|
Disability
Strategic Advisory Panel
17 February
2014
|
|
Submission on the draft Auckland Council
Unitary Plan, notified 30 September 2013.
Preamble:
This submission is made on behalf of.
Acknowledgement: The writer
acknowledges the helpful support given by Anthony Horton, Planning Officer
Auckland Council who went to extra lengths to make the Notified Unitary Plan
available online in a form that could be read by blind persons using screen
reading software.
Layout and rationale:
Of the 54 clauses of the Plan cited in
this submission, 30 are supported unequivocally. The remaining 24 clauses
recommend minor wording amendments and give rationale for the suggested
changes. Amendments are recommended for the long-term liveability of Auckland,
the region's social inclusion and the social and economic well-being of people
of all ages and abilities.
The population represented by this
submission has a wider interest in the final outcomes of the notified Unitary
Plan than many others. Current laws, strategies and policies, have not,
despite voluntary encouragement and advocacy, eliminated many avoidable
barriers experienced by people of all ages and abilities to full access of
facilities, services and amenities intended for public use. These obstacles
restrict our full inclusion and participation in society.
Suggested amendments are marked with an
asterisk for quick reference. Extracts from the Plan that relate to the thrust
of this submission and that are supported unequivocally, are also listed
systematically in order to record them for future reference.
Key definitions used:
“Persons with disabilities includes
those who have long-term physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impairments,
which in interaction with various barriers may hinder their full and effective
participation in society on an equal basis with others.”
Thus, disability is an evolving concept
that results from the interaction between persons with impairments, society's
attitudes and environmental barriers. These avoidable barriers limit the full
and effective participation in society on an equal basis by people with
disabilities. (see para E Preamble, United Nations Convention on the Rights of
Persons with Disabilities, (UNCRPD), and article 1, "Purpose of
Convention". NB.: the UNCRPD was ratified by New Zealand in 2008 and has
subsequently been endorsed by 139 countries.
"Universal access design" means the design
of products, environments, programmes and services to be usable by all people,
to the greatest extent possible, without the need for adaptation or specialised
design. (See UNCRPD, Article 2).
The "principles of universal or
(inclusive) access design" are:
1. Places people at the heart of the
design process;
2. Acknowledges diversity and
difference;
3. Offers choice where a single design
solution cannot accommodate all users;
4. Provides for flexibility in use;
5. Provides buildings and environments
that are convenient and enjoyable to use for everyone.
"Reasonable accommodation" means necessary
and appropriate modification and adjustment not imposing a disproportionate or
undue burden, where needed in a particular case, to ensure to persons with
disabilities the enjoyment or exercise on an equal basis with others of all
human rights and fundamental freedoms (see UNCRPD, Article 2).
Essence of submission:
The thrust of this submission is that
people of all ages and abilities ought to be able to access the Region's public
facilities, services and amenities intended for public use with the same
directness and dignity as any other ratepayer. It is about creating a level
playing field and keeping up with world-wide trends.
Why reform is requested:
People with disabilities find that,
despite affirmative legislation, today's Auckland remains littered with
inaccessible buildings, cluttered streetscapes, hazardous traffic crossings,
hard to use transport, awkward to use public swimming pools and other
facilities, and inadequate accessible supported housing. Public policy as
traditionally administered by Council isn't working as well as it could. New
ways of doing things, a culture change, is needed to eliminate avoidable
environmental barriers that limit people of all ages and abilities to freely
participate in Auckland life.
Census figures put permanent disability
in the New Zealand population at 17 to 20%. The region's population over 65
years is estimated at an additional 11%. An increased density of these
vulnerable populations in Auckland city is likely because of the convenience of
urban living, and access to support services and family.
With an aging population and an increase
in chronic disease, inclusive design is not a choice but an economic and social
necessity. Leadership is needed to champion a requirement to improve standards
of inclusive design. Time is running out for councils to take up strategic
positions and actively promote inclusive design. Outcomes don't happen without
direction. It is submitted that universal access is, in fact, the core
business of councils.
What is sought in a quality built
environment:
Quality built environments contribute to
a more equal, inclusive and cohesive society if places, facilities and
neighbourhoods are designed to be accessible and inclusive for all who use
them. Decisions about design, planning and management can enhance or restrict
a sense of belonging; increase or reduce security; promote or reduce mobility,
and improve or damage health. Acceptance of poor design of the built
environment can have serious impact on people’s lives.
Good design is about the built
environment meeting as many people's needs as possible. Everyone at some point
experiences limited mobility or agility, be it a tourist laden with luggage; a
parent with young children; an older person or an individual with injuries or
limiting illness. There is a need to balance commercial imperatives with well
designed places that meet the functional needs of the public. The key is to
identify barriers to full inclusion as early as possible in the design process
so that good design can overcome them. The needs of wheelchair users and
mobility impaired people are important and obvious. However, it is also
necessary to understand the barriers experienced by people with learning difficulties,
mental ill health and vision and hearing impairments. One of our key messages
is that design solutions that consider the broad spectrum of need benefit
everyone.
