Access Insight - Winter 2021

WINTER 2021

International Insights

I am not a robot The Lifemark New Zealand story

A Slow Journey To Inclusivity: Understanding accessibility in India Recognising the need for universal design approaches through engagement with the United Nations

Universal Design in Developing Countries The Centre for Excellence in Universal Design (CEUD) The History Of ‘Accessible’ Homes in the UK and the Role of Approved Document M

THE MAGAZINE FOR THE ASSOCIATION OF CONSULTANTS IN ACCESS AUSTRALIA

IN THIS ISSUE

ACAA COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT

From the President’s Desk.......................3

PRESIDENT: Lindsay Perry

Congratulations from the Committee of Management...........................................4

VICE PRESIDENT: Farah Madon

ACAA State Access Consultants Network.................................................4

SECRETARY: Mrs Anita Harrop

ACAA website: new Events page...............5

TREASURER: Mr Howard Moutrie

Fellow Members......................................6

ORDINARY MEMBERS:

Recognising the need for universal design approaches through engagement with the United Nations.......10

John Moulang Lynda Wilem Mr Francis Lenny

A Slow Journey To Inclusivity: Understanding accessibility in India and its complex journey to create an enabled environment.............................14

Mr Richard Seidman

I am not a robot....................................20 The History Of ‘Accessible’ Homes in the UK and the Role of Approved Document M.........................................24 The Lifemark New Zealand story.............30 Universal Design in Developing Countries..............................................34 Address: 20 Maud Street, Geelong VIC 3220

The Centre for Excellence in Universal Design (CEUD)......................................43 Technical Insights: Dimensioning and Tolerances............................................44

Email:

admin@access.asn.au

Phone: +61 3 5221 2820 Web:

www.access.asn.au

Editor:

Anita Harrop aieditor@access.asn.au

Autumn 2021 Issue

Review.................................................47 Hot apps and websites..........................50

Cover photo credit: iStockphoto Please email the Editor if you would like to showcase your project on the Cover of the next Access Insight

FROM THE PRESIDENT’S DESK

by Lindsay Perry

President of the Association of Consultants in Access Australia

T

his edition of Access Insight focuses on the international context. While we are very much aware of what happens within Australia, it is also good to know how accessibility is addressed in other countries.

Personally, I love looking beyond our shores at options and scenarios that we can draw upon in our work. What is working, what is not? It is always great to compare, contrast and make informed decisions in the pursuit of an inclusive environment.

The last few months has seen many developments affecting access to the built environment within Australia, most noticeably the release of AS1428.1 (2021): Design for access and Mobility Part 1: General requirements for access – New building work, on 18 June 2021.

This is the document upon which most of our work is based so being across the changes is quite important. It is an exciting step forward.

The ACAA Management Committee submitted a response to the National Construction Code (NCC) 2022 Public Comment Draft that closed on 11 July 2021. I thank all of those involved in preparing this document. It is important that ACAA, as the peak national body for access consultancy in Australia, has a voice.

Office of the NSW Building Commissioner that access consultants are not required to be registered under the provisions of the Act and Regulation and that they do not prepare certificates under the provisions of the Act or Regulation. We have circulated a statement to this effect to members – please be mindful of this advice when providing services in NSW. I also draw your attention to our new Fellow members – Eric Martin and Chris Porter – and acknowledgement of Joe Manton who has been presented with her award. Congratulations on your achievement. Traditionally, Fellow memberships are presented at our conferences however, in the light of COVID, a new approach has been taken this year. I invite you to read through the achievements of each of these members throughout their careers as access consultants and thank them each for their commitment and contribution to the industry.

Without this precedent and leadership, ACAA may not be where it is today.

Enjoy this issue!

In NSW, the Design and Building Practitioners Act 2020 and Design and Building Practitioners Regulations 2021 came into effect on 1 July 2021. There has been much confusion as to the role and responsibility of access consultants under the Act. We have had advice from The

Winter 2021

3

ACAA MATTERS

ACAA website: new Events page We are going to take a look at the new ACAA events page which can be found here: https://access.asn.au/accessibilitycommunications/accessibility-events

The second row allows you to click on each event recording that you have access to (you will need to be logged in to see them) and proceed to watch them again or catch up if you were unable to attend a session you registered for

This page is a one stop shop for ACAA events and allows you to: • register for upcoming ACAA events • purchase access to previous event recordings that you did not register for • view previous event recordings that you were registered for • view your event history page where you can download invoices, tickets and CPD certificates • view your CPD records page where you can add, edit and view your CPD records.

It is best to log in before going to this page and then you will be able to see all your purchased recordings and proceed to other private pages without any delay.

The third row allows you to view your event registration history and download paperwork relevant to your attendance or to go to your CPD records page to keep your CPD up to date

The top row of the page allows you to register for upcoming ACAA events or purchase access to previous events you may have missed. Recorded events will be available for purchase up to one year after they occurred unless they only applied to a topic that was time sensitive and has now expired.

This page is the first in a series of pages planned for release this year that will group site functionalities together and hopefully provide an easier way to find things on the web portal for managing your membership and career path.

Warm regards and happy web browsing Jacqui Blanch ACAA webmaster

4

THE MAGAZINE FOR THE ASSOCIATION OF CONSULTANTS IN ACCESS AUSTRALIA

ACAA MATTERS

Congratulations from the Committee of Management

ACAA State Access Consultants Networks

The ACAA Committee of Management congratulates the following members on upgrading to Accredited and Associate membership and welcomes our new Affiliate members. Congratulations all!

NEW SOUTH WALES

ACCREDITED MEMBERS • Travis Craig • Reeshika Vallabh ASSOCIATE MEMBERS • • • • • •

David Antiss Andrew Crossweller Anna Eaves Joshua Marshall Andrea Reece Elton Trong

AFFILIATE MEMBERS • • • •

Bianca Pople Yohana Colorado Clint Mills Adrian Rose

Contact: ACAA NSW Chairperson

Robyn Thompson

SOUTH AUSTRALIA Contact: ACAA SA Chairperson

Grant Wooller

QUEENSLAND Contact: ACAA QLD Chairperson

Angela Chambers

VICTORIA Contact: ACAA VIC Secretary

Mr Paul Eltringham

WESTERN AUSTRALIA Contact: ACAA WA Chairperson

Anita Harrop

Winter 2021

5

Fellow Members Eric Martin, AM Master (Built Environment), B Architecture (Hons), LFRAIA Eric Martin completed his honours degree in Architecture at the University of Melbourne in 1972.

He worked with the Department of Housing and Construction (DHC) in Victoria, ACT, NSW and Central Office up until the end of 1981. In 1980 he completed his Master’s Degree in the Built Environment at the University of NSW. On his return from Sydney he took up the position of ACT Region International Year for Disabled Persons (IYDP) Coordinator then acting DHC Central Office IYDP Project Officer controlling the Department's IYDP program throughout Australia in 1981. This was his introduction into an extended career in providing access advice.

In 1982 he left public service and took up the position of Canberra Manager and Director of the Cox Architecture Group. During his time with the Cox Architecture Group Eric had the responsibility of managing the Company's business in Canberra and directing the Canberra Office of a large national practice. This involved all facets of architectural practice including being director of large projects.

He was also responsible for heritage and disability access provisions for the firm nationally. In 1998 he left the Cox Architecture Group to establish his own architectural practice offering a full range of services with additional expertise in architectural conservation, heritage and access for people with disabilities.

In the 23 years that Eric has managed his own practice, Eric Martin and Associates, he has developed a national and international reputation for his work in the areas of accessibility and heritage buildings. He has been an active practitioner in these areas as well as general architecture. During this period he has given his time to taking on almost 50 honorary positions in organisations associated with architecture, access and heritage. He has also presented and lectured at many conferences and courses (more than 120) in Australia and overseas.

He has produced 40 books, articles, chapters and papers in his area of expertise.

Eric has received significant recognition for this work. He was awarded a Member of the General Division of the Order of Australia in 2005 for his professional and community work in Heritage and 6

Access. In 2009 he was awarded the Inaugural Margaret Spalding Award for excellence by an individual in delivering services and contributing to people with disabilities at the 2009 ACT Chief Minister’s Inclusion Awards. It was noted that Eric had provided access advice and work on more than 1,000 buildings in the ACT. Recently it has been estimated that number has risen to 3,000 to 4,000.

In 2013 he was awarded a Life Fellowship of the Australian Institute of Architects. The National Trust (ACT) conferred on him an honorary Life Membership. This was followed in 2019 by his being awarded the Australian Institute of Architects ACT Chapter Architectural Professional Practice Award. In conferring this award the Institute noted that: ‘Eric’s contribution to architectural practice, the wider profession and indeed the community is enormous and sustained. Eric is a life Fellow of the Institute and an exemplary professional architect who has promoted the profession with his competence, dignity, intelligence and good humour.’

Eric is a past President of the ACAA a position he held for 4 years and has served on the ACAA Management Committee for 14 years. He has continued to assist the ACAA in various capacities since 2014. He was awarded a Fellow of Association of Consultants in Access, Australia in 2020.

Eric is currently a member of the Australian Institute of Architects National Access Work Group, the Institute’s National Practice Committee, the Institute’s Representative on the UIA Region IV International Committee on Access and Heritage.

He is a member of the Australian Building Codes Committee. He is also a member of the Australian Standards Committees ME64 (Access) and ME004 (Lifts).

Although Canberra-based, his access work is national, with extensive work in Queensland. He undertakes projects in all states and territories on a regular basis.

THE MAGAZINE FOR THE ASSOCIATION OF CONSULTANTS IN ACCESS AUSTRALIA

Fellow Members Ms Joe Manton Inaugural recipient of the ACAA Fellowship Award Joe Manton, Director of Access Institute, was the recipient of the inaugural Fellow Membership Award of ACAA. This award was in recognition of the significant contribution Joe made in the field of access as an entrepreneur in the development and delivery of access qualifications for the Certificate IV in Access Consulting, the Diploma of Access Consulting and numerous other courses offered by Access Institute. The award also recognised Joe’s contribution to advance the rights of people with a disability in her career as an advocate and expert Access Consultant.

After a successful career in management and leadership in local government, Joe began her life as an Access Consultant in the early 1990s. Joe initially established Access Audits Australia, a highly successful access consulting business providing services to many hundreds or organisations Australia wide, including many local Councils.

Throughout the early years in the industry, Joe became acutely aware of the lack of formal qualifications for Access Consultants and believed that for the industry to prosper, Access Consultants needed to be on a par with other professionals working in the building and development sectors. She funded an educational visit to London to spend time at the Centre for Accessible Environments, where she was asked to present to students who were working towards their qualifications in Access Consulting in the UK. This experience, combined with her vision and passion to professionalise Access Consulting, led to her developing a nationally Registered Training Organisation and to develop and deliver the Certificate IV and Diploma of Access Consulting qualifications.

Joe believed that it would be inevitable that governments and other clients requiring access consulting services would only be interested in engaging qualified professionals. It was therefore imperative that the opportunity was provided to interested candidates to undertake formal training to enter the sector well equipped for the rigours of

the role. This prediction was proven to be correct, as a range of government departments - as well as the NDIS - have made it mandatory for access professionals to hold a qualification in access consulting in order to provide relevant access services.

In addition to her own business role, Joe served on the ACAA Management Committee for seven years, including time as the Vice President of the association.

This was a challenging time for the industry as they grappled with moving from the older, more benevolent concept of access, to understanding and embracing access as a fundamental component of Universal Design that had benefits far greater than for the disability sector alone.

Joe’s drive, enthusiasm, and commitment to contribute to all aspects of committee work - be that in policy development, membership application and support, conference and event organising, and development of a professional basis for ACAA members – has been outstanding.

Over the past thirty years Joe has presented to, and contributed to many thousands of organisations, individuals and industry sector working groups across Australia as well as overseas, to support and advance the profession of access consulting.

She continues to expand the role of Access Institute as the key training organisation for Access Consultants in Australia, now delivering not only the access consulting qualifications but also the LHA Assessor, SDA Assessor and Changing Places Assessor courses, as well as a wide range other programs to support the ongoing development of the sector.

The access profession owes Joe a debt of gratitude.

Winter 2021

7

Fellow Members Chris Porter Access Consultant A JOURNEY OF THREE PARTS Cathryn Grant took time out recently to discuss with Chris the journey he took to end up being awarded a Fellow of ACAA. In a nutshell, it can be broken down into three parts.

1. ADELAIDE AND SOUTH AUSTRALIA Raised & educated in Adelaide, the result was a degree in Architecture from SAIT (now on Uni SA).

His first job was with an architect specialising in heritage, churches and bank branches. However, the pay rate was very low and was supplemented by casual work at Adelaide’s leading sports store on Friday nights and Saturday mornings. The sports store was instrumental in honing sales and customer service skills. Impromptu competitions were held amongst the staff to see how many sales of a particular product could be achieved on a given night. The gift of the gab often enhanced by a pre-work session at the Uni bar Friday afternoon.

