Skip to content

Home >> Campaign for access >> Our guidance >> Nature reserves guidance


Accessibility on Nature Reserves – An Introduction by Disabled Ramblers

Peter Lau has written a very informative document advising what to look out for and consider when managing, researching and planning changes to nature reserves. Much of what he says is relevant to other outdoor venues in the countryside too. His website (www.accessiblenatureuk.com) provides information on over 100 accessible nature walks all over the UK, and a few further afield too, and showcases his beautiful wildlife photography.

Peter Lau became dependant on using a wheelchair in 2014, aged 48. Prior to this event Peter was a very active outdoors person. Since 2014 Peter has visited many outdoor locations, mostly nature reserves, large house estates, and country parks, throughout the UK and beyond.

Peter works and engages with organisations, to help them better understand and provide facilities that we can all enjoy, regardless of physical abilities. Walking, supported walking, in a wheelchair, or using powered mobility equipment, such as a powerchair, mobility scooter or powered front wheel attachment to a wheelchair.

When looking at the facilities organisations manage, how or what features can be provided to enhance them, and to make them fully inclusive for all users.

Organisations seem to look to add accessibility features, to cater for and to provide such for people with mobility issues, the approach and mindset needs to change, to one where facilities and features are changed so that everyone, of any ability can use and share what is provided together, creating a fully inclusive experience.

Organisations often look to add accessible features to the infrastructure they own, manage or look after where they were not incorporated before. Many older structures, mostly hides and screens are becoming beyond the point of them being serviceable, or cost efficient to maintain. It is noteworthy to state here that organisations, particularly in the conservation / public access provision need to work towards a better way of thinking.

I recently worked with an organisation who are researching and planning changes to a nature reserve. The project lead found the existing available information confusing, unclear, and contradicting. This document hopefully will clarify much of what is needed to be considered, when creating a new, or adapting, upgrading existing places to visit.


1. How would a person sat using a wheel chair with a powered front wheel, or a powerchair user, or large mobility or road scooter pass here? The off road scooter is a large “Tramper” scooter.


2. This is a gate that has a Radar key padlock fitted. How easy is this to use? Is this an easy thing to operate by a person using a mobility vehicle on their own?


3. This new hide building is accessed by ramps. What issues would a person using mobility equipment possibly have here?

4. Is the surface suitable for mobility equipment including manual wheelchairs?


5. This is an accessible path that leads to an accessible wildlife viewing hide. What issues are present regarding this path and for who?


6. As a user of mobility equipment, you approach and intend to use this
gate. What issues are present for you?


7. You are wholly dependent on mobility equipment and cannot stand up. You approach this wild hide. What issues are present here?

8. How can a person using mobility equipment open the door from a seated position?


9. You are a wheelchair user on your own. How easy is it to move the wooden bench to gain access to the disabled viewing point?

10. From a seated position, could you open and latch, then unlatch and close the window if you are on your own?


I will give the answers to these 10 questions at the very end of this document.


The equality act (2010) notes organisations must provide facilities that are completely accessible, and inclusive for all abilities particularly when new features are being considered. Exemption for any wheelchair provision may be claimed, but only if it is NOT possible to reach that location, i.e. a viewing hide that is in an area of a reserve that can only be accessed by a nonaccessible route to reach it. An example on this point would be whether an old existing wildlife hide should be condemned as it is unsafe and a replacement is to be installed. The organisation would need to change the facility that has an equal ease of use, for able and disabled visitors. If it was deemed that a change is needed and the location is not reachable by the normal access route, then the replacement structure will still need to be made, so that other “protected groups’ are not disadvantaged in any way.

As hides, screens and other facilities require updating, replacing, or if a new install is being considered, then accessible options must be investigated then provided. For a condemned hide accessed by a staircase, could a ramped accessed hide or elevated viewing platform be better use of finances and resources for example? Allowing a fully accessible, all-inclusive facility to be provided. This may also offer other benefits such as reduced maintenance costs if. A platform rather than a hide is provided.

The only exception to this legislation (Equality Act 2010) is where an existing structure is only being repaired, or if it needs to be replaced like for like, to satisfy the ‘listed building or structure” legislation, if it applies to that structure. I do not believe there are many listed building, hides, structures on any of the UK’s nature reserves. Perhaps one at Haw Park Wood, Wakefield?

To assist the reader of the legal obligations placed on organisations, I have embedded the “legal framework information”, stated in the Outdoor Accessibility Guide below for reference.

Much of, and what I see and find on many reserves is that some thought may have been given to provide access and inclusion for all, but it’s not put in place. The question is, should we provide access, accessibility and an inclusive experience for only people who have assistance with them, or for people who want to visit as an independent user / visitor, and who want to do so on their own?

I hope the answer here would be the latter case. Organisations need to step away from just having facilities with accessible features, to the mindset of providing and creating facilities that cater for and are suitable for everyone. For information, I include information regarding the legislative framework, copied from the “Outdoor Accessibility Guidance” document. Although not perfect – it is the best guidance currently available for organisations to use, it should not be accepted as the stand-alone reference guide, but used with additional information gathering via engagement it does provide the best place to start.

