Mr. John Fulham:

I do. We always have views. In relation to the footpaths, in particular, I would echo what Ms Tinsley is saying. There is a reality here that we have legacy towns. We cannot create footpaths where there is not the space to do so. In focusing on the provision of something rather than nothing, there is an imminent danger of the compromise taking hold as the norm.

We need to look at alternatives. Is the footpath the only way? Through consultation with the people on whom this impacts the solution will, more probably than not, come to mind. There are different specifications throughout different local authorities so there may be an issue to be addressed regarding standardisation. A willingness to engage with people with disabilities is very important.

I am with the Deputy on parking bays. To be quite honest, 2.5 m, 2.7 m or 20 cm will not address the needs of disabled people getting in and out of their cars. The point is that spaces are there and created for the reason that people with limited mobility need to have nearer access to where they need to be. There is a point there. The IWA has a best practice guidelines document in which we mandate best practice rather than minimum compliance. We need to look at what is best practice rather than what is minimum compliance. We often see this in the housing world, which is well beyond the remit of the committee, but is very relevant to building houses and design. The same principle can apply to access. The parking bays are there for that specific reason, but moving the general spaces available to the general public from 2.5 m to 2.7 m will not address the access needs of people who use wheelchairs or have limited mobility. I cannot speak knowledgeably as to whether this would make a significant difference to people with children. I know it would not for me, at least not now because my child is five years old and can get in and out of his own accord. I could not speak beyond that.