|
Home
About
Us
Media
Priorities
Publications
Education
Students
Service
Guide
Contact
Us
|
Contents
1.
Introduction
2.
People with Physical Disability In
NSW
3.
Accessible Public Building
4.
Private Dwellings
5.
Certification
6.
Conclusion
Appendix
I: Housing For Everyone
1.
Introduction
The Physical
Disability Council of NSW (PDCN) welcomes the
opportunity to comment on the quality of
building in New South Wales. PDCN believes that
all people with physical disability should be
able to participate in society as equal citizens
to the same extent as the rest of the community.
This requires an effectively operating social
contract between individuals and society. The
contract has two elements:
- People with physical
disability must be entitled to the rights and
accept the responsibilities that attach to
the power available to the population
generally to exercise choice and personal
autonomy;
- Society must accept
and promote its essential role in creating an
accessible social, cultural, political and
economic infrastructure, including the built
environment through which we move and in
which we live and work alongside
others.
In summary the view of
PDCN is simply this:
We believe that
accessibility is a fundamental component of
quality in relation to building design. It is
crucial that buildings are safe and efficient
for users. It is critical that they perform the
roles intended for them in ways that fulfill
their objectives. Buildings must be
user-friendly, safe, well designed,
environmentally sustainable and
comfortable.
If, however, a building is
not accessible at all or offers limited access
or access only by less dignified means for
people with disability than for the community of
users as a whole, we assert that such buildings
lack quality. Such buildings are fundamentally
flawed in conception, design, construction and
functional capability.
At PDCN we believe the
challenge must be taken up by all stakeholders
to better integrate "accessibility" into
society's understanding of what we mean when
people talk about "quality" in relation to the
built environment in general and buildings in
particular.
At PDCN we believe that
accessibility, as a component of quality, must
be applied to all buildings: old and new, public
and private. We believe, therefore that a
crucial outcome of this Parliamentary inquiry
and debate (in committee and in the preparation
of reforming legislation) must be to map out a
strategy for moving forward to a more accessible
public and private built environment.
We understand that Rome
was not built in a day. We do not expect,
therefore, that the buildings of NSW will be
transformed and made accessible overnight. We
earnestly believe, however, that the Inquiry
into the Quality of Buildings has an unique
opportunity to signal the way ahead for
everyone, which must mean designing and
constructing buildings of quality that are
accessible to all.
2. People
with Physical Disability In NSW
According to the
Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), people
with disability in New South Wales make up 19.3%
of the total population, the same as in the
whole of Australia. The majority are people with
physical disability.
PDCN, therefore,
represents and advocates on behalf of the
largest group of people with disability by
"impairment type" in NSW and
Australia.
The ABS noted
that:
"Over
half of all people with a disability
had a physical impairment, (PDCN
emphasis) either alone (30%) or in
combination with another impairment (27%).
More than one-third (37%) had a sensory
impairment, around half of these (18%) having
a sensory impairment only. Other types of
impairment were less common, 18% with
psychological and 9% with intellectual
impairment."
Persons with a Disability: Impairment
Types
Age and disability
are clearly related.
Disability
rates by age and sex, 1998
The significance of
these statistics when considered in relation to
questions of quality and accessibility of
buildings cannot be over-stated.
- People with
disability of all types account for
one-fifth of the entire
population.
- People with
physical disability represent over half of
all people with disability.
- Disability and
ageing are directly co-related.
Demographic predictions of population
trends indicate that our ageing population
(driven by the baby-boomer generations)
will live longer with higher expectations
of experiencing a 'quality life'. The
ageing population profile of people living
in NSW must necessarily result in an
increased proportion of the population
living with physical disability. Our
buildings must be able to accommodate and
welcome this demographic sea
change.
- People with
physical disability live and work in every
community and location of NSW. Any and
every public building (office, shop, place
of entertainment, government facility,
museum, art gallery, public toilet, etc.
etc, etc) must become accessible to the
whole community, including people with
physical disability, in their roles as
workers, customers, clients, visitors,
patients, etc, etc, etc.
- Currently, almost
95% of people with disability live in the
community. About 5% live in long-stay
institutions. It is critical, therefore,
that concepts such as visitability,
adaptability and accessibility be
incorporated within definitions of quality
as they are applied to private
dwellings.
- Given that a
significant proportion of the population
in any community in NSW must be people
with physical disability we must move
forward to find solutions to barriers that
make it impossible to live in accessible
homes of quality in the location of
people's choice.
