Accessibility of buildings for people with disabilities

Disability Access Certificates (DAC’s) in Ireland – Confused ??

Posted by CJ Walsh

2011-09-01:  To say, bluntly, that there is confusion out there … at every level … would be a mild understatement !   Yes, the Disability Access Certificate (DAC) & Revised DAC Process is new … but that cannot explain what is happening … or, more precisely, what is not happening.

BUT … before jumping in at the deep end and examining the existing and operative Part M of the Irish Building Regulations … let me just mention, very briefly, two wider legal ‘niceties’ concerning Accessibility of Buildings for People with Disabilities …

     1.  The Black Hole between Building Regulations and Equality Law

The definition of People with Disabilities in the existing Part M is limited.  It is inadequate.  Compare, now, that definition with the definition of Disability in Irish Equality Legislation … which is the complete opposite, being very wide in scope.  A deep chasm exists between the two.  Check each of them out for yourself !   And because few people are aware of this chasm … a better description of that large space might be a Black Hole.

However, the clear consequence of the Black Hole for building owners … and building designers alike … is that the ‘act’ of merely going through the motions with regard to compliance with Part M … and being satisfied with getting ‘the’ piece of paper, i.e. a Disability Access Certificate … will, without any shadow of a doubt, open the building owner to a complaint under Equality Law.  And when a building owner encounters this sort of problem … who will he, or she, hunt down for an explanation ??

Client Organizations beware … prevention is a far better strategy !!   Check out the Level of Accessibility Performance required to avoid complaints under Equality Legislation.

[ You should also consider the following … the Health & Safety Authority in Ireland is doing absolutely nothing to ensure that Workplaces are Accessible … a requirement contained in all of the European Union (EU) Safety at Work Directives and the Irish National Legislation implementing those Directives.  So, also cross check the Level of Accessibility Performance required to comply with Safety at Work Legislation.  Compliance with Part M is not sufficient ! ]

     2.  European Union Ratification of the 2006 United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD)

For a sizeable group of vulnerable people in every EU Member State, the sole route of access to many, if not most, of the Human and Social Rights set down in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) … which became an International Legal Instrument on 3 May 2008, and was ratified by the European Union on 23 December 2010.  That is precisely why Accessibility is such a critical component of the 2006 UN Convention !

Articles 31 & 33 of the 2006 UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities – together – mandate that Accessibility Implementation is taken seriously … that it is competent and effective … and, most importantly, that independent monitoring and verification is a fundamental part of the process.

Ireland has not yet ratified the UN CRPD.  And, as far as our National Authorities Having Jurisdiction (AHJ’s) are concerned … everything in the garden is beautiful … Ireland is doing just great and nothing much needs to be altered in our laws, administrative provisions or resourcing … to allow Ireland to ratify the Convention, and then properly implement it.  Nothing could be further from the truth !

In Order to Protect your Organization and its many interests … Your Policy and Decision Makers, in Ireland, should study the implications flowing directly from EU Ratification of the UN CRPD … and then, the various Articles of the UN Convention should be examined and properly implemented … insofar as those Articles are relevant to you and your organization’s activities.  See my earlier post, dated 5 February 2011.

To date … the quality of Accessibility Implementation in Irish Buildings has been dreadful !!   For important reasons … which all parties involved should fully understand … this situation is longer acceptable.

.

Colour photograph showing the front entrances to dwelling units in a New Inner City Housing Scheme in Dublin ... User Unfriendly ... Inaccessible for Many Vulnerable People in Our Society ... Dreadful Accessibility Implementation ! Photograph taken by CJ Walsh. 2003-09-13. Click to enlarge.
Colour photograph showing the front entrances to dwelling units in a New Inner City Housing Scheme in Dublin ... User Unfriendly ... Inaccessible for Many Vulnerable People in Our Society ... Dreadful Accessibility Implementation ! Photograph taken by CJ Walsh. 2003-09-13. Click to enlarge.

.

Disability Access Certificates (DAC’s) & Part M

The submission of sufficient, quality information, i.e. detailed design documentation, at Disability Access Certificate (DAC) Application Stage typically signals the following to an experienced technical controller …

  • The intent of the Applicant, and the Agent(s) acting on his/her/their behalf, with regard to properly and satisfactorily complying with the relevant building legislation, i.e. Part M: ‘Access for People with Disabilities’ of the Second Schedule to the Irish Building Regulations ;  and
  • In the absence of an inspection by the Building Control Authority (BCA) during actual construction … whether or not it is likely that the completed works will match the DAC certified design documentation with regard to Accessibility Performance.

From the beginning, it is necessary to distinguish between Access and Accessibility.

To be written in stone when International Standard ISO 21542 is soon published … the components of Building Accessibility comprise …

  • Approach to the building ;
  • Entry ;
  • Use of the building, its services and facilities ;
  • Egress from the building (during normal conditions) ;
  • Removal from the vicinity of the building (during normal conditions) ;

and

  • Evacuation from the building (during, for example, a fire emergency) ;
  • Safe Movement to a ‘place of safety’ (during, for example, a fire emergency), which is remote from the building.

This is also a useful guideline with regard to segregating those aspects of Accessibility Design which relate to Part M: ‘Access for People with Disabilities’ of the Second Schedule to the Irish Building Regulations, and which should be considered in any application for a Disability Access Certificate (DAC) … and those, after ‘and‘ … which relate to Part B: ‘Fire Safety’, and which should be considered in every application for a Fire Safety Certificate (FSC).

.

The 2000 Building Regulations (Amendment) Regulations … Statutory Instrument No. 179 of 2000 … elaborate the relevant Irish Building Legislation concerning building access, i.e. Part M: ‘Access for People with Disabilities’ of the Second Schedule to the Building Regulations …

“Access and Use

M1     Adequate provision shall be made to enable people with disabilities to safely and independently access and use a building.