During those university days, Chris was actively involved in running youth groups and as treasurer of the local tennis club. However, when Peddle Thorp Brisbane came south seeking staff to work in Brisbane in August 1981, he accepted the offer and headed north. The pay rate made it hard to refuse, and the challenge of it all exciting.

2. BRISBANE AND FAR NORTH QUEENSLAND The jump from a 2 person office in Adelaide to a very large Architectural practice with 80 staff in Brisbane, working on large commercial office and hotel projects was significant, but Chris soon found himself thrust into the Project Architect role, managing a team of architects and draftspersons, and dealing with crafty and sometimes, unreasonable builders and clients. The faith that the directors of the firm had in Chris has never been lost on him. The construction market was roaring in 1988 (World Expo had been hosted at Southbank) and the first half of 1989. Then it all changed overnight as project after project was shelved.

An opportunity arose to then move to Cairns.

Peddle Thorp had bought out an established Cairns practice and wanted one of their own to keep an

8

eye on the place. Chris was quick to put his hand up and moved there with the young family in November 1989, becoming a Director in 1991. In 1989, the pilot’s strike was in full swing, the economy was very damaged, but Chris had a hospital project to manage plus schools and aged care for the Catholic Church, so there was no downtime.

Opportunities arose on projects throughout the Far North Queensland region and Papua New Guinea.

His time spent travelling Cape York and the Torres Strait islands was very special, as primary health care centres and remote area housing for medical staff were being provided in many indigenous and islander communities. Three day site inspection trips in a small plane every month during 1994 and 1995 with the client rep, engineer, clerk of works and builder were a lot of fun. The Cairns climate (maybe not wet season) and lifestyle were very enjoyable aspects of the time there.

3. MELBOURNE AND ACCESS CONSULTING While still in Cairns, a chance meeting in 1998 saw the establishment of Architecture & Access in November of that year. A review of the accessibility of some of the recently completed healthcare projects identified that, especially in the islander communities, compliance with AS1428.1 (the 1993 version at this time) as per the client brief, did not meet the needs of the people. Double wheeled chairs do not fit through 800mm clear openings.

Moving south to Melbourne in August 1999, Chris & Diane hung the shingle out hoping the larger Melbourne market would embrace the ‘access newcomers’. It was a slow-ish start, but by 2003 Chris was able to give up architectural subcontract work to focus fully on the ‘access’ business. Staff were employed and the house split in two, with the front bedrooms absorbed to accommodate the new recruits. Training of new Access Consultants began in earnest.

THE MAGAZINE FOR THE ASSOCIATION OF CONSULTANTS IN ACCESS AUSTRALIA

Fellow Members Chris Porter (continued) In 2012, an opportune phone call to Andrew Sanderson saw the merger between Andy’s Blythe Sanderson Group and Architecture and Access conceived and effected in 5 weeks. The combination of the two firms enabled further expansion and more staff to be employed and trained, with offices also opened in Brisbane and Adelaide.

A very gratifying element for Chris, is not only the number of staff who have now clocked up long service leave at A&A, but also those who have left and have taken up significant roles in other firms.

4. THOUGHTS FROM THE JOURNEY The balance between work and the rest of life is a challenge to us all, especially for those where their job is a life passion. Keeping a healthy body and mind is paramount. Chris, as well as his involvement with ACAA for many years, has been President/

Treasurer of a number of Kindergarten committees – I mean with six children it is hard to avoid a role.

Currently he is involved in both junior and senior tennis committees and has led his team to successive premierships in the last two completed seasons. Weekly squash games have also continued over the years as well, so his life is not all about work and no play. Having a very hard working father, who loved all his roles, has certainly influenced Chris’ outlook, a trait that can now be seen in Chris’s children in their various pursuits.

Chris fondly remembers the early days of ACAA back in 2000, and the drive that the ACAA founders had back then to create Access Consulting as a profession in the construction industry. His goal has always been to build on that, to train more professional Access Consultants so that we collectively, can have greater strength as a group and help influence a more inclusive and accessible environment.

It’s all about access & freedom Para Mobility specialises in the design, manufacture and distribution of disability equipment. Our key Australian made products include: • • • • • •

Pool access hoists Pool access platforms Lift and change facility equipment Ceiling hoists & tracks Wall mounted adult change tables Building code compliant equipment

Phone 1300 444 600 sales@paramobility.com.au www.paramobility.com.au

Winter 2021

9

FEATURED ARTICLE

Recognising the need for universal design approaches through engagement with the United Nations

by Dr Ben Gauntlett Disability Discrimination Commissioner at the Australian Human Rights Commission

I

n Australia 4.4 million people live with disability, each of whom has their own lived experience and unique story. Every person with disability has the right to be treated on an equal basis to other people, to live free from discrimination and to be included in the community. These rights are enshrined in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) but are also a dynamic, living part of the experiences of people with disability.

disability. Under the CRPD, universal design is the design of products, environments, programmes and services so that they are usable by all people, to the greatest extent possible, without the need for adaptation or specialized design.

The concept of universal design does not exclude the use or creation of assistive devices for particular groups of persons with disabilities where this is needed, but seeks to emphasise the importance of inclusive design.

The CRPD is the most recent international human rights treaty entered into by the international community and was ratified by Australia in 2008.

It is created with an understanding of people with disability as the holders of rights, which entitle them to be treated with dignity and respect.

A general obligation exists on all parties to the CRPD, like Australia, to “undertake or promote research and development of universally designed goods, services, equipment and facilities, which should require the minimum possible adaptation and the least cost to meet the specific needs of a person with disabilities, to promote their availability and use, and to promote universal design in the development of standards and guidelines”.i The breadth of the obligation

However, the CRPD is also novel in that it recognises the concept of 'universal design' and the importance of universal design to people with

10

THE MAGAZINE FOR THE ASSOCIATION OF CONSULTANTS IN ACCESS AUSTRALIA

FEATURED ARTICLE concerning universal design reflects its importance in facilitating the meaningful inclusion of people with disability. As a general obligation to the CRPD it underpins specific articles such as those relating to accessibility and the right to independence. In particular, universal design in housing, which makes a house accessible, can radically alter an individual’s ability to live independently and undertake economic and social participation.

Adopting universal design principles is a critical aspect of disability policy in Australia. The CRPD is given effect in Australia though a number of policies and laws, such as the National Construction Code and the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth). In Australia, it is often thought that the only disability policy that exists is the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS). This is incorrect. A raft of Commonwealth, State and Local government laws and policies impact upon the lives of people with disability in Australia. The interrelationship of these laws and policies is critical. In particular, because the nature of disability is unpredictable and people with disability are diverse, there is a need to design for everyone rather than retrospectively change products, environments, programmes and services when a person with disability is or may be present.

Although Australia has made many significant improvements in its laws and policies relating to people with disability, it still needs to improve on how products, environments, programmes and services are designed. This has been emphasised by the United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (Committee).

As a signatory to the CRPD and its Optional Protocol, Australia is assessed by the Committee in relation to its obligations to respect, promote and fulfil the rights of people with disability. As the national human rights institution, the Australian Human Rights Commission (the Commission) supports the Committee by providing an independent report on Australia’s compliance with the CRPD and recommendations on how the rights of people with disability can be fully recognised.

Australia most recently appeared before the Committee in 2019 in Geneva and I had the privilege of providing both an oral statement and

submission to the Committee on Australia’s progress with implementing the CRPD.ii This allowed me to raise the systemic gaps in Australia’s social policy and ongoing discrimination which has denied people with disability the full enjoyment of their human rights.

This includes the lack of a national framework to recognise the legal capacity of people with disability, ongoing indefinite detention of people with disability in the criminal justice system and the sterilisation of women and girls with disability without free, prior and informed consent.

The Commission’s submission recommended that the Committee consider the lack of progress relating to Article 9 (Accessibility) and Article 19 (living independently and being included in the community), including the lack of appropriate, affordable and accessible private and social housing, which severely limits the capacity of persons with disabilities to choose their place of residence.

In Australia, over 96% of people with disability live in the community, many of whom are not able to access housing which meets their needs.iii For people with disability, this lack of housing impacts their ability to live independently, participate in the community and enjoy the highest quality of life.

Given approximately 1 in 5 Australians live with disability, housing policy requires a policy and legislative response from all levels of government and both the public and private sector.

The inclusion of universal design principles in housing planning allows people with disability the opportunity to choose their own home, in their own community on an equal basis with others. It also ensures that housing can be adapted to suit different care needs, reduces disability and aged care support costs and increases independence for people with disability.iv Despite efforts to increase the availability of accessible housing, only 5% of housing built between 2010 and 2020 met the Liveable Housing Design Silver Standard.v In its final report, ‘Concluding observations on the combined second and third periodic reports of Australia’, the Committee concurred with the Commission’s recommendation that mandated national access requirements are necessary to ensure that Australia fulfils its obligations under the CRPD. The Committee also recommended Winter 2021

11

FEATURED ARTICLE Australia increase the range, affordability and accessibility of public and social housing for persons with disabilities, including by implementing a quota for accessible social housing and by developing regulations and standards to guarantee the progressive application of universal design principles in accessible housing.

I am pleased that in April 2021 Australia has moved to progress this recommendation with the Building Ministers’ agreeing to implement national minimum accessibility standards in the National Construction Code 2022 for new houses and apartments.

Since this meeting however, some Australian States have indicated a potential reluctance to implement this agreement. This outcome is regrettable as it means there is a potential breach of Australia’s obligations under the CRPD. Hopefully, all States will realise the benefit of minimum mandatory accessibility standards for new houses and apartments.

Additionally, there is also still an urgent need to increase the amount of social housing and to ensure that social housing embraces universal design principles. But our understanding of universal design and the related concept of accessibility should not be limited to the physical environment. This is particularly critical as key services including communication tools, government information and education are rapidly being digitised.

The Commission recently released the Human Rights and Technology report which demonstrates

12

that people with disability have lower rates of digital inclusion compared to the general community, resulting in exclusion from information and services.vi With the rapid pace of technological innovation and design, we cannot allow people with disability to be left behind and prevented from accessing the expansive benefits that technology brings.

We need to ensure accessibility and inclusion for people with disability across all aspects of life.

The Commission’s Human Rights and Technology report provides recommendations and insight into how this can be achieved.

We must develop a culture of universal design in all aspects of our society, from housing to technology. When accessibility is considered only at the end of the design process, people with disability are denied the opportunity to fully enjoy their rights to inclusion. This has been recognised through the Commission’s engagement with the United Nations CRPD processes. However, every one of us has the obligation to raise awareness of the responsibility of governments to promote and legislate for universal design approaches. i United Nations General Assembly 2007, Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, A/RES/61/106 (24 January 2007) [4] ii Australian Human Rights Commission 2019, Information concerning Australia’s compliance with the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, https://humanrights.gov.au/ourwork/ legal/submission/ information-concerning-australias-compliance-convention-rights-persons iii Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, People with disability in Australia, p. 164. iv Gusheh M, Murphy C, Valenta L, Bertram N, Maxwell D 2021, Adaptable Housing for People with Disability in Australia: A Scoping Study, Australian Human Rights Commission, Sydney https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/disability-rights/publications/ adaptable-housing-peopledisability-australia-scoping-study

THE MAGAZINE FOR THE ASSOCIATION OF CONSULTANTS IN ACCESS AUSTRALIA

Upcoming Courses Aug - Sep 2021 Courses will be delivered via video / teleconference using Zoom enquiries to: admin@accessinstitue.com.au

CPP50711 Diploma of Access Consulting - 11 days 2, 3, 6, 7, 10 September and 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 20 October 2021

CPP50711 Diploma of Access Consulting Course for Occupational Therapists - 9 days 2, 3, 6, 7, 10 September and 13, 14, 15, 18 October 2021

CPP50711 Diploma of Access Consulting - Course for Building Surveyors - 8 days 2, 3, 6, 7, 10 September and 18, 19, 20 October 2021

Accredited Specialist Disability Accommodation (SDA) Assessor Course 1/2 day 19 August 2021, (12.30pm - 5.00pm)

CPD Sessions - 1 hour Overviews 11.00am - 12.00pm 17 August - Hearing Augmentation 31 August - Luminance Contrast 17 September - SDA Design Standard 21 September - Accessible Adult Change Facilities - Changing Places

www.accessinstitute.com.au

CPP40811 Certificate IV in Access Consulting - Course for Building Surveyors - 5 days 2, 3, 6, 7, 10 September 2021

CPP40811 Certificate IV in Access Consulting - 8 days 2, 3, 6, 7, 10 September and 13, 14, 15 October 2021

Bridging Course for CPP50711 Diploma of Access Consulting - 3 days 23, 24, 25 August 2021

Addressing Access and Universal Design in Parks, Playgrounds and Outdoor Spaces - 1 day 16 September (10.00am - 4.00pm)

CPD Sessions - 1 hour Overviews 11.00am - 12.00pm 1 October - Designing an Accessible Toilet/Shower 8 October - Universal Design V Access 22 October - Livable Housing in the NCC

T: 03 9988 1979 info@accessinstitute.com.au RTO Provider Number 22404

FEATURED ARTICLE

A Slow Journey To Inclusivity: Understanding accessibility in India and its complex journey to create an enabled environment

by Swapna Menon

Swapna Menon is a Mumbai based freelance feature writer and architect, with published architectural and entrepreneurship stories.