Further reading: Outdoor Accessibility Guidance

Taken from the Outdoor Accessibility Guidance document –

People who have mobility differences would never expect all locations to be completely accessible, but where with a little thought, adjustment and a modest provision, often this can be hugely improved / achieved, if the mindset is there to want to achieve this.

An example being gates on a large South Yorkshire Nature Reserve. The whole site is secured when the nature reserve is not opened to visitors. There are several gates that are not independently operatable from a mobility equipment users’ perspective. On enquiring, these gates are there and in a position due to livestock “sometimes” being managed by them.

The question I posed was, “when not being used to manage livestock, could the gates be secured in an open position? Therefore, creating a barrier free path, when this is suitable to do so. This was agreed as a suitable option.

The first impressions of visiting a site also sets the tone, the car park does not comply with the UK standards for marking, signage and bay width regarding a disabled parking area, the ramp to the door has a surface that causes a user of mobility equipment to rattle. This can cause a person in or on mobility equipment to spasm.

Let’s look at this example. The entrance door to this staffed reserve is manual operation, usually only one side of the doors is unlatched, meaning a disabled mobility equipment user cannot enter the building easily. There is no way of gaining entry or to summon assistance. Inside and on the deck area, no provision has been provided, such as any wheelchair accessible tables on site. This creates a problematic first experience to some users and could put them off from wanting to explore further, or return.

People who are disabled, usually only visited areas accompanied by people to assist them. I have seen and observed many people since I too became disabled, who travel, visit and want to enjoy places as an independent person. They want to explore, and use facilities on their own, without assistance, much like most people in society. Being able to use the paths, enter hides, open close windows, doors, access and use a disabled toilet, or choose, order and enjoy purchases at the few café’s that we have.

I have researched what information is available to assist organisations and our reserve staff to be able to identify what standards to aim towards, when improvements or accessibility are being made.


The National Trust have an in-house accessibility team, in which they have some members who are disabled, augmented scope meetings with users, and user groups. These are involved in planning meetings when changes are being planned, or new facilities are being designed. The National Trust have very few wildlife hides on their properties. Much of what the National Trust need to know is included in the Outdoor Accessibility Guidance document. For the actual buildings, then the UK’s Building Regulations apply.

Royal Society Wildlife Trust does have an equality and inclusion team, I have written and invited them to send any copies of guidance, that they have, sadly nothing came back for me to include in this report.

I did find that Wildlife Trusts do have an internal document: “A Space for Everyone” – A good practice guide full of advice and resources to help you improve accessibility at your site.

My experience in visiting many places over the last 12 years has led me to form the opinion that seldom organisations have completely met this provision. There are some excellent external examples, such as Rodley Nature Reserve in Leeds, The RSPB Old Moor Nature Reserve Barnsley, and the RHS garden at Bridgewater. I have worked extensively with many organisations, including the RSPB at Old Moor, and the committee at Rodley Nature reserve, informing them and working with them to identify what can be done to improve their visitor facilities.

The key here is that the success was because when making or researching improvements, the organisations reached out and worked with members of the community who have needs that need to be met. Inviting interested parties to help allows the organisation to better understand the real, and not the perceived issues that may be present. Too often, I have found, that solutions have come from good-natured, well-intentioned people, who may have some experience of the issues, but perhaps are not living with the need that needs to be met or catered for. People who have an additional need, are the best ones to communicate what is required. If mobility equipment is used, they will know its capabilities and their own comfort needs.

Contractors, suppliers, I have found do not fully understand mobility issues and the other needs of such communities, or the issues regarding operability / functionality, and work towards projects and solutions, whilst also keeping costs down, to secure contracts or supply bids.

It is possible too with some organisations, that the staff who are given the role and responsibility of making developments and improvements may not have the skill set to fully inform them about such as mobility, mentally diverse, hearing, or partially or no sighted people. These nature reserve staff are highly knowledgably, skilled experts in their normal day to day roles, in managing habitats to help wildlife thrive, looking after the environment, to create the right conditions that help the flora and fauna spread and grow etc. This is within their role maps, and normal areas of their expected, usual expertise. Is it fair and reasonable to put this responsibility onto reserve staff.

I have looked at and discussed the development processes with reserve staff from numerous organisations, usually when I have a concern about an improvement or provision that has taken place. It is not unusual that they speak and task a third-party contractor to come up with a solution, they place a reliance on them to identify, specify and then provide a new facility.

But what is the suppliers / contractor’s level of experience, of the issues regarding accessibility and inclusiveness? What is their knowledge base based on? An example being this new facility, a viewing screen further in the reserve, and the path installed. The hide is accessible but only the higher part of the hide, the opening window at the wheelchair viewing point was at a height that meant shorter people using mobility equipment could not see out of it easily.

Inclusiveness, there is no access to the lower section of this new hide shown below, meaning the facilities are reduced for the disabled community when they visit. This is divisive and means families or visitors cannot use all parts of the hide together, sharing the experience, as a fully able person group of visitors can do.

A further door and screen could easily have been designed and added, with an additional disabled viewing area inside the lower hide. Making the whole hide accessible and truly inclusive for all.

