Lodge and West Pennard Court Barn. Changes to policy. The emphasis is on the provision of the service. Reasonable improvements and alternatives to remove physical barriers need to be in place by October 2004. since the DDA requires service providers to make “reasonable adjustments” to overcome any physical barriers. irrespective of the type of property from which it is provided. now underway. tourism and the UK DDA 347 . that is “non-building” adjustments. 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. even those provided free of charge. is exploring more fully the extent to which heritage tourism service providers are aware of the Heritage property. for example the acceptance of assistance dogs. for example. 2002. 2002). 2003a.

A fourth group has multiple interests. whereas a tourism service is consumed on the service provider’s premises.PM 22. . building regulation approval and listed building consent. that is in tourism. 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. For example. In Figure 1 the tourism service provider is shown closely associated with the listed building. online retailing and banking are becoming mainstream services. but access to the service does not necessarily involve physical access to a building. disability and conservation. and funding bodies in cases where adaptations to listed buildings are costly. The stakeholders are grouped according to the primary interest they represent. Understanding access issues The main stakeholders with interests in access to listed buildings managed for tourism are illustrated in Figure 1. more so than with some other businesses. because in practice the delivery of the service and use of the building are closely entwined. 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.5 Downloaded by EKB Data Center At 11:04 01 October 2016 (PT) 348 Figure 1.

standard toilets. Personal attitudes of managers and staff providing tourism services from a listed building (and also of non-disabled visitors. as with Kentucky Fried Chicken outlets. restrictions on touching surfaces and restricted ability to respond to standard alarm signals. Lack of awareness of the needs of visitors with disabilities and of what can easily be done to improve access. In a recent NOP survey for the Disability Rights Commission. This can be a particularly significant barrier where the physical environment is the key to the listed building’s conservation value. . deep pile carpets. Heritage property. but can also arise from prejudice. communications difficulties and even the personal attitudes noted above. organisations with charitable status such as the National Trust. Often this stems from embarrassment at the presence of disabled visitors. and in other cases it is the tenant. or the franchisee. difficulties can be caused by uneven or low lighting levels. and may be summarised as follows: (1) Barriers common to service providers and disabled visitors: . to individuals running a family guest house. compounded by ignorance of how best to serve customers with a range of disabilities. such as audio and Braille guides. 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). 2003c). as with certain public houses. narrow doorways and corridors. the landlord cannot unreasonably withhold consent for changes to the building to be made to improve access for disabled people. Communications difficulties. (2) Barriers exclusive to service providers: . For those with sensory impairment.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. 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. tourism and the UK DDA 349 . which is demonstrated by the inadequate information availability. This also reflects limitations of the service provider’s marketing and presentation/interpretation policy. Barriers preventing/limiting disabled persons from visiting historic environments must also be considered from the tourism service provider’s viewpoint as well as the various viewpoints of disabled people. . . for example ranging from a public company operating a heritage hotel chain. inadequate colour contrasts. Lack of accurate and comprehensive information in appropriate formats. Where there is a landlord-tenant relationship. 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. which for those with mobility impairment includes features that can impede access such as steps into and within a building (spiral staircases in particular). lack of seating/resting points. The existing physical environment and facilities of the listed building. heavy doors lacking opening mechanisms.

and Health and Safety (Fire) Regulations. speech. 2003b). In terms of the severity of the effect of impairment.PM 22. singular or multiple. 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. Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and Regulations 1990. The DDA definition of disability covers a wide range of physical. they still represent a substantial group of potential customers for service providers. 2002). chronic or intermittent. sensory and cognitive impairments (including mobility. Moreover. . dexterity. learning.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. HIV and muscular dystrophy). severe or mild. diabetes and epilepsy. 8 per cent (3. sight. . 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. that is. The extent to which heritage tourism service providers will be in the vanguard of access innovation is being explored by the CEM research. hearing. While cost and complexity of addressing conservation issues may act as an additional barrier to access improvements. in the case where a wheelchair and its occupant has to be lifted up steps by helpers. long-term illnesses such as asthma.000) electric wheelchairs (National Statistics. These figures illustrate that although the percentages of people with certain impairments may appear small relative to the total population.000) use manual wheelchairs and just 2 per cent (about 75. the disabled person loses their dignity and their ability to be independent). . 2003a). currently the greatest numbers of persons are in the least severe categories. and degenerative conditions such as cancer. (3) Barriers exclusive to disabled visitiors. Indeed. out of a UK adult population of 47 million. but also targeted legislation.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. particularly for small businesses. Building Regulations. The above summary of barriers hints at the range and severity of disabilities and the solutions that need to be considered. “disabilities” may be apparent or hidden. sympathetic adjustment of a listed building may be more expensive than a similar adjustment to a non-listed building. the need to generate income and avoid complaints or legal action could act as a spur to improvements. 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. For example. 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. especially amongst the major operators.