Practical steps sought:
In summary and with practical solutions
in mind, this submission seeks and presents rationale for:
· The progressive
implementation of universal access principles within the 30 year timeframe of
the Plan as outlined, in order to ensure the social inclusion and cultural
integration of people of all ages and abilities into Auckland life;
· The instigation
of assessment reviews during the design phase, of all new projects intended to
be used by the public to ensure universal access provisions are included;
· A commitment by
the Mayor and Council to ensure within their powers, full compliance with
universal access design provisions;
· Establishment of
a non-hierarchical forum that brings together, user advocacy groups,
regulators, policy makers and industry collaborators to progress effective
universal access design principles into everyday planning, to influence the
Auckland Design Manual and to develop better codes of practice that support
accessibility for people of all ages and abilities;
· Recruitment by
Council of personnel trained and experienced in universal access design
principles and their application;
· Advocacy by the
Unitary Authority for a central regulatory public policy that enables Local
Authorities to better meet the everyday needs of all citizens regardless of age
or ability.
Our submission is as follows:
(1) Chapter A, Introduction:
3.4. Quality compact Auckland.
"Good design is about an outcome
that responds to a particular context and delivers a well functioning and
attractive building or space."
Support. This submission
affirms that, quality design and build for people of all ages and abilities is
vital to Auckland's functioning, liveability, reputation and long-term
sustainability.
(2) Chapter B, Regional Policy
Statement:
1. Issues of regional significance -
Introduction.
1.1. Enabling quality urban growth, and
1.2. Enabling economic well-being.
* Amendments requested.
The goals and outcomes sought by this
submission include the creation of the following.
· A fair, safe and
healthy Auckland, inclusive of all citizens.
· An Auckland of
prosperity and opportunity for all.
· A well connected
and accessible ‘barrier-free’ Auckland for all.
· A culturally
rich, inclusive and creative Auckland in which all citizens can participate
directly, and with dignity.
· An Auckland
whose facilities, services and amenities intended for public use and enjoyment
are available for people of all ages and abilities, unless such provision can
be shown to be unreasonable.
Rationale for amendment: Today's
Auckland is littered with buildings for public use, streetscapes, transport
crossings and open spaces that present barriers to full participation by people
of all ages and abilities. New attitudes, new ways of thinking and leadership
are required to create an Auckland that is truly resilient and
non-discriminatory. Eliminating needless barriers to free movement by all
enhances the quality of life for the whole population, not just the 20% of the
population with limited capacities and the additional 11% of Auckland's
population which is over 65 years.
* Therefore, by way of amendment, this
submission requests the inclusion of the following:
· A range of
housing, including affordable housing, to accommodate a diverse population with
diverse needs
· Access for all
ages and abilities to quality open spaces
· Community and
social infrastructure, including a truly accessible and integrated public transport
system.
2. Enabling quality urban growth for
the next 30 years.
2.2 A quality built environment.
Objective 1B.
"Provides for a rich mix of choice and opportunity for our communities and
can adapt to changing needs, (diversity)."
Support.
Objective 1C.
"Considers and reinforces use, activity centres, energy systems and
movement networks which are well connected and provide convenient and equal
access for all, (integration)."
Support.
Policy 2. "Design
development to respond positively to the site, its context and the planned
future character of the place, and to reinforce the role of the public realm as
the primary place for public interaction."
Support.
Policy 4.
"Encourage development which is designed for change of use through time."
* Request Amendment as follows:
“Require and progressively implement
Policy 4 within the time limits of the 30 year Plan.”
Policy 5. "Design development with
a level of amenity that enables long term options for living and working."
* Request Amendment as follows:
“Design development with a level of
amenity that enables long term options for all to live and work.”
Policy 6.
"Encourage development to be designed to have equal access for people of
all ages and abilities."
* Request Amendment as follows:
“Require and progressively implement
Policy 6 within the time limits of the 30 year Plan”.
Rationale for amendment:
A. The earlier in the planning process
universal access design principles are adopted that accommodate flexibility of
use, long term optional use and accessibility for all ages and abilities, the
more economic the overall project will be. Our motto is - “Do it once, do it
right". "Universal design" means the design of products,
environments, programmes and services to be usable by all people, to the
greatest extent possible, without the need for adaptation or specialised
design. (see definitions, and Article 9 “Accessibility”, UNCRPD, ratified by
New Zealand 2008.
B. There are functional co-benefits to
the overall population from using universal access design principles. Curb
cuts, ramps, audible traffic signals and clear signage benefit everyone.
C. Auckland's reputation as a visitor
destination will be enhanced by matching expected international standards.