She loves extending her time and capacity to inclusion facilitation in diverse groups, and is inspired to raise awareness and action for accessibility needs within her community in India.

T

he latest Indian National Census estimates more than 26.8 million Indians live with disabilities, that’s roughly 2.2% of its population.[1] The World Health Organisation states that 15% of the global population lives with some form of disability. Indian disability activists argue that the actual count of India’s population living with disability lies somewhere between these two estimates. They reiterate that official numbers are grossly under reported and that Persons with Disabilities (PwDs) remain largely an invisible, unheard minority in their country.

Why does India, the fifth largest economy in the world, still struggle to provide visibility and the most basic access features to its citizens with disabilities? To grasp these challenges in the Indian context, it is essential to revisit the timeline of economic progress and understand the complexities in creating an accessible environment, in the most populous democracy of the world.

14

THE MAGAZINE FOR THE ASSOCIATION OF CONSULTANTS IN ACCESS AUSTRALIA

FEATURED ARTICLE A BRIEF HISTORY OF INDIA’S DEVELOPMENT PLANS AND THE EXCLUSION OF PwD’S FROM IT

1947

1951

1974

British India was split into the independent sovereign states of India and Pakistan. A systemically deindustrialized young nation found itself hopelessly poor and in dire need of reinventing its economic map.

India’s economic development plan was based on a broadly socialist concept of centralized and integrated national economic programs called The Five-Year plans (FYPs). The main focus of these programs were development models for Poverty Eradication, Rapid Industrialization, Infrastructure and Agriculture. On the socio-development front, the focus largely remained on Education and Population Control and providing Social Justice mainly to those discriminated by Caste and Gender.

This continued to be the driving vocabulary in the 12 FYPs that were implemented, until India’s Planning Commission was dissolved in 2015.

The FYPs were concluded in 2017, and a switch made to 3-year Action Plans.

A Minimum Needs Programme (MNP) was introduced as part of the fifth FYP with an objective to improve general living standards for Indian citizens. People with disabilities remained an invisible part of this population, for almost 3 decades more, as they were not accounted for in the National Population Census until 2001.[2]

Thus, roughly 26.8 million people with disabilities were clearly marginalized, while the rest of the country slowly pivoted towards economic and social development.

Attitude to Accessibility: A retrospective Narrative

1991

Economic liberalization was first introduced, and the country moved from an inward-looking socialist model of self-reliance to a more outward-looking, free-market economy. It marked India’s first steps to globalization and brought with it a broader context of living and making sense of the world.

Historically, the perception of people with disabilities in India, has been apathetic or condescending.

Disability stigma prevails to the present day and at its worst, it has been violently discriminatory and hateful.[3] This sparked the evolution of the Disability Rights Movement in India (DRM) about four decades ago.

1995

The Persons with Disability Act (PDA), India’s first ever Legislation addressing PwDs was passed, triggered by a series of petitions and protests by non-governmental agencies that were a part of the DRM.

7 different disabilities like 'blindness' to 'mental illness' were vaguely defined in the PDA. The provisions included a 3% reservation for government jobs and a general prescription to make 'public buildings and transport accessible'.

1998

As an affirmative step 'to create a barrier free environment for persons with disabilities', The Central Public Works Department (CPWD) published its first set of guidelines. Some of the international references used to outline and enumerate the CPWD guidelines were The Code of Winter 2021

15

FEATURED ARTICLE Practice - British Standard Institution BS 5810: 1979 and the Australian Standard Code of Practice for Design Rules for Access by the Disabled 1428 – 1977, published by Standards Association of Australia. CLICK HERE to download guidelines.

2012

The PDA directed authorities to implement measures only 'within the limits of their economic capacity and development'.

This provided a convenient loophole, often exploited for the non-implementation of accessibility regulations.

2007

Significantly, India joined the ranks of countries that signed the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Person with Disabilities (UNCRPD).

This brought fresh vigor to reiterate the concept of a barrier free India.

One of the earliest missions of the department was the Unique Disability ID project (UDID), that aimed at encouraging transparency, efficiency and ease of not only delivering government benefits to a person with disabilities, but to also ensure uniformity.

2014

On ground however, attempts for the development of an accessible built environment, were usually disrupted by the signature Jugaads (frugal hacks) of aggressive urbanization. To this day, both densely populated big cities and small towns alike, continue to battle issues of mismanaged development. Execution of projects with due compliance was hardly the norm.

The World Bank flagged this aptly in a feature report, 'Overlapping institutions across three tiers of government diffuses accountability across agencies, parastatal bodies and elected governments. This situation undermines India's robust democracy, clouds issues of responsibility, and blocks the development of coherent regulatory frameworks and sustainable service delivery models'. [4]

16

The Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment created a separate department to deal with Disability Affairs called the Department of empowerment of persons with disabilities (DEPwD)[5]

The Central Public Works Department (CPWD) released an updated handbook of guidelines on barrier free accessibility in the built environment. The CPWD detailed in this handbook, 'Practical low cost solutions to retro-fitting existing buildings, as well as methods used to assess the suitability of an existing building to improve access for disabled people.' CLICK HERE to access Handbook.

By this time, an adequately globalized India, grappled with problems typical of a country on the fast track to development. Two decades of a liberalized economy accentuated the problems of its built environment - lack of space, intense rural to urban economic migration and the need for vertical development.

2015

THE MAGAZINE FOR THE ASSOCIATION OF CONSULTANTS IN ACCESS AUSTRALIA

The Access India Campaign (AIC) was launched, within the framework of the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment. The target was to make at least 50% of government buildings accessible in each of its

FEATURED ARTICLE 29 state capitals and the city of New Delhi, the national capital. The AIC detailed that 'Measures should be undertaken to eliminate obstacles and barriers to indoor and outdoor facilities including schools, medical facilities, and workplaces. These would include not only buildings, but also footpaths, curb cuts, and obstacles that block the flow of pedestrian traffic.'

However, subsequent audits found that only 3% of India’s buildings had been effectively retrofitted.[6]

uneducated and clueless about its actual purpose. It’s just a rule to be followed.'

Clearly a stronger mandate and accountability were still missing to enforce accessibility norms.

Where there’s a lack of compassion, Enable and Enforce

2016

Ar. Tejaswini Pandit, of Hiten Sethi Architects (HSA), shares her experience in dealing with various scaled projects, 'Larger projects and green certification projects are taking accessibility as a norm, but medium to small scaled projects are still a long way from adopting these practices. Private developers in particular, tend to expect loopholes from consultants to save on every inch of space.'

While incorporating CPWD guidelines and National Building Code (NBC) has become the norm in design, proper interpretation and execution has not. Sensitization to the importance of accessibility and the gaps in technical knowhow continued to hamper the development of an enabled environment.

Ar. Darius Choksi, Director at CCBA Designs explains some of the practical issues, 'There are smart city standards that mandate tactile flooring in pavements. However, manholes, level changes, direction changes are usually not properly factored. The resulting number of bends or gaps post execution render them absolutely impractical.

Even the mason laying the tiles or the contractor executing it, are

The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act (RPwD) was passed by the government of India. An important modification of the Act, was expanding the list of recognized disabilities from 7 to 21.

A third and updated revision of the national building codes – NBC 2016 was released that year.[7] https://bis.gov.in/index.php/ standards/technical-department/ national-building-code/

Most importantly, RPwD mandated accountability on the part of organizations to make adequate accommodations without infringing on the PwD’s 'right to equality'.

2021

On 2nd March, at the cusp of a second deadly wave of Covid-19 that gripped the nation, the Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities (DEPwD) launched a crowd sourcing mobile application called Accessible India. The most significant module included in the app is a handbook titled 'Access: the photo diges'[8] that details 10 fundamental access criteria to be adopted in the built environment.

These 10 modules will be considered mandatory and non-compliance could now be punishable under the legislative cover provided by relevant sections (sections 40-46) in the RPwD Act of 2016.

Winter 2021

17

FEATURED ARTICLE It was under the purview of DEPwD that the Access India campaign was launched in 2015.

Almost 6 ineffectual years since then, the Joint Secretary of the Department, summarizes some of the practical difficulties faced in rolling out the campaign, as 'inappropriate retrofitting of public buildings, gaps in the level of understanding and a need for the proper sensitization of authorities.'

The 'Accessible India' app hopes to effectively identify physical and procedural gaps and facilitate remedial action by concerned authorities.

Ravindra Singh, a PwD and co-founder, CEO of myUDAAN, a social-impact driven technology start-up, shares his perspective. (myUDAAN literally translates as 'my flight')

'Presently, the abysmal nature of our accessible infrastructure is reflected in as basic a facility as a public toilet. I was shocked to see a Person with Disabilities Department placed on the second floor with no

18

THE MAGAZINE FOR THE ASSOCIATION OF CONSULTANTS IN ACCESS AUSTRALIA

lift and ramps. In another instance, when I visited one of the government offices listed in the Accessible India Campaign, that was audited and advised to make necessary changes in the past, the place was still not accessible.

The success and outcome of the campaign would depend on implementation, regular monitoring, and the level of engagement from all stakeholders.'

As inadequacies within the built up environment widened, a parallel ecosystem of NGOs, and entrepreneurs, some from within the PwD community like Svayam[9] and start ups like MyUdaan[10], have emerged to fill in those gaps.

Svayam, helps both government agencies and corporates to adopt accessibility measures as a non negotiable component in their infrastructure by providing access audits, capacity building and access consultancy services. The myUDAAN App provides on-demand Mobility Assistants, and checks accessible locations for convenient mobility.

FEATURED ARTICLE There is also increasing awareness and emphasis on inclusive education both within the mainstream education system as well as design education.[11] Hopefully, this elevates the inclusivity environment for persons with disabilities in the country, to rise above its historically welfare bubble of pity and sympathy to an empowered one.

A POST-COVID FUTURE FOR ACCESSIBILITY IN INDIA The pandemic, has tipped the balance against PwDs, already struggling for basic equities in India. Vulnerabilities in healthcare and crisis management procedures were brazenly exposed and shown to be ill equipped to deal with their needs.[12] However, with these challenges, an opportunity also presents itself. For example, rebuilding a post-Covid infrastructure for better healthcare in terms of new medical facilities, hospitals as well as mobility projects for better connectivity, presents a great opportunity to embrace universal design.

The pandemic that has forced the world to conceive a new normal and put new systems in place, could provide a fresh page to rewrite India’s slow turning story of inclusivity. With legislation in place, enforced accountability and a clearer mandate, the dawn of universal inclusivity seems to be on the horizon for an Enabled India.

REFERENCES [1] http://mospi.nic.in/sites/default/files/publication_ reports/Disabled_persons_in_India_2016.pdf [2] https://niti.gov.in/planningcommission.gov.in/docs/ plans/planrel/fiveyr/7th/vol2/7v2ch19.html [3] https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/crimesagainst-persons-with-disabilities-rights-organisations-wantncrb-to-maintain-data/article33635243.ece [4] https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/ feature/2011/09/22/india-urbanization [5] http://www.swavlambancard.gov.in/cms/aboutdepartment-of-empowerment-of-persons-with-disabilities [6] https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/ politics-and-nation/only-3-per-cent-of-buildings-accessiblefor-disabled/articleshow/63104371.cms [7] https://ncpedp.org/documents/NBCReview%20Report.pdf [8] http://disabilityaffairs.gov.in/content/upload/ uploadfiles/files/Dictionary%20on%20Accessibility.pdf [9] https://www.thebetterindia.com/192543/delhiqutub-minar-taj-mahal-tourism-facilities-jindal-accessible-tourism-india/ [10] https://myudaanstore.com/assistance-accessibility/ [11] https://www.hindustantimes.com/pune-news/ inclusive-architecture-is-a-paradigm-shift-sayskavita-murugkar/story-lF8EArK0g9HqKa5rQXYnNN.html [12] https://www.ncpedp.org/sites/all/themes/marinelli/ documents/Report-locked_down_left_behind.pdf

Winter 2021

19

FEATURED ARTICLE

I am not a robot...

by Dr Danielle Farrel

My name is Dr Danielle Farrel, I am 35 years old, and I have Cerebral Palsy. I am the Managing Director of Your Options Understood (Y.O.U), a Community Interest Company based in Scotland. Providing a range of services to disabled people and the wider community including advocacy and education and training. In this article I have illustrated that contrary to popular belief, disabled people are not robots and are in fact the people that know best when it comes to voicing what they need and how they wish to be supported in order to live the life they want to lead.