On this reserve there is a viewing screen installed, it now blocks and creates a restricted view of a beautiful weir and a view of a second larger pond, this is now a screened off location. On this site able persons can access a further hide, accessed by stairs, they can enter this second hide; disabled people are not able to.

Once upgraded works were completed, installed here, then the actual provision for enjoying the site was massively reduced, limited. The viewing screen has animal shaped viewing slots, but a person now gets a limited view of this lake, a disabled person cannot use a camera or binoculars through the screen unless they can stand up but also people who can stand also complain to myself about the screen. The area by the weir, before the changes had a flat area, that provided a good view that all could enjoy, regardless of anyone’s physical abilities. The overall provision for inclusiveness and accessibility, has, now due to these changes, been much reduced.

Inhouse, for some projects the project lead reserve teams reach out and have input from an organisation called Open Country, or may have had input from Experience Community. Both excellent organisations that provide a service to their disabled clients. These two organisations operate guided / assisted events at locations, usually with a carer to disabled person ratio, based on their needs. Both organisations may have staff who are wheelchair users, that being the case the points I discuss will be identified by these members of the two organisations.

Is information based on a person visiting a location without support, independently, or as an assisted person, who is assisted to enter and use facilities, such as gates, doors, windows, cafés and paths. Both very different in needs.

Organisations need to listen, and engage with all user groups, that include all abilities, not just mobility, but those with sight, hearing, mental and cognitive needs to determine what might suit the most. This information should then be given to the contractors and included in their specifications. Ultimately, it is the organisation commissioning the work that needs to take the lead and specify what they want providing and including. This information gathering process will add additional time, work and a cost to projects, but leads to a successful project being carried out.

Where this process isn’t carried out and remedial issues are identified, usually due to negative feedback from people who have different needs, the negativity, often higher profile press coverage, and the additional workload created is costly to the organisation.


I have approached my contacts in place with the RSPB. Nothing has been forthcoming, leading me to conclude that they do NOT have a specification in place. I have spoken to several nature reserve wardens, regarding how they have researched information to carry out pieces of work on their reserves and accessibility / inclusiveness, it appears they rely on speaking with a person who has recently been a project manager, where works have been carried out. i.e. new hide at Blacktoft Sands RSPB reserve, and works ongoing at St Aidans, and Fairburn Ings nature reserves.

A document I refer to and signpost organisation to for information is the Outdoor Accessibility Guidance document, referenced further in this report. It is not completely ideal but is the best guidance document available that I have found.


Ultimately, the only way organisations can achieve this is to work with people who have different needs, so organisations need to identify what needs to be provided. That, and consult people, who have the experience / expertise, of having a disability, requiring them to use mobility aids and equipment.

No one person will have all the information of the community groups that need to be involved and considered when researching the complex needs of user groups. Mobility and equipment users, people with deafness or reduced hearing, people with no sight, or are partially sighted, neurodiversity, PTSD, older people, people where the use of the English language is limited, as it’s not their main dialect. These being just a few of the user groups that need to be involved and considered.


Features that need standards in a nature reserve:

Access to carparks, all sites, car parking provision. Correctly installed, signposted, flat level and suitably marked wide yellow hatched disabled bays should be provided.


Car parking meters / machines. If payment machines are installed then these should be accessible for all, people using mobility equipment are often faced with steps, kerbs and other barriers, preventing them from reaching them, if a charge applies for Blue Badge holders.

If a charge applies to Blue Badge vehicle users, but no charge applies to members of the site organisation then can the visitor display their membership card in their vehicle?

If a charge applies to all visitors, including Blue Badge holders, could a parking app be used, as is the case with many town, city or other locations, where the visitor can pay online.


Access and all paths: areas identified as being mobility equipment accessible. Guidance is available in the Outdoor Accessibility Guidance document referenced and available below. This covers information such as providing passing places – suitable for two users and their mobility equipment to be able to pass whilst remaining on a safe, suitable surface.

The example, shown here shows long paths with foliage either side. Mobility equipment users do not have anywhere to pass or pull in to allow pedestrians to pass. To allow another mobility equipment user to pass then one user of mobility equipment needs to move far to one side of the path. They could get stuck on the foliage, the foliage could hide ruts, holes that could cause a user to get stuck, or worse, topple out off the equipment they are using. Two passing places located on this path would be the solution. Also, there are no benches, to provide a person to rest, should they have reduced distance capabilities.


Path conditions. The actual condition of paths should be maintained and checked as part of staff inspections. In picture on the left below, a badger set is starting to disrupt the path; appreciating protections for badges are required, could a barrier be placed between the path and the set to prevent spoil from encroaching the path? The picture on the right below shows a path that is rutted and breaking down. Both present hazards to people on foot and to mobility equipment users.


Accessible routes, management and maintenance. For routes that are advertised as being such, clear signage helps visitors avoid areas or off shoot paths that could be inaccessible for mobility equipment users. A few reserves I have visited have signs stating “accessible path” with directional arrows. Accessible routes need to be checked to ensure they remain safe and suitable, has a tree branch fallen and blocked the route, have animals created holes in the path, has water run off washed out the path and created ruts, has the foliage grown to the point where the path cannot be assessed by the user? All things that would not ordinarily be much of an issue for an able-bodied walking person, but a barrier or unsafe situation for someone reliant on wheeled mobility equipment. Routes should be checked frequently and maintained.


