Asking is not the same as listening: What inclusive planning really requires
In organisations like local authorities, helping people is at the heart of what we do. We talk often about inclusion, accessibility and fairness – and that is important. But sometimes the way we try to be inclusive can have unintended consequences, especially when good intentions are not backed up by clear, consistent processes.
Asking about access needs is only the start
It is increasingly common to ask whether people have any accessibility or adjustment requirements. On the surface, this looks like good practice. It signals awareness and an openness to accommodate different needs.
But when we ask, and what we do with that information, really matters.
If the question is asked after key decisions have already been made – such as choosing a tool or platform, booking a venue, or fixing an agenda – it can unintentionally create a gap between expectation and reality.
For someone with access needs, being asked can raise the question:
Can these needs realistically be met, or am I being invited to disclose something that cannot be acted on?
Asking without clarity can feel less like inclusion and more like a formality.
An uncomfortable truth
A process or event does not stop being exclusionary simply because we avoid naming that exclusion. Access needs cannot pause or disappear when they are inconvenient, and when they cannot be met – or have not been considered – there will always be a human impact.
That impact is not abstract or theoretical; it is felt by real people in real ways.
This is why clarity and honesty matter so much – not because it eliminates all barriers, but because it acknowledges where barriers exist and who they affect.
Most teams operate under tight constraints. Budgets are limited, tools are imperfect, time is short. Acknowledging this is not a failure, it is honest and necessary.
There is an important distinction between:
- “We cannot accommodate everything, so let’s be upfront about what is possible,” and
- “Let’s ask people what they might need, and see what happens”
When we ask people to share access needs without knowing whether we can meet them, we shift risk and uncertainty onto individuals – particularly disabled people – rather than shouldering that responsibility ourselves.
Sometimes the more inclusive option is to say:
This is what we can support, this is what we cannot, and this is why.
Clarity builds trust. Ambiguity erodes it.
The impact of being asked, but not listened to
Explaining your access needs is not a neutral task. It takes time, emotional energy, and often a degree of vulnerability. When those needs are then met with silence, last‑minute responses, or “we cannot confirm whether this need can be met”, it can be deeply demoralising.
Over time, this creates a pattern where inclusion starts to feel like a box tick, rather than a genuine effort to enable people to participate on equal terms.
That cumulative impact matters, even if no single decision feels significant on its own.
Certainty is part of accessibility
One of the less talked‑about aspects of accessibility is predictability.
For many people – including those managing fatigue, chronic illness, anxiety, or caring responsibilities – being able to plan depends on having reliable, timely information. Adjustments that are tentative or confirmed last minute do not function as adjustments in practice, because there is nothing solid to plan around.
Inclusive planning is not just about what we offer, but when and how we communicate it.
What inclusive planning can look like in practice
None of this requires perfection or unlimited resources. But it does benefit from clearer processes, for example:
- Consider accessibility from the outset, alongside budget, contact points, venue or format – not afterwards
- Be explicit about constraints before asking for access needs, and honest about any areas where accommodations are not possible
- Set clear expectations for response times and confirmations, rather than leaving people waiting indefinitely for clarity
- Plan for hybrid participation from the outset, rather than relying on a single format – giving people flexibility in how they engage
- Treat accessibility as a measure of project quality, not an add‑on
These small shifts move inclusion from reactive to intentional.
Why this matters – especially for Local Authorities
As public servants, we work every day to support people with diverse needs both in our communities and within our organisation. The way we design our internal processes matters just as much as our external services, because it reflects what we truly value.
Inclusive planning is not about finding a perfect solution first time, every time. It is about making thoughtful inclusion decisions early, being honest about limitations and taking responsibility for the impact of them — rather than asking disabled people repeatedly to explain, justify, or negotiate their inclusion.
Inclusion is never a tick‑box exercise. When we plan for inclusion earlier, listen with the intent of making informed decisions, and do the work upfront, we are participating in true inclusion.