2000). value-added tax (VAT). information provision. . and . tourism trade organisations and disability organisations have a role to play in promoting “access for all” ideas and disseminating advice. Unfortunately there is no precise definition of “reasonable adjustments” in the DDA. which currently applies to repairs and improvements of existing buildings (but not to the development of new buildings). Also. Lack of awareness can be mitigated via training programmes. Barriers. and the cost of access audits (DRC. Put another way. it is reasonable to have a lesser standard of access because discrimination will affect fewer people.Downloaded by EKB Data Center At 11:04 01 October 2016 (PT) Prominent among questions to the Disability Rights Commission. are no more serious for heritage tourism service providers than other service providers. 2003) and where entry is free. but central and local government. however. regarded as a significant additional cost in the conservation of historic environments (National Trust. but lack of an evidence-based business case is a more likely reason for inaction. tourism and the UK DDA 351 . This report (Historic Environment Review Steering Group. These include the: . cost and disruption of the adjustment set against the available resource. However. They can be readily addressed through appropriate human resource management practices. effect of the discrimination. 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. this also suggests that if a listed building visitor Heritage property. 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. is. such as communication difficulties and attitudinal problems. 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. as pointed out in the report Power of Place published by English Heritage (Historic Environment Review Steering Group. regardless of its nature. Lack of financial resources could be a management constraint on action. 2003b). nor in the accompanying Code of Practice published by the Disability Rights Commission. especially from small businesses. this provides an incentive to make alterations requiring consent and stimulates “unnecessary listed building consent applications [that] clog an already under-resourced system”. practicality of making adjustments. Meanwhile. why the government is not providing funding to help pay for the changes. the law provides some guidance on the factors to be taken into account in deciding what is reasonable. Although VAT does not apply to alterations subject to listed building consent. marketing and public relations approaches. especially for historic buildings which may only be open to the public a few days a year (Bell. are concerns that the costs of making changes that could put them out of business. 2000) therefore argues for a single harmonised rate of VAT at 5 per cent for all building work. especially for heritage tourism providers. 2002). Adjustments to buildings Defining what are “reasonable” adjustments to buildings is very important.

PM 22. Of those guest rooms adapted. However. For listed buildings used as tourist accommodation. In theory. experiences and levels of satisfaction to other visitors. Even so. 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. including the most severely disabled. 2004a) however. are needed for the most severely impaired persons. every hotel. This scheme is criticised by the Disability Rights Commission (DRC. The National Trust and the Historic Royal Palaces (especially Hampton Court Palace). and this is provided for in the “continuing and evolving duty” the DDA imposes on service providers. What is considered “reasonable” will reflect not only how effective any proposed adjustment will be in overcoming a barrier. which now grades accommodation according to four grades or levels of mobility impairment and two each for visual and hearing impairment (Accessible Tourism. bed and breakfast and self-catering unit and every guest room does not have to be equipped to fully accessible standards. for its medical focus and neglect of the social aspects of disability.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. 2003). some may cater only for the less severely impaired and this is recognised in the National Accessible Scheme (NAS). including carers. and therefore face the greater adjustments to ensure access. 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. 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. for example where there is no alternative to spiral staircase access to a castle’s battlements/towers. guest house. 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). 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. but also how practicable it is for the service . and (2) the extent to which those making adjustments all need to cater for the most severely disabled persons. To do so would create a situation of oversupply of specially adapted accommodation and be wasteful of resources. From observation and published materials. 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. including English Heritage (1995). Which tourism service providers will adapt their listed buildings? The ease or difficulty of making physical changes without damaging the building’s character could be the determining factor. it must be acknowledged that fully independent and integrated access cannot be created in every case. the more innovative stakeholders have already taken measures to improve access. then tourism service providers would need to review access provision in future. although this may be acceptable where special provisions.

