Memorandum from Richard Cullingworth (DDB
83)
WRITER
1. I am Richard Cullingworth. a Chartered
Building Surveyor and Fellow of the Royal Institution of Chartered
Surveyors (RICS). I am Past President of the Building Surveyors
Division of the RICS and a Registered Access Consultant with the
National Register of Access Consultants. I undertake access audits
of existing buildings, access appraisals of new buildings and
within my company, CS2, I train access auditors, designers and
clients on the implications of the Disability Discrimination Act
1995 on commercial and public property. I am a member of the RICS
Working Party for the DDA but write in a personal capacity.
2. On 27 January 2004 along with Peter Williams,
a solicitor from Eversheds, I met with James Pool and Kevin Nelson
of DWP to discuss the Bill and my comments relating to the document.
3. My expertise relates to commercial property;
I can make no comment about residential property.
4. It is difficult to comment in detail
on this Bill as the Regulations have yet to be drafted. My comments
may therefore be negated depending upon the content of these proposed
Regulations.
SUMMARY
5. This paper has been written from the
perspective of someone involved with commercial property. It contains
the following main points:
(a)
Concern over the impact of the Bill on the actions
of local authority building control departments when interpreting
Access Statements.
(b)
Concern that private clubs may need to make physical
adjustments ahead of having disabled people apply for membership.
(c)
The clause relating to the letting of premises makes
little sense when applied to commercial premises.
(d)
The problem of common parts in multi-tenanted buildings
needs to be addressed.
(e)
The definition of auxiliary aids and services and
limitations on their application need to be carefully drafted
in the Regulations.
COMMENTS
6. Clause 4—Public Authorities
(a)
The definition of "public authorities"
is not included. Will this include Approved Inspectors who mirror
the role of Building Control Departments?
(b)
The new Part M to the Building Regulation 2004 contains
extensive information about access to buildings. When the content
of the Approved Document is applied to existing buildings (rather
than to proposed new buildings) problems will arrive which will
need to be discussed with Building Control. My concern is that
public authorities may be over zealous in their requirements for
building design which could cause significant problems. The interpretation
of Building Regulations should be excluded from a local authority's
duties under this Bill.
7. Clause 5—Private Clubs
(a)
I am concerned about the possible requirement for
a private club to have to make physical alterations for potential
members. I fully support the need for the club to make alterations
for existing members as these members can be identified (similar
to the employment provisions). However, I suggest that physical
alterations should be made on an individual basis so that when
a new member joins, alterations may have to be undertaken. There
should, however, be persuasion for clubs to improve their premises
for all. This section should mirror the provisions in Part 2 of
the DDA, not Part 3.
8. Clause 6—Letting Premises
(a)
The clause relating to the letting of premises and
landlords duties, does not make sense when applied to commercial
property. The clauses make sense in relation to residential property.
Most leases of commercial property are to companies and not individuals;
the clause is written as if an individual is involved.
(b)
If commercial property is to be involved, there needs
to be clarification as to who the "occupier" is. Does
this include employees?
(c)
There does not appear to be a procedure whereby a
disabled employee can go via his employer to the Landlord.
(d)
There again appears to be a problem with common parts
in commercial premises. I would suggest that this aspect is looked
in to in details as a separate exercise—those involved with
commercial property MUST be consulted. There has been too little
time during this consultation for any proper consideration of
what is the biggest problem for the commercial property sector.
(e)
Codes of Practice written to support these changes
MUST include examples of when it is reasonable not to undertake
any changes. The present Codes of Practice seem to biased towards
when changes are needed.
(f)
The definition of what might constitute an auxiliary
aid needs to be carefully drafted. For instance, if there are
eight steps up to a main entrances, might the Landlord be required
to provide an independent timber ramp? Will a landlord be expected
to provide portable ramps to facilitate a viewing of the premises?
Will he be expected to provide transport for a disabled person
to view premises?
(g)
The definition of services for disabled people needs
to be defined. For instance, would it be reasonable for a Landlord
to be expected to help a disabled tenant in the toilet?
(h)
24C (1) c i refers to a relevant disabled person
"enjoying" the premises. This is far too vague.
(i)
24C (1) c ii refers to benefits or facilities. Are
these inside the premises or common to all tenants?
(j)
What is the definition of "premises"? Is
this pre or post fit out for commercial premises? Does this include
the interior of the premises or just access to the entrance and
services provided by the landlord?
CONCLUSION
9. There are many areas where the Regulations
will undoubtedly influence the content of the Bill. Overall, I
am sure that there will be many benefits from this Bill but I
am still very concerned that commercial property seems to have
been ignored yet again.
10. Should further comment or explanation
be required, I would be more than happy to be of assistance.
February 2004
| 
