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 authoritys 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_d
ata/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 BCBs 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.