Bridges. If a bridge is on a mobility – accessible route, then safety features need to be provided.

On this example, a small step has formed, that is a trip
hazard for walkers, the edge protection is too low and will
not stop a wheel from going over the edge. A handrail should be provided to steady people who require support.

The implications for harm, injury and danger to users, visitors is unacceptable.


A-frame, path / access restriction measures. Across the UK, A-frames have been extensively put in place to control access to areas. Often used to prevent motorcycles, dirt bikes and quad bikes from being used on footpaths unlawfully. These preventative measures stop law abiding members of the community / visitors, from entering these locations. Mobility scooters, powered wheelchair users cannot pass them, unless they are smaller people on small equipment.

The Trans Pennine Trail (TPT) network has many of these A-frame access restrictors on their network of shared use footpaths. They are now in the process of removing these, replacing them with alternative ‘swing both ways, with a long handle latch’ accessible gates. Other alternatives are Radar key operated swing gates that can be used by a person holding a Radar key. Using the key- a bar is unlocked, meaning the gates open very wide.

Some swing gates permit a person to enter a small inner fenced off area, the gate is closed behind the user, who can then exit. Unless these lead to a good-sized compound then these are not suitable for most mobility equipment and their users. It is also worth bearing in mind that the actual effectiveness of A-frames in stopping the determined antisocial use of motorbikes, dirt bikes, electric bikes. Many can and are just lifted over the obstacle.


Gates. The best type of gate is NO gate. Is the gate needed. An example here would be a gate located on an internal path, in a nature reserve, that is locked when not open.

At many nature reserves and public access areas. Many organisations have gates in place and seem to be reluctant to remove them. If a gate is needed due to managing livestock or security, safety, then it should be a swing both ways type accessible gate, fitted with a long access bar or catch. It needs to be operable in both directions by a person using mobility equipment on their own. If livestock or the need for the gate is not needed for a period, then the gate should be removed, or secured and locked in the open position. Often well-meaning people who are used to the countryside code, will unfasten gates and close them. It is the message in the code about gates, so it is understandable.

The area around an accessible gate also needs to be provided. The area either side of a gate needs to be a firm surface, a user manoeuvring powered mobility equipment to operate a gate can soon destruct surfaces that are just designed for walking on. The area of the gate must have be level, it is difficult to maintain a position with many types of mobility equipment on an incline and then operate a gate. A user may need to pull up alongside the gate so they can reach the latch and push it open away from them. The gate needs to move and not fall back towards the user. The undergrowth around the gate, both sides need to be maintained and checked frequently, to ensure plants do not interfere with the operation of a gate.

The gate here is as good a standard to aim for. The user on their mobility equipment can draw alongside the gate and operate the long latch handle. This gate can be unlatched and swung away from the operator. Any gate offers a challenge for people with mobility issues, but this is if set up correctly one that offers the easiest solution.

Frequently I come across or observe gates that are difficult, many impossible to operate on your own. A review of all gates should be carried out. If they can then they should be removed, ones that are not to the standard shown in the above two images should be replaced.


Viewing points. These should be created, and managed, to ensure that they are suitable for everyone who could reach them. The floor, ground surface and its stability should be managed to ensure vegetation does not cause an issue for wheels or create a trip hazard. Is the surface suitable for footfall and wheels being driven on it. Although some mobility scooters are slow, surfaces need to be able to withstand the torque of powered wheels. In overcoming the resistance of the weight of the mobility equipment plus the added weight of the user, mobility equipment motors will generate a lot of power. Sub-standard surfaces will not stand up to this use; surfaces will break down and create a hazard.

Many viewing screens become overgrown, and unsuitable for people using mobility equipment, and a trip hazard for people who can stand / walk a little. The viewing point needs to be low enough to allow a person to be able to see the feature from a seated position. The features of viewing points will need to be checked and maintained regularly, so use by all is maintained throughout the year. If there is an area with a drop by the viewing screen, then suitable edge protection must be installed.

In both examples below, resources have been put in place to create a viewing area, however, as the foliage has not been reduced and maintained, then people using them from a seated position are unable to see the intended viewpoint.


Screens. Screens should have a sound surface, be well compacted and free of obstacles and should have an area to manoeuvre, access the screen and enjoy the view.

Viewing points/slots should be provided at different heights. Allowing a person stood up, and seated in a wheelchair, or on a mobility scooter to see using them. Some good screens have vertical viewing points, meaning they cater for the shortest to the tallest of visitor. Viewing slots are big enough for camera equipment or a person to use binoculars through.

The surface here is ok, however, a person using mobility equipment cannot see out of any of the viewing slots from a seated position.

Here are two good examples of viewing screens in place. The one on the right is a newly installed screen, with vertical viewing slots. This means people of all heights can use the viewing screen. The ground surfaces may deteriorate with use on both examples.

Excellent and usable. Weeds need maintaining.
Excellent, usable, innovative. Vertical viewing – caters for all heights.

