Accessibility is a fundamental requirement for new development, ensuring that all individuals, not least those with disabilities, have equitable access to buildings and spaces. No doubt, this is an essential aspect of fairness and equality in urban development.
However, Planning Circular 2/14 adds that “Spaces which are required to be in line with the ‘access for all’ regulations which have a floor space of less than 75 square metres shall remain exempted from the ‘access for all’ requirements.” This provision reflects the understanding that smaller developments, often not intended for high public interaction, may be exempt from the comprehensive accessibility standards that apply to larger, more public-facing developments. Consequently, smaller developments qualify for exemptions due to their limited size, while larger developments, especially commercial spaces or those intended for public access, must comply with the full set of accessibility regulations. This ensures that spaces catering to a wider audience or frequent public use meet necessary accessibility standards.
Nevertheless, Circular 2/14 also introduces another important consideration. It states that “spaces that pose a potential risk to persons with disability by reason of the nature of the activity carried out therein are excluded from assessment.” This provision acknowledges that certain developments—particularly those where high-risk activities are conducted—may not be subject to the same accessibility requirements. High-risk activities might include environments where hazardous operations or safety concerns pose inherent challenges to individuals with disabilities.
It is important to emphasize that this exemption is not automatically granted. It has always been understood that developers must provide substantial evidence to demonstrate that the nature of the activity justifies such an exemption. However, Circular 2/14 does not specify the exact type of evidence required. Determining what constitutes sufficient risk assessments or safety evaluations to show that an activity is deemed unsafe or impractical to accommodate individuals with disabilities remains a complex issue. The criteria for such assessments are not easily defined, or at least I must admit that I feel too cautious to attempt suggesting specific criteria.