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. In other words. 2003). 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). Listed building requirements Improving access for disabled visitors to a listed building currently used for tourism purposes could also conflict with conservation aims. The latter will take into account the size and resources of the service provider. Recent guidance from ODPM (2003).000 listed building applications a year of which approximately 90 per cent are approved (DCMS. for example provision of external ramped access for wheelchair users to the main entrance of an historic house or installation of an accessible. single. any object or structure fixed to it and any structure within its curtilage. Thus a heritage hotel chain will be expected to do more than a small. since listing protects both the exterior and interior of a building. Planning legislation and health and safety regulations may take precedence over disability discrimination legislation in the case of listed buildings used for tourism. en-suite bathroom in a listed building used as a guest house. Likewise. Listing ensures that LPAs make decisions with the interests of the built heritage/historic environment clearly identified but.Downloaded by EKB Data Center At 11:04 01 October 2016 (PT) provider to make adjustments. the National Accessible Scheme (Accessible Tourism. requires listed building consent from the local planning authority (LPA) which is additional to any planning permission or building regulation approval. stems from a recommendation of the Disability Rights Task Force’s attempts to adopt an inclusive approach and show how all stakeholders can play a role in creating environments suited to disabled people. even where a tourism service provider operating from a listed building has complied with standards of access. while conservation must be a prime consideration in evaluating any application to alter. The flexibility therefore exists for creative alterations that improve access for disabled persons without detracting from the listed building’s special character. but it is unlikely that disabled visitors have the equality of choice indicated above. in the case of tourist accommodation. In the case of a building that is listed. Any change to a listed building. such as those stipulated in Part M of Building Regulations (1999) and. it is not necessarily a bar to future change. but this does not imply inaction in meeting DDA responsibilities. 2003). Listed buildings are not distinguished in the NAS accreditation listings. this does not guarantee compliance with the DDA (although meeting such standards would be interpreted as a step towards reasonable adjustment). individually-owned hotel in a listed building. 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. other than routine maintenance and like-for-like repair. what is affordable on the part of the service provider will be taken into account. In relation to historic buildings the document suggests: Heritage property. tourism and the UK DDA 353 . extend (or demolish) a listed building.

that allows disabled visitors to negotiate around rooms. 354 Downloaded by EKB Data Center At 11:04 01 October 2016 (PT) .britarch. Frequently conflicts arise in relation to implementing guidance (for example PPG15). with the intention that it be combined with PPG16 (Archaeology and Planning). offer acceptable managed solutions to the problem. such improvements in presentation and interpretation (as with improvements in physical accessibility) benefit all visitors. audio-visual tour of the upper floors (backed by photographs. is acknowledged as a example of best practice (The Virtual Experience Company. both at development control stage and in relation to building regulation consent. but the DDA also allows for a reasonable alternative method of making the service available. Applicants should be encouraged to submit access statements with their planning application showing their philosophy and approach to inclusive design. . not just disabled ones. but subject to the outcome of the DCMS consultation Protecting Our Historic Environment (DCMS.g. but the way that the planning system relates to listed buildings is still often cited as a source of delay. focusing on intellectual access.PM 22. Currently PPG15 on Planning and the Historic Environment (section 3. 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. 2003) that closed to submissions on 31 October 2003. models and objects to handle). At Shakespeare’s birthplace. PPG15 is to be reviewed. can provide the next best alternative. open chests and examine fabrics via a touch-screen panel. a Grade I listed building. a virtual reality or real-time.ac. .8) argues the need for economic uses if historic buildings are to survive and recognises that this “will often necessitate some degree of adaptation”. Non-building adjustments The emphasis above has been on providing physical access to listed buildings. perhaps. Where conservation values are paramount and/or costs of adaptation far exceed benefits such alternative methods. English Heritage and others). the photo-real virtual reality replica of the upper floor. The current emphasis is on the use of the listing process to “manage change” to listed buildings. Generally access improvements to provide for disabled customers appear to make good business sense and even tourism service providers operating from listed buildings (except. As part of government efforts to make the planning process more effective and reduce delay. Better “joining-up” is needed during the planning process between stakeholders (e. those where access is free) should be able to find solutions to DDA obligations.5 . where it is impossible to provide “mobility-impaired” persons access to floors other than the ground floor of an historic building. Foster (1997) cites the case of a City Council’s refusal to provide planning permission and consent for a ramp to a listed building in the city centre conservation area. For example. 2004).uk Indeed. 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. key issues of the scheme (including any constraints within the existing structure) and the sources of advice and guidance relied on.