Y

ou might be reading this and thinking that this is going to be some type of futuristic post, imagining something that resembles RoboCop, something that continually completes the same tasks automatically and repeatedly.

However, it's not. It's a statement that refers to how I feel at times, due to having to rely on support as a result of living with a disability and I know I'm not alone in feeling like this. A phrase that would be better used is “what do I know? I only live it!!!”

It often comes as part of the many challenges you have to deal with regularly when you have a disability. I have relied on support since the age of 14 and I've lost count of the many times I have been asked the question by a social worker along the lines of "how long does it take you to...?". This sentence has many different endings from "how long it takes you to have a shower in the morning?", "to prepare a meal?", or my absolute favourite is "how long does it take you to use the toilet?" Really? Yes, it is a reality that disabled people are asked these questions. When you have as much experience as I do around receiving support you begin to understand the systems and 20

THE MAGAZINE FOR THE ASSOCIATION OF CONSULTANTS IN ACCESS AUSTRALIA

FEATURED ARTICLE therefore understand social work's way of thinking when they are asking questions like these. To a degree I can ALMOST understand why they need to understand such questions.

More often than not it's not actually them asking the questions, it's the managers who are responsible for allocating budgets and part of this is in them trying to pin point areas where budgets could be cut to save them money. The questions that really should be asked of disabled people are those such as "What do you need to help you live the life you want? What are your goals and aspirations?" It is sometimes the case that non- disabled people feel they could risk causing offence if they ask a disabled person what their goals and aspirations are. This is because there is a fear that disabled people can’t have goals or aspirations for their future due to their disability.

However, this couldn’t be further from the truth.

Anyone with a disability, and they will tell you, they just want an ordinary life and by ordinary, I don’t mean boring. I mean a life with the same goals, opportunities, and possibilities as non-disabled people.

If disabled people were asked more positive questions as opposed to questions like "how long it takes you to use the toilet?" or "do you really need support during the night?", the needs assessment process would be a much more positive one for all involved. However, in reality and in my experience the professionals carrying out these assessments take the dehumanising approach. By doing this, rather than getting to know a person, they are treating people like their disability rather than as a person. My “what do I know I only live it!!!” response was initially a sarcastic one that I would say when someone who didn’t have a disability would try to tell me how they thought that I should live my life. Now though “what do I know… I only live it!!!” has not only become my businesses tag line but also a phrase that is true for every disabled person.

So rather than making assumptions or having professionals trying to make us fit into a tick box on a form ask us, we are all individual, we are not robots, we are the ones that rely on support so ask us what we need. If professionals and disabled people can start to have good conversations instead of those that focus on what

Winter 2021

21

FEATURED ARTICLE someone can’t do or how long it takes them to complete daily living tasks, this would completely change the narrative for disabled people, their families and professionals involved in supporting them.

Some might argue that it’s due to the pandemic that disabled people are feeling forgotten about and not treated as equals in society, but this is not the case. This feeling has been a long-standing feeling within the disabled communities across the world. Some countries are getting better than others at addressing these concerns. In Scotland for example we have self-directed support legislation which was enforced to enable disabled people and their family’s choice and control of over their support and who provides it. This Scottish legislation also allows the individuals and families who receive it, to choose and control how they spend their support budget in the best way that meets their needs. There are other countries in the world that are also piloting initiatives such as personalised budgets that work similarly to self-directed support in their principles of offering choice and control to disabled people around their support.

22

Scotland might be ahead of other countries in the world in terms of implementing self-directed support legislation, but this does not mean that we still don’t have a way to go before getting it right. Legislation is only a small factor in terms of changing professionals and the wider societies attitudes to disability. It is more about changing the mind set and the only way this is truly ever going to be achieved is if professionals and wider society eradicate the conscious and unconscious fear of disability that still exists and this is only going to happen if people start to talk and engage with disabled people, the people who live it and overcome the challenges and attitudes That they face every day.

Engaging with us would mean that we are no longer “us and them”. It would mean that we are no longer the people who realise that we are being timed when being supported or that daily notes stating that “Danielle asked for assistance out of the toilet at 6.38 pm” would no longer exist. Does that world not sound better? A world where disabled people like myself are no longer treated like robots but who are champions of their own support and disability.

THE MAGAZINE FOR THE ASSOCIATION OF CONSULTANTS IN ACCESS AUSTRALIA

Australia’s only Type A inspection body accredited by the National Association of Testing Authorities, Australia (NATA) for slip resistance & recognised globally through the ILAC mutual recognition agreement to AS ISO/IEC 17020 for the inspection and conformity of slip resistance and luminance contrast testing.

02 9621 3706

www.SafeEnvironments.com.au

Winter 2021

23

FEATURED ARTICLE

The History of ‘Accessible’ Homes in the UK and the Role of Approved Document M

by Rachel Whymark Positive Access and Sustainable Solutions (PASS) Building Consultants

Rachel’s passion and advocacy for a more accessible (and sustainable) building environment began as a trainee building certifier in the UK 33 years ago. Specialising in interpretation of legislation, particularly of Part M (Access to and use of buildings), Part L (Conservation of fuel and power) and Part B (Fire safety) of the UK building regulations.

She went on to be part of the specialist building control team at the National House Building Council, judged the RIBA housing design awards, and worked as a project manager for the Movement for Innovation’s Housing Forum.

Rachel is an Associate member of the ACAA based in Cairns.

W

hen I emigrated to Australia 16 years ago, one of the first things I did was go and visit some display homes here in the tropics.

Construction methods are very different here, as are the developments themselves and I was fascinated at how different the model of housing is here compared to the UK. Here I saw lots of single storey homes on large blocks (in Cairns at the time standard lots sizes were typically 800m2).

In the UK, where space is at premium, having an entire estate of hundreds of detached single storey detached homes is just not possible.

However, whilst I was impressed with the size of blocks, and the beautiful homes built on them, I was pretty shocked to see single skin blockwork homes, full of air-conditioning, with little or no insulation, no eaves overhang, no regard for overall energy efficiency, and with absolutely no accessible features built in.

Why was I so surprised? Because in the UK (as with many other countries), lifetime homes have been the norm for decades, as have homes with a focus on energy efficiency. Let’s put it this way, I completed a thesis on the UK’s two established Energy Rating systems nearly 30 years ago.

In Australia, energy ratings have only been nationally mandated in the Australian Building Codes since 2003 (which was a woefully pathetic 4 stars). I am STILL waiting for the codes to introduce anything meaningful for Class 1a buildings in terms of ANY mandatory accessibility provision.

24

THE MAGAZINE FOR THE ASSOCIATION OF CONSULTANTS IN ACCESS AUSTRALIA

FEATURED ARTICLE So, whilst there are many aspects of Australian construction methods which I prefer in new homes, energy efficiency and accessibility are certainly not among them.

The unwillingness to embrace the very many short and long term benefits of building homes which meet high standards in these two areas has baffled me as I sit in my 9 star energy rated home typing this article, which only cost $268,000 to build (so excuse me, it does NOT have to be cost prohibitive), costs peanuts to run, and which will adapt to suit my needs over time without me having to resort to moving and building something more suitable.

I built my home nearly 10 years ago and incorporated the very sound principles of Approved Document M of the UK Building Regulations at that time, which is the standard applicable to all new homes built in the UK. Slightly wider doors, level thresholds, no steps (though there are exemptions for steep sites), higher GPO’s, reinforced walls to bathrooms and hobless shower, WC door opening outwards. It was seen as radical here 10 years ago, and took out several awards including HIA House of the Year in our region against multi-million dollar homes.

For me it was about showing what is easily achievable with some forethought on a pretty tight budget and about changing the perception of what a more accessible and sustainable home might look like (i.e. just like any other home in the street).

APPROVED DOCUMENT M – WHAT IS IT? In the UK, The Building Act 1984 is the primary enabling legislation under which the Building Regulations are made. It empowers the Secretary of State to make regulations for the purposes of ‘securing the health, safety, welfare and convenience of persons in or about buildings and of others who may be affected by buildings or matters connected with buildings’. The Building Regulations are statutory instruments that are the equivalent of our National

Winter 2021

25

FEATURED ARTICLE Construction Codes (NCC). These regulations cover all aspects of construction for all building types in terms of compliance. The latest building regulations were released in 2010.

Supporting these Regulations are Approved Documents. These cover everything from Part A - Structure to Part R – Physical Infrastructure for high speed electronic communications networks.

Each area having its own approved document and which are often broken down in to sections. Each one relates back to the over-riding requirement of the Building Regulations. It sounds complicated, but in reality, they work extremely well and are easy to read and interpret. Approved documents give practical guidance on how to meet the requirements of the Building Regulations. Part M, is the Approved Document which covers ‘access to and use of buildings’.

There are also British Standards (equivalent to our Australian Standards), but more reliance is placed on the approved documents for compliant solutions in most cases. British Standards might be referred to in unusual circumstances or particularly complicated situations, equivalent to providing a performance solution, but not called anything formal until 2004 (when access statements were introduced).

APPROVED DOCUMENT M TIMELINE 1992 – The Building Regulations 1991 Approved Document M (Access and Facilities for disabled people) is introduced. It does not apply to new dwellings at this point.

1999 – The revised edition now includes provisions for new dwellings: ‘Reasonable provision shall be made for disabled people to gain access to and to use the building’. Yes, builders struggled with this and Building Control Officers (building certifiers) all over the country

26

had to educate them on the implications and how to incorporate the new requirements.

2004 – Name change and an overhaul!

Now called Access to and use of buildings.

Main changes are that it draws on the guidance of British Standard (BS) 8300:2001 ‘Design of buildings and their approaches to meet the needs of disabled people – Code of Practice’. They no longer refer to ‘disabled people’ as they are wanting to focus on inclusivity. Section 4 is added, which covers audience and spectator facilities, refreshment facilities, sleeping accommodation and switches, outlets and controls. Sanitary accommodation in buildings other than dwellings moves to Section 5.

Additional guidance on educational establishments and purpose-built student accommodation is added. Also, an explanation on the relationship between Part M and the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 has been updated to reflect changes since the 1999 version was published. Access statements are introduced. These identify the philosophy and approach to inclusive design adopted by the project in terms of how they intend to meet the requirement if differing from the guidance in Part M (oh hello performance solution, there you are!).

2010 Amendments – Incorporates text amendments as a result of the new Building Regulations 2010.

2013 Amendments – Refers to Approved Document 7 ‘Materials and workmanship’.

References the Equality Act 2010 and the Equalities Act 2010 (Disability) Regulations 2010. Guidance on stairs and ramps, access statements, door opening forces, WC pans and suites is also updated with additional strategies included. Reference to Changing Places toilets in relation to toilet accommodation is included.

Additional definitions are included.

THE MAGAZINE FOR THE ASSOCIATION OF CONSULTANTS IN ACCESS AUSTRALIA

FEATURED ARTICLE

2015 – Now split into two parts. Volume 1 – Dwellings and Volume 2 – Buildings other than dwellings. Requirement M4 ‘Sanitary Conveniences in dwellings’, has been replaced by 3 categories: • M4(1) – Category 1: Visitable dwellings • M4(2) – Category 2: Accessible and adaptable dwellings • M4(3) – Category 3: Wheelchair user dwellings Interestingly, whilst the requirement M4 is referred to as having been replaced by new requirements, it actually encompasses M1 which is ‘Access to and Use of buildings’ as well as just sanitary conveniences for dwellings.

Regulation M4(1) is applicable for ALL new dwellings, whereas M4(2) and (3) are optional.

These would be specified as being required as part of the planning approval process for a development.

Remember, this Approved Document requires a level of accessibility for all new homes (including what we call class 1a buildings). They have been doing so quite successfully since 1999. But with the 2015 changes, there is far more

information on dwellings as they have their own volume (Volume 1), plus they introduce the two optional areas (Category 2 and 3).

2016 Amendments – Corrections and clarifications 2020 Amendments – Changing Places toilets mandated for appropriately sized publicly accessible buildings.

WHAT IS COVERED IN APPROVED DOCUMENT M AS MANDATORY FOR ALL DWELLINGS?

Requirement Category 1 – Visitable dwelling Access and use M4(1). Reasonable provision should be made for people to:(a) gain access to; and (b) use, the dwelling and its facilities.

Winter 2021

27

FEATURED ARTICLE

Briefly, this encompasses: • the approach and access to the dwelling (with some exemptions for steeply sloping sites) • the approach if alighting from a car • access and use of the entrance storey including a sanitary facility (or where there are no habitable rooms on the entrance storey, the principal storey) • switches and sockets in habitable rooms So, ramps and stairs, circulation spaces, gradients and crossfalls, surface materials, door and corridor widths, communal lifts and stairs, sanitary facilities (which are required to have basins in the UK, you cannot have a room with a WC and no basin).