Sanitary Conveniences

M2     If sanitary conveniences are provided in a building, adequate provision shall be made for people with disabilities.

Audience or Spectator Facilities

M3     If a building contains fixed seating for audience or spectators, adequate provision shall be made for people with disabilities.

Definition for This Part

M4     In this Part, ‘people with disabilities’ means people who have an impairment of hearing or sight or an impairment which limits their ability to walk, or which restricts them to a wheelchair.

Application of This Part

M5     Part M does not apply to works in connection with extensions to and the material alterations of existing dwellings, provided that such works do not create a new dwelling.”

My Note 1:  In order to safely and independently use a building … it is also necessary, under normal conditions, to use the egress routes of a building.

My Note 2:  The limited definition of ‘people with disabilities’ in Requirement M4 does not include, for example, a person without arms … or those people with a mental, cognitive or psychological impairment.

.

Technical Guidance Document M (2000, re-printed in 2005) provides guidance in relation to Part M: ‘Access for People with Disabilities’ of the Second Schedule to the Irish Building Regulations.  TGD M was issued by the Department of the Environment, under Article 7 of the 1997 Building Regulations … Statutory Instrument No. 497 of 1997 … which states …

” 7.     (1)  The Minister may publish, or arrange to have published on his behalf, documents to be known as ‘technical guidance documents’ for the purpose of providing guidance with respect to compliance with the requirements of any of the provisions of the Second Schedule.

          (2)  Subject to the provisions of sub-article (3), where works or a building to which these Regulations apply is or are designed and constructed in accordance with any guidance contained in a technical guidance document, this shall, prima facie, indicate compliance with the relevant requirements of these Regulations.

          (3)  The provisions of any guidance contained in a technical guidance document published under sub-article (1) concerning the use of a particular material, method of construction or specification, shall not be construed as prohibiting compliance with a requirement of these Regulations by the use of any other suitable material, method of construction or specification.”

My Note 3:  Since the introduction of national legal building legislation in the early 1990’s, the Irish Building Regulations have a Functional Format, as required by European Union (EU) Law.  In other words, satisfactory compliance with short functional statements is mandated by law … and provided the requirements of those short statements are properly shown to be complied with, it is entirely optional as to which materials, methods of construction, standards and other specifications (including technical specifications) are used.  In this way, the free movement of products and services within the EU is facilitated and encouraged while, at the same time, technical barriers to trade are avoided.

My Note 4:  For the convenience of readers, the short functional statements mandated by law are reproduced, in a shaded box, at the beginning of each of the Technical Guidance Documents.  The Guidance Texts in each Technical Guidance Document, however, are not Prescriptive Regulations.  These texts are merely an indicator of what is likely to be suitable for the purposes of compliance with the Regulations … they are, prima facie (i.e. on ‘first appearance’ only), an indication of compliance ;  they are not ‘deemed-to-satisfy’ the Requirements of Part M.

My Note 5:  Where gaps are identified in the guidance texts of Technical Guidance Document M … and in the absence of an Irish National Standard on Building Access or Accessibility … a suggested hierarchy of approach should be to source an appropriate European Standard (EN) or, if such a standard does not yet exist, then an appropriate International Standard (ISO), or then a National Standard of any country which is a contracting party to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA) which provides in use an appropriate level of Access/Accessibility Performance (refer to Part D of the Second Schedule to the Building Regulations).  In the unlikely absence of any of the above, an appropriate Design Guidance Document – national or otherwise – should be referenced which provides in use an appropriate level of Access/Accessibility Performance.

.

Our Organization – Sustainable Design International – provides an independent (and confidential) Accessibility Monitoring and Verification Service.

.

.

END

Personal Ethics – The Heart of Sustainability Implementation !

Posted by CJ Walsh

2011-02-15 …

Regular visitors, here, will have very little doubt about my understanding of Sustainable Human & Social Development … which is an intricate, open, dynamic and continuously evolving concept.  And about my firm conviction that Sustainable Design involves far more than merely substituting the word ‘sustainable’ … for ‘green’, ‘ecological’ or ‘environment-friendly’ … or any number of insipid alternatives which still regularly appear in the popular and/or academic media !   Who, in their right minds, wouldn’t be confused ?!?

‘Sustainability’ is Not … and Cannot … be just another graft onto Conventional Design Practice … whether that be Spatial Planning, Architectural / Engineering / Industrial Design or e-Design !

Sustainable Design & Construction … is the creative and ethical response, in resilient built or wrought (worked) form, to the concept of ‘Sustainable Human & Social Development’.

.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLEMENTATION

Opinion:  At the Heart of Implementation which is Authentically ‘Sustainable’ … (a colleague of mine is very fond of using that word ‘authentic’) … must lie a Personal Code of Ethics.  By that, I do Not mean … and I am Not referring to … a Professional Code of Conduct … which is mainly about the self-protection and self-preservation of a professional class !

Everyday Reality:  If we examine, for a moment, two interesting examples … Climate Change Mitigation & Adaptation or the 9-11(2001) Collapses of World Trade Center Buildings 1, 2 & 7 in New York … such is the great time-lag between general societal recognition of a critical design challenge … and then, the passing of relevant national legislation which can really only demarcate a minimal threshold of performance … and next, the associated production of standardized design guidelines … and finally, the imposition of effective monitoring and verification procedures … that the only practical approach is to base Sustainability Implementation on a robust Personal Code of Ethics … with an overt emphasis on Continuing Professional Development (CPD).

