South Tyneside Council Request an Internal Review FOI 14 13689
Transcript of South Tyneside Council Request an Internal Review FOI 14 13689
FOI 14 13689
Building Regulations are designed to protect people and the environment, and ensure EQUAL ACCESS for ALL. South Tyneside Council (STC) has failed in its duty to promote disability equality: The authority’s methods for assessing the impact of its policies and practices, or the likely impact of its proposed policies and practices, on equality for disabled persons failed by not requiring a lift to be provided for access to first floor office space. STC has failed in its duty to assess plans for compliance with building regulations and ensure reasonable adjustment be made to achieve access for all within this development. STC has failed in its public sector equality duty to ensure there will be equivalent amenity in enabling access to and use of a building and it's facilities. STC states, quote; Fitz architects have been requested to provide an access statement in relation to the use of the proposed single office and this should include provisions that address the points you have raised as a supposition. You should appreciate that the nature of their business will influence how they choose to deliver it, including provisions for home working for all staff. Planning approval has been granted for up to 240sq meters of first floor office space therefore an access statement should have been required that accounted for the potential of 240sq meters of first floor office use. The nature of the business is architectural design service therefore classed as a service provider so they cannot choose how to deliver services without due regard to the Equality Act 2010. Their duties are anticipatory and continuing. In other words, service providers should be thinking ahead and continually looking at the way they provide services, the physical features of their premises and services, and how they can make improvements for disabled people. At the very least they should have complied with the requirements of approved document M. It is actually irrelevant what the nature of the present proposed use of the building is, as future change of use should have been
considered. This is a new build equivalent access for all by law is not an option. The provision for home working stated in an access statement does not provide equal opportunity and would exclude persons with mobility issues from the working environment. Equivalent amenity in enabling access to and use of a building and its facilities has not been considered by STC as required by approved document M. The Secretary of State has previously decided on a very similar situation, quote: The Secretary of State acknowledges that access statements are a useful tool in identifying the philosophy and approach to the design that has been adopted. However, the limitations of such a document should also be recognised. It is his opinion that where access statements are used to justify measures which do not follow the guidance provided in AD M the presumption must remain that these alternatives provide equivalent amenity in enabling access to and use of a building and its facilities. The access statement provided for appraisal by STC states; Due to the limited size and occupancy, this staircase is also considered appropriate to access the small office. Permission has been granted for up to 240sq meters first floor office space, not a small office as suggested in the access statement. The office mentioned in the access statement alone is 94sq meters, which is reason enough to require a lift to provide equal access to the facilities. The access statement also states: Accessibility of the first floor architectural office is regarded as appropriate due to the small size of the office and the nature of the business provided by the practice. The actual office I studio space has only 55 sqm of floor area with ancillary facilities. This space will be occupied by a maximum of 4 people with the practice having no plans to expand due to the financial climate and also the nature of the practice (we are happy with the current management system and staff numbers). We do not offer any direct sales or goods sold and operate on an appointment only basis. No visitors can just visit the office without prior arrangements. It is suggested only 4 people will occupy the office due to the financial climate and also the nature of the practice. Mr.
Osborne would be sad to hear this but never the less this cannot be accepted as reason not to provide a lift to the 240sq meters of first floor office space approved. An office of this size could accommodate many more people and therefore this number may change in the future. As for the statement: We do not offer any direct sales or goods sold and operate on an appointment only basis. The Equality and Human Rights Commission State: It does not matter whether you give the service for free or if you charge for it. It does not matter if you are set up as a sole trader, a partnership, a limited company or any other legal structure. The size of your business does not matter either. Equality law applies to you. Doesn't seem to be the case in this instance!!! STC have knowingly agreed to allow discrimination of disabled persons thus failing in there PSEDs. The statement: No visitors can just visit the office without prior arrangements. One thing for sure, there will be no visits from persons with mobility issues whether a customer or an employee. First floor plans for this development show 8 workstations and conference room for a further 8 people. More than 20 employees could potentially use the approved office space of 240sq meters. The Secretary of State has previously decided on a very similar situation, quote: Whilst you indicate that your client currently employs only three people on the first floor, the Council quite rightly suggests that an office of this size could accommodate around thirteen people and therefore this number may change in the future. Regardless of the number of staff, the Secretary of State notes that the use of the first floor is significantly different to the ground floor. He takes the view that in this particular case what may be seen as reasonable would be the provision of offices of the same use and storage on both floors, i.e. not providing a particular facility or use that is not accessible to all. Aside from the possible difficulties presented to visitors who are wheelchair users, the additional cost to the owner or occupier of making future lift provision would be more likely to create conditions where wheelchair users might be discriminated against when being considered for employment.
