It seems like the Southland District Council is not the only Territorial Authority discriminating against people with disabilities. This letter from Andrew Hall, CEO of Burwood Spinal Trust has been sent to the Mackenzie District Council. The response from the MDC Community Facilities Manager was that the original surface for the playground was to be NuMat but it was changed at the last minute (AFTER public consultations closed) in order to save money!
Over the Christmas and New Year break my family and I were staying in our holiday home in Twizel and we were most interested to see the completed town centre developments. The landscaping and development has clearly made the area much more attractive and the bird sculptures are excellent too.
I was disappointed however to see the completely inaccessible new playground area and ‘only accessible with difficulty’ surrounding white gravel pathways. I have two small children aged 10mths and 3½ years and the older boy is a frequent playground user. He was down at the old Twizel playground just about everyday when we were there and I’m sure that the younger boy will soon also be a big time playground user.
It is completely impossible for me, as a parent who uses a wheelchair, to assist my children in the new playground due to the loose gravel surface that has been applied. If the material is able to be solidified in some way, maybe with crusher dust, then access may be slightly improved (although still not ideal) however I assume it will then become unsuitable for safety reasons.
Last year the New Zealand Spinal Trust constructed a $130,000 garden and playground in front of the Burwood Spinal Unit and the surface that was laid in the playground was called Safe-T-Mats supplied by Numat Industries in Oamaru (ph: 0800 686 287). This surface cost about $66/sq metre (excl GST and excl installation and freight) so is clearly not cheap but it is the best surface by far for playgrounds.
Also it seems there are still some large gaps in the playground area so I am hopeful that some of the equipment still to be installed will include items suitable for Under 5s. Maybe some of the items could be from the old playground or perhaps they could be new items of a similar nature (particularly the slides and the fort structure)?
The NZ Spinal Trust is very interested in assisting the Mackenzie District Council to develop fully accessible facilities anywhere so please feel free to contact us at any time if you think we can help.
Monday, January 28, 2008
Playground Access Issue
Sunday, January 13, 2008
RIVERTON VIEWING PLATFORM FIASCO!
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!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