I hasten to add that this is not how we (society) are currently educating the design disciplines … and this is not how the professional institutes are operating.

.

PERSONAL CODE OF ETHICS

For many years, in my presentations around Europe, the Arab Gulf Region, India and South America … I have been actively promoting the WFEO/FMOI (UNESCO) Model Code of Ethics as a suitable template for use by all of the design-related disciplines.  Recently, however, our Organization … Sustainable Design International … has undertaken a major review of this 2001 Code, and produced a 2011 Update which tackles the following matters of major concern in our world of shameful waste and social inequality:

  • Sustainable Human & Social Development ;
  • Climate Change Mitigation & Adaptation ;
  • Strengthening the Voice of Vulnerable Social Groups, particularly People with Activity Limitations.

.

WFEO/FMOI (UNESCO)

World Federation of Engineering Organizations – Fédération Mondiale des Organisations d’Ingénieurs

MODEL CODE OF ETHICS

Since 1990, WFEO/FMOI has worked to prepare a Code of Ethics under the supervision of Donald Laplante (Canada), David Thom (New Zealand), Bud Carroll (USA), and others.  It is expected that the Model Code, adopted in 2001, will be used to define and support the creation of codes in member and related professional institutions.  This version of the Model Code was updated by C.J. Walsh (Ireland) in 2011.

CONTENTS

                   I.            BROAD PRINCIPLES

II.            PRACTICE PROVISION ETHICS

III.            ETHICS OF SUSTAINABLE ENGINEERING

IV.           CONCLUSION

INTERPRETATION OF THE CODE

  • Sustainable Development & Climate Change
  • Protection of the Public, and the Natural Environment
  • Faithful Agent of Clients and Employers
  • Competence & Knowledge
  • Fairness and Integrity in the Workplace
  • Professional Accountability & Leadership

.

WFEO/FMOI MODEL CODE OF ETHICS

I.  BROAD PRINCIPLES

Ethics is generally understood as the discipline or field of study dealing with moral duty or obligation.  This typically gives rise to a set of governing principles or values, which in turn are used to judge the appropriateness of a particular conduct or behaviour.  These principles are usually presented either as broad guiding principles of an idealistic or inspirational nature or, alternatively, as a detailed and specific set of rules couched in legalistic or imperative terms to make them more enforceable.  Professions which have been given the privilege and responsibility of self regulation, including the engineering professions, have tended to opt for the first alternative, espousing sets of underlying principles as codes of professional ethics which form the basis and framework for responsible professional practice.  Arising from this context, professional codes of ethics have sometimes been incorrectly interpreted as a set of ‘rules’ of conduct intended for passive observance.  A more appropriate use by practicing professionals is to interpret the essence of the underlying principles within their daily decision-making situations in a dynamic manner, responsive to the needs of the situation.  As a consequence, a code of professional ethics is more than a minimum standard of conduct ;  rather, it is a set of principles which should guide professionals in their daily work.

In summary, the Model Code presented herein elaborates the expectations of engineers and society in discriminating engineers’ professional responsibilities.  The Code is based on broad principles of truth, honesty and trustworthiness, respect for human life and social wellbeing, fairness, openness, competence and accountability.  Some of these broader ethical principles or issues deemed more universally applicable are not specifically defined in the Code, although they are understood to be applicable as well.  Only those tenets deemed to be particularly applicable to the practice of professional engineering are specified.  Nevertheless, certain ethical principles or issues not commonly considered to be part of professional ethics should be implicitly accepted to judge the engineer’s professional performance.

Issues regarding protection of the natural environment, climate change mitigation and adaptation, and sustainable development know no geographical boundaries.  The engineers and citizens of all nations should know and respect the ethics of sustainability.  It is desirable, therefore, that engineers in each nation continue to observe the philosophy of the Principles of Sustainable Ethics, as delineated in Section III of this code.

II.  PRACTICE PROVISION ETHICS

Professional engineers shall:

  • hold paramount the safety, health and wellbeing of the public, particularly people with activity limitations, indigenous peoples and other vulnerable groups in society … and the protection of both the natural and the built environments in accordance with the Principles of Sustainable Human & Social Development ;
  • promote health and safety within the workplace ;
  • offer services, advise on or undertake engineering assignments only in areas of their competence, and practice in a careful and diligent manner ;
  • act as faithful agents of their clients or employers, maintain confidentially and disclose conflicts of interest ;
  • keep themselves informed in order to maintain their competence, strive to advance the body of knowledge within which they practice and provide opportunities for the professional development of their subordinates and fellow practitioners ;
  • conduct themselves with fairness, and good faith towards clients, colleagues and others, give credit where it is due and accept, as well as give, honest and fair professional criticism ;
  • be aware of and ensure that clients and employers are made aware of the environmental and socio-economic consequences of actions or projects, and endeavour to interpret engineering issues to the public in an objective and truthful manner ;
  • present clearly to employers and clients the possible consequences of overruling or disregarding engineering decisions or judgment ;
  • report to their association and/or appropriate agencies any illegal or unethical engineering decisions or practices of engineers or others.