D. Cities around the world with which
Auckland's liveability will be compared, already strive for equal access by all
people, because of anti-discrimination legislation in many jurisdictions.
E. Given these world trends, it makes
economic sense to use ratepayer money on the universal design of new projects
intended for use by the public to avoid expensive retrofits resulting from
Human Rights complaints.
F. 2009 independent research for the UK
Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE), showed savings of
84M Pounds on projects for schools, and 850M Pounds on housing projects, as a
result of taking expert inclusive design advice before building.
G. In general,
discrimination against persons with disabilities is unlawful under the Human
Rights Act 1993. The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 also guarantees
freedom of movement (S18) and freedom from discrimination, (S19). These acts
affirm, protect and promote human rights and fundamental freedoms in New
Zealand. Future enabling urban environments should account for these
affirmations, whether directly required to do so by building legislation or
not.
H. "Encouragement" by
legislation doesn't work. Auckland is littered with buildings that are not
directly and readily accessible.
Policy 8. "Enable the
development of a range of built forms within neighbourhoods to support maximum
choice and recognise different lifestyles."
Support.
2.4. Neighbourhoods that retain
affordable housing.
Objective 1.
"Neighbourhoods contain quality homes that help meet the housing needs of
current and future, low to moderate income households.”
Support. Many people
with disabilities are in the low income bracket.
Policy 1.
"Encourage residential development to provide a range of dwelling types
and sizes that help meet the housing needs of households on low to moderate
incomes, including social housing and lower cost, market rate housing."
Support – as above.
Policy 2. "Require
new large-scale residential development within the RUB and encourage all other
development to provide a proportion of dwellings that are affordable for the
intermediate housing market.
Support. We welcome a
five yearly review.
2.6. Public open space and recreational
facilities.
Objective 1. "A high
quality network of public open spaces and recreation facilities that enhances
quality of life for the diverse communities of Auckland, and contributes
positively to Auckland's unique identity."
Support.
Policy 5. "Ensure
public open space and recreation facilities are in locations accessible to
users."
Support.
Policy 8 D. "Design
and develop public open spaces and recreation facilities that: D, Are
accessible to people of all ages and abilities."
Support.
2.7 Social infrastructure.
Objective 2. "Social
infrastructure is located where it is accessible by a range of transport
modes."
Support.
Policy 1. "Make
social infrastructure accessible to users by providing for:”
* Request Amendment as follows: “Make social
infrastructure accessible to users of all ages and abilities unless shown to be
unreasonable, by providing for:”
Rationale for amendment:
A. Social infrastructure intended for
public use as listed above, ought by definition, to be inclusive and accessible
by all people for effective participation in society.
B. For definition of "reasonable
accommodation" see preamble.
3. Enabling economic well-being.
3.3 Transport.
Objective 4. "A
transport system that facilitates transport choices and enables accessibility
and mobility for all sections of the community."
Support.
Policy 11. "Avoid,
remedy or mitigate potential adverse effects from the transport system on
community safety by: C. "Providing for the transport needs of people with
special mobility requirements, including the young, aged and those with
disabilities.
Support.
Part 2 - Regional and District
Objectives and Policies.
Chapter C. Auckland-wide Objectives and
Policies.
1.1 Infrastructure.
Policy 1. “Recognise the positive
social, economic, environmental and cultural effect that infrastructure provide,
including:
A. “Enabling enhancement of the quality
of life/standard of living for people and communities.
B. “Protecting public health and safety.
G. “Enabling interaction and
communication”.
Support.
Policy 12 "Undertake
or require works to be undertaken in an existing or planned road, in a manner
which will achieve positive movement, access and place-making outcomes taking
into account:
E. "The selection, location and
installation of streetscape amenities, such as seating, cycle parking, plaques
and memorials, public art, litter bins, public toilets and drinking fountains,
iii: "Avoid impeding or causing a hazard for people including those with
mobility or vision impairments, aged people or children."
Support.
1.2 Transport.
Objective 5 "Development provides
access between the road and activities by:
B. "Prioritising pedestrian safety
and amenity along public footpaths."
Support.
Objective 6 "Safety is not
compromised by access, buildings and structures adjacent to road-rail level
crossings."
Support.
Policies "Traffic
generation”
“Parking."
Policy 2 (states), "Limit the
supply of on-site parking in the following locations to support the planning
growth and intensification provided for in the Unitary Plan, recognise the
existing and future accessibility of these locations to the rapid and frequent
service network, and support walking and cycling: “A. the City, Metropolitan,
Town and Local centres zones; “B. the City Centre fringe overlay; “C. the
Terrace Housing Apartment Buildings zone; “D. the Mixed Use zone.”