While opportunities for disabled people to visit historic environments have undoubtedly increased. including SME businesses. but also to proposed new developments. 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). Local planning authorities and funding agencies are therefore significant “gatekeepers” in determining the practicality of inclusive access to listed buildings. implementation has been slow and. see for example Foster (1997). tourism and the UK DDA 355 . but was only made possible by a £1. much therefore remains to be done. such as the £1. This applies not only to established tourism use of listed buildings. 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. separate entrance for disabled visitors) and do not address the DDA requirements for inclusive access. 2003b). Disabled visitors therefore still face a restricted choice and/or experience compared to non-disabled visitors. However. from observation. 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. The new scheme tells the story of the Hall and Norfolk’s historic textile industry and includes provision for disabled access. which can often be more rigorous and expensive to implement.8 million scheme to develop the medieval Dragon Hall in Norwich as a visitor attraction.Downloaded by EKB Data Center At 11:04 01 October 2016 (PT) Conclusions and further research Tourism providers operating services from listed buildings. examples of good practice demonstrating how physical adjustments can be made that are sympathetic to building conservation requirements. face an additional challenge in addressing access for disabled people where delivery of the service involves building adjustments. The research will explore in depth the extent to which tourism providers operating from listed buildings. whether major visitor attractions or small guest houses. 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). are aware of the available information. but must also meet the requirements of listed building consent. some service providers may well find that adjustments they have already made are not adequate because they amount to “special provision” (e.36 million grant from the Heritage Lottery Fund (Leisure Opportunities. 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. such as planning permission and building regulation approval.g. because they are uninformed about the DDA requirements or because they have failed to recognise the opportunities for serving disabled visitors. Heritage property. This is because they must not only comply with statutory requirements that govern alterations to any building. Unfortunately. the more so the greater the severity of their impairment. from the available evidence. in the case of heritage properties. Wider acceptance of the social model of disability has been paralleled by the increasing availability of guidance on inclusive design including.

London School of Economics. Protecting Our Historic Environment: Making the System Better. References Accessible Tourism (2003). English Heritage. (2003).. pp. Disability Discrimination Act 1995 Section 1(1) and Schedule 1. Disability Rights Commission (DRC) (2003a). Department of Culture. Goodall. says DRC”. L.drc-gb.asp?id¼139 (accessed 14 January). London. 2004.5 Downloaded by EKB Data Center At 11:04 01 October 2016 (PT) 356 Notes 1. English Heritage (2003). Easy Access to Historic Properties. People and Places: Social Inclusion Policy for the Built Historic Environment. Bringing the DDA to Life for Small Shops: Cafe´ Case Study. 19 April. CASE Report 21. Media and Sport (DCMS) (2002).org.PM 22. and Bright. DCMS. “Inclusive environments for tourism”. 2. available at: www. Disability Rights Commission (DRC) (2004a).uk (accessed 22 October).drc. (2002). The Civic Trust and Drivers Jonas. in Arola. Burchardt. Jyva¨skyla¨. Ka¨rkka¨inen. pp. Media and Sport. London. DRC. Tourism and Wellbeing. “Frequently asked questions”. This paper therefore refers to disabled person or disabled people. DRC. . Bell. E.accessibletourism. and Siitari. Disability Rights Commission (DRC) (2004b). 5-7).org/campaigns/campaigndetails. London.-L. T. Manchester. “Threat to local heritage is number one access myth. available at: www. M. 4-7 September. Power of Place: The Future of the Historic Environment. London. Historic Environment Review Steering Group (2000).org. A. “The phrase ‘person with a disability’ is the choice of some organisations because it emphasises the person rather than the disability. (2003). Department of Culture. The Times. English Heritage (1995). Donhead. Media and Sport (DCMS) (2003). (1997).T.asp (accessed 4 November). London. Disability Rights Commission (DRC) (2003c). London. E. London. (2004). Disability Rights Commission (DRC) (2003b).asp?id=652& section=1 (accessed 21 April).uk/open4all/about/faqs. 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. Shaftesbury. Access to the Historic Environment: Meeting the Needs of Disabled People. “Laws to help disabled may shut heritage sites”. Being and Becoming: Social Exclusion and the Onset of Disability. “National accessible scheme for serviced and self-catering accommodation”.drc-gp. B.org. DCMS. Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion. Department of Culture. J. B. available at: www. Cardiff. Judge. “Disability rights”. Foster.org/newsroom/newsdetails. Manchester. A “Heritage Open Days” Fact Sheet: The Implications of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (The DDA). Jyva¨skyla¨ Polytechnic. (2002). English Heritage.english-heritage. paper presented at Tourism Research 2002: An International Interdisciplinary Conference.uk (accessed 15 September). “Visitors with disabilities”. (Eds). The Historic Environment: A Force for Our Future. “Disability discrimination legislation and tourism: the case of the United Kingdom”. Goodall. available at: www. DCMS and DTLR (2001). 180-92. K. The Disability Discrimination Act 1995: What Do Guest Accommodation Owners Need to Know?. available at: www.