III.  ETHICS OF SUSTAINABLE ENGINEERING

Engineers, as they develop any professional activity, shall:

  • try with the best of their ability, courage, enthusiasm and dedication, to obtain a superior technical achievement, which will contribute to and promote a healthy and agreeable surrounding for all people, including indigenous peoples and other vulnerable social groups, in open spaces as well as indoors ;
  • strive to accomplish the beneficial objectives of their work with the lowest possible consumption of raw materials and energy and the lowest production of wastes and any kind of pollution ;
  • discuss in particular the consequences of their proposals and actions, direct or indirect, immediate or long term, upon human health, social equity and the local culture and system of values ;
  • study thoroughly the environment that will be affected, assess all the impacts that might arise in the structure, dynamics and aesthetics of the eco-systems involved, urbanized or natural, as well as in the pertinent socio-economic systems … and select the best alternative for development which is environmentally sound, resilient to climate change and sustainable ;
  • promote a clear understanding of the actions required to restore and, if possible, to improve the environment that may be disturbed, and include them in their proposals ;
  • reject any kind of commitment that involves unfair damages for human surroundings and nature, and aim for the best possible technical, socio-economic, and political solution ;
  • be aware that the principles of eco-system interdependence, biodiversity maintenance, resource recovery and inter-relational harmony form the basis of humankind’s continued existence and that each of these bases poses a threshold of sustainability that should not be exceeded.

IV. CONCLUSION

Always remember that war, greed, misery and ignorance, plus natural disasters and human-induced pollution, climate change and destruction of resources, are the main causes for the progressive impairment of the environment and that engineers, as active members of society, deeply involved in the promotion of development, must use our talent, knowledge and imagination to assist society in removing those evils and improving the quality of life for all people, including indigenous peoples and other vulnerable groups.

.

INTERPRETATION OF THE WFEO/FMOI MODEL CODE

The interpretive articles which follow expand on and discuss some of the more difficult and inter-related components of the Code, especially with regard to the Practice Provisions.  No attempt is made to expand on all clauses of the Code, nor is the elaboration presented on a clause-by-clause basis.  The objective of this approach is to broaden the interpretation, rather than narrow its focus.  The ethics of professional engineering is an integrated whole and cannot be reduced to fixed ‘rules’.  Therefore, the issues and questions arising from the Code are discussed in a general framework, drawing on any and all portions of the Code to demonstrate their inter-relationship and to expand on the basic intent of the Code.

Sustainable Development & Climate Change

Engineers shall strive to enhance the quality, durability and climate change resilience of the Human Environment (including the built, social, economic and virtual environments), and to promote the Principles of Sustainable Human & Social Development.

Engineers shall seek opportunities to work for the enhancement of safety, health, and the social wellbeing of both their local community and the global community through the practice of sustainable development.

Engineers whose recommendations are overruled or ignored on issues of safety, health, social wellbeing, or sustainable development, shall inform their contractor or employer of the possible consequences.

Protection of the Public, and the Natural Environment

Professional Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health and wellbeing of the public, including people with activity limitations, indigenous peoples and other vulnerable groups in society … and protection of the natural environment.  This obligation to the safety, health and wellbeing of the general public, which includes his/her own work environment, is often dependent upon engineering judgments, risk assessments, decisions and practices incorporated into structures, machines, products, processes and devices.  Therefore, engineers must control and ensure that what they are involved with is in conformity with accepted engineering practices, standards and applicable codes, and would be considered safe based on peer adjudication.  This responsibility extends to include all and any situations which an engineer encounters, and includes an obligation to advise the appropriate authority if there is reason to believe that any engineering activity, or its products, processes, etc., do not conform with the above stated conditions.

The meaning of paramount in this basic tenet is that all other requirements of the Code are subordinate, if protection of public safety, the natural environment or other substantive public interests are involved.

Faithful Agent of Clients and Employers

Engineers shall act as faithful agents or trustees of their clients and employers with objectivity, fairness and justice to all parties.  With respect to the handling of confidential or proprietary information, the concept of ownership of the information and protecting that party’s rights is appropriate.  Engineers shall not reveal facts, data or information obtained in a professional capacity without the prior consent of its owner.  The only exception to respecting confidentially and maintaining a trustee’s position is in instances where the public interest or the natural environment is at risk, as discussed in the preceding section ;  but even in these circumstances, the engineer should endeavour to have the client and/or employer appropriately redress the situation, or at least, in the absence of a compelling reason to the contrary, should make every reasonable effort to contact them and explain clearly the potential risks, prior to informing the appropriate authority.

Professional Engineers shall avoid conflict of interest situations with employers and clients but, should such conflict arise, it is the engineer’s responsibility to fully disclose, without delay, the nature of the conflict to the party/parties with whom the conflict exists.  In those circumstances where full disclosure is insufficient, or seen to be insufficient, to protect all parties’ interests, as well as the public, the engineer shall withdraw totally from the issue or use extraordinary means, involving independent parties if possible, to monitor the situation.  For example, it is inappropriate to act simultaneously as agent for both the provider and the recipient of professional services.  If a client’s and an employer’s interests are at odds, the engineer shall attempt to deal fairly with both.  If the conflict of interest is between the intent of a corporate employer and a regulatory standard, the engineer must attempt to reconcile the difference, and if that is unsuccessful, it may become necessary to inform his/her association and the appropriate regulatory agency.

Being a faithful agent or trustee includes the obligation of engaging, or advising to engage, experts or specialists when such services are deemed to be in the client’s or employer’s best interests.  It also means being accurate, objective and truthful in making public statements on behalf of the client or employer when required to do so, while respecting the client’s and employer’s rights of confidentiality and proprietary information.

Being a faithful agent includes not using a previous employer’s or client’s specific privileged or proprietary information and trade practices or process information, without the owner’s knowledge and consent.  However, general technical knowledge, experience and expertise gained by the engineer through involvement with the previous work may be freely used without consent or subsequent undertakings.