* Request amendment to: “Limit the
supply of on-site parking in the following locations to support the planning
growth and intensification provided for in the Unitary Plan, recognise the
existing and future accessibility of these locations to the rapid and frequent
service network, support walking and cycling and retain reasonable provision
for authorised mobility parking permit holders: …”
Rationale for amendment:
A. Overly restrictive parking will
compromise access by people with disabilities who are unable to use public
transport, walk or cycle, but who are able to drive themselves.
B. The integrity of the mobility
parking permit scheme and its functionality in a liveable city ought to be
retained on the grounds of reasonable accommodation.
7. General.
7.2. Lighting.
Objective 2. "Adverse
effects of artificial lighting on the environment, amenity of surrounding
areas, and the safety of road users are minimised."
Support.
Policy 2. "Control
the intensity, location and direction of artificial lighting to avoid
significant glare and light spill onto adjacent sites, maintain safety for road
users and minimise the loss of night sky viewing."
Support.
Note: glare from wet pavements can be
a safety hazard for people with poor vision.
7.3. Noise and vibration.
Policy 1. "Set
noise standards to reflect the zone's function and permitted activity,
recognising the potential adverse effects noise generation may have on more
sensitive adjacent zones."
Support.
Policy 2. "Minimise,
where practical, noise at its source to mitigate adverse effects on adjacent
sites."
Support. Note:
noise for the hearing and vision impaired and for those with some neurological
ailments can be disconcerting and pose a danger in some circumstances where it
is not predicted.
7.4. Signs.
Policy 4. "Apply
traffic and pedestrian traffic safety standards particularly to the wording,
lighting and location of signs and variable image signs."
* Request Amendment to: “Apply traffic
and pedestrian traffic safety standards particularly to the wording, contrast,
lighting and location of signs and variable image signs."
Rationale for amendment: Figure ground
contrast and appropriate colour contrasts are critical features for sign
recognition especially among the aging –ie. those over 45 years. More than 6%
of New Zealand's population has sufficiently poor sight that prevent them
driving, and the proportion is growing with the increase in the aging
population, and the prevalence of blinding Diabetes. (Reference, "Clear
focus - the economic impact of vision loss in New Zealand in 2009".)
7.8. Affordable
housing. (not effective until the plan is operative).
Support as per 2.4,
chapter B - "Neighbourhoods that retain affordable housing." above.
Chapter D. Zone objectives and policies.
1. Residential zones.
1.1 General Objectives and Policies for
the Residential Zones.
Objective 2. "A diverse
range of housing provides choice for households and communities to meet their
varied needs and lifestyles."
Support.
Policy 4. "Require
a percentage of medium to large-scale residential development to provide equal
physical access and use for people of all ages and abilities."
* Request Amendment to: “Require a
percentage of medium to large-scale residential development to provide equal
access and use for people of all ages and abilities.”
Rationale for amendment:
A. Inclusion of the word
"physical" implies locomotor or mobility restriction alone.
Accessibility may also be impeded by a variety of sensory and-or perceptual
impairments.
B. Throughout the Plan consistency of
language and concept is important to avoid confusion and misinterpretation.
1.6 Mixed housing urban zone.
* Request Amendment by the addition of a
Policy 9:
“Require dwellings to be designed to prioritise pedestrian access, safety and
movement."
Rationale for amendment:
A. The amenity value, particularly
proximity to public transport, makes this zone attractive to older people
down-sizing and to people with functional limitations.
B. Functional utility for dwellers
should have equal priority with visual appearance - amenity.
C. Encouragement or incentives ought to
be offered for the installation of lifts or similar, where dwelling blocks are
three or more storeys to ensure full utilisation and uptake.
1.7. Terrace housing and apartment
buildings zone.
Objective 1. "Land
surrounding centres, the rapid and frequent service network is efficiently used
to provide urban living that increases Auckland's housing supply and access to
centres and public transport."
Support.
Objective 3. "Development
provides high-quality on-site amenity for residents and achieves a reasonable
standard of amenity for adjoining sites."
Support, on condition that - access to
multi-level living for all ages and abilities is facilitated and reasonable
accommodations made.
Policy 8. "Require
dwellings to be designed to: D. "Prioritise pedestrian access, safety and
movement."
Support, provided that: access to
multi-level living for all ages and abilities is facilitated and reasonable
accommodations made.
2. Public Open Space zones.
2.2. Informal recreation zone.
Policy 8. "Require
the location and design of parking areas to: A. "Be convenient for users
of the public open space."
* Request Amendment as follows: “Require the
location and design of parking areas, toilets and main carriage ways to: A. Be
accessible and convenient for all users of the public open space.”
Rationale for amendment:
A. Provisions for accessibility by
people of all ages and abilities are traditionally seen as expensive
"add-ons" rather than being incorporated into initial design
considerations. It makes economic sense to incorporate universal design
principles into initial planning. (See preamble for definition). Such provisions
are not costly if:
· Amortised over
many projects;
· Costed over a 10
year development timeframe;
· The co-benefits
to the whole population are considered; and,
· Expensive
retrofits are avoided.
