Adult Social Care Bulletins
Disability Rights UK - News in Brief
Comments on Planning Application by SCAN's Chairman
Archived 2020-2021 Planning Comments
Government Proposal - Pavement Licensing updated July 2020
RNIB - Working with local authorities to keep pavement dining accessible
20/01506/FUL Sunbury Cross Ex Services Association Club, Crossways,
Sunbury On Thames, TW16 7BG
The demolition of existing Sunbury Ex-Servicemen's Association Club and re-development of the site including the erection of three residential buildings of 4-storey, 6-storey and 9-storey comprising 69 flats with associated car-parking, cycle storage, landscaping and other associated works.
Case Officer: Paul Tomson / Vanya Popova
Objection : Beyond the provision of lifts, the design of this development provides very little consideration to disabled people. The limited parking provided does not include any provision for disabled parking. The layouts of flats, in particular entrance door arrangements, are not suitable for some disabled people, particularly wheelchair users.
The Design and Access Statements (of which there are two listed as current) in paragraphs 6.3 and 6.4 make reference to '10% of the flats (at ground floor) will be designated as M3(4) compliant to be level access and adaptable if required' This statement is misleading and unsatisfactory. If it is intended that flats will be adaptable the reference to the Building Regulations should be M4(2) However, to satisfy the Equality Act 2010, and to offer choice to disabled people and wheelchair users, a mixture of flats at different levels and to a greater number should be provided to at least Category 2 (M4(2)) standard. This must be the subject of a specific condition attached to any planning approval which might be granted if compliance with the Equality Act is to be achieved.
20/01544/FUL 58 Thames Meadow, Shepperton, TW17 8LT
Erection of a dwelling house (use class C3) with associated car parking and landscaping following demolition of existing 'summer accommodation'
Case Officer: Kelly Walker
Representation Although a platform lift is shown to provide access to the ground floor of the property it is requested that a condition be attached to any planning permission to require the dwelling to satisfy Category 3 of Part M of the Building Regulations to ensure that the lift is installed.
20/01564/FUL 20 Florence Gardens, Staines-upon-Thames, TW18 1HG
The erection of a two storey side and rear extension, together with a loft extension that would create habitable space in the roof, and the subdivision of the property comprising 3 x 1 bedroom units and 1 x 2 bedroom units with associated parking and amenity space.
Case Officer: Matthew Churchill
Representation The front access to plot 2 is close to the highway and as the ground floor is set well above pavement level a very steep ramp is intended. This makes the property difficult/hazardous to access and will particularly be inaccessible for disabled people and wheelchair users.
20/01566/FUL Halliford School , Russell Road, Shepperton, TW17 9HX
The erection of a 3 storey building comprising a library/Learning Resource Centre and 6 classrooms.
Case Officer: Matthew Churchill
Objection The design statement indicates that the building has been designed with consideration for disabled people and wheelchair users. However, since the lift is the opposite end of the building to the main entrance disabled people, particularly wheelchair users, will have to travel across the library to gain access to it.. This means the ground floor layout is inappropriate and does not demonstrate compliance with the Equality Act 2010. With the Baker Building containing the nearest classrooms, users of the new building appear to have to travel across a car park.
21/00010/FUL Renshaw Industrial Estate, Mill Mead, Staines-upon-Thames, TW18 4UQ
Demolition of existing industrial buildings and redevelopment to provide 2 new buildings (5-13 storeys) comprising 397 build-to-rent residential apartments (Use Class C3) including affordable housing, ancillary residential areas (flexible gym, activity space, concierge and residents lounge), landscaping, children's play area and car and cycle parking.
Case Officer: Russ Mounty
Objection The Access and Design Statement includes "All apartments have been designed to meet AD M(2) with the potential for 10% to be converted to meet AD M(3) if require." This statement is meaningless as it is but if it is intended to mean Building Regulation Requirement M4(2), (Accessible and Adaptable dwellings), would then make some sense. However, without level access to the townhouses and the excessive travel distances to lifts, particularly Block A, even this is doubtful. In order to secure compliance with the BR requirement M4(2) this will need to be the subject of a specific planning condition.
With parking proposed for only approximately 50% of the units it remains extremely doubtful that disabled people would be able to occupy one of the dwellings due to lack of essential parking. Parking would need to be guaranteed if a dwelling is to satisfy BR requirement M4(2). The design does not satisfy the Equality Act 2010 and therefore does not comply with the Council's policies.