Blind Citizens
Draft Disability Standards
for Access to Premises
April 2004
Endorsed by the National Ethnic Disability
Summary of Recommendations
Recommendation 1
That deemed to satisfy provisions for people who are blind or vision impaired in the areas of way finding are emergency access and egress are incorporated into the Standards as soon as possible.
Recommendation 2
That Part 4 - Exceptions, section 4.1 (4) (b) of the draft Standards be deleted.
Recommendation 3
That the draft Standards be amended in such a way that premises are only assessed as being compliant with the Standards if tactile ground surface indicators are installed according to the deemed-to-satisfy provisions.
Recommendation 4
That the draft Standards be amended to require that the edges of glass doors and partitions be marked so that they contrast with both the glass surroundings and background. The Standards should also require that where a handrail is installed in place of a decal on glass, it does not create glare and it contrasts with both the glass surroundings and background. In both cases, the contrast should be of both luminance and colour.
Recommendation 5
That the draft Standards be amended to require that lifts in buildings of three or more levels have audible announcements of floor levels.
Recommendation 6
That the draft Standards be amended to require that accessible signage be installed in buildings which have multiple lift banks, servicing different levels of a building. This signage should identify the range of floors serviced by each bank of lifts and provide directions to the other banks of lifts.
Recommendation 7
That the draft Standards be amended to require that lifts in buildings which have secure floors should give an audible indication that an individual's attempt to select a secure floor has been successful.
Recommendation 8
That the draft Standards be amended to require contrasting edging to be installed on emergency exit steps.
Recommendation 9
That people with disabilities should have standing to both refer a matter to an Access Panel and make submissions to an Access Panel.
Recommendation 10
That Access Panels should consult with relevant disability organisations or people with disabilities likely to be directly affected by the decision of the Panels.
Recommendation 11
That all members of an Access Panel should have extensive and compulsory training in disability access issues.
Recommendation 12
That an alternative solution or decision that unjustifiable hardship exists must be referred to an Access Panel during the first two years of operation of the Protocol and Access to Premises Standard.
Recommendation 13
That the second stage of the Draft Disability Standards for Access to Premises development commence as soon as possible and address the extension of accessible signage and the accessibility of internal fittings and fixtures.
Blind Citizens Australia welcomes the development of draft Disability Standards for Access to Premises and the opportunity to comment on their adequacy. The Standards will ensure that finally, ten years after the enactment of the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA), the building industry will begin to systematically meet its obligations to people with disabilities.
In this submission we identify improvements to the draft Standards and highlight issues requiring urgent attention in the future. Specific responses to the proposed Administrative Protocol and the Regulatory Impact Statement are also provided (the latter as an attachment).
Blind Citizens Australia is the peak national organisation of people who are blind or vision
impaired. We have fifteen branches across
Through their involvement in local branches and our state and national publications, our members gain opportunities for peer support and social interaction and access to blindness-specific information and advocacy support. Our national and Victorian offices provide individual and systemic advocacy support, and our NSW and Western Australian offices a limited information service, to all people who are blind or vision impaired.
We would state at the outset our disappointment that the approach taken to the development of the Standards – prioritising harmonising the Building Code of Australia and the DDA – has restricted the range of access issues that can be addressed, with the negative impact of this restriction falling disproportionately on people who are blind and vision impaired.
The Standards contain few deemed-to-satisfy provisions that specifically address the access needs of people who are blind or vision impaired. Essential features to assist a person who is blind or vision impaired to locate and use a building in safety and with dignity are not included, such as braille, raised tactile or audible signage about building names or tenant information and braille or raised tactile floor numbers outside lift doors.
The draft Standards also do not include instructions for how to provide:
· braille, raised tactile or audible maps
· braille, raised tactile or audible signs for finding services or facilities in a premises or
· safe and detectable paths to a building from a street
We appreciate that this is because the Building Access Policy Committee did not have access to reliable research in this area and we have supported the Way Finding in the Built Environment research project in an attempt to overcome this. Nevertheless, we place on record our dissatisfaction that the lack of research was not addressed sooner so that these issues could be included in the first stage of the Standards development. We also emphasise the importance of reviewing the Standards when the results of this and other research is available.