B. Public space, by definition, ought
to be inclusive of all people.
C. The absence of accessible toilets
and carriage ways for wheelchairs in some scenic locations limits overall
accessibility.
2.3. Sport and active recreation zone.
Policy 3. "Require
the location, scale and design of new buildings and structures and additions to
complement the character of the public open space, retain a level of
spaciousness, enable opportunities for informal surveillance, and maintain a
reasonable level of amenity for users of the public open space."
* Amendment requested: “Require the
location, scale and design of new buildings and structures and additions to
complement the character of the public open space, retain a level of
spaciousness, enable opportunities for informal surveillance, and maintain a
reasonable level of amenity for all users of the public open space.”
Rationale for amendment:
A. people of all ages and abilities are
often keen and proud spectators of sport.
B. Simple access provisions are often
not "top-of-mind" priorities in sporting complexes, yet grandparents
and incapacitated parents and siblings can be keen spectators.
2.4 Civic Spaces zone.
Objective 1. "Quality
urban public open spaces are available for residents, visitors and workers to
enjoy informal recreation, social interaction and civic and community
events."
* Request Amendment to: “Quality urban
public open spaces are available for residents, visitors and workers of all
ages and abilities, to enjoy informal recreation, social interaction and civic
and community events.”
Rationale for Amendment:
A. Civic and community open spaces
ought not to exclude residents, visitors and workers for want of universal
design considerations that include all citizens. It's about user outcomes and
function, as well as RMA considerations.
B. People with poor locomotor
(mobility), and/or vision can find open spaces hard to navigate unless simple
access measures are designed into the project. Eg.: Aotea Square.
2.5. Community zone.
Objective 1. "Public
open spaces provide for existing and future community buildings and
activities."
* Request Amendment to: “Public open
spaces provide for existing and future community buildings and activities that
include people of all ages and abilities.”
Rationale for Amendment:
A. Civic and community open spaces
ought to facilitate, not exclude anyone for want of universal design
considerations that enable people of all ages and abilities to participate in
public affairs.
3. Business Zones.
3.1. General objectives and policies for
the Centres and Mixed Use zones and the General Business and Business Park
zones.
Policy 3. "Require development to
be of a quality and design that positively contributes to the public realm and
maximises pedestrian amenity, movement, safety and convenience for people of
all ages and abilities."
Support. We feel this
is a very good initiative.
Policy 4. "Require a percentage
of residential development and encourage all other development to provide equal
physical access and use for people of all ages and abilities."
* Request Amendment to: “Require a
percentage of residential development, and require within the 30 year lifetime
of the Plan, all other development to provide equal access and use for people
of all ages and abilities."
Rationale for amendment:
A. The earlier Auckland Council sets
its expectations to match accessibility standards to include all people, the
more economic and less disruptive will be future adaptation of the built
environment. If Auckland is serious about its liveability; about becoming an
international centre of world standing that is inclusive of everyone; that
respects equality of education and work opportunities; then, the Plan must
embrace the elimination of avoidable barriers to free movement for all in
places intended for public use and enjoyment.
B. Delete the word "physical"
as it implies locomotor or mobility restriction alone. Accessibility may also
be impeded by a variety of sensory and-or perceptual impairments.
C. Consistency of language and concept
is important throughout the Plan to avoid confusion and misinterpretation.
3.4. Town Centre zone.
Policy 4. "Require
development to achieve a high standard of design."
* Request Amendment to: “Require
development to achieve a high standard of universal access design, unless shown
to be an unreasonable accommodation.”
Rationale for amendment:
Reasonable access for people of all ages
and abilities ought to, within the Plan's term, become the default standard.
3.5. Local Town Centres.
Policy 2. "Require
development to achieve a high standard of design."
* Request Amendment to: “Require
development to achieve a high standard of universal access design, unless shown
to be an unreasonable accommodation.”
Rationale for amendment:
Reasonable access for people of all ages
and abilities ought to, within the Plan's term, become the default standard.
3.6. Neighbourhood Centre zone.
Policy 2. "Require
development to achieve a high standard of design."
* Request Amendment to: “Require
development to achieve a high standard of universal access design, unless shown
to be an unreasonable accommodation.”
Rationale for amendment:
Reasonable access for people of all ages
and abilities ought to, within the Plan's term, become the default standard.
3.7. Mixed use zone.
Policy 4. "Require
development to achieve a high standard of design.”
* Request Amendment to: “Require
development to achieve a high standard of universal access design, unless shown
to be an unreasonable accommodation.”
Rationale for amendment:
Reasonable access for people of all ages
and abilities ought to, within the Plan's term, become the default standard.
