Access Statements & Consultants

An access statement (sometimes an access strategy, access plan or design-and-access statement) is a written record of how a project achieves inclusive access - the thinking, the decisions, the standards applied, and the trade-offs made along the way. It is not a form filled in at the end to satisfy a planner; at its best it is a living document that begins at the first sketch and grows with the project, capturing why the building is the way it is from an access point of view.

Why bother writing it down? Three reasons. First, memory fails and teams change. A project runs for years; the person who understood exactly why the entrance was set at that level, or why the lift went there, moves on, and without a record the reasoning is lost and good decisions get value-engineered away by someone who never knew their purpose. Second, it makes access thinking explicit and checkable. A statement forces the team to actually reason about access rather than assume it, and it lets a client, a reviewer, a building-control officer or an access consultant see and interrogate the logic. Third, in many jurisdictions it is expected or required - some planning and approval regimes ask for a design-and-access statement, and having a clear one smooths approvals and demonstrates that duties like reasonable adjustment were genuinely considered.

There is a defensive value too, though it should never be the main motive. If a building's access is ever questioned or challenged, a thoughtful access statement is the evidence that the team considered the full range of users, applied the relevant standards, and made reasoned, documented choices - including honest records of where an ideal could not be met and why. That is exactly the reasoning the reasonable-adjustment test rewards.

But hold the real purpose in view. The point of writing access thinking down is not paperwork; it is to make sure the good intentions of the sketch survive contact with cost plans, contractors and years of change - so the building that opens is as inclusive as the one you designed.

There is no single legally-mandated template, and contents vary with project size and jurisdiction, but a strong access statement usually covers a recognisable set of things. Think of it as answering, in order: who, against what, how, and what was traded off.

ACCESS STATEMENT - typical contents
1. Project & context   what the building is, who uses it,
                       the range of users anticipated
2. Standards applied   the codes & guidance used (RPwD
                       Harmonised Guidelines, ISO 21542,
                       local code) - as the benchmark
3. Arrival & approach  parking, drop-off, route from the
                       boundary, the entrance strategy
4. In & around         horizontal & vertical circulation,
                       doors, lifts, the accessible route
5. Using the building  sanitation, key rooms, counters,
                       fittings, signage & wayfinding
6. Sensory & cognitive contrast, lighting, acoustics,
                       clarity, hearing enhancement
7. Getting out safely  egress, refuge, evacuation strategy
8. Trade-offs & gaps   what could not be achieved, why,
                       and how it is mitigated / managed
9. Management & upkeep  what depends on management, and
                       who maintains the access features

A few things separate a real statement from a boilerplate one. It is specific to this building: it references actual dimensions, drawings and locations, not generic promises to 'comply with all relevant standards'. It frames standards honestly as the benchmark applied, noting that binding specifics rest with current law and, where used, a consultant - the same verify-locally discipline this course keeps. It is honest about trade-offs: section 8 is the most valuable and the most often missing, because it records where the ideal was not reachable (a heritage entrance, a structural limit) and shows the reasoning and the mitigation, which is precisely what demonstrates the reasonable-adjustment duty was met. And it names the management and maintenance that access depends on, so the hearing loop is switched on, the accessible WC is not used as a store, and the portable ramp is actually kept by the door.

Kept live, updated as the design develops, and handed over with the building, the statement becomes a genuine tool - for the design team, the approver, the client, and whoever runs and adapts the building next.

The word 'statement' makes it sound passive - a description written after the fact. The more useful way to think of it is as an access strategy: a set of decisions that actively drives the design, made early and revisited at every stage. A statement that merely narrates a finished design has missed most of its value; one that shapes the design is worth its weight.

In practice this means the access strategy is set at the same time as the big architectural moves, because that is when access is cheap to build in and ruinous to add later. Where is the accessible entrance - and is it the entrance, used by everyone, rather than a side door? Where does the lift land, and does it reach every level a visitor needs? How does the accessible route thread through the plan as one continuous chain? Where are the accessible WCs, and are they distributed so nobody has to travel too far? Where is the refuge, and does the evacuation strategy actually work for someone who cannot use stairs? These are strategy decisions, and the statement is where they are declared, tested against the standards, and defended through the project as pressures mount.

Tie the strategy to the project's stages - concept, developed design, technical design, construction, handover - and use it as a checkpoint at each. At concept it fixes the big moves; through developed and technical design it is refined into specific dimensions, fittings and details; at construction it guards against access being quietly eroded by substitutions and value engineering; at handover it becomes the record of what was built and what must be maintained and managed. Reviewed at each gateway - ideally with a disabled user or an access consultant in the room - it stops access slipping through the cracks between stages.

Done this way, the statement and the audit bookend a building's life: the strategy shapes what gets built, and a later audit checks how it is holding up. Both are the same discipline - making access explicit, reasoned and accountable - applied at opposite ends of the timeline.

For many projects, the smartest access decision is to bring in an access consultant - a specialist who assesses buildings and designs for inclusion every day, knows the current standards intimately, and often brings lived experience of disability or a career auditing real buildings. Think of them the way you already think of a structural engineer or a fire consultant: not an admission that you cannot design, but the sensible use of deep, current, specialist expertise on something that matters and moves fast.

When should you bring one in? The strongest rule is early, because like all access work their advice is cheapest and most powerful before things are fixed. A consultant who reviews a concept can steer the entrance, the core and the route while they are still lines on a drawing; one called in at construction can only mitigate mistakes already built. Certain triggers make a consultant close to essential: public and civic buildings with a high duty and many users; complex or large projects; heritage buildings where access and conservation must be reconciled; anything with a legal, funding or planning requirement for access sign-off; and any project where the team simply lacks confidence that it has got access right. For a small, simple job a trained in-house eye and a good checklist may be enough - but know the limits of your own knowledge.

How do you use one well? Engage them early and keep them through the stages, not as a one-off box-tick at the end. Give them the real brief and real drawings. Ask for practical, prioritised advice, not just a list of standards. Use them to run or validate an audit, to shape or review the access statement, and - crucially - to help you involve disabled users directly, which the next lesson argues no amount of consultancy fully replaces. And check their standing: relevant qualifications, membership of a recognised access body where one exists, and genuine experience of buildings like yours.

A final, honest note. As with every legal and technical specific in this course, the binding calls - what a given code requires, what 'reasonable' means on these facts - rest with current law and qualified specialists, not with a rule of thumb. A good access consultant is how you turn the principles this course teaches into decisions that are right for this building, in this jurisdiction, today.