Competence & Knowledge

Professional Engineers shall offer services, advise on or undertake engineering assignments only in areas of their competence by virtue of their training and experience.  This includes exercising care and communicating clearly in accepting or interpreting assignments, and in setting expected outcomes.  It also includes the responsibility to obtain the services of an expert if required or, if the knowledge is unknown, to proceed only with full disclosure of the circumstances and, if necessary, of the experimental nature of the activity to all parties involved.  Hence, this requirement is more than simply duty to a standard of care, it also involves acting with honesty and integrity with one’s client or employer, and one’s self.  Professional Engineers have the responsibility to remain abreast of developments and knowledge in their area of expertise, that is, to maintain their own competence.  Should there be a technologically driven or individually motivated shift in the area of technical activity, it is the engineer’s duty to attain and maintain competence in all areas of involvement including being knowledgeable with the technical and legal framework and regulations governing their work.  In effect, it requires a personal commitment to ongoing professional development, continuing education and self-testing.

In addition to maintaining their own competence, Professional Engineers have an obligation to strive to contribute to the advancement of the body of knowledge within which they practice, and to the profession in general.  Moreover, within the framework of the practice of their profession, they are expected to participate in providing opportunities to further the professional development of their colleagues.

This competence requirement of the Code extends to include an obligation to the public, the profession and one’s peers, that opinions on engineering issues are expressed honestly and only in areas of one’s competence.  It applies equally to reporting or advising on professional matters and to issuing public statements.  This requires honesty with one’s self to present issues fairly, accurately and with appropriate qualifiers and disclaimers, and to avoid personal, political and other non-technical biases.  The latter is particularly important for public statements or when involved in a technical forum.

Fairness and Integrity in the Workplace

Honesty, integrity, continuously updated competence, devotion to service and dedication to enhancing the life quality of society are cornerstones of professional responsibility.  Within this framework, engineers shall be objective and truthful and include all known and pertinent information in professional reports, statements and testimony.  They shall accurately and objectively represent their clients, employers, associates and themselves, consistent with their academic experience and professional qualifications.  This tenet is more than ‘not misrepresenting’ ;  it also implies disclosure of all relevant information and issues, especially when serving in an advisory capacity or as an expert witness.  Similarly, fairness, honesty and accuracy in advertising are expected.

If called upon to verify another engineer’s work, there is an obligation to inform (or make every effort to inform) the other engineer, whether the other engineer is still actively involved or not.  In this situation, and in any circumstance, engineers shall give proper recognition and credit where credit is due and accept, as well as give, honest and fair criticism on professional matters, all the while maintaining dignity and respect for everyone involved.

Engineers shall not accept, nor offer covert payment or other considerations for the purpose of securing, or as remuneration for, engineering assignments.  Engineers should prevent their personal or political involvement from influencing or compromising their professional role or responsibility.

Consistent with the Code, and having attempted to remedy any situation within their organization, engineers are obligated to report to their association or other appropriate agency any illegal or unethical engineering decisions by engineers or others.  Care must be taken not to enter into legal arrangements which compromise this obligation.

Professional Accountability & Leadership

Engineers have a duty to practice in a careful and diligent manner, and accept responsibility and be accountable for their actions.  This duty is not limited to design, or its supervision and management, but applies to all areas of practice.  For example, it includes construction supervision and management, preparation of drawings, engineering reports, feasibility studies, sustainability impact assessments, engineering developmental work, etc.

The signing and sealing of engineering documents indicates the taking of responsibility for the work.  This practice is required for all types of engineering endeavour, regardless of where or for whom the work is done, including but not limited to, privately and publicly owned firms, large corporations, and government agencies or departments.  There are no exceptions ;  signing and sealing documents is appropriate whenever engineering principles have been used and public wellbeing may be at risk.

Taking responsibility for engineering activity includes being accountable for one’s own work and, in the case of a senior engineer, accepting responsibility for the work of a team.  The latter implies responsible supervision where the engineer is actually in a position to review, modify and direct the entirety of the engineering work.  This concept requires setting reasonable limits on the extent of activities, and the number of engineers and others, whose work can be supervised by the responsible engineer.  The practice of a ‘symbolic’ responsibility or supervision is the situation where an engineer, say with the title of Chief Engineer, takes full responsibility for all engineering on behalf of a large corporation, utility or governmental agency, even though the engineer may not be aware of many of the engineering activities or decisions being made daily throughout the firm or agency.  The essence of this approach is that the firm is taking the responsibility by default, whether engineering supervision or direction is applied or not.

Engineers have a duty to advise their employer and, if necessary, their clients and even their professional association, in that order, in situations when the overturning of an engineering decision may result in breaching their duty to safeguard the public, including people with activity limitations, indigenous peoples and other vulnerable social groups.  The initial action is to discuss the problem with the supervisor/employer.  If the employer does not adequately respond to the engineer’s concern, then the client must be advised in the case of a consultancy situation, or the most senior officer should be informed in the case of a manufacturing process plant or government agency.  Failing this attempt to rectify the situation, the engineer must advise in confidence his/her professional association of his/her concerns.

In the same order as mentioned above, the engineer must report unethical engineering activity undertaken by other engineers, or by non-engineers.  This extends to include, for example, situations in which senior officials of a firm make ‘executive’ decisions which clearly and substantially alter the engineering aspects of the work, or protection of public wellbeing or the natural environment arising from that work.

Because of developments in technology and the increasing ability of engineering activities to impact on the environment, engineers have an obligation to be mindful of the effect that their decisions will have on the environment and the wellbeing of society, and to report any concerns of this nature in the same manner as previously mentioned.  Further to the above, with the rapid advancement of technology in today’s world and the possible social impacts on large populations of people, engineers must endeavour to foster the public’s understanding of technical issues and the role of Engineering more than ever before.

Sustainable development is the challenge of meeting current human needs for natural resources, industrial products, energy, food, transportation, shelter, and effective waste management while conserving and, if possible enhancing, the Earth’s environmental quality, natural resources, ethical, intellectual, working and affectionate capabilities of people and the socio-economic bases essential for the human needs of future generations.  The proper observance of these principles will considerably help to eradicate world poverty.