8. Special Purpose zones.
8.3. Healthcare Facility zone
Policy 3. "Enable
detailed site-specific planning to reflect how major hospital and healthcare
facility sites will be used and developed."
* Request Amendment to: “Enable detailed
site-specific planning to reflect how major hospital and healthcare facility
sites will be used and developed, noting the requirements of many
non-ambulatory visitor-patients, and their need for proximity parking and-or
pick-up and drop-off areas.”
Rationale for amendment:
The functional requirements of health
service users ought to have high priority in design and development.
8.4. Major recreation facility zone.
Objective 2. "Major
recreation facilities are enabled to: A. “Provide for the social, economic and
cultural well-being of people and communities."
* Request Amendment to: A. “Provide for
the social, economic and cultural well-being of all people and communities."
Rationale for amendment:
A. Major public facilities supported by
public money ought to be explicitly inclusive of all people, unless such
provision is shown to be unreasonable. Traditionally, the provision of
adequate ramps and accessible toilets are overlooked.
B. Major recreation facilities
supported by public funding ought to enable active and/or passive
participation by people of all ages and abilities.
Policy 7. C. "Are
of a good standard of design and appearance."
* Request Amendment to: “Are of a good
standard of accessible design and appearance.”
Rationale for amendment:
Many Aucklanders, regardless of age and
ability, love to watch their recreation and sport.
8.7. Retirement Village zone.
Objective 3.
"Developments are well designed and provide high-quality on-site
amenity."
* Request Amendment to: “Developments
are well designed with full accessibility for residents in mind, and provide
high-quality on-site amenity."
Rationale for amendment:
Internal and external design and build
that incorporates the concepts of universal access can markedly reduce resident
dependency and enhance dignity and personal autonomy.
8.9. School zone.
Objective 1. "The
educational needs of schools' students are met and the well-being of students,
staff and visitors is provided for."
* Request Amendment to: “The
educational needs of schools' students are met and the well-being of students,
staff and visitors is provided for including accessibility requirements.”
Rationale for amendment:
There is a strong economic rationale for
accessibility requirements being built into new education-based projects.
Avoid complaints and expensive refits under equal rights legislation; eliminate
avoidable barriers to student education, and to staff employment opportunities;
and ensure more flexible use of premises by local communities. (The Ministries
of Education and Health are generally ahead of Councils when it comes to
understanding and implementing accessibility provision).
8.10 Tertiary Education zone.
Objective 1. "Tertiary
education facilities meet the education needs of their students, facilitate
research and development, and provide for the well-being of staff, students and
visitors."
* Request Amendment to: “Tertiary
education facilities meet the education needs of their students, facilitate
research and development, and provide for the well-being of staff, students and
visitors, including the reasonable provision of accessibility requirements.”
Rationale for amendment: There is a
strong economic rationale for accessibility requirements being built into new
education-based projects. Avoid complaints and expensive refits under equal
rights legislation; eliminate avoidable barriers to student education, and to
staff employment opportunities; and ensure more flexible use of premises.
Part 3 Regional and District rules.
Chapter H. Auckland-wide rules.
6.6. Affordable housing.
1.1. Number of retained affordable
housing dwellings. "Where a new development within the RUB contains more
than 15 dwellings or involves the creation of more than 15 vacant sites, at
least 10% of the total number of dwellings or vacant sites within the
development must be retained for affordable housing."
Support. Access
provisions equivalent to "Life Mark standards, ought to apply to some
affordable housing stock.
Rationale: It is reliably
estimated that between 40 and 70% of people with permanent disabilities do not
have fulltime employment and are often reliant on social housing schemes to
meet their needs.
Chapter I. Zones rules.
1. Residential zone rules.
6.12. Development controls - Universal
Access:
Medium to large-scale residential development: also applicable to: 7.22, mixed
housing suburban zone; 8.24, mixed housing urban zone; 9.23 terrace housing and
apartment buildings zone.
"Purpose: Medium to large-scale
residential development provides equal physical access and use for people of
all ages and abilities."
* Request Amendment to: “Purpose:
Medium to large-scale residential development provides equal access and use for
people of all ages and abilities, having reasonable regard to locomotor sensory
or perceptual impairment.”
Rationale for amendment:
A. Dignified and direct access to
buildings, open spaces and public facilities can be constrained by physical,
(locomotor), sensory or perceptual factors as well as personal circumstances –
mothers with push-chairs, travellers with luggage etc. Universal access is
most usefully thought of as eliminating avoidable design and built barriers to
access for all people. New Zealand law and design practice is outdated when it
comes to inclusion and the elimination of avoidable barriers to participation
and enjoyment of facilities, services and amenities intended for public use.
If Auckland's "liveability" is to become real, then Councils must
show practical leadership that fosters independent functioning by all citizens
through more inclusive design.