- If a person
acquires a physical disability and can no
longer occupy their current home, they
either need to modify it or sell it and
move. Both of these options are more
expensive than the cost of the home being
built to an accessible standard at the
time of construction.
- Estimates vary, but
an additional 1 to 2% at the time of
construction will ensure adaptability. The
additional cost to modify at a later stage
can be as high as 30%.
- Homes made
accessible at the construction stage
contribute to intergenerational
sustainability.
- We must not
restrict our view, however, only to
private dwellings in which people with
physical disability might want to live now
or in the future. People with physical
disability do not live in isolation. We
are the sons and daughters of our parents.
Some of us are brothers, sisters, aunts,
uncles, cousins, nephews or nieces to
other family members. Many people with
physical disability are parents and
grandparents. In short, we live as members
of families. We have friends, work
colleagues and neighbours.
We must move more quickly,
therefore, to remove barriers of inaccessibility
which prevent people with physical disability
contributing to and benefiting from the full
range of family contacts - birthday parties,
Sunday lunches, baby-sitting, etc, etc. -
because visitability, accessibility and
adaptability have been ignored as components
design and construction of new private
dwellings.
3.
Accessible Public Buildings in an Accessible Built
Environment
When PDCN speaks of
"public buildings" we refer to any building that
is not a private dwelling. Any and all public
buildings have potential users who are people
with physical disability. There is no type of
public building that is necessarily more likely
than others to be used by people with physical
disability. Conversely there is no public
building that would never be used by people with
physical disability if it were to be made
accessible to us.
Traditionally, people with
disability (including people with physical
disability) have been thought of as 'out of the
mainstream' of social, cultural and economic
life in most communities. A much higher
proportion of people with disability lived in
residential units, institutions or hospital
wards.
This is no longer true.
Almost 95% of people with disability live in the
communities of New South Wakes, sometimes in
hostile built environments that have not
responded well to the new reality that people
with physical disability are 'out and
about'
In the not too distant
past, even for people with physical disability
living in the community, there were few
accessible means by which they could contribute
to and benefit from the communities in which
they lived.
- Transport was not
at accessible (this remains substantially
true today)
- Almost no buildings
were accessible in any way at
all.
- Features such as
curb cuts were unknown.
- Many fewer people
with disability were in employment
(figures are still far below employment
levels for the population as a whole). The
disposable income of people with
disability was more limited than for the
population generally.
- Public attitudes
were patronising (at best) and openly
hostile (at worst) to the participation of
people with disability in the 'mainstream'
of community life.
Over the course of the
last 20 to 30 years, however, the life
experiences of people with physical disability
has been changing dramatically, although not as
fast or as far as we have wished. Nevertheless,
fundamental change has occurred. Public
buildings have not always (sometimes not often)
kept pace with the changing circumstances of
people with physical disability.
We need to understand,
accept and welcome the changes that have
occurred in the lives of people with disability
generally and people with physical disability in
particular. We are much more actively engaged
with all aspects of Australian life than we have
ever been. People with physical disability and
the communities in which we live and work
benefit from our greater involvement and
engagement.
It is logically clear,
however, that buildings, which suited a less
inclusive definition of 'society' 20 or 30 years
ago, are not of a sufficiently high quality for
today's more diverse population. The challenge
now is to construct or rehabilitate public
buildings that meet the needs of the Australian
community whom we can expect to use them over
the next 100 years and more rather than the
perceived community of the last two
centuries.
The NSW Parliament,
through the deliberations of the Inquiry in to
the Quality of Buildings, must promote and
protect the rights of people with physical
disability to gain access to and use public
buildings.
The Disability
Discrimination Act specifies areas in which it
prohibits a person being discriminated against
on the ground of their disability (or the
disability of an associate). These areas
include
- accommodation,
- employment,
- goods, services
and facilities,
- public transport
and
- premises.
They include access to or
use of "any premises that the public, or a
section of the public, is entitled or allowed to
enter or use".
People who design, build,
own, lease, operate or manage such premises have
responsibilities under section 23 of the DDA
(and also under State anti-discrimination laws).
Responsibilities include not discriminating
against people on the ground of disability in
relation to the access to and use of those
premises.
The DDA definition of
'premises' includes, but is not limited
to:
- existing buildings,
including heritage buildings;
- proposed or new
buildings;
- car
parks;
- open air sports
venues; and
- pathways, public
gardens and parks.