.

WFEO/FMOI Model Code of Ethics, Adopted 2001.

This Version, Updated 2011 & Communicated to UNESCO.

[Footnote to the Code]

Sustainable Human & Social Development:  Development which meets the responsible needs, i.e. the Human & Social Rights*, of this generation – without stealing the life and living resources from future generations, especially our children, their children, and the next five generations of children.

*As defined in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights

.

.

END

EU Ratification of UN Disability Convention – EFC Legal Study

Posted by CJ Walsh

2011-02-05:  Further to my post, dated 15 January 2011 …

Many people directly or indirectly involved with Disability-Related Issues in Europe … may not yet know that, a few weeks ago, the European Union ratified the 2006 United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UN CRPD).  They may not even know that their own country, as a Member State of the European Union, had perhaps already ratified the UN Convention one or two years earlier.

At this time, the majority of Member States have proceeded, voluntarily, to ratify the Convention … with some of those, inexplicably, declining/refusing to ratify the Convention’s Optional Protocol.

Human & Social Rights can be a difficult subject area !

Ireland has not ratified the UN Convention … and, unfortunately, the attitude of many policy-makers and decision-makers within our Irish Institutions of State, large and small, is that it’s business as usual … no need to worry or fuss, or give a damn … until this country does actually sign on the Convention’s bottom line … an attitude which displays a magnificent ignorance of the changed reality, post Lisbon Treaty, which is the European Union’s Current Legal Environment !!

Please examine carefully, for yourselves, the findings of this Legal Study, recently approved for publication by the European Commission …

European Foundation Centre (EFC)

Brussels, October 2010

Study on Challenges and Good Practices in the Implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

Click the Link Above to read and/or download PDF File (1.46 Mb)

.

EU RATIFICATION OF THE UN CRPD – ASPECTS OF EU LAW

The following are selected extracts from the EFC Study … my selection (!) … to answer specific issues relating to UN CRPD Implementation within the European Union.  Typographical errors in the Study have also been corrected … and, post Lisbon Treaty, references to the EU Treaties have been properly updated …

The legal basis for the conclusion of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UN CRPD) signals the appropriate legal basis for its implementation within the European Union (EU).  In this respect, and in line with Article 4 of the UN Convention, implementation implies that instruments may be adopted or modified by the Union in order to comply with the Convention and give effect to its provisions and principles.  Although the choice of the legal basis for the decision concluding an international agreement is very important, it is not decisive for implementation.  In European Court of Justice Case C-178/0345, which concerned the implementation of the Rotterdam Convention on International Trade in Hazardous Chemicals, the Court stated that ” the fact that one or more provisions of the Treaty have been chosen as legal bases for the approval of an international agreement is not sufficient to show that those same provisions must also be used as legal bases for the adoption of measures intended to implement that agreement at Community level “.   The latter statement means that EU Treaty provisions other than those mentioned in EU Council Decision 2010/48/EC to conclude the UN CRPD can be used as legal bases to implement UN CRPD obligations in specific fields.

.

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UN CRPD) is an international human rights agreement where both the European Union (EU) and its Member States are contracting parties.  The UN Convention is thus a Mixed Agreement.  Mixed Agreements involve a Shared Contractual Relationship between the EU, its Member States and one or more third countries and/or international organisations.  As a Mixed Agreement, the UN CRPD covers fields that fall in part within the competence of the EU, in part within that of the Member States and in part within the shared competence of the EU and its Member States.  It is therefore essential for the EU and the Member States to closely co-operate, in order to implement legislation stemming from the Convention in a coherent manner and ensure unity in the international representation of the Union.

EU Member States, when participating in Mixed Agreements, do not act as entirely autonomous subjects of international law; they are subject to a Duty of Loyal Co-Operation between one another and the EU.  This duty extends to each of the negotiation, conclusion and implementation phases.  In this sense, there is a collective management of the obligations under international law.  The duty of loyal co-operation, deriving from Article 4.3 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), embraces two sets of obligations: first, Member States shall take appropriate measures, whether general or particular, to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of the EC Treaty or resulting from action taken by the EU Institutions;  and second: Member States shall facilitate the achievement of the Union’s tasks and shall abstain from any measure which could jeopardise the attainment of the Union’s objectives … which are set out in Article 3 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU).

Treaty on European Union (TEU) – Consolidated Version, as Amended by the Treaty of Lisbon

Article 4.3

Pursuant to the principle of sincere mutual co-operation, the Union and the Member States shall, in full mutual respect, assist each other in carrying out tasks which flow from the Treaties.

The Member States shall take any appropriate measure, general or particular, to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of the Treaties or resulting from the acts of the institutions of the Union.

The Member States shall facilitate the achievement of the Union’s tasks and refrain from any measure which could jeopardise the attainment of the Union’s objectives.

.

In relation to EU Member States‘ Compliance with a Mixed Agreement concluded by the EU … the European Court of Justice has inferred that for matters falling within EU competence … the Member States fulfil, within the EU system, an obligation in relation to the Union which has assumed responsibility for due performance of the agreement.  In other words, if a Member State fails to take all appropriate measures to implement provisions of the Mixed Agreement that fall within the competence of the EU … it not only fails to fulfil its international obligation, but is also acting in breach of EU Law.  The European Commission may thus bring an infringement case against a Member State that has not properly fulfilled its duty.  The principle underpinning such mechanisms is the ‘duty of loyal co-operation’, which provides the foundation for managing shared competence within Mixed Agreements.