WHAT IS COVERED UNDER OPTIONAL REQUIREMENT M4(2)?

Optional requirement Category 2 – accessible and adaptable dwellings M4(2) Optional requirement (1) Reasonable provision must be made for people to(a) gain access to; and (b) use, the dwelling and its facilities.

(2) The provision made must be sufficient to(a) meet the needs of occupants with differing needs, including some older or disabled people; and (b) to allow adaptation of the dwelling to meet the changing needs of occupants over time.

28

Briefly, this now covers a STEP FREE approach and entry to the dwelling, step free access to a WC and other accommodation on the entrance storey, plus to any outdoor private space. It provides for future adaptations to be carried out easily (e.g. strengthening walls for later grab rails), introduces more detailed spatial requirements and layouts for kitchens, living areas, bedrooms and sanitary compartments as well as bathrooms. Clear widths remain the same though for doorways and corridors. Apart from the principal entrance door (which requires a clear width of 850mm), internal doors still only need to be 750mm clear opening width, and 900mm clear width for corridors (when approached head on). There are additional requirements for controls and services.

WHAT IS COVERED UNDER OPTIONAL REQUIREMENT M4(3)?

Optional requirement Category 3 – wheelchair user dwellings M4(3) optional requirement (1) Reasonable provision must be made for people to(a) gain access to; and (b) use, the dwelling and it’s facilities.

(2) The provision made must be sufficient to(a) allow simple adaptation of the dwelling to meet the needs of occupants who use wheelchairs; or (b) meet the needs of occupants who use wheelchairs

THE MAGAZINE FOR THE ASSOCIATION OF CONSULTANTS IN ACCESS AUSTRALIA

FEATURED ARTICLE Briefly, it covers the same key areas as M4 (2) but with considerably more detail and additional circulation space information. Circulation space requirements around doorways are still very different to what we see in AS 1428.1 and in the SDA Design standards (850mm clear opening width is acceptable, with clearances either side of the door being determined as simply a 300mm nib to the leading edge and 200mm nib to the following edge). There is detail on transfer and storage areas for wheelchairs, lifts (including platform lifts), more information on room layouts, minimum floor areas, ceiling hoist provision and a lot more detail on suitable WC and bathroom layouts.

HOW DOES THIS RELATE TO AUSTRALIAN ACCESS REQUIREMENTS FOR DWELLINGS? With the advent of M4(2) and M4(3), this brings a whole new level of accessibility to dwellings in the UK, not seen before other than as best practice.

It is the planning process in the UK which stipulates if a development must incorporate accessible homes, and how many of each are required, over and above the minimum requirements for all new dwellings.

There has been ongoing research and dialogue from Government and non-Government bodies into appropriate housing to meet the needs of people with disabilities and also an ageing population and if the Building Regulations adequately meet these needs. These include the Joseph Rowntree Report in 2003 and more recently the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Governments consultation paper on ‘Raising accessibility standards for new homes’.

The difference being, compared to Australia, the UK building regulations have changed over time to at least meet some of these needs. There is still NOTHING in the NCC’s that cover class 1a buildings (single dwellings) in terms of accessibility.

However, I have my own opinions of where we should be aiming in terms of what should be mandated in ALL new homes. If it works in the UK, why should it not work here? They have, after all, spent nearly 30 years improving and refining their requirements and managed to garner support from industry bodies which are just as vociferous as they are here in Australia.

But that discussion is best left for another article.

Winter 2021

29

FEATURED ARTICLE

The Lifemark New Zealand story

by Geoff Penrose

T

his is the story of Lifemark, a not-for-profit organisation that has battled to change the way housing is built in New Zealand. It’s a tale of perseverance and how, like a sailing boat, you keep tacking into the wind to get to your destination.

To begin let’s look at the challenge.

The housing market in New Zealand is big and complex. The market is valued at $1.5 trillion and consists of around 1,800,000 dwellings with around 30,000 added every year. There has been a history of poor regulatory choices such as the failure to include insulation, the failure to produce water-tight buildings and more recently the need to upgrade the seismic strengthening of all buildings.

Set against this misery, accessibility was also virtually excluded.

30

Whilst there is clearly a shortage of accessible housing across New Zealand, the lack of coherent statistics makes it difficult to quantify this issue.

What is also very clear is that market forces do not deliver accessible homes. From a regulatory perspective, the Building Act (2004) has no residential access performance requirements and the New Zealand standard for Access and Mobility NZS 4121 (2001) ignores residential dwellings.

Even Councils struggled to encourage accessibility as independent hearing panels simply rule that any imposed Universal Design or Access conditions infringe section 18 of the Building Act that meant you cannot require performance criteria above the building code.

The net result was that by 2008, probably around 99% of the New Zealand housing stock was inaccessible, if we define access as including a

THE MAGAZINE FOR THE ASSOCIATION OF CONSULTANTS IN ACCESS AUSTRALIA

FEATURED ARTICLE level entry threshold, usable bathroom on the same entry level and decent spatial design for ease of movement.

We were simply not building houses that way and there was no prospect of change.

As a result, and as a mechanism to drive change, Lifemark was formed by CCS Disability Action, a pan disability organisation that was established in 1935 and delivers services to 5,000 disabled people across 27 offices. The role of Lifemark was to work with the construction and design sectors and champion accessible housing.

We began to work with the retirement sector who quickly understood the need to include Access features and further work revealed that the framework of Universal Design delivered wider functionality and offered greater market acceptance. We commenced work with Summerset Retirement Villages in 2009 and we still provide audit services to every Summerset Village today.

In 2012 we gifted a set of 80 voluntary Universal Design standards to the construction and design industry that incorporated a tiered system of performance.

The uptake was mixed with many designers simply selecting “some” of universal design features that they liked. This resulted in homes having an accessible bathroom on the second floor with no lift.

Retrospectively this is largely to be expected as Architectural qualifications only included a ½ day option on accessibility across a 4-year degree. The national peak bodies for construction and design also largely ignored Universal Design and there were few professional development modules on this topic.

Against this backdrop, the next few years for us were not pretty. We received some Government funding and then we simply grafted our way into an existence.

We coerced, courted, encouraged and enthused the industry to use our services. We managed to get over 150 organisations to join as members, and while many initially liked the idea, the majority still found it to hard to convince their project owners to include Universal Design certification. The framework would be used for a disabled client and it was still not seen as mainstream. The default position was also to build to the minimum, which was seen to also be the cheapest.

Lifetime value and lifecycle costs were not part of these conversations.

In 2016 we introduced an upgraded set of standards and centralised all advisory and certification services. We aligned our review process to fit the construction process and invested in new technology with our own customised web-based assessment tools. We targeted the owners of new developments and espoused the virtues of Universal Design.

Winter 2021

31

FEATURED ARTICLE We employed staff with a lived experience of disability that became our primary user experts so we could deliver better advice. While we were happy to assist individual owners, strategic change happens on a large scale and we looked to influence larger scale developments.

Public housing is another sector where Universal Design is effective. Often these residents are the more vulnerable members of society who can have a wide range of health issues and who significantly benefit from tenure that is safe, secure and accessible.

The market changed as well.

We work with a number of public housing providers, some of whom also require that 100% of their homes are Lifemark-rated and this becomes a contractual requirement for the building companies. The tiered performance system also helped support their asset management goals by quantifying the different level of accessibility within their housing stock.

Councils were required to think about their long-term plans and as the majority of councils faced an ageing population, they needed to put in place strategies to address these issues.

In July 2016 the Thames Coromandel District Council introduced a change to their District Plan.

They offered an incentive (increased site coverage) if you built to a Lifemark Universal Design standard as certified by Lifemark. We provided the administration and worked with the Designers, no cost to Council and no objection from planning commissioners as this was a voluntary initiative.

The Hauraki Council changed their District plan and more recently the Hamilton Council went one better and agreed to offer reduced development fees to inner city developments if they meet the Lifemark Universal Design standards as part of their people focussed housing strategy.

The private sector also came on board. Fletcher Living, the largest developer in NZ, delivered award winning designs to a One Central development in Christchurch that would deliver over 900 homes over the next 10 years and included Lifemark certification to over 50% of the dwellings. One of their next developments will increase this to 100%.

32

The Human Rights Commission recently defined that all New Zealanders have the right to a Decent home and that the definition of a Decent home was a home that was habitable, affordable and accessible.

Finally, the message was getting through.

Over the last 5 years we have formally certified over 2% of all new building consents and we recognise that another 3% are built to these standards but without a formal certification. In total, 1 in 20 homes are now being built to an accessible standard.

However, there is still a long way to go.

To help provide solutions to the market we have worked with product manufacturers and suppliers.

We provide knowledge though an interactive Age Lab training experience and this has resulted in some clever new products being delivered to the market.

THE MAGAZINE FOR THE ASSOCIATION OF CONSULTANTS IN ACCESS AUSTRALIA

FEATURED ARTICLE For instance, tapware product designs have been changed to be more usable for people with arthritic hands, slip resistant floor tile ranges have been clearly identified, strip drains for bathrooms are now easily specified and installed, grab rails come in a range of different colours and are integrated with shower slide rails where appropriate. One manufacturer is still developing a world first hinge door that is pneumatically sealed and self-draining. All of these products come from the Universal Design stable where aesthetics and functionality go hand in hand. These are not specialised products, but mainstream products that are simply easier and safer to use.

We occasionally get asked to review commercial and public buildings and accept these projects on one condition. We are looking at the ceiling, not the floor. In other words, we can provide advice on the legal minimums, but all our report will focus on the principles of best practice. We recently reviewed New Zealand’s National stadium Eden Park, who along with requirements specified by FIFA for the 2022 Women’s World Cup, also wanted to review their facilities and services against Universal Design best practice. To experience those improvements, you will need to attend the world cup… tickets available soon!

In summary we started and still work with the Retirement sector because their needs are obvious. Councils are slowly using incentives to encourage the designs that are future focussed, and the private sector is starting to understand the advantages of building to a Universal Design (UD) standard for all. Because regulatory change is slow, we hope that this approach will make UD the informal standard, you don’t have to do it ….but your competitor will.

It is as commentators like to say, a race without a finish line, but we will continue to focus on improvement, making the built environment easier and more usable for more people, challenging assumptions and working together on better solutions.

Hopefully soon we will be sailing down wind for a while, wouldn’t that be nice?

For more information, please visit our website www.lifemark.co.nz

Winter 2021

33

FEATURED ARTICLE

Universal Design in Developing Countries

by Lindsay Perry

Lindsay Perry is the director of Lindsay Perry Access and has over 20 years experience as an access consultant both within Australia and at the international level. Having worked on projects for the United Nations in both Ethiopia and Kenya, she has developed a keen interest in accessibility in developing countries. She is currently undertaking a PhD candidature at the University of Newcastle on this subject.

T

he United Nations (UN) Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (The Agenda) was adopted in 2015 (UNDESA, 2015). It identifies global targets aimed at stimulating action over fifteen years in the area of sustainable development advocating that equitable and universal access play a key role in reaching these visions in relation to the built environment (UNDESA, 2015).

The Agenda provides seventeen sustainable development goals with one-hundred and sixty-nine targets to be attained by 2030 by all member countries (United Nations, 2015).

At the conceptual level, sustainable development is the link between environmental problems and socio-economic issues from a human centered perspective (Hopwood, 2005). There are three main areas in which sustainable development can be defined in the context of UN Policies being environmental; economic; and social (Kadir & Jamludin, 2013). Social sustainability can be considered as the way in which sustainable development affects the quality of life for individuals that offers inclusion, extending to the provision of a built environment that promotes participation.

34

Traditionally, themes of social sustainability have focused on poverty and unemployment but there is currently a shift to themes of sense of place; participation; and happiness (Kadir & Jamludin, 2013). As a result, social sustainability is being measured by factors like well-being; safety; and access to facilities and services.

The United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA) has stated there is a widespread lack of accessibility to the built environment – including roads, housing, public buildings and urban spaces – within developing countries (UNDESA, n.d,). This in turn affects access to basic services such as sanitation, clean water, education, transport and disaster relief measures.

The Agenda recognizes that accessibility aims, which include building resilient infrastructure with a focus on affordable and equitable access for all, are challenging in the least developed countries. Particularly African countries, land-locked countries, small island developing states, and countries in conflict (UNDESA, 2015). It does not however offer strategies to tackle this issue. Marginalization of people with disabilities through inaccessible environments contradicts UN policy and The Agenda which are aimed at inclusion.

THE MAGAZINE FOR THE ASSOCIATION OF CONSULTANTS IN ACCESS AUSTRALIA

FEATURED ARTICLE

Disability legislation at the international has evolved from The Declaration on the Rights of People with Disabilities 1975 (DRPD), and the more recently The Convention on the rights of People with Disabilities 2006 (CRPD). There is little consistency in the way these policies are being realized at the international level (AAATE,2015). The situation is more difficult in developing countries that may not have overriding disability discrimination legislative measures (AAATE, 2015). Additionally accessibility in developing countries, especially regional areas, varies greatly due to the lack of accessibility legislation or lack of poorly enforced accessibility legislation (Achamkulangare, 2018).