Any part of the 'built
environment' that the public is entitled, or
allowed, to enter or use falls within the
definition.
In addition, because the
DDA refers to the 'use' of premises, section 23
also covers issues such as:
- fit out design (for
example, the height of service
counters);
- access to some
public information in premises (for
example, emergency warning information);
and
- the way premises
are maintained and managed (for example,
ensuring accessible toilets are not used
as storage spaces or overhanging branches
do not result in a barrier on a path of
travel).
The DDA recognises that in
certain circumstances, providing equitable
access for people with disabilities could cause
'unjustifiable hardship' for an owner or
operator of premises. The DDA does not require
access to be provided to the premises if it
would impose such an 'unjustifiable hardship' on
the person who would have to provide the access.
It is generally agreed however that it is
unlikely to ever cause a developer an
unjustifiable hardship to design and construct
accessible buildings when access is considered
at the concept stage.
The fundamental point in
law is that buildings, their use and the built
environment generally are governed by
legislation, which prohibits discrimination on
the grounds of disability. The Committee of
Inquiry must deliberate on questions of quality
within that anti-discriminatory
context.
PDCN calls for a
re-commitment to developing and implementing
principles and policies that require
accessibility of public buildings to be no less
fundamental and no less important to
considerations of quality than safety, comfort,
environmental sustainability, efficiency and
effectiveness.
Specifically:
1. All new
buildings, building works and surrounding areas
must be fully accessible at least to the
standard specified in the Human Rights and Equal
Opportunity Commission's (HREOC) Advisory
Notes on Access to Premises,
1998.
2. Existing
buildings should progressively be made to
conform to the same Advisory Notes.
3. The case of
Cooper Vs Coffs Harbour (1998)
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.
We regard refusal to
improve the quality of buildings by making them
more accessible on the grounds of heritage,
aesthetics, vernacular or other, discretionary,
value-based judgements to be in breach of
primary legislation. The State Government should
lead in this respect by ensuring that all of its
own public buildings and those supported through
grant making or contract awarding funding
arrangements are not inaccessible.
4. The DDA includes
a provision to allow for the development of a
DDA Disability Standard. The Australian Building
Codes Board (ABCB) is developing a draft DDA
Disability Standard on "Access to Premises" (as
defined above). The Acting Disability
Commissioner of HREOC has observed
that:
"A full and
complete DDA Disability Standard is likely to
consist of a number of parts covering
buildings and other aspects of the built
environment including, fixtures and fittings,
streetscape, open spaces such as parks and
matters concerning the management of
buildings to ensure access is
retained."
In such circumstances, the
Inquiry into the Quality of Buildings has a duty
to ensure that non-discriminatory assumptions
underpin any debate about quality of buildings
and/or the built environment.
5. It is vitally
important that all planning procedures and
building regulations relating to quality and
certification of buildings as being ready for
public use make explicit an intention to ensure
that the needs of people with physical
disability are fundamental to the common
understanding of the minimum quality
required.
6. While the
Building Code of Australia (BCA) 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. The BCA also excludes some buildings
and some parts of other buildings from
requirement to be accessible to people with
disabilities.
7. Quality in
buildings requires that NSW operates a State
planning policy, which sees universal access as
an essential requirement, making best use of
relevant current standards and guidelines.
Accessibility must be systematically planned and
implemented for all new and existing buildings
(over a reasonable period for change). It must
be provided consistently rather than in a
haphazard incremental fashion.
8. A State planning
policy on accessibility should:
- Place accessibility
issues 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.
9. 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.
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 accessible buildings
of high quality.
10. PDCN draws the
attention of Members of the Committee of Inquiry
to advice already given by HREOC with regard to
planning, development and building (for
accessibility and quality). HREOC has
written:
"While
awaiting the development of a Disability
Standard in this area the Commissioner
strongly encourages initiatives by local
government throughout Australia to:
- ensure that
applicants for development approval are
aware of their DDA responsibilities
- develop
policies, procedures and guidelines to
assist those responsible for approving
applications to ensure the requirements of
the DDA are taken into account. A number
of local government authorities have done
this through rigorously applying locally
developed Development Control Plans (DCP)
or access policies
- develop
policies, procedures and guidelines to
assist decision makers deal with requests
from developers for variations or
exemption from access requirements, on the
grounds that providing full access would
be technically too difficult or too costly
- establish
appropriately resourced access committees
or reference groups to assist local
government develop decision making
procedures
- encourage
architects, developers and planners to
build consideration of access issues into
the design process from the outset by
actively promoting DCPs or access
policies."