Recommendation 1
That deemed to satisfy provisions for people who are blind or vision impaired in the areas of way finding are emergency access and egress are incorporated into the Standards as soon as possible.
Part 4 - Exceptions, section 4.1 (4) (b) of the draft Standards, lists as a relevant circumstance to an assessment of unjustifiable hardship "the extent to which the building work concerned involves public funds, and consequently the extent to which it is expected that the building will be accessible to the public". This requirement is repeated in the Administrative Protocol.
We are concerned that this clause:
· is not clear, particularly in relation to the notion of public funds and the use of the term accessible, which could refer to a building's level of physical accessibility or the extent to which it is expected to be used by the public;
· would not extend the higher obligation to rental properties used by public agencies (few public agencies own the buildings they operate in); and,
· could lead to the creation of a lesser obligation on private operators, who might argue that the inclusion of this clause in the defence section is recognition that public funds are needed to be able to afford accessibility.
This clause should be removed from the defence section of the Standards.
Recommendation 2
That Part 4 - Exceptions, section 4.1 (4) (b) of the draft Standards be deleted.
Blind Citizens Australia appreciates the draft Standards’ clarification that an accessible path of travel must be maintained to premises’ entrances. We welcome the retention of the following requirements which are already included in the Building Code of Australia:
· braille and raised tactile signage to identify accessible toilets and rooms fitted with a hearing augmentation system; and,
· braille and raised tactile buttons in lifts.
We also welcome the introduction of requirements in the following areas:
· warning tactile ground surface indicators to be installed to warn of hazards;
· a solid strip on glass doors and walls which could be mistaken for doors; and,
· automatic audible information within a lift car to identify the level each time the cars stops, in lifts that serve more than 3 levels
However, in relation to the above, we do not consider that the provisions go far enough. Our recommendations in each area are addressed below.
Blind Citizens Australia supports the principles of universal design and we encourage building designers and builders to construct buildings and public spaces in such a way that they are accessible to all people in the community. However, even with the best design there will still be situations where the installation of tactile ground surface indicators (TGSIs) is necessary to provide essential orientation or warning information to people who are blind or vision impaired.
The nature of blindness is such that consistency and predictability in the installation of TGSIs is vital. A person who is blind or vision impaired must be able to trust that every TGSI in every State and Territory is installed correctly in order to accurately determine the nature of the decision or hazard they are confronted with. The Australian Standard AS1428.4 provides detailed instructions on the design and installation of TGSIs to ensure this consistency is achieved. Every TGSI which is installed that does not meet this standard has the effect of undermining all TGSIs.
For this reason, Blind Citizens Australia recommends that under the Standards the physical characteristics of TGSIs (dimensions, colour and luminance contrast and positioning) be treated only as deemed to satisfy provisions, not as performance requirements. Allowing builders and designers the freedom to introduce individual and idiosyncratic designs can only reduce access for people who are blind or vision impaired.
Recommendation 3
That the draft Standards be amended in such a way that premises are only assessed as being compliant with the Standards if tactile ground surface indicators are installed according to the deemed-to-satisfy provisions.
Glass presents a safety hazard for blind and vision impaired people because it is very hard to detect. Large panes of glass used as windbreaks or partitions and glass doors set in glass walls are particularly difficult to distinguish. This is not only dangerous, but can make it very hard for a person to determine where the entrance to a room or building is. Of course, these problems are not unique to people who are blind or vision impaired. Most Australians have experienced near misses with glass walls or doors that they did not see and know the frustration of not being able to tell where they are supposed to enter a building.
Recommendation 4
That the draft Standards be amended to require that the edges of glass doors and partitions be marked so that they contrast with both the glass surroundings and background. The Standards should also require that where a handrail is installed in place of a decal on glass, it does not create glare and it contrasts with both the glass surroundings and background. In both cases, the contrast should be of both luminance and colour.
The draft Standard requires audible announcements of floors in buildings of more than three levels. Blind Citizens Australia considers that this should be amended to include buildings of three levels. It is difficult for people who are blind or vision impaired to keep track of floor levels, particularly if they are in a noisy or busy environment, being distracted, or if the doors open and close on the same floor. The Standards should also require braille or raised tactile floor numbers to be installed outside lift doors to assist people who are both blind and deaf.
