Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
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
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.
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
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
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.