Turn around / manoeuvring areas. If an access ramp is provided that has corners, then each corner turn direction area should be large enough to manoeuvre the larger type off road mobility equipment.


Elevated viewing point, platforms. Many organisations are now installing raised elevated viewing platforms. Accessed by a 1 in 12 gradient ramp, with a non-slip but also non-vibration causing surface. Often the handrail across the length of the viewing platform is located at around 1100mm. This is frequently in the direct sight line of mobility equipment users. Better examples have a section that has a reduced height handrail, or a lower clear screen, gap to be able to view from. Sufficient edge protection must be provided if there is a possibility of a mobility equipment user accidentally putting a wheel over an unprotected edge.

Above is an example of a recently installed elevated viewing screen. The ground to the viewing point is very stable, the viewing points are adequate for all users. Handrails could be added to support people who want to stand and look. The only negative is a lack of benches to and at the screen. These could easily be provided and placed in locations, so they do not cause an obstruction for mobility equipment users.


Hides, and viewing facilities. It is difficult to identify a standard for these features. I have approached numerous organisations to determine what they use when looking at the improvements or design of a hide or viewing screens, that will accommodate both able and differently able visitors. The Outdoor Accessibility Guidance document, (below), does not cover these either. Guidance can be gained from engaging with users of all abilities to determine each group of user’s actual needs.

Mobility equipment users accessing hides, assisted or visiting independently have different needs, but providing for the independent visitor who uses a wheelchair / mobility scooter will mostly include the needs of other users, who may be accompanied, assisted or alone.

Accessible viewing points are required within the hide, it is often to have just one viewing area. This can be increased to include numerous viewing points that all abilities can access and use. Lift up – bench seats (with stiffer mechanisms so they do not fall easily) can be installed. Allowing multiusers access, and increased viewing areas to all / each side of the viewing hide.

Ideally, the surface area outside the access door should be flat, level, kept free of plants, bins, other obstacles. The area should be of sufficient space to allow for the parking up of mobility equipment or turning their equipment to leave. The area needs to be level and large enough to allow a mobility equipment / wheelchair user to be able to pull up alongside the door and operate it then enter. This is another reason why a large, level area with edge protection is a must for mobility equipment users.

To open a door the user may have to do multiple little adjustments of their powered equipment to use the door. Their mind and concentration will be focussed on working the door, hence why the hazards around the door need to be controlled and removed.

Below is a hide that shows what can be achieved. The hide has dampened lift up bench seats, meaning mobility equipment users can use that position. A different window bay area for lower and taller users would with this type of seating create a fully inclusive viewing hide.

If the user of the equipment can weight bear / walk a little. Providing handrails to the entrance can help a person wishing to leave a mobility device outside the hide.

If a ramp is needed to reach the door of a hide, then the gradient should be no more than 1 in 12. Ramps must have sufficient hard-edge protection, if it is possible to accidentally leave the path.

The photo left shows the typical issues. The vegetation on the right of the path obscures the user of mobility equipment approaching the hide from seeing the condition of the ground. Is there a hazard, or rut that could cause mobility equipment to topple over. On the left of the path is a hole – with no edge protection. This is enough to trap a wheel and topple a user from their equipment. A mobility equipment user cannot pull up alongside the door so they can open the door on their own. People who can walk a little have no area to park a scooter and no handrail to support them. The area nearest the hide also needs a firm level area to turn around safely, with solid edge protection and a handrail.

Some mobility equipment is too big to enter a hide– some mobility equipment users may prefer to not actually enter the hide, instead to view the area from a suitable viewing position, located at the side of the actual hide. A lowered screen in front, and a suitable surface for wheels, with sufficient edge protection to prevent them and their equipment from getting into danger, coming to harm.

The mobility vehicles below can be transported or driven to reserves, all do not comply as Class 3 mobility vehicle standard, unless a limiting switch is operated on them. In this mode all can lawfully be used on any public paths or location. All are far too big to enter a wildlife hide, so a viewing area at the side of a hide would be advantageous for such users and their equipment. As is the case for many people using mobility equipment.

Examples below of dangerous access to hides, unprotected edges and drops or areas where the user cannot assess the condition of the path.

Hides should have wide easily opened and closed doors. Some organisations are adopting a no door hide approach, with open viewing slots, without shutters, or windows provided. This can get around issues mentioned above. It can also reduce antisocial behaviour by some groups. It does create a colder, less sheltered provision / hide. The prevailing wind directions, the level of shelter / protection from the elements needed, and user comfort required, being the main considerations.

Similar issues, a dangerous ramp with no safety features or mobility equipment considerations for anyone. Such as edge protection or handrails.

The entrance to hides can and often do deteriorate, causing a trip hazard, but also a barrier to powered mobility equipment. The powered wheelchair below could easily get stuck by such a barrier.

Windows, viewing hatches. It is possible to fit wind-up or screw drive open and shutting windows, or open to each side windows, that can be operated open and shut from a seated position. Far safer than the usual open from bottom to top heavy window, that has a securing catch higher up.

Typical issues within a hide, benches blocking access for the disabled viewing area. There is no way of operating the hide windows from a seated position.