People who are blind or vision impaired face particular difficulties locating the correct lift to use in buildings which have multiple lift banks that service different levels of a building. It is essential that in these situations accessible signage is installed that identifies the range of floors serviced by a bank of lifts and directions to their other banks.
People who are blind or vision impaired can also find it difficult to operate lifts in buildings which restrict lift access to certain floors. In these situations, lifts should give an audible indication that an individual's attempt to select a secure floor has been successful.
Recommendation 5
That the draft Standards be amended to require that lifts in buildings of three or more levels have audible announcements of floor levels.
Recommendation 6
That the draft Standards be amended to require that accessible signage be installed in buildings which have multiple lift banks, servicing different levels of a building. This signage should identify the range of floors serviced by each bank of lifts and provide directions to the other banks of lifts.
Recommendation 7
That the draft Standards be amended to require that lifts in buildings which have secure floors should give an audible indication that an individual's attempt to select a secure floor has been successful.
People who are blind or vision impaired are at a particular disadvantage in the event of an emergency because of the lack of accessible emergency information. We understand that research in this area is being conducted and we look forward to the outcomes. However, in the meantime buildings can be made easier to negotiate in the event of an emergency by the addition of contrasting edging on emergency exit steps.
Recommendation 8
That the draft Standards be amended to require contrasting edging to be installed on emergency exit steps.
Blind Citizens Australia has identified three issues of concern related to the proposed Administrative Protocol. These are the role of third parties, the selection of access experts and the voluntary nature of the protocol.
Blind Citizens Australia is extremely concerned that people with disabilities do not have standing under the Administrative Protocol to refer a matter to an Access Panel.
We believe that this lack of standing decreases the accountability and transparency of the process and is not consistent with the right generally conferred on members of the public to make complaints about perceived breaches of the Building Code of Australia. Under the proposed Protocol which is designed to specifically deal with disability access issues, people with disabilities have less capacity to raise concerns than under most general building review and dispute schemes. This could result in the absurd situation that whereas a person may have had the right to make a complaint under existing processes, because the matter has been referred to an Access Panel, the person does not have a voice.
People with disabilities should have standing to both refer a matter to an Access Panel and make submissions to an Access Panel. The disability sector contains significant expertise and its involvement will improve the access outcomes for people with disabilities. Notice should be given to the public that a matter has been referred to an Access Panel. There should be a requirement that an Access Panel consult with relevant disability organisations or people with disabilities likely to be directly affected by the decision of the Panel.
Recommendation 9
That people with disabilities should have standing to both refer a matter to an Access Panel and make submissions to an Access Panel.
Recommendation 10
That Access Panels should consult with relevant disability organisations or people with disabilities likely to be directly affected by the decision of the Panels.
Blind Citizens Australia is also concerned that an Access Panel only has to contain one person competent in access. The Protocol does not state that this person has to be an expert in disability access. The Protocol simply states that a "person competent in access" is defined as a person recognised as having the necessary qualifications and experience in access matters. This would presumably include all architects and building surveyors. We believe that all members of an Access Panel should have extensive and compulsory training in disability access issues.
We are strongly opposed to the proposal that in the one State which does not have existing administrative building review processes, Access Experts be appointed to consider alternative solutions and unjustifiable hardship.
Recommendation 11
That all members of an Access Panel should have extensive and compulsory training in disability access issues.
Blind Citizens Australia is concerned that there is no requirement that a proposed alternative solution or a question of whether unjustifiable hardship exists be referred to an Access Panel. The Impact Analysis refers to the relatively low risk of a discrimination complaint being lodged under the current situation. A Building Control Authority or private surveyor might consider the risk worth taking by not referring a matter to an Access Panel rather than potentially increasing the costs of a building project. We are concerned that there will be pressure on building surveyors and Building Control Authorities to not "waste time" referring matters to an Access Panel.
This would result in a process which confers no benefit for people with disabilities. A possible solution would be to require alternative solutions to be referred to an Access Panel for the first two years of the Protocol and Access to Premises Standard.
