Hi Claire
Many thanks for your reply.
There is The Guide to Development in Manchester which is a SPD and refers
to Design for Access 2, which they haven't followed and we have mentioned
this.
In relation to councillors, one has already given evidence but as an
individual and not as a councillor. I know at least one other is
supportive but it would put them in a difficult position to ask them to
give evidence against the Council.
We had already decided to get some press coverage in relation to the
street even before the public enquiry but are busy with the evidence and
cross examination at the moment. We will definitely consider this sooner
rather than later!
It seems to be an issue on which there is no or very little written
information legally, so it might be possible to get support in the future
for other shared space areas if the Planning Inspector takes a position on
this. The main issue here is that it is part of a complex, where other
shared spaces tend to be being developed on highways that are not part of
complexes. Enforcement by Building Control would be a good way to get
better provision though.
Best wishes
Flick
> Hi Flick,
>
> I don't have experience in arguing this point in so detailed a manner but
> think it sounds like you have some strong points to make. Isn't it sad it
> comes down to arguments like this and not about how the best environment
> can be provided.
>
> Some points that might help:
> 1) Does the local authority have a local development plan (I'm thinking of
> something similar to the City Plan 2 here in Glasgow) that might have a
> policy statement about creating inclusive spaces that you could use to
> help your argument and move the argument from 'what is necessary' to 'how
> can we improve'.
> 2) It might be worth finding a good councillor or local MP who will help
> you argue your case with the council.
> 3) If you are continuously fighting these battles you could get local
> press to apply pressure.
>
> Hope some of that might be helpful. Very good luck!
>
> Claire
>
>
>
>
> Claire Hyland
> PhD Student
> Department of Architecture
> University of Strathclyde
> Email: [log in to unmask]
>
> ________________________________________
> From: Accessibuilt list [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Flick
> Harris [[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: 26 October 2014 19:14
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: definition of access route and enforcement issues
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> Has anyone been involved in the enforcement of Part M in relation to
> access routes?
>
> I am involved in a public inquiry which is ongoing and have been arguing
> that 1.1 defines an access route as a route between buildings within a
> complex. The street has been described by witnesses and in evidence to the
> Planning Inspector as a part of the Town Hall Complex. 1.13 requires a
> "level approach" from the boundary of the site and from car parking spaces
> designated for disabled people to the principal entrance, to a staff
> entrance or to an alternative accessible entrance..... and is (g)
> ...."well lit" and (h) requiring ....a separate pedestrian route and,
> where there is an uncontrolled crossing point across the vehicular route,
> this is identified by a buff coloured blister surface..."
>
> The Planning Inspector says he has never heard of this point before.
>
> The Building Control Officer is arguing that it is not an access route
> because although the only accessible entry to the Town Hall is on the
> route, there are other routes to get into the Town Hall Complex from the
> Town Hall. There is also a Changing Places toilet only accessible from
> this street.
>
> He is arguing that although there is a shared surface (all white roadway
> and pedestrian route into the traffic controlled by a barrier, with white
> tactile paving), it is not enforceable. Also that although there are deep
> shadows along the route because of "Victorian Lighting", this is also not
> enforceable.
>
> Although the car parking for disabled staff is not marked out as required
> in 1.18, using only metal studs, this is not apparently not enforceable
> because it isn't an access route.
>
> Also, although the parking is worse than before in the new development,
> the material alterations apply to buildings not access routes.
>
> The street in contention is owned by the Council and is an unadopted
> highway.
>
> Do you think I can argue that the street breaches Building Regs? I can
> still refer to the Equality Act and Guidance on Tactile Paving Surfaces
> but would like to be able to apply breach of BR as well! I have been asked
> to provide a statement to the QC representing the Town Hall and to the
> Planning Inspector by Thursday.
>
> The issue has arisen because another route has probable access barriers
> for people with sensory impairments and for people who are unable to
> negotiate crowds e.g. neuro-diverse people and people with learning
> difficulties because of a new link building and is being closed as a
> public right of way (Library Walk). This access route, Lloyd St, is being
> argued as being a convenient alternative route.
>
> Best wishes, Flick
>
> ----------End of Message----------
> Run by SURFACE for more information on research, teaching and consultancy:
> http://www.surface.salford.ac.uk
> Archives for the Accessibuilt discussion list are located at
> http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/accessibuilt.html
>
> ----------End of Message----------
> Run by SURFACE for more information on research, teaching and consultancy:
> http://www.surface.salford.ac.uk
> Archives for the Accessibuilt discussion list are located at
> http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/accessibuilt.html
>
----------End of Message----------
Run by SURFACE for more information on research, teaching and consultancy:
http://www.surface.salford.ac.uk
Archives for the Accessibuilt discussion list are located at http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/accessibuilt.html
|