These factors affect the realization of The Agendas’ Sustainable Development Goals that aim to improve situations for all people, including vulnerable people such as people with disabilities (Madams, Loeb, Edwards, Hair, Cheang, Pearson and Coelho 2018).

THE 2030 AGENDA AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS The Agenda pledges that no-one will be left behind. In the provision of the sustainable development goals, three dimensions of sustainable development are covered being economic; social; and environmental. The social dimension includes the needs of people with disabilities promoting inclusion and participation in all countries.

The sustainable development goals are a global policy-making process that were formed through a globally inclusive process commencing in 2012 with the establishment of a UN International Taskforce and being declared at the UN General Assembly on 25 September 2015 in New York (Deacon, 2016b).

Specific to universal design and accessibility are Goal 9 (Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization and foster

Winter 2021

35

FEATURED ARTICLE innovation); Goal 10 (Reduce inequality within and among countries); and Goal 11 (Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable) (United Nations, 2015). Inclusion and accessibility are also mentioned within other sustainable development goals through acknowledging that equitable access to products and services is dependent on the accessibility of the built environment. While disability is not a specific theme of the sustainable development goals, there was involvement by international disability advocates during forums and discussions leading to the adoption of The Agenda (Brolan, 2016). A direct reference to disability is made within Goal 10, Target 10.2 that promotes social inclusion of people with disabilities and Target 10.3 that advocates a reduction in discriminatory laws.

Since the Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities (CRPD) was made in 2006, there is a growing global focus on the promotion of disability rights (Brolin, 2016). Like the CRPD, the sustainable development goals rely on government endorsement. Countries are not legally obligated to implement the sustainable development goals within domestic legislative

36

policies similar to CRPD, the sustainable development goals are adopted voluntarily by each country and are not a binding treaty (Pogge and Sengupta, 2016).

People with disabilities have been identified globally as a marginalized and vulnerable group.

Up to eighty percent of people with disabilities globally live in developing countries where poverty is a major influence on their quality of life (Brolan, 2016). The vision of the sustainable development goals is to create an equitable, socially inclusive world where the needs of the most vulnerable people are met (United Nations, 2015) identifying developing countries as the most vulnerable countries. Within the framework of the sustainable development goals, the plight of people with disabilities in developing countries is compounded, being a vulnerable group within the most vulnerable environments. Therefore, realization of the sustainable development goals relating to universal design and accessibility in developing countries is challenging.

A geographical framework is essential when considering people with disabilities as it provides a basis for social, economic and political

THE MAGAZINE FOR THE ASSOCIATION OF CONSULTANTS IN ACCESS AUSTRALIA

FEATURED ARTICLE constraints (Imrie, 2001). For developing countries, a geographical framework would include issues of poverty and other environmental constraints within the built environment that influence the lives of people with disabilities.

developing countries it is referred to in the broader context of social constructs that include oppression, poverty and illiteracy.

Geographical boundaries affect quality of life.

Where there is a lack of physical access to services and facilities, especially within developing countries where accessible infrastructure is lacking, participation in society becomes limited (Brolan, 2016). Challenges of poverty and health within developing countries impacts implementation of the sustainable development goals which are not necessarily achievable within developing countries (Shore, 2017b). There are marked differences in how the sustainable development goals can be achieved in countries at different stages of development (Decon, 2016b).

• 45 countries in the world have anti-discrimination and other disability-specific laws

The lack of physical access to basic services such as sanitation and water contribute to the marginalization of people with disabilities and the realization of the sustainable development goals (UNDESA, 2015). It is unlikely that the sustainable development goals will achieve human rights for all as they are aspirational, rather than definitive and do not translate to the national level being an international vision of how the world could be rather than providing practical strategies for implementation (Pogge and Sengupta, 2016).

The success in achieving the sustainable development goals of The Agenda, with respect to universal design and accessibility for people with disabilities, relies on the UN member countries addressing the needs of people with disabilities within their legislative policies and guidelines (Madams, Loeb & Eide, 2017).

In the context of physical access to the built environment, this assumes that member countries have in place appropriate accessibility / disability discrimination legislation and building codes / standards for implementation in new building work.

DISABILITY IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES The incidence of disability is generally greater in developing countries (Balarin, 2001). While in developed countries disability is generally referred to in a physical context, in many

The following statistics are of interest:

• 15% of the world’s population have a disability (WHO) • 80% of these people live in developing countries • 40-50% have a sensory disability (vision, hearing, speech) • 20-50% have a physical disability • 7-15% have a cognitive disability.

It is accepted that there is a gap in data for the incidence of disability in developing countries where it is often collected by non-government volunteer groups with little coordination between groups (Balarin, 2001). Disability statistics are also influenced by non-disclosure of disability within developing countries due to societal traditions that include family structure; folklore and religious beliefs (Balarin, 2001). There continues to be a stigma attached to disability due to these factors. While lower in urban areas, these traditions and beliefs are still very strong in rural areas where infrastructure and services are limited (Balarin, 2001).

In rural areas, accessibility due to terrain and the general lack of infrastructure is challenging for people with disabilities and not wheelchair compatible. Daily life involves squatting, not sitting on chairs, cooking at the floor level on open fires; and the use of squat toilets.

Wheelchairs, prosthesis and other assistive technology do not fit this long-standing traditional (Balarin, 2001).

Further to these stigmas, the way of life in many developing countries also affects people with disabilities and their participation in society (Parker, 2001). Street life is generally very prevalent. People work in the street, live in the street and conduct business in the street.

As people with disabilities cannot use inaccessible streets due to physical barriers and

Winter 2021

37

FEATURED ARTICLE overcrowding, there is little presence of people with disabilities on the streets. The resultant view is that disability is a small issue and not significant.

The lack of definitive data affects the development of accessibility policy and legislation. To ensure no-one gets left behind, which is the intent of the sustainable development goals, data collection regarding the incidence of disability needs to be country specific while being internationally comparable (Madams, et al , 2017). Without an international comparison of the statistics, the severity of situations in different countries cannot be determined.

UNIVERSAL DESIGN AND ACCESSIBILITY IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES In parallel to the sustainable development goals the principles of universal design are gaining momentum at the global level, offering a design approach that caters to society as a whole rather than focusing on access for people with disabilities. With respect to developing countries, these two concepts – the sustainable development goals and universal design – need to be considered simultaneously to achieve a better outcome for marginalized groups in vulnerable countries, particularly people with disabilities.

The overall aim of the sustainable development goals is to provide a world that is equitable, socially inclusive and meets the needs of the most vulnerable people (UNDESA, 2015) while the principles of universal design ensure inclusive environments are designed for people of all ages and ability, regardless of disability (National Disability Authority, n.d.,). The intent of both concepts is to achieve a safe environment for all that promotes participation and improves quality of life.

Differing awareness and expectations of the built environment can also create a gap in the implementation of universal design principles within both developed countries and developing countries (Prajapati & Asai, 2013).

With rising awareness levels about disability and the sustainable development goals comes a demand for social inclusion (World Bank, 2016).

Inclusion is easy to define but difficult to 38

THE MAGAZINE FOR THE ASSOCIATION OF CONSULTANTS IN ACCESS AUSTRALIA

FEATURED ARTICLE measure as it is relative to social, spatial and environmental dimensions. Culture, traditions and religion also affect measurability due to beliefs that are strongly grounded in many societies, particularly within many developing countries (World Bank, 2016). A differing awareness of accessibility and inclusion directly contrasts with the measures being taken by the UN to promote social sustainability in these countries.

In developing countries, the design of the built environment contributes to social and economic development (Balarin, 2001). This differs to developed countries where design of the built environment is often an aesthetic preference used to promote and improve business. Designers within developing countries need to contend with basic human needs rather than broader, aesthetic issues.

With a focus on meeting people’s basic needs being met, the accessibility of the built environment is not seen as a priority with factors such as poverty alleviation, literacy, infrastructure, drinking water and sanitation, that cater to mainstream population, being of higher priority (Balarin, 2001). There are often very few resources for improving the built environment for people with disabilities after the basic needs of

the broader population are met. This is why the implementation of universal design principles, that focus on the needs of the broader community rather than only people with disabilities, can improve accessibility generally.

CURRENT UNIVERSAL DESIGN AND ACCESSIBILITY MEASURES IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES While there are vast differences between developed and developing countries in respect to the provision of accessibility legislation, the fundamental needs of people with disabilities is the same (Parker, 2001). Accessible environments that promote participation and inclusion lead to less marginalization of people with disabilities and enable them to interact with society.

The shortage of data on people with disabilities in developing countries affects implementation of strategies to overcome exclusion (Roberts and Babinard, 2004). Access and mobility have an impact on poverty, generally having the capacity to reduce its incidence. While many developing countries do have legislation concerning access and mobility issues, it is not affective in realising inclusion and participation generally.

Winter 2021

39

FEATURED ARTICLE

Further, access to a wheelchair and other assistive technology that promotes independence and participation for people with disabilities is critical in developing countries where people with disabilities are at a risk of higher poverty levels than able bodied people (Shore, 2017). Being able to participate in society increases access to services and facilities such as education and employment. Major factors that affect mobility in developing countries include the condition of roads and footpaths, accessibility of buildings, and societal norms.

Monitoring and enforcement of accessibility legalisation is the largest barrier to inclusive infrastructure in developing countries (Rusli and Mydin, 20018). Reasons for the lack of implementation include a lack of government resources and funding; and a lack of incentive within the private sector. While anti-discrimination laws specific to disabilities have been adopted in many developing countries, there are generally no mechanisms within these policies for universal design principles or accessibility generally being implemented at the local government level (Rusli and Mydin, 20018).

CONCLUSIONS When applying the sustainable development goals and principles of universal design to developing countries specific to accessibility, there is little guidance or protocol for establishing inclusive environments that promote inclusion and participation.

One must ask if accessibility of the built environment is really a priority for developing countries where just on the outskirts of the major cities, people must walk from their homes to collect safe, clean drinking water and live in make-shift housing.

As the populations view of disability changes through awareness programs,

40

more people with disabilities participate in the workforce, and new building legislation is implemented into all new constructions, conditions will improve over time as they have developed countries.

However, further research is required in this area to develop strategies and guidelines that can be implemented to ensure that UN policies surrounding social sustainability can be realised in future projects within developing countries. It is important that any guidelines address both policy development and practical measures for implementation in building and infrastructure works, including principles for community projects in regional areas as well as infrastructure for urban projects.

REFERENCES Achamkulangare, G 2018, Enhancing Accessibility for Persons with Disabilities to Conferences and Meetings of the United Nations System, United Nations Join Inspection Unit, Geneva, Allan, J. (2010). The sociology of disability and the struggle for inclusive education. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 31(5), 603–619.

Britannica, 2017. https://www.britannica.com/ place/Ethiopia. Retrieved 28 August 2017

THE MAGAZINE FOR THE ASSOCIATION OF CONSULTANTS IN ACCESS AUSTRALIA

FEATURED ARTICLE

Association for the Advancement of Assistive Technology in Europe (AAATE) 2015, Legal framework of universal design on international, European and national level, viewed 9 February 2019 at https://aaate.net/publications/conference-proceedings/

accessibility and its implications for inclusive, sustainable and equitable development for all.

Viewed at http://www.un.org/disabilities/documents/ accessibility_and_development_june2013.pdf., retrieved 31 July 2017

Balarin, S., (2001) ‘Universal Design and the Majority World’, in Ostroff, E., and Preiser, W., (eds), Universal Design Handbook, The McGraw-Hill Companies, New York, pp. 5.1-5.20.

Ethiopian Centre for Disability and Development (ECDD) 2015. Guide to Accessible Addis Ababa.

Viewed at, http://www.lhac.eu/resources/library/ guide-to-accessible-addis-ababa---final.pdf retrieved 2 February 2017.

Brolan, C. 2016, A Word of Caution: Human Rights, Disability, and Implementation of the Post-2015 Sustainable Development Goals, Laws 2016, 5, 22; doi:10.3390/laws5020022 Deacon, B. 2016a, SDGs, Agenda 2030 and the prospects for transformative social policy and social development, Journal of International and Comparative Social Policy, 2016 Vol. 32, No. 2, 79–82, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21699763.2016.1200112 Deacon, B. 2016b, Assessing the SDGs from the point of view of global social governance, Journal of International and Comparative Social Policy, 2016 Vol. 32, No. 2, 116–130, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/2169 9763.2016.1198266 Dempsey, I. & Nankervis, K. (2006). Conceptions of disability. In I. Dempsey & K. Nankervis (Eds.), Community disability services: an evidence-based approach to practice, (pp. 3-26). Sydney: University of NSW Press.

DESA, 2013 The Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA) of the United Nations Secretariat.

