Riverton is 38 km from Invercargill, sitting on the banks of the Jacobs River Estuary. It is a pretty little place and on the Southern Scenic Route, attractive to visitors and those passing through. People can also take some time to check out the view from the Riverton Viewing Platform, so long as you are not a person with a disability as this report shows...
Congratulations to Frank O’Boyle from Opus for his design of the Riverton Focal Point Viewing Platform which won Highly Commended at the Carter Holt Harvey Timber Design Awards 2007. This is somewhat surprising and very concerning because the Riverton viewing platform has been designed and constructed in such a way that it does not comply with access provisions of the Building Code. The Building Act 1991 and the Local Government Act 1974 details what is required for design and access for people with disabilities and the faults identified by a Barrier Free Assessor include:
· There is no signage to indicate wheelchair access.
· With the first flight of steps the first riser is 190 mm high the rest are 150 mm high.
· There is very little colour contrast on the nosings. The nosings should be of a clearly contrasting colour compared to the rest of the steps.
· The middle handrail at the top of the first flight of steps finishes at the top of the last riser.
· The height of the handrail measured at the ramp is 1060 mm at the bottom and 1040 mm at the top, the handrail height should be 900 mm - 1000 mm (840 – 900 mm NZS 4121)
· With some panels there are gaps between the handrails of varying widths. Gaps measured were from 30 mm, 40 mm, 45 mm, 55 mm the largest is 73 mm. Handrails should be continuous so that a persons hand cannot slip between the handrails.
· There should be no obstruction to the passage of the hand along the rail grip. On the viewing platform there is a significant gap at each corner measuring 160 mm across.
Access requirements and what is acceptable is very clearly defined in the Building Code and New Zealand Standard 4121, so the information of what is required is available for designers to use when preparing plans. It appears that the designers have not referred to any of this information when they have designed this viewing platform.
Was any independent advice sought about access requirements?
Advice received from Fulton Hogan – the builders - they had no input into the consent process and constructed the viewing platform to a supplied set of construction drawings.
Advice received from Opus – the designers - is the viewing platform was designed to client specifications to a set budget.
Therefore a question that requires answering is why the Southland District Council issued a building consent when quite clearly the finished viewing platform does not comply with access provisions of the Building Code. The Riverton viewing platform has to rate as one of the worst examples of providing access to a public facility.
The Southland District Council needs to act immediately and rectify the faults with the Riverton viewing platform before issuing a Code of Compliance Certificate. But they argue that they granted a building consent with the viewing platform not being wheelchair accessible as they decided that wheelchair access to the viewing platform is not required because, according to them, there is no difference in views from where the present ramp finishes and the viewing platform is. (450 mm height difference) This is a ridiculous statement because if there is no difference in the view why put the extra level there at all? It is unacceptable to refuse access to the top viewing platform for a person who is unable to climb stairs as this is a place which all members of the public are entitled to enter.
· There is no signage to indicate wheelchair access.
· With the first flight of steps the first riser is 190 mm high the rest are 150 mm high.
· There is very little colour contrast on the nosings. The nosings should be of a clearly contrasting colour compared to the rest of the steps.
· The middle handrail at the top of the first flight of steps finishes at the top of the last riser.
· The height of the handrail measured at the ramp is 1060 mm at the bottom and 1040 mm at the top, the handrail height should be 900 mm - 1000 mm (840 – 900 mm NZS 4121)
· With some panels there are gaps between the handrails of varying widths. Gaps measured were from 30 mm, 40 mm, 45 mm, 55 mm the largest is 73 mm. Handrails should be continuous so that a persons hand cannot slip between the handrails.
· There should be no obstruction to the passage of the hand along the rail grip. On the viewing platform there is a significant gap at each corner measuring 160 mm across.
Access requirements and what is acceptable is very clearly defined in the Building Code and New Zealand Standard 4121, so the information of what is required is available for designers to use when preparing plans. It appears that the designers have not referred to any of this information when they have designed this viewing platform.
Was any independent advice sought about access requirements?
Advice received from Fulton Hogan – the builders - they had no input into the consent process and constructed the viewing platform to a supplied set of construction drawings.
Advice received from Opus – the designers - is the viewing platform was designed to client specifications to a set budget.
Therefore a question that requires answering is why the Southland District Council issued a building consent when quite clearly the finished viewing platform does not comply with access provisions of the Building Code. The Riverton viewing platform has to rate as one of the worst examples of providing access to a public facility.
The Southland District Council needs to act immediately and rectify the faults with the Riverton viewing platform before issuing a Code of Compliance Certificate. But they argue that they granted a building consent with the viewing platform not being wheelchair accessible as they decided that wheelchair access to the viewing platform is not required because, according to them, there is no difference in views from where the present ramp finishes and the viewing platform is. (450 mm height difference) This is a ridiculous statement because if there is no difference in the view why put the extra level there at all? It is unacceptable to refuse access to the top viewing platform for a person who is unable to climb stairs as this is a place which all members of the public are entitled to enter.
When the Southland District Council were asked if any advice was sought about access requirements prior to issuing the building consent there was deafening silence. The Southland District Council as the relevant Territorial Authority and the Department of Building and Housing have no powers to grant waivers or modifications to the access requirements Section 67 & 69 Building Act 2004.
The council is not adhering to regulations that they are suppose to enforce. They are blatantly ignoring the rights of people with disabilities and they need to stop their plan to issue a Code of Compliance Certificate and PUT THINGS RIGHT!
12 comments:
How can a Council give a Building Consent for something that doesn't comply? If it was a house of office I bet they wouldnt. Well I hope they wouldnt if it wasnt accessable.
This is so typical of the bureaucrats. Fancy giving the designer an award. I imagine there will be some red faces at Carter Holts! The SDC have no choice really - they must fix it so it is fully accessible to everyone.
Do as I say not as I do!!
Hah. The Council's Guiding Principle is 'People First'- but only if you have functioning legs eh?
I feel sad reading this, I have been to Riverton and seen the veiw from the top. I am not disabled. The view is different up there, it is a lovely view. This is a bit like saying the view from a car is the same as from a van.....and we ALL KNOW ITS NOT! I guess the difference is here is people in wheelchairs cant get up there to say...no its not.
Jodie Oamaru
Absolutely UNBELIEVABLE!!!!!!
Does the media know??????
Sounds like the 'old boys' network mentality is very strong in the south?
Been trying for 12 months to get answers from appropriate people.
Not able to be solved at a local level. Looks like a lot of outside help and support will be needed to put this act of discrimination right.
Official notice from the Southland Council: If you have a disability you are not welcome in our backyard!
They're not just bureaucrats, they are Nazis! I see they are also trying to stop the freedom campers down there too. Well you ppl in Southland know how to vote dontcha?
This comment from Southland District CEO Dave Adamson at the Riverton Community Board meeting held 19/12/2007
Mr Adamson commented that first priority was for the structure to obtain a compliance certificate, secondly assess the possibility of upgrading access to the top level and costings involved.
I have never heard of a building having a Code of Compliance (CCC) issued before it complies with the building code.
I am quite sure anybody else building something would not even attempt to do this let alone be allowed to by the Council!!
Perhaps the SDC can then turn around and say oh it has been issued a CCC therefore it must comply!!
Bravo, you were visited with simply brilliant idea
Post a Comment