In this image (left) the user does not have the physical capacity to lift his camera, so he uses his camera whilst it is mounted on his lap. He would love to visit more wildlife hides but finds they do not cater for how he needs to use his camera. Is this fair, it is after all 2026?


Edge protection for paths with drops at then side. If a path has a small drop at its side, then safety needs to be built in. A good solid edge protection should be installed to prevent mobility equipment users going over the drop / edge. For greater heights, then this, edge protection should be greatly increased with incorporation of sturdy handrails.

Examples below, a fall from this ramp could be serious for anyone, especially a user of mobility equipment. The photo in the centre, below is a path, to the left of the man in the wheelchair is the door. To operate this door using his equipment he must go to this position then reverse after swinging the door open on his left. The potential for going over the edge is high risk for both the person involved and for the organisation who’s reserve this is. There is no suitable edge protection and no handrail.

The left image shows a new hide and ramp, no safety features and easy to fall off or a wheel to go over the edge. On the right image, the user cannot assess the state and suitability of the ground, a mobility equipment user also does not have the space to pull alongside the door so they could open it.


Edge protection for any ramp or boardwalk. Historically, guidance stated 50mm edge protection was sufficient. This guidance applied to residential areas, with urban type mobility equipment.

Presently, planning and work is being done on a Yorkshire nature reserve. The specification being looked at is for a similar 50mm edge protection only, on the wooden elevated boardwalk.

One example at this site, a lady fell off the boardwalk as she was manoeuvring her mobility equipment. Her mobility equipment easily went over the 50mm edge protection. This highlights the importance of adequate edge protection. This reserve is advertised as being an accessible nature reserve, therefore risks to users of mobility equipment would be expected to be provided and for it to be a safe environment for wheelchairs and off road type mobility scooters.

The standard 50mm (2-inch) edge protection that is often found is increasingly viewed as insufficient for modern, heavier, and more powerful off-road mobility equipment. The current consensus and updated guidelines suggest the following:

Increased Height Requirements: For modern equipment, especially Class 3 mobility vehicles that can reach speeds of 8mph and weigh up to 150kg–200kg, edge protection should ideally be at least 75mm to 100mm (3–4 inches) high.

Wheel Radius Rule: For rugged or industrial-grade off-road equipment, safety standards like those from the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) recommend that edge protection height should be at least half the diameter of the largest wheel (the wheel radius) or the axle height to prevent the vehicle from simply driving over it.

Structural Integrity: Because modern off-road chairs have higher momentum, barriers must be able to absorb significant horizontal force without deflecting more than 55mm.

Drop-off Depth Matters: For level differences greater than 600mm, best practices suggest the lowermost solid protective edge should be increased to 150mm.

Boardwalks and Bridges: Recent Disabled Ramblers’ Outdoor Accessibility Guidance specifically recommends 75mm edge boards for boardwalks and rural bridges to safely contain larger mobility scooters.

All access ramps should have sturdy handrails provided too, with edge protection to the same stated level as noted above.

This edge protection completely prevents my wheels going over.

This example below shows a 50mm edge protection, a more suitable higher safety feature, that would reduce the likelihood of a wheel being able to accidentally go over the edge.


Benches provided on routes around reserves. The Outdoor Accessibility Guide recommends that benches should be located approximately every 100 metres on a path. Many people who cannot walk great distances will set out to enjoy a location, but will need frequent suitable seating, to allow them to rest.

There are no benches provided at regular, reasonable intervals in these examples.


Benches with a viewing area. Thought is needed if a bench overlooks a vantage / viewpoint. Does a fence or similar restrict the view from a seated position?


Benches in hides. Nearly every hide I have ever visited has too many benches, which means it is difficult to manoeuvre mobility equipment inside the hide. Benches are often located adjacent to the specific disabled viewing point and is now a barrier for a disabled person to have to negotiate / move if on their own. Many organisations have fold away lighter chairs located in the disabled viewing area, allowing most disabled mobility equipment users to be able to easily move them and access the space.

The better ‘all abilities viewing hides’ have signage to clearly indicate that an area is designated as being the accessible viewing area, and that priority for its use in that area should be given to such visitors. So many times, I have entered a hide and someone who has their own foldable portable chair or a tripod have set up in the viewing area, despite not having a disability. A clear sign does have the positive effect of them realising they are using a designated accessible viewing point, they often quickly make way for a person who has a need to use it as it was intended.

No bench blocking access to the disabled viewing area, a great feature here is the “to the side opening shutter” and pull under and shelf area for knees if using a wheelchair.

In these examples, a heavy bench is located. Blocking access.

This image (left) shows a reasonable viewing area, however, in order to use it I have to slump forwards, which is uncomfortable and difficult.

This new hide is a good example for an accessible viewing area. The window is operable from a seated position.

The door to access the new hide would be better if it was located with more distance away from the fence, allowing a mobility equipment user the ease of being able to pull up alongside the door to open it. A solution here could be to move the fence forwards and create an area to pull up by the door.


Signage. Signage is often positioned too high, or angled, resulting in a user of mobility equipment from not being able to easily read it. Often braille and other languages are not available. QR codes could be linked, so that users of any language can scan then translate the information to their own language.