B. Consistency of language and
interpretation of what may constitute disability is important for proper administration
and regulation.
10. Assessment restricted discretionary
activities.
10.2 Assessment criteria.
F. Design of parking and access. -
Location and design of vehicle and pedestrian access. viii, "The design
of pedestrian routes between dwelling entries, carpark areas, private and
communal open space and the street should provide equal physical access for
people of all ages and physical abilities and provide a high level of
pedestrian safety and convenience."
* Request Amendment to: The design of
pedestrian routes between dwelling entries, carpark areas, private and communal
open space and the street should provide equal access for people of all ages
and abilities and provide a high level of pedestrian safety and convenience.
Rationale for amendment:
A. Mothers with toddlers and
push-chairs, travellers with bulky luggage or, people with poor sight or
hearing, and perceptual difficulties may all be endangered, as well as
residents with locomotor impairment. Good lighting and the "shared space"
concept is useful here.
B. Design and build ought to be
inclusive of all people, irrespective of usual circumstance.
C. Consistency of language and
interpretation of what constitutes disability is important for administration
purposes.
ix. Ramps. "Ramps
where necessary, should be minimal in length and integrated into the design of
the building and landscaping."
* Request for amendment: This wording
needs review for the following reason -. If a ramp is necessary it probably
needs to be of a length and gradient that enables wheelchair access. (See
NZS4121).
Accessibility of common areas.
x. "Common areas within
buildings should be designed to provide equal physical access for people of all
ages and abilities."
* Request for amendment to: Common areas
within buildings should be designed to provide equal access for people of all
ages and abilities.
Rationale for amendment:
A. Delete the word "physical"
as it implies locomotor restriction alone. Mothers with toddlers and
push-chairs, travellers with bulky luggage or, people with poor sight or
hearing, and perceptual difficulties may all be inconvenienced, as well as
residents with locomotor impairment. Good lighting and adequate space is
important.
B. Design and build ought to be
inclusive of all people, irrespective of circumstance.
C. Consistency of language and
interpretation of what constitutes disability is essential for administration.
11. Assessment - development control
infringements.
Matters of discretion. "In
addition to the general matters set out in clause 2.3 of the general
provisions, the Council will restrict its discretion to the matters listed
below for the relevant development control infringement: 8 "Universal
access - effects on accessibility."
Support.
11.2 Assessment criteria. "In
addition to the general assessment criteria for development control
infringements in 2.3 general provisions, Council will consider the relevant
criteria below for the listed development control infringements:
6. "Universal access: a. "Effects
on accessibility". I. "For development that infringes this control,
consideration will be given to whether meeting the control would cause a
significant amount of land modification and adverse effects on the landscape or
natural features of the site." II. "Consideration will also be given
to whether other universal design features are incorporated into the
development that would mitigate any adverse effects created by the
infringement".
* Request for amendment by the addition
of the following two clauses:
A. Provided that, such decisions are
taken in consultation with practitioners experienced in Universal Access Design
and reflect the technologies and best practice of the day.
B. That, compromise mitigations or
offsets are deemed, by practitioners experienced in Universal Access Design, to
be reasonable, workable and state of the art.
NB: Experienced universal access
design practitioners with a knowledge of design, build, impairment and
disability are scarce in this country; there is a case for Auckland Council to
build capacity experienced in universal (inclusive), design.
Public open space zones.
4. Assessment - restricted
discretionary activities.
4.2. Assessment criteria. D, Development
design, external appearance and landscaping: - last bullet point:
"Developments, including building and structures for public use are
designed to provide equal physical access for people of all ages and
abilities."
* Request for amendment to: Developments,
including building and structures for public use are designed to provide equal
access for people of all ages and abilities.
Rationale for amendment:
A. Delete the word "physical"
as it implies locomotor restriction alone.
B. Consistency of language and a clear
understanding of what constitutes ‘disability’ are essential for administration
and fairness.
Business Zones.
4.6. Buildings fronting the street. 3rd bullet
point: "Making buildings accessible by providing convenient and direct
access between the street and building for people of all ages and
abilities".
Support. This is an
excellent initiative! We would like this clause promulgated throughout the
Plan.
4.7. Building entrances. "Ensure
building entrances": 3rd bullet: "Provide convenient and direct
access between the street and building for people of all ages and
abilities".
Support.
4.12. Ground floor at street frontage
level.
"Make buildings accessible by providing convenient and direct access
between the street and building for people of all ages and abilities".
Support.
4.20. Dwellings, visitor accommodation
and boarding houses.
1. "Dwellings must comply with the
controls specified for the relevant zones below:
A. "In the metropolitan centre zone
refer to City Centre zone rules: vii: "Universal access for residential
buildings".
Support.
B. In the town centre, Local centre,
neighbour centre and mixed use zones, refer to the terraced housing and
apartment building zone rules: X. "Universal access".
