|
Home
About
Us
Media
Priorities
Publications
Education
Students
Service
Guide
Contact
Us
|
1. PDCN Welcomes the
Potential Benefits of Plan First
1.1. The
Physical Disability Council endorses the general
thrust of the "Plan First" proposals to
rationalise planning processes by providing a
single state planning document that enunciates
general State land use policies, building
policies as well as local and regional
environmental plans. We support this thrust
because the proposals have the potential to
enhance the requirement of suppliers of
infrastructure and services to account for the
requirements of people with disability.
1.2. Potential
benefit is not, however, actual progress. It is
vitally important that new planning procedures
make explicit the intention to ensure that the
needs of people with physical disability are
fundamental to the common understanding of the
minimum quality required of any and all planning
processes. Planning mechanisms and processes
that respect diversity of need and planning for
the inclusion of all are prerequisites of good
planning. Commitment to such principles should
be an essential part of the core values of any
revision of the NSW State planning
regime.
2. A Broader Context of
Law
2.1. While
the Disability Discrimination Act (1992)
and amendments already requires government
bodies, Local Councils, consent authorities,
service providers, developers and builders to
account for these requirements, the result has
been only marginal improvement in access
provisions. This is because current provisions
take only a marginal approach, 'after the
event', instead of the networking and systems
approaches which would incorporate 'Universal
Accessibility', from the outset and throughout
the process.
2.2. PDCN believes
that the Cooper
v Coffs Harbour has
established that the DDA has primacy over
conflicting State legislation. It has also
established that the EP & A Act is not
'exhaustive' in the extent to which it outlines
other relevant issues (such as the DDA) that
need to be considered by consent
authorities.
2.3. Clearly the
DDA requires Local Councils to take requirements
for access into account. Local Councils have
been slow to respond to these requirements
because they have been uncertain of their
powers, in particular, in relation to the
intention of the State Environmental Planning
legislation, which has, to date, ignored the
requirements for provision of access. Local
Councils, as a construction of State Government,
derive their development consent powers from the
State Government. They are familiar with its
operations, and, particularly in regards to
environmental and land use planning, take
direction from State Planning Policies and
Regulations.
2.4. We believe
that the 'Plan First' proposals have the
potential to resolve these uncertainties by
clearly articulating "Universal Access" as a
requirement.
2.5. While the
Building Code of Australia mandates minimum
standards for building access, building access
is only a small part of the environment. The
Code does not articulate the totality of the
relationships between buildings and their
surroundings (including landscape, footpaths,
transport, recreation use etc.). Nor does it
articulate the operational conditions necessary
to appropriately maintain accessibility. These
relationships (linkages) are an essential part
of environmental planning, and an integral part
of creating an inclusive and accessible
community.
3. People with Disability
Not Represented by Current Conceptions of
Diversity
3.1. PDCN is
concerned that the "Plan First" document does
not specifically acknowledge the requirements of
people with disability. These requirements are
not adequately represented by a general
acknowledgement of 'community diversity' that is
neither defined in detail nor specified with
particular regard to the already known
circumstances of real groups of people.
3.2. PDCN
recognises that indigenous people, women,
minority cultural groups, youth, seniors, people
on low incomes and other demographic groupings
have unique architectural and planning and
service provision. The needs of people with
disability are no less unique or valid. None of
these communities can be adequately represented
within inadequately defined, undifferentiated
ideas represented by the generic term 'community
diversity'.
3.3. The
requirements of people with disability are not
adequately represented by conceptions of
'community diversity' needs for a number of
reasons;
3.4. People with
disability are not just part of what is known as
'community diversity'. Everyone contributes to
the diversity of communities. People with
disability are part of the general community.
3.5. Every
individual is directly or indirectly connected
to people with disability, either to a family
member, friend or colleague. And every person
with no current disability is potentially a
person with disability. In the context of
demographic change towards a population in
Australia living to older ages than in earlier
times, the likelihood increases of there being a
larger number of people with a direct experience
of disability. When people acquire disability or
have friends or relatives who acquire
disability, they do not change their tastes and
preferences except to the extent that they are
forced to change because of an inaccessible
built environment or social and environmental
structures that exclude members of minority
groups. An accessible environment is of
potential benefit to everyone. Accessibility is,
therefore, a requirement for communities rather
than part of what is labelled as a 'diverse
community'.
3.6. The needs of
the people with disability are no different from
the population as a whole. People with
disability seek to live, shop, play and move
throughout every community. The ways in which
those needs are met may be different, however,
for people with disability. This means that
planners and providers must accept their
obligation to meet the needs of people with
disability through planning systems that relate
to social and environmental structures,
buildings, modes of transport, recreation areas,
footpaths and the relationship of each of these
aspects both to one another and to the common
domain.
3.7. Without a
State Planning Policy on Accessibility, the
requirements of people with disability may only,
at best, be accounted for at the local level,
but not at the regional level. This would
perpetuate current situations where, for
example, pathways in areas that straddle
adjoining councils stop being accessible because
one Council takes access into account but the
other does not. Or where services provided by
councils vary across boundaries.
3.8. PDCN is
alarmed that the "Plan First" document ignores
people with disability (at worst) or (at best)
'lumps' us into the undifferentiated, undefined
"community diversity" category. The failure to
specifically recognise the requirements of
people with disability as a discrete demographic
grouping shows a lack of understanding of these
requirements.
3.9. This failure
is also, arguably, unlawful under the Disability
Discrimination Act. The proposed approach does
not provide critical safeguards to people with
disability to ensure that their requirements can
and will be considered and met through
systematic planning processes.