Recommendation 12
That an alternative solution or decision that unjustifiable hardship exists must be referred to an Access Panel during the first two years of operation of the Protocol and Access to Premises Standard.
As stated earlier, the updating of the Standards to incorporate the findings of the research into way finding and emergency access and egress must be a priority.
In addition, the restricted nature of this first stage of the Standards' development makes it essential that the second stage should commence as soon as possible. This second stage should address:
· the provision of accessible signage for services and facilities in a premise
· accessible signage that identifies buildings from the road boundary
· adequate lighting levels within buildings
· colour and luminance contrasting in fittings and fixtures
Recommendation 13
That the second stage of the Draft Disability Standards for Access to Premises development commence as soon as possible and address the extension of accessible signage and the accessibility of internal fittings and fixtures.
Attachment 1: Response to the Regulatory Impact Statement
Introduction
The Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) underestimates benefits and exaggerates costs. In some sections, notably the discussion of employment, it is poorly argued and presents uncritically highly contentious ideas.
The RIS acknowledges that the approach taken in the development of the Access to Premises Standard – prioritising harmonising the Building Code of Australia and the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) – has restricted the range of access issues that can be addressed. It must be acknowledged that the negative impact of this restriction will fall disproportionately on people who are blind and vision impaired, whose access needs remain largely unaddressed in the Standard.
Research Basis
Overall, the RIS relies too heavily on research done by Dr Jack Frisch. The reliance on a single source undermines the validity of the work, particularly as this work relates only to people with physical disabilities. At times, research is used that does not appear relevant to the Access to Premises Standard, for example, the research identifying factors leading to people with physical disabilities being disadvantaged in society (page 39). The RIS does not demonstrate how the Access to Premises Standard will mitigate these.
The comparison made between the likely impact of the Access
to Premises Standard and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is highly
problematic. The
Inadequate referencing weakens the document. An example is the reference to a not-further-defined census on page 37. Statements such as those contained in the second paragraph on page 69 require substantial referencing. Reference 34 on page 62 does not include enough information to be useful to a broader audience. Subjective terms are used inappropriately in the document: section 9.3 on page 77 refers to an “eminent legal scholar” and an earlier reference on page 43 to the “most authoritative” expert.
Finally, the RIS cites as a benefit of the draft Standard the number of injuries that might be prevented if people use lifts rather than stairs. This is a highly problematic conclusion, given the likely increase in health care costs if people stop taking the stairs.
The Consideration of Employment
The entire section dealing with employment is flawed because of its too great reliance on research conducted by Frisch and the inadequate arguments used to counter Frisch’s research.
The strict economic approach taken in the RIS, which presents the value of lost employment only in terms of lost income, is inadequate and will tend to underestimate the costs due to the relationship between ageing and disability. Most people who have a disability will be near the end of their working lives. This does not mean however that their exclusion from the workforce due to inaccessible premises is of less importance than it is for younger people.
In relation to the determination of the willingness to pay, it is disingenuous to argue that a calculation based on what an individual ought to pay to protect against the costs of disability is not subjective, particularly when altruistic payments are explicitly considered.
Costs and Benefits
The net cost of the draft Standard which is calculated in the RIS is not an accurate reflection of the true benefits to people with disabilities and the broader community.
The RIS has not costed the substantial benefits to people with disabilities and the broader community of 10 year’s exclusion from premises being redressed. The corollary is also true; the cost of the Standard has been exaggerated because it has not been apportioned over the ten years that the building industry has had to meet its obligations under the DDA. This failure is particularly relevant to costs considering the span of buildings (fifteen years). The RIS has not taken into account in the determination of costs how many buildings which are currently not compliant with the draft Standard were built or modified in the last decade. A substantial oversight in the RIS costing is the premium rent that DDA complaint premises will be able to attract.
The data on the number of people who use aids and equipment (Table 2, page 38) does not include people who are blind or vision impaired who use mobility aids or those with a print disability who will benefit from improved signage. This latter group in particularly is large (it is estimated that 3% of the population has a print disability). The estimated benefits are therefore likely to be underestimated. The benefits of glazing may also be understated because this access feature is used by the whole proportion, not simply those who are blind or vision impaired.