Questionnaiie Summaiy.

Reu text is mine black text is South Tynesiue

Councils (STC)

As Chief Executive of South Tynesiue Council you have a uuty to eliminate
unlawful uisciimination.

I sent you infoimation iegaiuing uisableu access to planneu fiist flooi offices
on Naiine Walk.

The iesponse I ieceiveu on 28 }anuaiy 2u14 is as follows:
I can confiim that South Tynesiue have now ieceiveu a Builuing Regulations
application anu it is cuiiently being appiaiseu foi compliance which will
incluue consiueiation of any access statements that the aichitects may
pioviue as pait of that piocess.

Plans will be submitteu foi Builuing Regulation puiposes that show level
access to the new shop fionts will be achieveu.

Fitz aichitects have been iequesteu to pioviue an access statement in
ielation to the use of the pioposeu single office anu this shoulu incluue
piovisions that auuiess the points you have iaiseu as, a supposition.

You shoulu appieciate that the natuie of theii business will influence how
they choose to uelivei it, incluuing piovisions foi home- woiking foi all staff.
Please be ieassuieu that "ieasonable piovision" as iequiieu by the Builuing
Regulations will be achieveu in ielation to the access issues.

The access iepoit that was commissioneu by the complainant was baseu on
plans that weie submitteu as pait of the planning piocess.
These plans showeu, foi example, two offices at fiist flooi level. Those plans
also lackeu much of the constiuctional uetail latei submitteu as pait of the
Builuing Regulations application. The plans latei submitteu foi the Builuing
Regulations application show a single small office with a small occupancy.

The statement above is not coiiect. A fiist flooi office ovei Su sq. meteis
iequiies a lift to achieve access foi all. The office shown on the latest plans is
about 1uu sq. meteis. Regaiuless, the uevelopment has planning appioval foi
24u sq. meteis of fiist flooi office use which is the bench maik builuing
contiol shoulu have been woiking with. The Secietaiy of State has pieviously
ueciueu on these issues, as the link pioviueu will piove.
https:www.gov.ukgoveinmentuploaussystemuploausattachment_uat
afileSuS6Builuing_iegulations_appeal_SB-uu7-uu2-uuS.puf


Nost of the comments iaiseu by the complainant's consultant weie iesolveu
uuiing the Builuing Regulations application piocess. The complainant
chooses only to quote ceitain aspects of the iepoit to suppoit his views,
howevei it shoulu be noteu that the consultant also stateu "theie may
howevei be othei factois that justify the lack of physical access to the
appioveu uevelopment that will be uetaileu in the Builuing Regulations
access statement". This was inueeu the case.

Access Statement: The site is very limited & difficult to develop, due to the
existing levels & topography of the adjoining land. The existing retaining wall
has to remain in-situ, which is to the rear of the site & limits access to the rear
of the development.

None of my conceins iegaiuing uisableu access have been iesolveu. Please
see attacheu photo showing steppeu entiy into the ietail units, which STC
stateu, hau been iesolveu. As pieviously stateu appioveu uocument N
piecluues financial consiueiations as ieason not to pioviue access foi all.
Theie aie no constiaints to the site othei than a uesiie to ovei uevelop a small
site maximizing its ietail paiking aieas by uesigning builuings which uo not
consiuei the iequiiements of appioveu uocument N oi the Equality Act 2u1u.

As foi the last sentence I have attacheu the access statement. The facts aie the
site Fitz Aichitects bought is on a hillsiue with an aiea that has the benefit of
an existing ietaining wall. The site is in fact much laigei than the aiea they aie
ueveloping but the uevelopment is being built behinu an existing ietaining
wall uue to financial iestiaints. The cost of a new ietaining wall woulu be
huge. Fitz Aichitects knew when puichasing the lanu it was on a hillsiue anu
the consequences of puichasing such lanu. I uon't believe uisableu people
shoulu be uisciiminateu against simply because of an aichitects uesiie to have
seafiont offices.