Within Part M of the Building Regulations the expectation is that buildings should be user ready and not adapted as and when needed. It is not, as you propose, in the spirit of Part M or the DDA to accommodate a mobility impaired person in a different part of the building to other persons carrying out similar jobs, as this would isolate that person. I previously asked; Please provide written details of the compliance on site. STC states; South Tyneside Council does not hold any written details of compliance on site. Works have just commenced and site supervision will be carried out and documented by Sunderland City Council Building Control. Sunderland City Council states; South Tyneside Council Building Control Department was appointed by the architect to assess compliance with all aspects of Building Regulation requirements including Part M of the Regulations. Therefore, questions relating to the Building Regulation assessment should be addressed to South Tyneside Council. South Tyneside Building Control team previously informed me they have a partnership agreement with Fitz Architects for the provision of a Building Control service for projects that they are involved with. Q1. Is South Tyneside Building Control responsible for this development meeting the requirements of building regulations? I previously asked: Please provide evidence how the access statement will satisfy the requirements of approved document M to ensure that all new buildings are accessible to all and provide equivalent amenity in enabling access to and use of a building and its facilities. STC replied, There is no specific, separate, written evidence of how the access statement satisfies the requirements of approved Document M. The project has been assessed for compliance with the Building Regulations and the Authority believes that the plans and supporting documentation including the access statement meet the requirements of Part M which requires “reasonable provision to be made for people to gain access to and use of the building and its
facilities”. I believe STC misunderstand the term requires “reasonable provision”. The access statement provided and accepted as providing reasonable provision does not explain how equal access to the first floor office and it's facilities have been achieved as required by approved document M. The access statement states: Access is to one floor and the area is limited
• 240sq meters. Occupancy / floor space factors are low
• But the potential occupancy is not low. The building is only 2 storeys
• Irrelevant. Floor space does not contain any unique feature
• The first floor office in it self is a unique feature. Members of the public require appointments to access
• Still excluding. There will be effective full time management in place
• And ??? Are they now suggesting a fireman's lift? Space constraints of site limit development opportunities
• Not true as the Sunderland Council valuation report proves. The cost of a retaining wall and over development of the land within the existing retaining wall is the reason a lift is not being installed.
Management arrangements will be in place to cater for disabled employees and potential visitors
• Empty words with no substance. Please note; In the event of any legal challenge, the Access Statement may be called upon as evidence. The strength of any justification for design decisions taken may be tested in the Courts. Therefore, it should be viewed as a potential defence document as well as a record of events. So obviously the access statement should have been scrutinized in detail to ensure it explained what alternatives have been provided that achieves
equal access to first floor office space. Pieces of paper are a poor replacement for a lift to the first floor office space. The Secretary of State disagrees with the STC please read, APPEAL TO RELAX REQUIREMENT M1 (ACCESS AND USE) IN PART M (ACCESS TO AND USE OF BUILDINGS) OF SCHEDULE 1 TO THE BUILDING REGULATIONS 2000 (AS AMENDED) Link provided. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/3036/Building_regulations_appeal_SB-‐007-‐002-‐003.pdf Building Control Performance Standards 2006 Deals with the keeping of adequate records in respect of plans assessment and site inspection. The Standards and Guidance which follow establish the level of performance considered essential as a minimum in carrying out those tasks in such a way that a BCB’s duties and liabilities under the legislation are adequately discharged. ASSESSMENT OF PLANS Where assessment of plans is undertaken, clear information shall be communicated to the client regarding: ·∙ non-‐compliance with the Building Regulations ·∙ views of statutory consultees ·∙ conditions pertaining to the approval or passing of plans remedies available in the event of a dispute over compliance. Records of the plans assessment process: records shall be kept of the design assessment philosophy, and any statutory and/or discretionary consultations, for future reference and continuity of control. Q2. STC have replied stating: there is no specific, separate, written evidence of how the access statement satisfies the requirements of approved document M. Is South Tyneside Council informing me that clear instruction set out in Building Control Performance Standards 2006 has not been adhered to and no records exist as to how the decision arrived at? STC states; The project has been assessed for compliance with the Building Regulations.
Q3. Please provide written record of this assessment. Q4. Please provide copies of all correspondence to and from STC building control department / officers regarding the access to this development. STC states; No written assessment exists that concludes lift access is not required. We believe that the submission meets with the requirements of Part M and meets with the spirit and intention of national guidance issued by Local Authority Building Control. STC state no written assessment exists that concludes lift access is not required but then go on to say. The project has been assessed for compliance with the Building Regulations and the Authority believes that the plans and supporting documentation including the access statement meet the requirements of Part M. If the authority believes the plans and supporting documentation including the access statement meet the requirements of Part M it needs to: Record how it believes the requirements of approved document M has have been met by the plans and supporting documentation including the access statement achieving equal access for all to the first floor office space. The access statement must describe, through the use of text and supporting plans, how disabled people will access the building and its facilities. STC opinion is the access statement will satisfy the requirements of approved document M, to ensure that all new buildings are accessible to all and provide equivalent amenity in enabling access to and use of a building and its facilities. Q5. Please provide the STC appraisal of the access statement. STC have stated no written assessment exists that concludes lift access is not required. Q6. Can you please inform me why, on such an important issue which has been the subject of many emails and STC complaints procedure there is no written assessment as to why STC have not required reasonable adjustment to provide a lift. I previously asked; Please provide details of the constraints of
the site that South Tyneside building control department considers valid reason not require a lift to the first floor office space. South Tyneside Council states; Site Constraints are as mentioned in the access statement and shown on the plans that access has already been provided by Sunderland City Council through the planning process. This does not even attempt to provide the information I have asked for. Q7. Please provide details of the constraints of the site that South Tyneside building control department considers valid reason not require a lift to the first floor office space. I believe there are no constraints to the site. The over development of the land within the existing retaining wall that previously accommodated 4 beach huts is the reason for a lift not being required. There are no restraints to space/land to move the buildings and provide a lift as proved by Sunderland Councils valuation report and land title deeds. The expense of providing more retaining wall cannot be reason to allow a development to be built, which excludes persons with mobility issues. There are no credible reasons for a lift to first floor office space not to be provided unless you consider monetary reasons. The requirements included in the Current Approved Document M have been the subject of a regulatory impact assessment and the associated direct and indirect costs were not identified as an issue that would preclude their introduction. STC could easily demand compliance to approved document M by insisting one of the bullet pointed options below. 1. The buildings could be moved as there is plenty of land available owned by the developer. 2. Reduce the size of the development to accommodate a lift.
3. Use part of one of the ground floor retail units to accommodate a lift. 4. Provide more retaining wall to provide extra land to accommodate a lift I believe South Tyneside Council and Sunderland Council are intentionally discriminating against persons with mobility issues.