. London. tourism and the UK DDA 357 . PLB Consulting Ltd (2001). “Disabled access at Shakespeare’s birthplace”. available at: www. London. Heritage property. 28 October-10 November. London.staruk. ODPM. PLB Consulting. Profiting from Opportunities – A New Market for Tourism.co. The Stationery Office. London. “Legislation falls on deaf ears”. National Trust (2002). (The) Virtual Experience Company (2004).Downloaded by EKB Data Center At 11:04 01 October 2016 (PT) Judicial Studies Board (2004).uk (accessed 26 August). Touche Ross. 2004 ed. “Major visitor attractions 2002”. Leisure Opportunities (2003a). 14-27 October. “Businesses ignore DDA”. Leisure Opportunities (2003b). Malton. Equal Treatment Bench Book.virtualexperience.org. Position Statement: The Historic Environment. March. Star UK (2003). London. Living in Britain: Results from the 2001 General Household Survey. Judicial Studies Board. Touche Ross (1993). National Trust. Planning and Access for Disabled People: A Good Practice Guide. Developing New Audiences for the Heritage: Research Study for the Heritage Lottery Fund. available at: www.htm (accessed 27 January).uk/disabled. National Statistics (2002). Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) (2003).

Virtual reality: Applications and implications for tourism. Syazwani Abdul Kadir. Jochen Wirtz. 140-146. Daniel A. Tourism Management 33:4. Inherent complexity: Disability. Tourism Management 31:6.Downloaded by EKB Data Center At 11:04 01 October 2016 (PT) This article has been cited by: 1. Jonathan Rix. Brig. Manchester Metropolitan University. Robert Johnston and Khoe Sin SeowMatthew H. The embodied tourist experiences of people with vision impairment: Management implications beyond the visual gaze. 207-224. Simon Darcy. accessible tourism and accommodation information preferences. 2011. 637-651. the Heritage Forum. [CrossRef] 5. 503-520. 2010. 2009. Developing Sustainable Approaches to Accessible Accommodation Information Provision: A Foundation for Strategic Knowledge Management. UK. 2013. Simon Darcy. Including people with learning difficulties in cultural and heritage sites. Tourism Management 31:5. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] .T. 141-157. [CrossRef] 4. [CrossRef] 2. Journal of Service Management 20:5. Mariam Jamaludin. InesonDepartment of Food and Tourism Management. Staff Assistance as a Crucial Aspect of Accessibility in Public Buildings. Simon Darcy. Procedia . [CrossRef] 3. 2012. Tourism Recreation Research 36:2. [CrossRef] 7. Tanya Packer. [CrossRef] 6. 2010. 941-950. Ticky Lowe. Switzerland Elizabeth M. HIV‐infected employees in the Asian hospitality industry. YapUniversity Centre César Ritz. Guttentag. Manchester. 816-826. 2010. International Journal of Heritage Studies 16:3. Jennie Small.Social and Behavioral Sciences 101.