Patrick,
This is indeed an involved and difficult question, and one that has no real
answer at the moment as far as I am aware at present (week 9 of a new post).
Part M of the Building Regulations is certainly not a particularly all
encompassing piece of work., it provides many unanswered issues and loopholes
for developers. In my experience the incoming Part III of the DDA will provide a
more powerful vehicle to improve access issues for all groups covered by the
definition of disability within the DDA itself. The newly launched Disability
Rights Commission (launched today) will also prove to be an invaluable ally in
enforcing Part III and could also be a powerful agent for establishing a better
system of enforcing adaptations to buildings and services. I totally agree with
you about the lack of provision for learning disabilities/difficulties and
mental and cognitive impairments, and do realise the weaknesses of the current
Building regulations in that respect. The scope of disability has, I feel, not
been taken into account when these regulations were drafted and it is only now
when rights are being explored and developed are the shortcomings becoming more
obvious.
Interestingly, some adaptations for visual impairment have had a positive effect
for people with learning disabilities: improvements in signage, making routes
clearly marked, etc. but there is a long way to go. It is something I am going
to have to address. In fact I am already developing networks here where these
issues can be identified and discussed, as there is a large community of people
with learning disabilities, autism, Down's syndrome and psychiatric difficulties
living in the locality since the closure of the local mental hospitals.
I'm sorry if I can't respond any more positively than that, and can only really
agree with you. It is an important area to consider when looking at any access
issue, and one that is built into my approach already.
Please don't hesitate to contact me on or off list to discuss this further.
Rob
-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick N. Weston - PSM [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 19 April 2000 11:59
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: RE: Introduction
Afraid that it has been a long time since I've entered into discussions on
this forum.
Rob,
I don't know if you get to access past correspondence when you join up with
the group but to bore everyone else and give you a bit of a low down on me,
I am the Property Services Manager of Emirates (an airline based in Dubai).
I have an autistic son (Daniel) and, as such, have been following the
progress of the DDA with quite some interest.
I serve on the RICS's Working Group on the DDA and as such have been given
the opportunity to comment on various items such as the draft Code of
Practice to go with the DDA and various bits of British Standards that are
being developed.
I would be interested in gaining some feedback and thoughts from someone
with your job responsibilities in respect of what is to be done for people
with mental impairments. The draft code of practice and the parts of the BS
that I've looked at concentrate in large part on the physically and sensory
impaired. I have gone ahead and sent comments suggesting examples for
people with autism. I know that mental impairments are difficult to
legislate for and to give examples of solutions since the range of
disability is wide. Nevertheless, 95% of the disabled population in the UK
are not physically handicapped and they seem to be being ignored.
There is a great deal of research and many examples of how those with visual
impairments should be catered for but very little on autism and how to make
the environment accessible for them. When one realises that there are some
2 million visually impaired people in the UK (figures given to me by the
University of Reading) and that there are some 2 million people that have an
autistic spectrum disorder in the UK, the balance is not good. I
concentrate on autism because of my son's circumstances but when one starts
to add in other mental impairments the numbers must escalate but very little
is said as to how they should be accommodated.
I have raised the issue with my local MP (well local to my UK base in
Devon), The Rt Hon Nick Harvey, and he has been exemplary in taking this
forward to the point that Margaret Hodge MBE, etc has written back
addressing my concerns. Unfortunately, her response shows how ignorant that
our legislators are of the needs of the mentally impaired. An extract of my
response to Nick Harvey on this follows:
"The comments from Margaret Hodge on Part M of the Building
Regulations and the example (of which I was familiar) given for evacuation
from a town hall in the event of a fire outlines the point that I seek to
make precisely. To quote her "the definition of "disabled people" under the
(building) Regulations includes those who have impaired hearing or sight, as
well as people with mobility impairments. Ms Hodges' comment on the town
hall evacuation states "as a reasonable adjustment which will help make the
service accessible for disabled people, the town hall modifies its
procedures (with the agreement of the local fire authority) to allow
visitors with mobility or sensory impairment to be evacuated safely."
Autism and other mental impairments are clearly excluded
from these. Such people do not suffer from mobility impairments - my son is
extremely able bodied and has a 0 to 60 speed that would leave a Porsche
standing. He has no hearing or sight impairment. Autism is not a sensory
impairment and neither is a myriad of other mental disabilities. Although
the DDA does enforce provision for such people, the DDA, Codes of Practice
and BSI all seem to be missing examples of how to provide services (and
access) to such people. I am bringing these into my comments on any drafts
that I am asked to comment upon. I do believe though, that the general
thinking within these bodies is in line with Margaret Hodges' thinking, that
they are adequately commented. They are not."
If you have time, I would be very interested to have your thoughts on this
aspect of DDA compliance.
Regards,
Patrick
-----Original Message-----
From: [log in to unmask] [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2000 7:57 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Introduction
List members,
Just a brief note of introduction. My name is Rob Bracewell and I am the
recently appointed Access Officer for Lancaster City Council, one of only
two
full-time access officers employed in my region. I am looking forward to
participating and hopefully adding to any discussion.
Regards,
Rob
___________________________________________________________________________
The information in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally
privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to
this e-mail by anyone else is unauthorised. If you are not the
intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any
action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited
and may be unlawful. Although this e-mail and any attachments are
believed to be free of any virus, or any other defect which might
affect any computer or IT system into which they are received and
opened, it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that they are
virus free and no responsibility is accepted by Lancaster City
Council for any loss or damage arising in any way from receipt or
use thereof.
Furthermore the views contained in this e-mail are those of the originator.
Unless they state otherwise they are not the views or opinions of the
Council.
_____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
__
This message has been checked for all known viruses by Star Internet
delivered
through the MessageLabs Virus Control Centre. For further information visit-
http://www.star.net.uk/stats.asp
______________________________________________________________________________
This message has been checked for all known viruses by Star Internet delivered
through the MessageLabs Virus Control Centre. For further information visit-
http://www.star.net.uk/stats.asp
___________________________________________________________________________
The information in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally
privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to
this e-mail by anyone else is unauthorised. If you are not the
intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any
action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited
and may be unlawful. Although this e-mail and any attachments are
believed to be free of any virus, or any other defect which might
affect any computer or IT system into which they are received and
opened, it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that they are
virus free and no responsibility is accepted by Lancaster City
Council for any loss or damage arising in any way from receipt or
use thereof.
Furthermore the views contained in this e-mail are those of the originator.
Unless they state otherwise they are not the views or opinions of the Council.
_____________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
This message has been checked for all known viruses by Star Internet delivered
through the MessageLabs Virus Control Centre. For further information visit-
http://www.star.net.uk/stats.asp
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