The line dividing international responsibility for implementation of the International Mixed Agreement between the EU and its Member States depends on the obligations respectively assumed.  The UN CRPD contains a clause setting out ‘separate’ responsibility.  According to Article 44.1, Regional Integration Organisations acceding to the Convention shall declare, in their instruments of formal confirmation or accession, the extent of their competence.  This division of responsibility for implementation implies that the European Union only bears responsibility for the breach of those obligations it has assumed.

EU Council Decision 2010/48/EC on the conclusion of the UN CRPD refers to EU competence in respect of those matters governed by the UN CRPD, and lists EU Instruments which demonstrate such competence.

.

STRUCTURE OF THE EFC REPORT

The main objective of the Study was to analyse the obligations set out in the UN CRPD and, in particular, to gather information about the various practices of the EU Member States and the European Union in implementing the UN CRPD.

The work was carried out by the European Foundation Centre (EFC), representing the European Consortium of Foundations on Human Rights and Disability … under Contract No. VC/2008/1214 … for the European Commission‘s Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion.

Section 1 of this Report sets the appropriate background for the analysis that will follow.

Section 2 of the Report provides an overview and general recommendations on the implementation of the social model of disability, and core obligations deriving from Article 1 and Preamble Paragraph (e) of the UN CRPD.

Section 3 of the Report provides an overview and general recommendations on the implementation of Article 3 (General Principles), Article 4 (General Obligations), Article 5 (Equality and Non-Discrimination), and Article 9 (Accessibility) of the UN CRPD.  The section also reviews UN CRPD articles on Inter-Sectionality, namely Articles 6 (Women with Disabilities) and Article 7 (Children with Disabilities).  It is worth noting that the articles addressed in this section are articles of general and crosscutting application, and therefore their application is relevant for the implementation of all articles of the Convention.

Section 4 of the Report provides an overview and general recommendations on the implementation of selected substantive provisions of the UN CRPD which apply existing civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights within the context of disability.  Specifically, the section considers the implementation of Articles 16 (Freedom from Exploitation, Violence and Abuse) and 17 (Protecting the Integrity of the Person), which are seeking to assert protections that underscore the humanity of all persons with disabilities.  The section also considers the implementation of Articles 12 (Equal Recognition before the Law) and 19 (Living Independently and Being Included in the Community), both of which aim at maintaining and safeguarding the autonomy of the person.  Furthermore, articles on specific accessibility rights, namely Article 13 (Access to Justice) and Article 29 (Participation in Political and Public Life), are likewise addressed.  Finally, the section considers the implementation of Articles 24 (Education) and 27 (Work and Employment).

Section 5 of the Report contains an overview and general recommendations on the implementation of articles which outline steps that are necessary to support reforms.  Specifically, the section considers the implementation of Article 31 (Statistics and Data Collection), Article 32 (International Co-Operation), and Article 33 (National Implementation and Monitoring).

Section 6 of the Report suggests good practices for the EU and national policy-makers for the future and overall implementation of the Convention, and the effective achievement of its objectives.

It is worth noting that, while it is hard to be definitive, given that the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities is still in its infancy and has yet to pronounce on the obligations of the UN CRPD … it is nevertheless possible on the basis of the general principles of the Convention and interpretative tools, such as the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, to identify illustrative challenges to the implementation of the UN CRPD.  For the purposes of this Study, the review of EU and Member States policies and legal instruments is based on the analysis of the UN CRPD and checklists that were produced from this Study to measure progress.

Finally, for the purposes of the Study, a challenge is defined as a ‘difficulty’ posed by existing national or EU practice which may potentially hamper the full and effective implementation of the UN CRPD by the EU Member States and/or the European Union.  In order to meet such challenges, it will be necessary, inter alia, for the EU (as appropriate) and/or its Member States to review legislation and/or policy with a view to full compliance.  On the other hand, a practice is defined as good if it fulfils certain requirements of the Convention or mainstreams the general principles, consistent with Article 3 of the UN CRPD, and has an awareness-raising impact.

.

.

END

EU Accessibility & Ratification of UN Disability Rights Convention

Posted by CJ Walsh

2011-01-15:  Recently, I was waiting … and waiting … for the first mention of this important news to pop up on any of the European Disability Networks … the Formal Ratification by the European Union (EU) of the 2006 United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities … on 23 December 2010 last.

History in the making !!

This U.N. Convention was adopted on 13 December 2006 (2006-12-13), at the United Nations Headquarters in New York … and was opened for signature on 30 March 2007.  It entered into force, i.e. became an International Legal Instrument, on 3 May 2008 (2008-05-03).  A copy of the Convention can be downloaded, here, on this Site … in my post, dated 31 October 2009.

Finally, on Monday 10 January 2011 … via ICTA-Europe, EDeAN, and the EU Press Release below … it was announced …

EU Press Release IP/11/4 – Brussels, 5 January 2011

EU Ratifies UN Convention on Disability Rights

Click the Link Above to read and/or download PDF File (25kb)

So much for instant communication in our much-vaunted Information / Knowledge / Smart Society !!

.

Ordinarily, this news would be nothing to get excited about.

BUT … since the Lisbon Treaty entered into force on 1 January 2009 … the European Union now has a legal personality all of its own, separate from those of the individual EU Member States.  See Article 47 in Title VI – Final Provisions – of the Treaty on European Union (consolidated version).

This is the first time that the EU has become a party to an international treaty.

The 2006 United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities is now part of the European Union’s Acquis Communautaire, i.e. the extensive body of EU Law.

.

The consequential impacts flowing, therefore, from the EU’s Ratification of the U.N. Convention … at both European and Member State (National) levels … will be very, very interesting to observe during the immediate short term.  [A note of caution … be patient, and allow for a short period of ‘bedding-in’ at the start.  See below.]