4. Needs of a State Planning
Policy
4.1. A State
planning policy on Universal Access is essential
for implementing procedures and protocols that
make best use of relevant current standards and
guidelines. Accessibility must be systematically
planned and implemented. It must be provided
consistently rather than in a haphazard
incremental fashion.
4.2. A State
planning policy on accessibility
should:
- Place Universal Access
at the front end of the planning and design
process;
- Call up relevant
standards;
- Require the
application of standards and guidelines to
linkage issues- in particular to the
interface of development sites with the
common domain;
- Require competent
assessment of accessibility issues in
Development Applications, construction
certificates and occupation certificate
stages
- Require the
involvement of people with specific access
expertise in planning, design and consent
processes.
4.3. The Olympic
Co-Ordination Authority developed a planning
model that proved to be world-class and which
provides a "best-practice" model for planning,
providing and managing access across the built
environment from conception through to
occupation and operation.
4.4. PDCN believes
the application of the OCA access planning model
and its requirements for access expertise and
accountability throughout projects provides a
useable, road-tested approach. This approach
has, by its nature, been endorsed by the State
Government and therefore should not present
difficulties in being used as part of an ongoing
State approach to creating Universal
Access.
5. Ideas for Community
Consultation
5.1. PDCN
believes that the Plan First companion paper,
'Ideas for Community Consultation', as a random
selection process, will disadvantage people with
disability for several reasons;
5.1.1.
People with disability, as a demographic
grouping, are diverse, and cannot be
represented in a consultation forum by a
single person with disability. A person who
has a vision impairment may have only
slightly greater understanding of the
environmental and infrastructure needs of
people who use a wheelchair than does any
other informed citizen. Likewise, a person
who uses a wheelchair has only slightly more
understanding of the environmental and
infrastructure needs of a person with an
ambulant disability than does a person who
has a vision impairment.
5.1.2. The
requirements of people with disability have
been, (as demonstrated in past experience),
overwhelmingly dominated by the needs of the
local non-disabled majority. Our requirements
have often been ignored. This is because
people without disability generally
significantly understate their own chances of
acquiring disability and they significantly
understate the disadvantage of disability
caused by environment and infrastructure. In
short, people without disability are poor
representatives of their own potential future
self-interest.
5.1.3. People
with disability are often overwhelmed by
force of numbers, personality, culture,
education, and financial detail in widespread
community consultations. The needs of people
with disability are too often drowned out by
the "noise" of the broader community.
Community facilitators without disability
experience generally include the disability
voice as part of the "noise" rather than a
voice with experience that is relevant to the
future life chances of the general
community.
6. Local Government Access
Committees
6.1. In some
Councils, Access Committees have provided a
consultation process, which has led to the
development of improved accessibility in that
local area. Appropriately resourced Access
Committees have helped Councils to identify
local barriers and issues for people with
disability and incorporate strategies to address
them within Council Social Plans and Disability
Action Plans.
6.2. PDCN believes
that:
6.2.1. An
Access Committee structure incorporating
people with a wide range of experiences of
disability should be constituted in every
Council and Region.
6.2.2. Closer
links between local access committees and
Regional Forums of Access Committees would
assist implementation of a State Policy on
Accessibility through greater coordination
and consistency amongst regions.
6.2.3. Councils
and Regions should be mandated to consult
with the Access Committees separately from
general community consultations, while
ensuring that at least two members of the
Access Committee should be involved in the
general community consultation.
6.2.4. Access
Committees should be resourced by full-time
Access Workers to assist them in implementing
the state policies relating to access. We
stress that this type of position requires a
focus on access and planning. It will not be
adequately achieved where a generic Community
Worker is responsible for both
Aged/Disability issues. This is because there
is too much pressure (and need) in these
roles to concentrate on service provision
rather than strategic planning or
implementing broad policy objectives.
7. The Role of an Access
Committee could include:
7.1. Advising
on policy.
7.2. Providing a
local forum to raise issues of importance for
people with disability
7.3. Advocating for
local people with a disability. In respect to
planning/building/approval and development
issues
8. We recognise and
support the importance of Access Committee's in the
consultation and policy development process.
However they should not be seen as a total
solution, or as an alternative that operates
outside of a thorough policy framework.
9. Such a framework
would include,
9.1. A
Council Access Policy,
9.2. Appropriate
planning controls and instruments (current LEP's
and DCP's) and
9.3. Appropriate
procedures to address access issues in existing
Development Assessment processes.
10. PDCN believes
Access Committees are an important part of
improving local and regional accessibility. We
believe they are best positioned to interrogate the
solutions offered by the professionals involved.
But we must stress that they are not there to
develop solutions and policy in absence of
professionals or professional processes, as is too
often the case currently.
11. Conclusion
11.1. Plan
First has the potential to improve accessibility
outcomes across NSW.
11.2. Improvements
will only happen if there is a State Planning
Policy on Accessibility. If there is no such
State Policy, Plan First could greatly limit the
ability of local and regional authorities to
effectively address issues of access for people
with disability. If there is no such policy,
Plan First will perpetuate the barriers that
prevent people with disability from exercising
their rights of citizenship. It will perpetuate
barriers that deny fundamental rights in
employment and participation in the civil,
social, cultural and political life of the
community. If there is no such policy, Plan
First will perpetuate the status of people with
disability as second-class citizens.
— PDCN Submission to Department of Urban
Affairs and Planning - May, 2001
|
