|
PLANNING AND INCLUSIVE DESIGN [ACCESS STATEMENTS] BRECKNOCK ACCESS GROUP RESPONSE TO CONSULTATION DOCUMENT [1] GENERAL OBSERVATIONS: In his foreword to the Guide for Planning Authorities in England the then Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister [ODPM] Tony McNulty outlined the Government’s commitment to an inclusive society and to the aim of “..breaking down unnecessary physical barriers and exclusions imposed on disabled people by poor design of buildings and places.” He emphasised the importance of disabled people being “..properly considered as an integral part of the development process” and “of early consultation with [them] when preparing planning applications.” The ODPM document goes on to say “Our research highlights that inclusive design is often not closely considered by planning officers for the following reasons: - inclusive design is not seen by planners to be of relevance to planning applications; - an absence of pre-application discussions means that applicants unknowingly submit inappropriately designed schemes; - an absence of an up-to-date development plan or supplementary planning policy guidance on inclusive design means many officers do not raise inclusive design as a relevant issue; - a lack of planning staff with a suitable understanding of inclusive design means that many applications are not adequately scrutinised.” The experience of the Brecknock Access Group over many years’ working for ‘access for all’ has given us sufficient evidence of shortcomings in the operation of the planning & development control system that strongly supports the observations of the ODPM. This experience has shown that (a) there is little or no liaison between planning and building control officers, (b) there is a culture of permissions being granted without proper consideration being given to access issues on the assumption that ‘building control will sort this out at building stage’, (c) there are developers who actively seek to evade building control regulations through the employment of approved building control companies who [again to our direct knowledge] appear to be able to ‘sign off’ whatever the developer requires, accessible or not, and (d) there is not the will, or sufficient staff, to undertake enforcement where consents have been breached. The net result of this situation has been that local authority building control officers have been powerless to stop inaccessible developments once planning permission has been granted. Our principal concern, is therefore, that planning authorities should take full responsibility for both the external and internal details of each development, thus denying developers and approved inspectors the opportunity to revise and down grade accessible elements of the development after planning consent has been granted. [2] CONTEXT; we support the statement on para. 10, page 5, on the need for training; this is necessary at all levels – architects, planning officers, members of planning committees. Will the DCW and the Assembly Government ensure that disabled people and their organisations are involved in the delivery of this training? [3] DEFINITION OF INCLUSIVE DESIGN AND PURPOSE OF ACCESS STATEMENTS: [a] we have no objection to the definition of inclusive design set out in para. 1.1 but have real concern at the conflicting and ambiguous statements as to how it should be applied. While para. 2.3 refers to the need for statements to explain and justify the principles and concepts of inclusive design “to be reflected in individual aspects of the scheme” the same paragraph goes on to say that only “access to the development” and “peoples access to the development” are to be considered. Further, para. 2.7 says statements “should not extend to internal aspects of individual buildings” Having regard to the points made in our general observations, if statements are to be restricted solely to external aspects of a development it will be a gift-horse to developers wishing to ignore access issues. We are, therefore, strongly of the view that access statements must require applicants to refer to both external and internal aspects of each development. [b] para. 2.6 states that LPA’s “should consider” agreeing a consultation protocol with local access groups where significant residential developments or other developments involving extensive use by the public are concerned. Similarly para. 2.8 refers to the availability of “much published good practice”. Leaving aside the question as to who decides what is ‘significant’ or ‘extensive’ these well-meaning proposals are unlikely to result in the engagement with disabled people that is hoped for. We have been awash with guidance notes, TAN’s, and UDP’s for years, all of which urge ‘best practice’ and ‘should consider’ and give otherwise excellent advice which has not been nor is likely to be acted upon. We feel that because many, if not most, planning authorities are under-staffed with rigid timetables to work to are unlikely to respond to anything other than a firm directive and/or a recognised monitoring system organised by the WAG or WLGA. [c] we are disappointed that statements are not proposed for the development of existing dwelling houses, and also that it is not at all clear which residential developments will require a statement. We are conscious of the fact that many disabled people are unable to visit family and friends who live in houses built before access or the concerns of disabled people were even thought of. Public policy should now be directed on ending this situation by promoting the concept of ‘housing for life’. It follows, therefore, that we feel strongly that all residential developments of any size, and all refurbishments to existing dwellings that require planning permission should also require the submission of an access statement. [d] we are concerned at the concept referred to in para. 2.7 that an access statement should be seen as, and be part of “a seamless living access statement…that grows with the project..”. Our experience is that all too often initial proposals for development contain the necessary access content, which then receives planning permission, and which at completion stage has either been downgraded or deleted altogether. For this reason we re-iterate our view that no consent should be granted until the planning officer is satisfied that the access statement and plans clearly show how all aspects of accessibility will be achieved, and also that the permission is subject to the condition that these be adhered to until the completion of the project. [4] other areas where inclusive design is vital for disabled people are On site emergency evacuation routes Listed sites other than buildings Public transport and taxi drop-off points for developments such as hospitals, health centres, sports & leisure facilities and supermarkets Road and street design – particularly for town centres and large housing developments Public infrastructure developments such as bridges and underpasses We are concerned that there is little or no mention of these in the consultation document but are areas where disabled people often experience great difficulties due to lack of proper forward planning and inclusive design. They should be included where appropriate as necessary matters for inclusion in access statements. [5] CONCLUSION; It is our view that agreed procedures associated with new legislation should be based on the recognition that, as in all other walks of life, there will always be a percentage who will actively seek to evade the rules and obligations that the majority abide by. In respect of planning matters the proof of this is clearly seen by the growing number of inaccessible buildings and conversions completed in Wales, despite the 1995 and 2005 Disability Discrimination Acts, new building control regulations, and appeals for ‘best practice’. The long overdue but welcome legislation introducing the requirement for applicants to submit an access statement gives an opportunity to adopt firm and clear procedures that will close the loopholes currently being exploited by an unscrupulous minority and at the same time be of assistance to those who seek to abide by the spirit and letter of the legislation. Anything less will be an opportunity missed, and a cruel blow to disabled people who continue to struggle to achieve an inclusive environment. BRECKNOCK ACCESS GROUP MAY 2007 |