Dear all,

Herewith some correspondence that I sent to the RICS some while ago that
outlines some of the areas that I would like to tackle and put into the job
description/objectives of the RICS's group for disabilities.  This
communication was sent for discussion within their working group on
disabilities which has proved to be less than useful.

I think that the RICS should be giving advice to Property Developers on what
they need to do to comply with the DDA.  I think that the RICS should be
comparing legislation from other countries where legislation is already in
place (USA, Canada and Australia) taking the best from that and importing it
into UK legislation, therefore they need to give practical recommendations
to the concerned government departments and ministers.  I think that the
RICS needs to liaise and 
co-ordinate with medical professionals, interest groups for those that
cannot talk for themselves, disabled people themselves (those of us who are
not disabled are doing this from the outside looking in whereas it is
imperative that we have people who are on the inside looking out) and of
course other property professionals including fire authorities.

I hope that this gives some ideas on what I am seeking to achieve but do
accept that I am looking at this from one perspective.  I do believe very
strongly that "access" is not just limited to physical access, there are
mental blocks to access and it is very difficult to get people to understand
this.

If any of you are looking at the Autism99 web conference there is a lot in
there that you may find germane.  I believe that if you get it right for
autistic people, then de facto you get it right for many other mental
disabilities.

I think that there is a need for greater clarity within the DDA as to
precisely who is responsible for ensuring that facilities are provided to
meet the DDA's requirements (both now and proposed).  For instance, it is
not clear to me (and I lease a great deal of property from thrid parties)
who is actually responsible - the service provider or the building owner.
That too is something that I would like to see clarified and legislated.

To answer your question on how the group is to meet.  The intent is to do
the majority of work via e-mail contact.  There will obviously be a need for
meetings to get face to face contact going.  Working for an airline, that is
not an obstacle for me (although my poor body may find it so), since they
have indicated that they will give me support - which means that this will
be considered as duty travel.  Obviously will need to fit around my duties.

Thank you for your support and help.


Dear Howard and Jo,

Further to our recent correspondence and the minutes of the last meeting
that was forwarded to me, I attach a Word document that outlines a number of
points that I believe should be considered, as well as some suggestions for
consideration.


				 <<RCISDDA1.DOC>> 

It may be worthwhile circulating this to the attendees of the next meeting
for their prior information.

I hope that this is helpful and look forward to receiving your feedback.

Regards,


Patrick


	-----Original Message-----
	From:	[log in to unmask]
[SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
	Sent:	Monday, November 22, 1999 9:27 PM
	To:	[log in to unmask]
	Subject:	RE: RICS input

	Hi Patrick

	I think we would all welcome the opportunity to try and shape your 
	destiny at the RICS and very noble of you it is to offer your
services 
	to them at their normal rate of pay I would guess (i.e. for free)
;-) It 
	may help some of us to get our heads around it a bit better if you 
	could pen a cople of lines saying loosely what the brief might be.
fo 
	rinstance the group/panel/whatever you are chairing is it to cut 
	across all sections of the RICS? I seem to remember you 
	mentioned that it would help external bodies who may approach 
	the RICS on access issues. How often will your group meet? Who 
	is likely to be on it?

	Lookin gforward to helping you

	marcus