4.
Private Dwellings
We have already
noted that almost 95% of people with disability
live in the community. A very much smaller
proportion than 95% of private dwellings,
however, has been built to adequate standards of
visitability, adaptability or accessibility.
Despite past commitments to embrace positive
change, there are still too many problems with
current housing provision, which result in,
often intractable, difficulties for people with
physical disability.
- Most existing housing
stock is not accessible, limiting the current
and future options for people with physical
disability.
- The design and
construction of new housing have not yet
embraced barrier-free principles. Unless and
until society commits itself to a new
approach - barrier-free design - the problems
we highlight will remain unresolved for most
people with physical disability.
By VISITABLE, we
mean that any newly constructed private dwelling
would permit a wheelchair user to visit
(friends, family members, neighbours) but not
necessarily live in that house or unit on a
permanent basis. At the minimum level of
visitability new private dwellings would have
step free approaches to the main entrance. There
would be no step at the main entrance to the
dwelling. A toilet that could accommodate a
wheelchair user with the door closed would be
located on the same level as the main entrance.
A standard broadly similar to this level of
visitability was introduced in the UK for all
new-build private dwellings approved for
construction from 1st January 2001.
By ADAPTABLE, we
mean that in addition to meeting the visitable
standard for new private dwellings, a house or
unit would be designed from the outset with the
potential to be adapted at low cost to become
the permanent home of a person with physical
disability or to allow for the possibility that
current occupiers would not be forced to
relocate if they were to acquire a
disability.
The approach and threshold
would have not steps. The toilet would allow for
adaptation to become a wheelchair accessible
'wet-floor' shower and toilet area with the
potential for the installation of grab rails and
handles (only if required). At least one bedroom
would be on the same level as the main entry
door. The kitchen would be on the same level as
the level entrance, shower room and bedroom.
Typically, in an adaptable dwelling, kitchen
units would be modular, capable of easy and low
cost adaptation or replacement to meet
particular needs of specific occupants. Light
switches and electrical sockets would be
positioned within a height range that could be
reached by any occupant.
By ACCESSIBLE, we
mean that a new private dwelling (house or unit)
would be ready for immediate occupation by a
person with a physical disability, including
wheelchair users.
By designing all new
private dwellings to one or another of these
levels of accessibility many of the problems
currently encountered by people with physical
disability looking to rent or purchase property
or visit friends, family members or neighbours
would be removed.
Private dwellings designed
from the outset to meet these indicators of
access (particularly visitability) are not
necessarily more expensive than inaccessible
private dwellings. Costs tend to escalate
dramatically, however, if access improvements
are introduced after initial construction. It is
to avoid these unnecessary additional costs that
investment in access is required at the design
and construction stages.
Evidence from other
jurisdictions (Sweden and the UK) indicates that
private dwellings built to higher levels of
visitability, adaptability or accessibility
appreciate in value at a higher rate that
inaccessible properties (all other factors being
equal). Investing in greater accessibility not
only meets social needs and produces homes of
higher quality; it also increases the value of
the property over its lifetime.
PDCN recognises that there
are some locations that will never accommodate
visitable, adaptable or accessible private
dwellings, except at such prohibitive extra cost
as to make the idea economically unviable. We
recommend that the State Government adopt the UK
model in which the assumption underlying all
design and construction must be that any new
private dwelling must be at least visitable.
Local Councils should be given the discretionary
power to allow exceptions to the new standard
but that power must be exercised sparingly and
only in circumstances of genuinely prohibitive
costs.
PDCN asks the committee to
note, in addition, that acceptance of a
requirement that all new private dwellings must
be at least visitable and proportions adaptable
and accessible removes the potential for abuse
of the highly contentious SEPP 5 decision-making
process. If all new private dwelling met varying
degrees of access requirements no developer
would be able to slip medium density development
past Local Councils under the guise of meeting
the needs of older people and people with
disability. The debate about questions of
housing density and its appropriateness in
particular locations would be, as a consequence
of investing in greater access generally,
brought out into open, transparent and public
debate.
At PDCN, we
believe:
- All new houses must be
built to agreed levels of visitability,
adaptability and/or accessibility.