Accessibility and Development: environmental

Ethiopian National Disability Action Network (ENDAN) 2010. Research on Standard Disability Survey Tools and Measurement. Viewed at https://www.cbm.org/ article/downloads/82788/Research_report.pdf, retrieved 13 August 2017.

Gupta, J. and Vegelin, C. 2016, ‘Sustainable development goals and inclusive development’, International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics June 2016, Volume 16, pp433–448, Hopwood, B., Mellor, M. and O’Brien, G., 2005 Sustainable Development: Mapping Different Approaches, Sustainable Development, 13, 38–52 (2005). Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/sd.244 Harsritanto, B. 2018 Sustainable Streetscape Design Guidelines based on Universal Design, MATEC Web of Conferences 159, 01003 (2018).

Retrieved from https://www.matec-conferences.org/ articles/matecconf/pdf/2018/18/matecconf_ ijcaet-isampe2018_01003.pdf, 13 October 2019

Winter 2021

41

FEATURED ARTICLE Imrie, R., 2000, Disabling Environments and the Geography of Access Policies and Practices, Disability and Society, Vol. 15, No. 1, 2000, pp. 5-24 International Labour Organization, 2011, Moving Towards Disability Inclusion: Ethiopia Disability inclusion support services, viewed at http://www.ilo.org/inclusion, on 9 July 2016 Kadir, S. and Jamludin, M. 2013, ‘Universal Design as a Significant Component for Sustainable Life and Social Development’, Procedia Social and Behavioural Sciences, Vol. 85 pp 179-190.

King, J., King, M., Edwards, N., Hair, S., Cheang, S., Pearson, A., and Coelho, S., 2018, Addressing transport safety and accessibility for people with a disability in developing countries: a formative evaluation of the Journey Access Tool in Cambodia, Global Health Action, 11:1, 1538658, DOI: 10.1080/16549716.2018.1538658 Leonardi, M., Bikenbach, J., Ustun, T.B., Kostanjsek, N., & Chatteri, S. (2006). The definition of disability: What is in a name? The Lancet, 368, 1219-1221.

Madams, J., Loeb, M., and Eide, A., 2017, ‘Measuring Disability and Inclusion in relation to the 2030 Agenda on Sustainable Development’ Disability and the Global South, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 1164-1179 Mitra, S. (2006). The capability approach to disability.

Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 16, 236-247.

National Disability Authority (NDA) n.d., What is universal design?, Dublin, viewed 1 November 2019, https://www.who.int/classifications/icf/icfbeginnersguide.pdf?ua=1 Newell, C. (2003). Encountering disability in Australian society. Australian Disability Clearinghouse on Education and Training. Retrieved on February 21, 2013 from http://www.adcet.edu.au/view.aspx?id=5126.

Parker, K., (2001) ‘Developing Economies: A Reality Check’, in Ostroff, E., and Preiser, W., (eds), Universal Design Handbook, The McGraw-Hill Companies, New York, pp. 32.1-32.11.

Pogge, T. and Sengupta, M. 2016, Assessing the sustainable development goals from a human rights perspective, Journal of International and Comparative Social Policy, 2016 Vol. 32, No. 2, pp 83–97.

Prajapati, N. and Asai, T. 2013, ‘Implementation of Universal Design in South Asian Countries’ Contemporary Management Research, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 109-136.

RTCIL at the University of Kansas. (2008). Guidelines for reporting and writing about people with disabilities.

Seventh Edition. Retrieved on February 21, 2013 from

42

http://www.rtcil.org/products/RTCIL%20publications/ Media/Guidelines%20for%20Reporting%20and%20 Writing%20about%20People%20with%20Disabilities%20 7th%20Edition.pdf.

Roberts, P., and Babinard, J., 2004, Transport Strategy to Improve Accessibility in Developing Countries, The World Bank. Retrieved from https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/ handle/10986/17685/841720WP0P11340Box0382094B00PUBLIC0.pdf?sequ 12 October 2019 Rusli, F., and Mydin, A., 2018, Accessible Built Environment for People if Disabilities at Mosque, retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/ publication/332100708 on 16 September 2019.

Schalock, R.L. (2004). The emerging disability paradigm and its implications for policy and practice. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 14, 4, 204-215.

Serageldin, M., 2016 Inclusive Cities and Access to Land, and Services in Developing Countries, Urban Development Series Knowledge Papers World Bank Group, No. 22 Shore, S., 2017, ‘The long-term impact of wheelchair delivery on the lives of people with disabilities in three countries of the world’, African Journal of Disability 6(0), a344. https://doi.org/10.4102/ajod.v6i0.344 United Nations 2015, General Assembly A/RES/70/1 Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development viewed 19 September 201 at https://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/ RES/70/1&Lang=E United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA) 2015, Good Practice of Accessible Urban Development: Making urban environments inclusion and fully accessible to ALL, viewed 9 February 2019, https://www.un.org/disabilities/ documents/desa/good_practices _in_accessible_urban_ development_october2016.pdf.

United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA) n.d. “Accessibility and Development: Mainstreaming disability in the post-2015 development agenda, viewed 1 August 2017 at http://www.un.org/ disabilities/documents/accessibility_and_development. pdf WHO, 2002. Towards a Common Language for Functioning, Disability and Health ICF. Viewed at https://www.who.int/classifications/icf/icfbeginnersguide.pdf?ua=1, retrieved 3 November 2019 WHO, 2011. World Report on Disability. Viewed at http://www.who.int/disabilities/world_report/2011/ report/en/, retrieved 28 August 2017

THE MAGAZINE FOR THE ASSOCIATION OF CONSULTANTS IN ACCESS AUSTRALIA

FEATURED ARTICLE

The Centre for Excellence in Universal Design (CEUD)

T

he Centre for Excellence in Universal Design (CEUD) was established by Ireland’s lead state agency on disability issues, the National Disability Authority (NDA) in 2007 as part of the National Disability Strategy. The National Disability Authority provides independent expert advice to the Irish Government on policy and practice. Ireland is the first country in the world to place Universal Design on a statutory footing.

The Centre states it is “dedicated to the principle of universal access, enabling people in Ireland to participate in a society that takes account of human difference and to interact with their environment to the best of their ability”.

The Centre’s website is a great resource for those working in the area of disability access and

provides a number of excellent documents and links. They have a focus on the built environment and undertake research as well as developing design recommendations that cover a range of building types and spaces, including homes, shared spaces, and educational campuses (including early learning facilities). Dementia friendly housing and Universal Design in urban environments resources are also available. The Centre also provides guidance on Universal Design approaches to ICT (Information and Communications Technology), Web accessibility, and products and services.

All of the research results and guidance is available to download from the website: www.universaldesign.ie

Winter 2021

43

TECHNICAL INSIGHTS

TECHNICAL INSIGHTS The articles featured in Technical Insights are to prompt thought and discussion to assist our members' question and evaluate their understanding of the technical requirements of Australian Standards and other national/international source material. Technical Insights is to intended to provide background information, a different viewpoint, a perspective from an individual with lived experience of disability or to prompt further discussion and/or research by you as an access professional.

Dimensioning and Tolerances

by Howard Moutrie

I

n June I posted this topic on the ACAA Forum and I feel it is worthwhile expanding and I apologise in advance that in the end this article becomes a forum for a particular issue I have rather than a purely technical discussion.

There are two separate issues, the first is drafting techniques and standards and the second is building tolerances. Although separate, they are inter-twined. With respect to tolerances, I tried to get this acknowledged in the latest edition of AS 1428.1 (yet to be published) and although I had support from the building sector it was rejected by the committee. The result is that the standard asks for a level of construction which is outside the standard practice and difficult to achieve in some instances.

Firstly, let us look at dimensioning. Architects, draftsmen and builders work, in accordance with AS 1100.301, on the premise that they dimension to the structural element, thus, the dimensions must allow for the application of any linings and finishes. So, for a toilet with a clear width of 1900mm the room should be dimensioned at least 1925mm. This causes no issues because the room is meant to be a minimum of 1900mm. Confusion can occur, however, when maximum dimensions are required. An ambulant toilet is required to be 900-920mm wide, however, this could be dimensioned at 930mm, which on face value seems incorrect but is actually allowing for the thickness of the wall tiles so that the finished 44

dimension is compliant. Confusion can also be created if the architects indicate a corridor dimension at 1540mm, meaning it to be clear, but the builder will build the structure at this dimension based on the recognised drafting standards.

There is an exception to this. The above discussion relates generally to the setout plans or general arrangement plans. When detail plans are produced for the bathroom areas, these are typically produced for the fitout trades and assume the structure is built, thus, they may show the clear dimensions.

A complication to this relates to the selection of fittings and finishes. For example, a wall tile may be 6mm thick or 10mm thick. If the tile hasn’t been selected care must be taken by the architect to make the correct allowance. A common problem I see on site is that the accessible toilet is designed with a standard basin, with all the correct clearances, but then a larger basin is selected and the result is non-compliance. The access consultant, the architect, the interior designer and the builder need to be aware of the implications of these selections.

When reviewing the drawings it is important to understand the dimensioning methodology. This all ties into building tolerance too, but before I discuss tolerances it is worth digressing to a method of measurement which was developed

THE MAGAZINE FOR THE ASSOCIATION OF CONSULTANTS IN ACCESS AUSTRALIA

TECHNICAL INSIGHTS in the 1970s /1980s and was popular with the government agencies but was never popular en-masse because it was confusing, particularly for the trades on site. This method of measurement accepted that builders needed a tolerance, so a wall would be dimensioned as a zone, say 200mm wide, even though the wall itself is only 190mm wide. That is why concrete blocks are called a 200mm block but are actually only 190mm. This method was based on the premise that the wall (or floor or door or window) would not be located accurately so a zone was given in which it had to be constructed. In theory, it all makes sense but when a builder wants to know where to build a wall, he wants an exact location not a zone.

So now to tolerances. If anyone has tried to build a structure, even a little garden wall, you will know that you are not going to get it millimetre perfect. Thus, you need to allow some tolerance.

For building structure this may be 10mm but for joinery it may be 1 millimetre or even less.

You also need to understand the construction sequencing. Drainage pipes for the toilets will be positioned in the concrete slab before it is poured – no walls in sight. As the concrete is poured it can exert substantial pressure and the formwork or drainage point may move. Then you come to the rough in of the services in the room; you now have walls, but they are the structural walls without finishes. The plumber needs to estimate where the fittings are to be located from this

imaginary finished wall surface, so he estimates from the structural wall, but this may not be exactly in the correct location. Before you say well the builder should put the wall in the right position, for a masonry wall AS 3700 acknowledges that tolerances are required and considers that a wall is correctly located if it is +/- 10mm from its intended location. What is more, it can also be +/-10mm from plumb within a storey. Thus, it may be correctly located at floor level but not at ceiling level. Where do you measure the 1900mm width of the toilet?

Concrete wall around stairs and lifts poses other problems and can be particularly hard to control dimensionally. I have commonly seen corridors, with stair/ lift on one side which are not parallel because the concrete forms have moved. Some builders will just line or finish the walls in the non-parallel state but a quality builder, particularly if there is a special floor or ceiling finish which will highlight this issue will pack out the lining of the offending wall so that the 2 walls are parallel. I have seen a number of instances where this has resulted in a corridor designed to be a turning area of 1540mm wide (clear and with additional tolerance) finish being less than 1540mm as a result of the building trying to do a quality job.

Let’s look at some other examples of building tolerance. All states produce a document which identifies acceptable building tolerances, they are all basically the same. The NSW document states

Winter 2021

45

TECHNICAL INSIGHTS that for the fitout of bathrooms, laundries, kitchens etc a setout can be 5mm from the designed position (and even further for elements longer than 1m). Yet AS 1428.1 provides no tolerance in some cases.

We find from AS 1428.1 that a step between two adjacent floor finishes is 3mm or 5mm if bevelled. Consider a tiled floor against a metal weather strip. This strip will be true and level, but the allowable tolerance between one tile and another is 2mm so at one point the strip may protrude the allowable 3mm and on the adjacent tile it will be 5mm. In this case I would expect the tiler to rectify this as he is in control of the interface but technically the tiling is compliant.

Finally, it is worth looking at the dimensions given in AS1428.1. Some dimensions are given as a maximum or minimum, this infers a range up to that dimension is acceptable, some are provided as a range, some are provided as a +/- and some are provided as a fixed dimension which then infers no variance is permitted. In many cases I cannot see the reason for such tight dimensioning. For example, in AS 1428.1-2009 the height for the shower hose attachment is given as 700mm +/- 5mm. Is the location of that so critical that it can only vary +/- 5mm, particularly when there is no horizontal dimension provided? Apparently not, because the next version of the standard will show it higher and in a zone, not a fixed location.