A vertical sign, or one that can be moved / swung 20 degrees would make this suitable for all.


Disabled toilets. Doors and the area outside the toilet should be level and have a good surface. Smaller facilities often have a door that makes it difficult to enter and turn around.

The door should have a long horizontal hand bar fitted so that a person using mobility equipment can pull to close the door on their own. The gold standard for a disabled toilet is now what is commonly known as a “changing place” facility. With a hoist, a modesty screen, a shower, rising – lowering sink, a disabled toilet, an emergency pull cord (to the floor) system. These are larger installs, but at key sites should be provided.

Disabled toilets, the following are needed, disabled toilet, fitted with support bars, the flush mechanism should be nearer the approach side of the toilet. Sink, soap, hand dryer or paper towel dispenser, medical waste bin, sanitary product bin. Some of the above are also baby changing facilities. A common issue is that there are too many bins, often disabled toilets double up as makeshift storerooms. Often emergency cords are tied up, rendering them useless if needed.

Here are some examples: Pic 1 – not suitable for a wheelchair due to the step, also too small.

Pic 2 & 3 – a new facility, note the lack of edge protection on the ramp, and no handrail, inside the toilet unit, no support bars, and no emergency pull cord alarm. Even for non-powered installs, solar emergency call systems can and should be installed.

Pic 1
Pic 2
Pic 3

Below, photos of a toilet recently provided, note the lack of edge protection or handrails on the access ramp, the ramp does not have a suitable turn around area for mobility equipment, no emergency alarm point, the seat is handmade, out of plywood so not hygienic, no support bars to assist people who need them.

Where possible full “Changing places” facilities should be installed, obviously only for the main and suitable staffed sites.


Ponds. Design features should include the following:

Full access for mobility equipment users to all sides where people of all abilities are given access to use them. If small steps are provided for smaller children, then these need to be positioned so that they don’t obstruct accessible disabled areas.

Paths around ponds should be wide and on level, solid ground, so mobility equipment wheels cannot break down the ground area. Turn around points should be provided so mobility equipment users can safely turn around, without going on grass, which can cause them to lose traction. Often a missing safety feature, from ground level natural ponds is sufficient hard-edge protection.


Café. Café usage can be greatly improved to ensure they are fully inclusive. A counter area that is lowered, for disabled people to access and use, card payment scanners that can be reached from a seated position, such as a wheelchair. Vending machines and goods selection displays arranged so all can reach. Higher tables or designed benches that are suitable for wheelchair and mobility equipment users to use would be ideal.

Hearing loops, Braile, and perhaps other languages menus should also be considered and provided.

Staff should not be afraid or shy to aid disabled people, they will often really appreciate and take up a kind offer of someone carrying hot drinks or items to a table for them.


Picnic areas. Picnic benches and areas should include specially designed benches and tables, I came across some recently that were not positioned on suitable level ground or mounted high enough for wheelchair users to be able to safely reach and use them. Another site has two suitable for all picnic benches but again these are located on overgrown, uneven grassed areas. Mobility equipment and wheelchair users can move across well maintained short grass but will not cope with longer foliage as they lose traction.

In this example is a bench by an accessible screen, the ground should be solid such as paved, the position of the bench means mobility equipment users cannot move all around the bench.

A further issue with this location was a failure to check and maintain the path leading to the screen and bench. A large hole was impeding the path, obscured by plants, long grass, causing a risk of tripping, or trapping a wheel and the mobility equipment tipping over.

A good example, on hard standing so wheels will not break down the ground surface.


Wash off wheels and boots facilities. A barrier to exploring our wild places is that if you are dependent on wheels, then you cannot just change your shoes after, powerchairs, wheelchairs are used and pick up dirt, this can then be taken and spread in the car or home afterwards. A further issue is transferring biomaterial from one location to another. Avian flu and other issues can be spread, as can seeds from invasive plants. Having some way to swill off dirt, debris before you leave a site would be beneficial to visitors and the natural environment.


The wider accessible environment. Organisations should also look and improve where necessary the features around the venue to assist disabled visitors.

As a case study – this is a sea viewing facility on the east coast of Yorkshire.

The facility is designed as being wheelchair accessible, however, there are numerous issues here. Access, there are no designated Blue Badge parking spaces by the location, the footpath is on the seaside of Marine Drive. People arrive on the footpath but there is NO dropped kerbs near the sea viewing facility. Parking of vans and motorhomes is frequent during March to October, these often prevent a visitor from seeing the intended view area.

The sea viewing facility has an artwork installed, and a mosaic floor. It is a beautiful piece of art, the floor is stunning but no consideration to how it feels under wheels. It creates a surface that vibrates the user of mobility equipment. Could a clear, surface cover the artwork, such as a translucent rippled epoxy resin?

If working with partners such as on this project here, then the same “equality impact assessment” needs to be part of the process.

To give you a better understanding here is a photo of equipment many people will visit with.

This type of mobility equipment is now readily portable and more affordable.

Lastly, I recently responded to a request from a senior reserve manager of a nature reserve.