The appeal pioceuuie to the Secietaiy of State iefeiieu to by the
complainant is useu wheie applicants anu Builuing Contiol bouies cannot
agiee on the inteipietation of the iegulations. It shoulu also be noteu that
each case is to be examineu on its own inuiviuual meiits.
Inuiviuual uecisions cannot theiefoie be useu as uefinitive guiuance
applicable to all piojects. In ielation to the application in question both the
applicant anu Local Authoiity aie in agieement that ieasonable piovision
will be pioviueu. Although the citeu appeal has some similaiities theie aie
also notable uiffeiences as the applicant has pioposeu ieasonable
aujustments that meet iequiiements of the Builuing Regulations.

Incoiiect; Appioveu uocument N sets minimum stanuaius iequiieu by builuing
iegulation. Neeting builuing iegulation stanuaius can be achieveu using
uiffeient solutions but the solutions shoulu at least meet the iequiiements of
appioveu uocument N oi bettei them.

The Secietaiy of States opinion of Access Statements is: "#$ %&'&()(&*+, *- ,./# )
0*/.'$+( ,#*.%0 )%,* 1$ 2$/*3+&,$04 5( &, #&, *6&+&*+ (#)( 7#$2$ )//$,, ,()($'$+(,
)2$ .,$0 (* 8.,(&-9 '$),.2$, 7#&/# 0* +*( -*%%*7 (#$ 3.&0)+/$ 62*:&0$0 &+ ;< = (#$
62$,.'6(&*+ '.,( 2$')&+ (#)( (#$,$ )%($2+)(&:$, 62*:&0$ $>.&:)%$+( )'$+&(9 &+
$+)1%&+3 )//$,, (* )+0 .,$ *- ) 1.&%0&+3 )+0 &(, -)/&%&(&$,4
?#&%,( 9*. &+0&/)($ (#)( 9*.2 /%&$+( /.22$+(%9 $'6%*9, *+%9 (#2$$ 6$*6%$ *+ (#$ -&2,(
-%**2@ (#$ A*.+/&% >.&($ 2&3#(%9 ,.33$,(, (#)( )+ *--&/$ *- (#&, ,&B$ /*.%0
)//*''*0)($ )2*.+0 (#&2($$+ 6$*6%$ )+0 (#$2$-*2$ (#&, +.'1$2 ')9 /#)+3$ &+ (#$
-.(.2$4 C$3)20%$,, *- (#$ +.'1$2 *- ,()--@ (#$ D$/2$()29 *- D()($ +*($, (#)( (#$ .,$ *-
(#$ -&2,( -%**2 &, ,&3+&-&/)+(%9 0&--$2$+( (* (#$ 32*.+0 -%**24 E$ ()F$, (#$ :&$7 (#)( &+
(#&, 6)2(&/.%)2 /),$ 7#)( ')9 1$ ,$$+ ), 2$),*+)1%$ 7*.%0 1$ (#$ 62*:&,&*+ *-
*--&/$, *- (#$ ,)'$ .,$ )+0 ,(*2)3$ *+ 1*(# -%**2,@ &4$4 +*( 62*:&0&+3 ) 6)2(&/.%)2
-)/&%&(9 *2 .,$ (#)( &, +*( )//$,,&1%$ (* )%%4

;,&0$ -2*' (#$ 6*,,&1%$ 0&--&/.%(&$, 62$,$+($0 (* :&,&(*2, 7#* )2$ 7#$$%/#)&2 .,$2,@
(#$ )00&(&*+)% /*,( (* (#$ *7+$2 *2 *//.6&$2 *- ')F&+3 -.(.2$ %&-( 62*:&,&*+ 7*.%0
1$ '*2$ %&F$%9 (* /2$)($ /*+0&(&*+, 7#$2$ 7#$$%/#)&2 .,$2, '&3#( 1$ 0&,/2&'&+)($0
)3)&+,( 7#$+ 1$&+3 /*+,&0$2$0 -*2 $'6%*9'$+(4

I piesume that my layman's view of the law is that if the Secietaiy of State has
maue a uecision it can now be useu as case law anu if this is not the case can be
useu as iefeience in couit pioceeuings.

