A cold wind

Inclusivity (let’s call it that) has been driven by legislation on one hand and by funding on the other. Looking back over two decades, these partners for change – legislation and funding – were an effective prompt for an arts world fixed in its ways and unconvinced of a need for change. And since that world − arts galleries and museums especially − were mostly housed in historic or at least worthy older buildings, this appeared good reason for resisting change.

Three developments altered this impasse. First, the decision of both Heritage Lottery Fund and Arts Council England to insist on access improvements for disabled people as a condition for funding. Second, those managing the fabric of these buildings realised that funding for access improvements, say a new step-free entrance, could include in its scope the additional benefits of a newly fitted reception area and desk. This is securing added value from project opportunities. Third, and critical to change, was the shift in thinking by building conservationists, led by English Heritage, which helpfully published guidance on how changes to historic buildings could be developed for approval.

As funding dries up and disability legislation is neutered, so the priorities of managers might be diverted elsewhere

This alchemy of events spawned a new profession – access consultants – necessary to advise arts clients as well as the architects and designers commissioned by them. It brought my practice into being at that time in the mid 1990s and many other similar organisations besides. What it also spawned was the realisation that design improvements could be elegant, unobtrusive, and while designed for disabled people, could often benefit all visitors.

But the cold wind of economic constraint now threatens two decades of progress. As funding dries up and disability legislation is neutered, so the priorities of managers might be diverted elsewhere. All this at a time when the notion of improving accessibility is now substantially embedded into arts policy, and professional skills are well developed after 20 years of effective delivery. By any measure change has been achieved whereby hardly a civic gallery or museum in the UK can have failed to improve accessibility during this time.

So what is required to keep the momentum going? First, spending on our buildings will continue even if just for maintenance and repairs. Budget holders must ask every time whether or not that spending has explored the scope for access improvements. If not, then insist it does so before giving approval. This will help continue to secure added value from expenditure.

Second, there has been a tendency to rely on gadgetry for access improvements, platform lifts being a case in point. These (often unattractive) devices must earn their keep effectively by working reliably and not failing through poor maintenance or neglect. Again, this is securing continued value from earlier investment.

Lastly, and this may be down to tea and biscuits and free membership, managers should make friends with their older and disabled visitors recruited over the last 20 years. We are assured that the elderly now have considerable spending power, far more so than the young. Consider forming an access advisory group, like the one at Tate Modern.

In conclusion, if we can present our argument convincingly, the case for continuing to spend on access improvements might yet be justified, even in this time of constraint. Inclusive design might just be viewed as a sound economic investment in securing future business.

David Bonnett is Principal of David Bonnett Associates.