How to resolve the issue of tolerance? As I said at the start the Standards Committee decided that it was not their problem, the architects and builders

46

had to sort it out. I agree that architects do not always make adequate allowance for building tolerance, but we should also acknowledge that building is not a precise art and provide more flexibility in the requirements of the access standards. In some cases, we may be justified in requiring particular dimensions but there is not a lot of science to much of AS1428.1. Let’s take door circulation spaces as example. They are all based on a notional 80th percentile wheelchair from the 1980s, a wheelchair which does not exist. A scale model was made of this fictitious wheelchair and moved around by hand to simulate its use. Then to play safe 50mm was added to each touch point to give some tolerance (so it does exist in access). Then when we decided to move to the 90th percentile wheelchair, again fictional, a model of this wasn’t made and tested. Just 50mm added here and there to the 80th percentile. This does not have a lot of science behind it. I think we have to be realistic about what we require and acknowledge the environment in which we are working.

Finally, let’s consider the BCA, clause D2.13 provides requirements for stair risers and goings.

The clause requires that they be a constant height and length in a flight but, in acknowledgment of the need for building tolerance since the 2019 version, has accepted that they can vary – up to 5mm for adjacent risers and goings and up to 10mm overall within a flight.

We, as access consultants, will gain more respect from the building industry if we understand their issues and try to work together to create useful standards.

THE MAGAZINE FOR THE ASSOCIATION OF CONSULTANTS IN ACCESS AUSTRALIA

REPORT: ‘DESIGN, DIGNITY, DEMENTIA: DEMENTIA-RELATED DESIGN AND THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT’ FLEMING, R., ZEISEL, J. & BENNETT, K. 2020. World Alzheimer Report 2020: Design Dignity Dementia: dementia-related design and the built environment Volume 1, London, England: Alzheimer’s Disease International.

Prepared by Ash Osborne DipAppSc; BHSc(Nursing); GradDipHSc(OS&H); qualified Access Consultant; Age Care and Dementia Design Consultant

I

n 2020 Alzheimer Disease International (ADI) released a report titled ‘Design, dignity, dementia: Dementia-related design and the built environment’ (https://www.alzint.org/resource/ world-alzheimer-report-2020/) . This report provides a comprehensive and in-depth look at dementia related design and the built environment, and covers design in home/ domestic settings, day and residential aged care, hospitals, and public buildings and spaces. The report was co-authored by Professor Richard Fleming , Kirsty Bennett (Architect) and Dr John Zeisel. Many of you would be familiar with the pioneering work of Richard and Kirsty in Australia.

To put this report in context, Alzheimer Disease International (ADI) is an international federation of Alzheimer and dementia associations and they have official relations with the World Health Organisation (WHO). Every year they commission a report on a different topic from highly respected international researchers, universities and authors. That Professor Fleming and Kirsty Bennett were invited to co-author this report (along with US based Dr John Zeisel) is an acknowledgement of Australia being recognised

as a global leader in dementia related design and in leading the way in translating existing research into practice. The report also contains independent contributions from 58 named authors from 17 countries.

In further recognition of importance of this report, last month the European Healthcare Design (EHD) Awards presented the authors with the EHD 2021 Award for Outstanding Contribution to Global Knowledge.

This report highlights the need for dementia to be recognised as a disability and suggests that dementia enabling design is 30 years behind the progress made in recognising the impact of the built environment on those living with physical disabilities. Co-author of the report, Richard Winter 2021

47

REVIEW Fleming, says that dementia design is needed urgently, and our knowledge of how to do it has grown over the years.

“Our knowledge of how to design buildings that support people living with dementia has grown over the last forty years and we are now in a position to be more proactive in implementing it in practice”.

Contributing author Kate Schwaffer (Chair, Co-Founder and CEO of ADI’s partner Dementia Alliance International), says that the link between disability and environment is clear.

“Accepting that dementia is a major cause of disability and dependence in older persons worldwide is essential and is a critical reason why it is so important that the built environment for people with dementia is accessible, in the same way we provide wheelchair access.

People with physical disabilities have made major progress as substantial, influential members of society. Yet people with dementia are still being left behind, not only in terms of health and social care, but in terms of recognition of dementia as a condition causing disability and therefore of legislated disability support, and of enabling and accessible communities. What this means is that people with cognitive disabilities caused by dementia are still being denied the most basic access to live independently in their communities. People with dementia need cognitive ramps, in the

48

same way people in wheelchairs are afforded wheelchair ramps. Through improving the built environments with dementia enabling strategies, we are more likely to provide substantial and improved opportunities for people with dementia to be supported to live independently in their homes and in their communities.”

Kate makes an incredibly important point for anyone involved in Access. If you are unsure if you would consider dementia a disability, consider these statistics for a moment: • Dementia is the single greatest cause of disability in older Australians (aged 65 years or older) and the third leading cause of disability burden overall; • Three in 10 people over the age of 85 and almost one in 10 people over 65 have dementia; • Dementia is the second leading cause of death of Australians; • In 2021, there are an estimated 472,000 Australians living with dementia. Without a medical breakthrough, the number of people with dementia is expected to increase to 590,000 by 2028 and 1,076,000 by 2058.

(Statistics from Dementia Australia (2021)) Dementia is largely an unseen component of providing disability access in our environments.

Including dementia design considerations in any access work should not be an afterthought

THE MAGAZINE FOR THE ASSOCIATION OF CONSULTANTS IN ACCESS AUSTRALIA

REVIEW (particularly when you consider 70% of Australians living with dementia live in the community). This report provides a comprehensive overview of dementia design and should be considered a useful resource for access professionals. The report covers progress to date, evidence based design principles, application, regional and cultural contexts, the importance of co-design with people living with dementia throughout all stages of any design process, and also covers the role of design during the coronavirus pandemic and beyond.

In the introduction to the report, the co-authors write:

“A direction had emerged from the words [of this report], the purpose of designing well for people living with dementia is to support them

to reach their full potential as human beings. … The phrase ‘reach their full potential as human beings’ covers a lot of ground... This is a huge concept, if concepts have size, and there is a focus to it, dignity.”

With the release in February this year of the final report of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety which also recognises the profound impact of the physical environment on the quality of life, and care, of older Australians, particularly those living with dementia, Dementia and the needs of older Australians need to be a key component of access. The ADI Report ‘Design, dignity, dementia: Dementia-related design and the built environment’ provides an international insight into dementia design and will help to ensure that the therapeutic benefits of good dementia design are felt by people living with dementia, wherever they may live.

The principles of dementia design include: • Unobtrusively reducing risks: Minimise risk factors such as steps and ensure safety features are as unobtrusive as possible.

• Providing a human scale: The scale of buildings can impact the behaviour of people with dementia, so provide a human scale to minimise intimidating features.

• Allowing people to see and be seen: The provision of an easily understood environment will help to minimise confusion. A literal line of sight should be clear for both residents, and staff.

• Reducing unhelpful stimulation: Environments should be designed to minimise exposure to stimuli that are unhelpful, such as unnecessary or competing noises and the sight of unnecessary signs, posters, spaces and clutter.

• Optimise helpful stimulation: Enabling the person living with dementia to see, hear and smell things that give them cues about where they are and what they can do, can help minimise their confusion and uncertainty.

• Support movement and engagement: Providing a well-defined pathway of movement, free of obstacles, can support engagement with people and opportunities.

• Create a familiar place: The use of familiar building design, furniture, fittings and colours affords people with dementia an opportunity to maintain their competence.

• Provide opportunities to be alone or with others: A variety of spaces, some for quiet conversation and some for larger groups, as well as spaces where people can be by themselves, gives people with dementia a choice to how they spend their time.

• Link to the community: The more an environment enables visitors to drop in easily and enjoy being in places that encourage interaction, the more the sense of identity that comes from spending time with loved ones and others is reinforced.

• Design in response to vision for way of life: The way of life offered needs to be clearly stated and the building designed both to support it and to make it evident to the residents and staff.

Winter 2021

49

HOT APPS

HOT APPS AND WEBSITES

By Jen Barling

APPLE PREVIEWS SOFTWARE UPDATES DESIGNED FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES Apple recently announced next-generation technologies designed for people with mobility, vision, hearing, and cognitive disabilities. Later this year, with software updates across all of Apple’s operating systems, people with limb differences will be able to navigate Apple Watch using AssistiveTouch; iPad will support third-party eye-tracking hardware for easier control; and for blind and low vision communities, Apple’s VoiceOver screen reader will get even smarter using on-device intelligence to explore objects within images. In support of neurodiversity, Apple is introducing new background sounds to help minimize distractions, and for those who are deaf or hard of hearing, Made for iPhone (MFi) will soon support new bi-directional hearing aids.

Apple is also launching a new service called SignTime. This enables customers to communicate with AppleCare and Retail Customer Care by using sign language. Customers visiting Apple Store locations can also use SignTime to remotely access a sign language interpreter without booking ahead of time. SignTime will initially launch in the US, UK, and France, with plans to expand to additional countries in the future.

CLICK HERE to access the APPLE SOFTWARE UPDATE LINK

U.S. ACCESS BOARD CELEBRATES GLOBAL ACCESSIBILITY AWARENESS DAY In May, the U.S. Access Board celebrated the tenth annual Global Accessibility Awareness Day by promoting discussion and learning about digital access and inclusion for people with disabilities.

The Access Board is an independent federal agency that promotes equality for people with disabilities through leadership in accessible design and the development of accessibility guidelines including access to information and communication technology (ICT). The Board also issues guidelines and standards for the built environment, outdoor sites, transportation, and medical diagnostic equipment.

The Board has recently held events focused on accessibility and new technologies such as inclusive design of autonomous vehicles (AVs) and self-service transaction machines (SSTMs) where presenters discussed usability issues, accessibility barriers, and industry research to improve access to SSTMs. The Board conducts free monthly webinars through its partnership with the ADA National Network. Webinars cover accessibility in the built environment as well as accessibility of information and communication technology. Upcoming webinars are posted on the Board’s Webinars & Training webpage.

CLICK HERE to access the U.S. ACCESS BOARD LINK

50

THE MAGAZINE FOR THE ASSOCIATION OF CONSULTANTS IN ACCESS AUSTRALIA

HOT APPS

HOT APPS AND WEBSITES (continued) THE VALUABLE 500 In May 2021 the Global business collective, The Valuable 500, announced it had reached its goal of 500 international organisations committing to put disability inclusion on their board agenda, making it the world’s biggest CEO collective for disability inclusion.

Since The Valuable 500 was launched at the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting at Davos in 2019, some of the most recognisable businesses from across the world have joined the campaign for inclusion, including Allianz, Apple, BBC, BP, The Coca-Cola Company, Daimler, Deloitte, EY, Google, Microsoft, Nestle, P&G, Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., Prada, Shell, Sky, Sony, Twitter, Unilever, Virgin Media, Verizon and Vodafone. The membership includes 36 of the FTSE 100 companies, 46 of the Fortune 500 and 28 of the Nikkei.

Research reveals that there are no executives or senior managers who have disclosed a disability in company reporting by the FTSE 100, while only 12% report on the total number of their employees who have disclosed a disability. The research reinforces that while disability inclusion is now on the business agenda, it still has a long way to go before true inclusion is achieved.

CLICK HERE to access THE VALUABLE 500

RIGHTSAPP RightsApp is a free quick reference guide to international human rights law.

It contains the full text of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, ten other major international human rights treaties and agreements, and the corresponding optional protocols.

Developed by the Australian Human Rights Commission and LexisNexis®, RightsApp is the world’s first mobile application that allows users to quickly and easily search international human rights conventions and declarations by topic and right.

In addition to containing the text of some of the world’s most important international human rights treaties and agreements, RightsApp also contains signatory information and relevant United Nations committees’ general comments.

RightsApp is a quick reference tool that supports individuals to know their rights and assists businesses, employers and community groups to check their obligations under international human rights law.

CLICK HERE to download RIGHTSAPP

Winter 2021

51

ADVERTISING OPPORTUNITIES

CLICK HERE CLICK HERE for our

Advertising Rate Card

to fill in a quick survey to help us improve Access Insight

CLICK HERE for a Free Subscription to Access Insight

The content of this magazine is for information purposes only and opinions expressed in articles are those of its author and not ACAA. ACAA assumes no liability or responsibility for any inaccurate or incomplete information, nor for any actions taken in reliance thereon. Advertised products and services that appear in this magazine have been provided by such organisations without verification by ACAA. ACAA does not guarantee, support nor endorses any product or service mentioned in this magazine, nor does it warrant any assertions made by the manufacturers of such products or services.

Users of are recommended to obtain independent information and to perform independent research before using the information acquired from this magazine.

In this magazine, you will find links to other websites. ACAA cannot be held liable for the content of these websites nor for the way in which these websites handle your (personal) data. For information in this regard, read the privacy policy, disclaimer, copyright notices, general terms & conditions, if available, of any website you visit. No part of the magazine may be reproduced without the prior written consent of the ACAA Committee of Management.

20 Maud Street, Geelong VIC 3220 +61 3 5221 2820 office@access.asn.au

www.access.asn.au