Barrier-free design is in the interest of
everyone.
- Greater commitment
must be given by all stakeholders to a
coherent programme of re-furbishing the stock
of public housing to make it more accessible
to more people, particularly people with
physical disability. Public housing ought to
be a leader in promoting
accessibility.
Our views on the need for
and benefits of private dwellings that are built
to high quality standards of visitability,
accessibility and adaptability are set out in
greater detail in the PDCN brochure Housing
For Everyone, which we have attached as an
appendix. (
Adaptable
Housing Brochure
(2.07 MB))
5.
Certification
Certification
processes are critical in ensuring that
buildings in New South Wales are planned,
designed and constructed to the highest quality
achievable. This is as true for accessibility as
it is for health and safety, the use of
materials and other technical matters.
Architects, building
designers and those involved in the construction
of buildings must, at all times, take on board
their responsibilities to ensure that buildings
are genuinely accessible to all. Certifiers have
their role as part of a spectrum of professions
whose expertise (or not) determines the
possibility of achieving quality and accessible
outcomes of construction.
PDCN is aware that the
knowledge and expertise of certifiers,
particularly Private Certification Authorities,
varies in consistency. We have direct experience
of excellence in certification by private
certifiers. We believe, however, that (in
general) the certification sector as a whole is
neither as mindful nor as aware of obligations
under the Disability Discrimination Act
as its members need to be.
At their best, some
individual certifiers show themselves to be
fully aware of the DDA and its requirement not
to discriminate on the grounds of disability.
Such individuals know what to look for, ask
probing questions and are well equipped to make
certification processes operate as intended - to
result in buildings that are safe,
user-friendly, compliant with Law and,
therefore, efficient and effective.
When certifiers are not
wholly conversant with or ignorant of the DDA
and its consequences for design and construction
the result can be that buildings, which ought to
be accessible, are not accessible or that
unnecessarily obtuse and impractical access
options are squeezed in to projects to conclude
a paper exercise rather than strive to meet the
spirit and/or intention of Law, i.e. that people
with disability should be treated no less
favourably than members of the community as a
whole.
PDCN wishes to develop
means by which the current best practice of
private certification (which can be excellent)
becomes standard practice. We believe that such
an objective is realisable. It is also, we
believe, an objective that is consistent with
achieving the highest quality possible for
buildings in NSW.
In summary PDCN wishes to
make these recommendations.
1. Certification
must be staged within an appropriate development
path for all new buildings that:
a. begins
with informed and appropriate planning
frameworks and policies applied consistently
throughout NSW;
b. informs and
evaluates the design and detailed plans of
individual buildings before construction work
commences;
c. monitors and
evaluates construction progress at critical
stages before irrevocable work is commenced
on later stages; and
d. ensures that
buildings comply with the non-discriminatory
requirements of existing Law and regulations
before occupancy is permitted.
2. No occupancy
certificate should ever be approved unless and
until all certification required at earlier
critical stages of the development of a building
have been approved.
3. Simultaneous
certification of occupancy and earlier
certification stages should not be permitted to
the required standard.
4. Planning NSW
should be charged with appointing an appropriate
organisations or organisations (independent
body, professional association, etc) with the
responsibility for the accreditation,
performance monitoring, performance evaluation,
complaints and disciplinary processes for
private certifiers. These components of industry
regulation should fully incorporate awareness of
and compliance with anti-discrimination
legislation such as the Disability
Discrimination Act and the NSW
Anti-Discrimination Act.
6.
Conclusion
PDCN is grateful to
the committee of inquiry for the opportunity to
submit our views on these crucial matters. We
re-iterate our earlier observation that
questions of quality are not only about
technical matters such as safety, durability,
environmental sustainability, energy efficiency,
etc, or about aesthetics, vernacular, ambience
or the fit of any particular building with its
location, purposes and context.
Technical and aesthetic
questions are, we agree, critical indicators of
the presence or absence of good quality. So too,
however, is accessibility. We believe that all
buildings must serve the needs of the community
as a whole, respecting the diverse and complex
realities of the lived experience of all
residents of and visitors to New South
Wales.
For more information about
the issues raised in this paper
contact:
Dougie Herd
Executive Officer
Physical Disability Council of New South
Wales
April 2002
— A Submission to Parliamentary Select
Committee on the Quality of Buildings, April
2002
|