The person leading this project is updating one of their nature reserves but was confused with the information available from their research. Of course I helped, as I appreciate when people and organisations want to get things improved, to assist in making changes that will benefit all, and help to make a reserve more inclusive. It is probably how many staff feel and find when information gathering, when tasked with making changes to a nature reserve.

Please see the feedback below.

Hi Pete,

Thanks again for all your help. It really has been immensely useful having you on the ground giving specific advice tailored to our conditions and what we want to achieve.

There is mountains of advice websites/ brochures etc on the internet, so much so that it becomes overwhelming. They often give conflicting advice, and after speaking with you, maybe not always the most useful when implemented. I have found myself overthinking some things and not thinking enough about other things. I can see how, without advice from people with lived experience, it is so easy to make hides that are just not up to scratch! Things that would not have occurred to me, having never used a wheelchair, you were able to communicate and show me with ease. I understand things much better visually, rather than pages and pages of measurements and wordy information on websites. And also, with you visiting the site, practical things such as the parking area not being flat – despite looking very flat- and causing issues for your ramp has been highlighted now and can be communicated to people before they visit. All the little fixes we can make in the Fishing Lodge – which is actually classed on the website as ‘wheelchair accessible’, have been easily highlighted with a quick run through by yourself. I was also very grateful for you sharing your personal experiences of being in a wheelchair, what it is like for you day to day and what you get from being out in nature.

Our aim is not to just have a token gesture, but create somewhere for people who can’t access the whole nature reserve, to be able to have some really special wildlife encounters and thanks to your help, I think we will achieve that.

Thanks again, I will keep you posted how it all develops.

All the best



1. How would a person sat using a wheel chair with a powered front wheel, or a powerchair user, or large mobility or road scooter pass here? The off road scoter is a large “Tramper” scooter.

A1.There is a pull in area smaller gate, but this means you and your equipment need to fit in the area provided. You then have to reverse out the other side, whilst closing the gate out of the way. Many off road mobility scooters will not fit in the pull in space provided. Some people struggle to reverse due to various reasons, limiting neck / head movement.


2. This is a gate has a Radar key padlock fitted. How easy is this to use? Is this an easy thing to operate by a person using a mobility vehicle on their own?

A2. Does everyone have a radar key? Would people expect to need one on a wander in the countryside? Small mobility scooters might fit into the circle pull in area. For myself and larger mobility scooters, where I am not able to stand, I find that there is never enough flat unobstructed space for me to pull up alongside then operate the gate. Often the gate will swing away from me as they are not neutrally balanced. I can open it when I am on my own, but it is often difficult.


3. This new hide building is accessed by ramps. What issues would a person using mobility equipment possibly have here?

A3. The ramps here have no suitable edge protection, if a wheel on my equipment went over the edge then I could be tipped out and injured, and my equipment broken or it may fall on top of me. I am not able to get back if I end up on the floor, so I risk an injury from a fall and also from a pressure sore developing. I could be on the floor here for a long time, as recovering me back into my wheelchair needs several people. There are no handrails for people who need support.

4. Is the surface suitable for mobility equipment including manual wheelchairs?

A4. Gravel and wheelchairs / mobility equipment is a big NO. For people on manual wheelchairs the front castors dig in and stop any progress. For powered equipment, it is not suitable as wheels dig in, causing users to get stuck.


5. This is an accessible path that leads to an accessible wildlife viewing hide. What issues are present regarding this path and for who?

A5. The path is quite narrow and overgrown, mobility equipment users could not see the hole, they could easily get stuck or topple out off their equipment should a wheel drop in it . People who are walking could easily miss seeing this hazard, trip, turn an ankle and be injured.


6. As a user of mobility equipment, you approach and intend to use this
gate. What issues are present for you?

A6. The areas around the gate are not maintained, resulting in mobility equipment users having a further issue in reaching the actual accessible gate. I was unable to pull into a position where I could use my Radar key. At the edge of the grass is a sharp metal base of an old fence, sharp enough to rip or shread a tyre on my equipment. I cannot see the condition of the ground due to the overgrown foliage, so I am prevent from assessing if there are any issues, such as ruts, potholes etc.


7. You are wholly dependent on mobility equipment and cannot stand up. You approach this wild hide. What issues are present here?

8. How can a person using mobility equipment open the door from a seated position?

A7. There is a slope on my right, as there is not any suitable edge protection I’ll have to be careful not to topple out of my wheelchair. Near the door on the left is a hole, that can trap a wheel.


A8. There is no room to pull alongside the door so I can reach the handle to open the door, as I cannot stand at all.


9. Your a wheelchair user on your own, how easy is it to move the wooden bench to gain access to the disabled viewing point?

10. From a seated position, could you open and latch, then unlatch and close the window if you are on your own?

A9. As I stay in my wheelchair and cannot stand at all, then moving these benches can be difficult, twisting and turning, in an unusual position will often result in my straining or pulling a muscle. Mobility equipment users and I need space to manoeuvre, often too many benches including the one I may have successfully have moved are now blocking me.


A10. No. It is impossible for me to open the window and secure it on my own, or unsecure it and close the window when I want to leave. Windows can be quite heavy too.