Good

day Date:17.06.2014

South Tyneside Council (STC) & Sunderland City Council (SCC) are
responsible to ensure plans submitted for approval for the
development on Marine Walk Sunderland meet the requirements of
building regulations.

I have been advised that I cannot presently take legal action to
pursue our concerns regarding this complicity involving both
councils.

I have been advised that we must now wait for the development to
be built before we can take legal action. I have also been
advised as I intend to pay for legal advice, but represent my
family and disabled persons in court that I should make you aware
of my intentions.

I will explain how I believe both councils are complicit and
intentionally discriminating against persons with mobility
restrictions.

South Tyneside Councils reply to the freedom of information
request
(https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/disabled_access_4#incomin
g-517120) has raised many questions.

South Tyneside Pre-Application Advice Notes Dated: 31/05/2012 for
the attention of Sunderland Council, states as follows:

a) 1:15 / 1:20 approach should be provided to the access / rear
of the first floor architectural office and the residential
units. If some improvement can be made to the existing ramp
situation, and due to the existing topography of the site, a
relaxation may be considered.

b) Upon agreement of the principal entrance to the architectural
office, I can confirm if the net floor area is under 1OOm2 and no
unique facility is provided on the upper level, then a lift or
platform lift is not required (LABC relaxation agreement).

It is stated that a 1:15 / 1:20 approach to the first floor
offices should be provided yet it has not been provided, and no
improvement has been made to the existing hillside path / ramp.
None of the above has been achieved, yet STC allowed a LABC
relaxation for the requirement of a lift to the approved first
floor offices of 240 m2, which SCC accepted.


I have sent previous emails that directed STC and SCC to the LABC
guide to vertical circulation in non-domestic buildings. It
directs clearly (page 4) that, first floor office space over 50m2
requires a lift to enable vertical circulation be available to
all. It is not as stated above if the (net floor area) is under
1OOm2 and no unique facility is provided on the upper level, then
a lift or platform lift is not required.

The first floor offices are unique facilities, as the development
has no offices at ground floor level. The guide to vertical
circulation in non-domestic buildings is very clear and states
above 50m2 requires a lift.

The existing topography of the site is what it is and the
architect must consider how to design a new development
accessible to all as required by law. Of course this is also why
we have building control, which should ensure building
regulations are adhered to.

Nowhere in approved Document M or the guide to vertical
circulation in non-domestic buildings is there any reference to
net floor areas. This is a misrepresentation of building
regulations by STC and SCC to assist a known associate / customer
of STC building control and planning departments.

South Tyneside Council was asked as follows.

Question: Please provide details of the constraints of the site
that South Tyneside building control department considers valid
reason not require a lift to the first floor office space

Answer: Site Constraints are as mentioned in the access statement
and shown on the plans that access has already been provided by
Sunderland City Council through the planning process.

This is a totally unacceptable answer from a building control
surveyor / building control authority. The reply is simply
inadequate and attempting to place the onus of the responsibility
of compliance to building regulations onto other departments.

The access statement simply states: (The site is very limited and
difficult to develop, due to the existing levels and topography
of adjoining land. The existing retaining wall has to remain in-
situ, which is to the rear of site and limits access to the rear
of the development.)


The facts are the development site the owner bought is on a
hillside, which obviously he was well aware of before purchasing
the site. The owner is an architect and would have known the
requirements of the building regulations. The site has the
benefit of an existing retaining wall, which is the focal area of
development due to the cost of providing additional retaining
walls.

The site purchased is approximately twice the size of the planned
development therefore; there are NO constraints to the site other
than financial constraints of building additional retaining
walls.

This is confirmed by Sunderland City Councils Valuation report,
quote: (The proposed development is not restricted in terms of
land as the owner has further land where the development could be
moved etc.) As stated above there are no constraints to the site
as financial considerations should not be a consideration when
accessing a building with non-domestic first floor use and the
requirement of inclusive access. (A Lift).

The access experts report I provided to both councils stated:
lift access was subject to a regulatory impact assessment and the
cost of lift access and maintenance cost were not identified as
an issue that would preclude this requirement being introduced

South Tyneside Council have given building approval for a new
development to be built, with planning consent for 240m2 of first
floor office space without requiring a lift be provided by
illegal manipulation of building regulations. I believe SCC is of
the mind to allow the development to proceed regardless of the
information provided.

South Tyneside Council and Sunderland City Council have not and
do not appear to intend to consider their public sector equality
duty in any way, or make reasonable adjustment to prevent
discrimination of disabled people. This is completely obvious by
the amount of mail I have sent both councils, which provides not
only the law but also the Secretary of States decision on a
practically identical case.

I have identified the corruption and discrimination against
disabled persons. Your actions thus far have been to
intentionally misinterpret building regulations. South Tyneside
Council and Sunderland City Council will hopefully be made to

admit their complicity in a court of law, presumably under the

Equality Act 2010.

Regards Len Lowther