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.