The iesponse lettei uateu 28
1
}anuaiy iefeiieu to above by the complainant
uiu not state "Fitz Aichitects can choose to uelivei seivice to the public as they
please". The claimant is misquoting what the iesponse actually saiu.
The Conuitional appioval uoes not incluue a conuition that "an access
statement will be piouuceu which will incluue a piovision foi home
woiking foi all staff" The conuition actually states "Compliance on site
with agieeu access statement"
0nce again incoiiect I have not misquoteu anu have attacheu the ieply.
The exact woius weie; G&(B )2/#&($/(, #):$ 1$$+ 2$>.$,($0 (* 62*:&0$ )+
)//$,, ,()($'$+( &+ 2$%)(&*+ (* (#$ .,$ *- (#$ 62*6*,$0 ,&+3%$ *--&/$ )+0 (#&,
,#*.%0 &+/%.0$ 62*:&,&*+, (#)( )002$,, (#$ 6*&+(, 9*. #):$ 2)&,$0 ), )
,.66*,&(&*+4 H*. ,#*.%0 )662$/&)($ (#)( (#$ +)(.2$ *- (#$&2 1.,&+$,, 7&%%
&+-%.$+/$ #*7 (#$9 /#**,$ (* 0$%&:$2 &(@ &+/%.0&+3 62*:&,&*+, -*2 #*'$I7*2F&+3
-*2 )%% ,()--4


South Tynesiue Council has not faileu to enfoice the Builuing Regulations. Pait
N of the iegulations iequiies "ieasonable piovision shall be maue foi people
to gain access to anu use the builuing anu its facilities". Appioveu Bocument
N offeis guiuance anu pioviues only one possible way of meeting the
iequiiements. Bevelopeis aie not iequiieu to comply with Appioveu
Bocument N, which has pieviously been communicateu to the complainant.

The Appioveu Bocuments usually take the foim of fiistly stating the legislation
anu then pioviuing a numbei of means which aie ueemeu to satisfy the
Regulations. 0nce again it seems that STC takes the view that ieasonable
piovision to gain access to anu use the builuing anu its facilities is what seems
ieasonable to them anu the aichitect. They aie ignoiing the iequiiements of
builuing iegulations anu the equality act. As the attacheu photo shows even the
statement fiom STC that level access to the ietail units has been achieveu it is
plain to see it has not.

This last paiagiaph below is actually nonsense.

South Tynesiue Council has not faileu in its public sectoi equality uuty. The
Equality Act 2u1u iequiies the Council in making uecisions to have 'uue
iegaiu' to the neeu to eliminate unlawful uisciimination, auvance equality of
oppoitunity anu to fostei goou ielations. The Council also hau uue iegaiu to
the neeu to iemove oi minimise uisauvantages suffeieu by people uue to a
piotecteu chaiacteiistic (foi example people with a uisability) anu also took
steps to meet the neeus of people with ceitain piotecteu chaiacteiistics.
These issues weie consiueieu in uetail anu the Council concluueu that they
weie fully auuiesseu in the access statement.

This statement simply says we know what we aie supposeu to uo, but pioviues
no eviuence that anything was uone to pievent uisciimination against peisons
with mobility pioblems.

Below is pait of a fieeuom of infoimation iequest I maue to STC.

Builuing Contiol Peifoimance Stanuaius 2uu6 Beals with the keeping of
auequate iecoius in iespect of plans assessment anu site inspection.

The Stanuaius anu uuiuance which follow establish the level of peifoimance
consiueieu essential as a minimum in caiiying out those tasks in such a way
that a BCB's uuties anu liabilities unuei the legislation aie auequately
uischaigeu.

ASSESSNENT 0F PLANS Wheie assessment of plans is unueitaken, cleai
infoimation shall be communicateu to the client iegaiuing: non-compliance
with the Builuing Regulations views of statutoiy consultees conuitions
peitaining to the appioval oi passing of plans iemeuies available in the event
of a uispute ovei compliance. Recoius of the plans assessment piocess:
iecoius shall be kept of the uesign assessment philosophy, anu any statutoiy
anuoi uiscietionaiy consultations, foi futuie iefeience anu continuity
of contiol.