Support.
6. Assessment - Restricted
discretionary activities.
6.2. Assessment Criteria. "Council
will consider the relevant assessment criteria below for the restricted
discretionary activities listed above.
1. "Drive through facilities,
activities within 30m of a residential zone, Supermarkets greater than 4000m in
the Local Centre zone. "C. "Design of parking, access and
servicing. iv. "Pedestrian access between parking areas, building
entrances-lobbies and the street should provide equal physical access for
people of all ages and physical abilities, and provide a high level of
pedestrian safety".
* Request for amendment to: Pedestrian
access between parking areas, building entrances-lobbies and the street should
provide equal access for people of all ages and abilities, and provide a high
level of pedestrian safety.
Rationale for amendment:
A. Access may be impeded by all manner
of circumstance. Poor sight or hearing and perceptual difficulties as well as
purely physical, (locomotor) type restrictions may prevail. Residents may be
endangered for a variety of design-based reasons including, good lighting,
clear markings and signage. The "shared space" and appropriate clear
signage concept is useful here.
B. Design and build ought to be
inclusive of all people, irrespective of their usual circumstance.
C. Consistency of language and
interpretation of what constitutes ‘disability’ is important for administration
purposes.
V. "Separate vehicle and
pedestrian access should be provided within parking areas, and between parking
areas, buildings and the street. "Shared pedestrian and vehicle access
may be appropriate where a lane or street is proposed within a development
site. "The shared access should prioritise pedestrian movement".
* Support – on condition that clear
signage is required.
viii. "Where ramps are necessary
they should be minimal in length and integrated into the design of the
building."
* Request for amendment of this
wording.
Rationale for amendment: There is a
possible contradiction with standard NZS4121.
4. City Centre zone.
4.41. Universal access for residential
buildings.
Support.
6.2. Assessment criteria.
C. Design of parking, access and
servicing. vii, "Ramps where necessary should be minimal in length and
integrated into the design of the building."
* Request for amendment of this wording.
Rationale for amendment: As above, there
is a possible contradiction with standard NZS4121.
D. Design and layout of dwellings,
visitor accommodation and boarding houses. iv. "Common
areas within buildings containing dwellings, visitor accommodation and boarding
houses should provide equal physical access for people of all ages and physical
abilities, in particular by providing doorways, corridors, and circulation
spaces of sufficient dimension and minimising stairs where possible."
* Request for amendment to: Common areas
within buildings containing dwellings, visitor accommodation and boarding
houses should provide equal access for people of all ages and abilities, in
particular by providing doorways, corridors, and circulation spaces of sufficient
dimension and minimising stairs where possible.
Rationale for amendment:
A. The term "physical access"
is open to interpretation. Use of the word "access" alone, covers
the broad spectrum of usual circumstance and impairment that would be reasonably
accommodated through universal (inclusive) design principles.
B. The term "physical
abilities" focuses on locomotor impairment alone and discounts other
impairments and personal circumstances.
C. A standard term is required
throughout the Unitary Plan to obviate misinterpretation by ratepayers and
administrators alike.
7. Assessment: Development control
infringements.
7.1. Matters of discretion. "In
addition to the general matters of discretion in clause 2.3 of the general
provisions, the Council will restrict its discretion to the matters below for
the listed development control infringement. 5. "Universal access: A.
"Effects on accessibility."
* Request Amendment to: Effects on
accessibility, without compromising reasonable accommodations.
Rationale for amendment:
A. When assessing development control
infringements, fairness to all parties is paramount. Reasonable accommodation
for people of all ages, abilities and usual circumstances, when considering
facilities services and amenities intended for public use, constitutes that
fairness.
7.2. Assessment criteria: "In
addition to the general matters of discretion in clause 2.3 of the general
provisions, the Council will restrict its discretion to the matters below for
the listed development control infringement.
5. Universal access.
A. Effect on accessibility:
I. "For development that does not
comply with the universal access control, consideration will be given to
whether meeting the control would cause a significant amount of land modification
and adverse effects on the landscape or natural features of the site.
II. "Consideration will also be
given to whether other universal design features are incorporated into the
development that would mitigate any adverse effects created by the
infringement."
* Request Amendment by the
addition of the following two clauses:
Provided that:
A. The test of "reasonable
accommodation” of the needs of people of all ages and abilities is applied; and
B. Compromise mitigations or offsets are
deemed, by practitioners experienced in universal access design to be
reasonable, workable and state of the art, and take into account the
technologies of the day.
8. Assessment, bonus floor area.
8.1. Public open space. B. Universal
access.
Support - Incentives are
desirable.
8.2. Assessment criteria: 1. Public open
space. A. pedestrian safety, interest and amenity. B. V. Universal access.
Support - Incentives are
desirable.
End.