The European Commission, for example, must now take full account of the Convention in the drafting and implementation of any new legislation, policies and programmes … in fact, all of its activities.

The European Court of Justice must also take full account of the Convention in all of its work.

This will, inevitably, heavily influence what is … or is not … happening with regard to social and other policies at national level in the Member States.  Many Member States (16) have already ratified the Convention … and more power to them !   BUT among these 16 … the Czech Republic and Denmark have not yet ratified the UN Convention’s Optional Protocol … how strange … and unacceptable !!

Some Member States … and I am thinking specifically of Ireland … will have to be dragged, screaming, to the point of ratification.  And even when that position has been reached … proper implementation will always be an issue.  Just consider, for a moment, Ireland’s uncaring and ham-fisted approach to implementation of the 1989 U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child … which it did actually ratify way back on 28 September 1992 !   See my post, dated 30 November 2009.

.

Accessibility of the ‘Human Environment’ – A Harmonized EU Understanding !

As far as the European Union must now be concerned … and all of the EU Member States … Preamble Paragraph (g) and Articles 9, 10 & 11 of the 2006 United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities – together – form the basis of a harmonized understanding for Accessibility of the ‘Human Environment’ … which includes the Built Environment, the Social Environment, the Economic Environment, and the Virtual Environment … concepts which I have defined, here, many times before.

Preamble Paragraph (g)

Emphasizing the importance of mainstreaming disability issues as an integral part of relevant strategies of sustainable development,

Article 9 – Accessibility

1.  To enable persons with disabilities to live independently and participate fully in all aspects of life, States Parties shall take appropriate measures to ensure to persons with disabilities access, on an equal basis with others, to the physical environment, to transportation, to information and communications, including information and communications technologies and systems, and to other facilities and services open or provided to the public, both in urban and in rural areas.  These measures, which shall include the identification and elimination of obstacles and barriers to accessibility, shall apply to, inter alia:

     (a)  Buildings, roads, transportation and other indoor and outdoor facilities, including schools, housing, medical facilities and workplaces ;

     (b)  Information, communications and other services, including electronic services and emergency services.

2.  States Parties shall also take appropriate measures:

     (a)  To develop, promulgate and monitor the implementation of minimum standards and guidelines for the accessibility of facilities and services open or provided to the public ;

     (b)  To ensure that private entities that offer facilities and services which are open or provided to the public take into account all aspects of accessibility for persons with disabilities ;

     (c)  To provide training for stakeholders on accessibility issues facing persons with disabilities ;

     (d)  To provide in buildings and other facilities open to the public signage in Braille and in easy to read and understand forms ;

     (e)  To provide forms of live assistance and intermediaries, including guides, readers and professional sign language interpreters, to facilitate accessibility to buildings and other facilities open to the public ;

     (f)  To promote other appropriate forms of assistance and support to persons with disabilities to ensure their access to information ;

     (g)  To promote access for persons with disabilities to new information and communications technologies and systems, including the Internet ;

     (h)  To promote the design, development, production and distribution of accessible information and communications technologies and systems at an early stage, so that these technologies and systems become accessible at minimum cost.

Article 10 – Right to Life

States Parties reaffirm that every human being has the inherent right to life and shall take all necessary measures to ensure its effective enjoyment by persons with disabilities on an equal basis with others.

Article 11 – Situations of Risk & Humanitarian Emergencies

[My Note: An outbreak of fire in a building would be a situation of serious risk.]

States Parties shall take, in accordance with their obligations under international law, including international humanitarian law and international human rights law, all necessary measures to ensure the protection and safety of persons with disabilities in situations of risk, including situations of armed conflict, humanitarian emergencies and the occurrence of natural disasters.

.

Accessibility of the ‘Human Environment’ – Competent & Effective EU Implementation !

Within the European Union as a whole, because it is a party to the Convention in its own right … and also within the individual EU Member States … Articles 31 & 33 of the 2006 United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities – together – mandate that implementation is taken seriously … that it is competent and effective … and, most importantly, that independent monitoring and verification is a fundamental part of the process.

Article 31 – Statistics & Data Collection

1.  States Parties undertake to collect appropriate information, including statistical and research data, to enable them to formulate and implement policies to give effect to the present Convention.  The process of collecting and maintaining this information shall:

     (a)  Comply with legally established safeguards, including legislation on data protection, to ensure confidentiality and respect for the privacy of persons with disabilities ;

     (b)  Comply with internationally accepted norms to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms and ethical principles in the collection and use of statistics.

2.  The information collected in accordance with this article shall be disaggregated, as appropriate, and used to help assess the implementation of States Parties’ obligations under the present Convention and to identify and address the barriers faced by persons with disabilities in exercising their rights.

3.  States Parties shall assume responsibility for the dissemination of these statistics and ensure their accessibility to persons with disabilities and others.

Article 32 – International Co-Operation

1.  States Parties recognize the importance of international co-operation and its promotion, in support of national efforts for the realization of the purpose and objectives of the present Convention, and will undertake appropriate and effective measures in this regard, between and among States and, as appropriate, in partnership with relevant international and regional organizations and civil society, in particular organizations of persons with disabilities.  Such measures could include, inter alia:

     (a)  Ensuring that international co-operation, including international development programmes, is inclusive of and accessible to persons with disabilities ;

     (b)  Facilitating and supporting capacity-building, including through the exchange and sharing of information, experiences, training programmes and best practices ;

     (c)  Facilitating co-operation in research and access to scientific and technical knowledge ;

     (d)  Providing, as appropriate, technical and economic assistance, including by facilitating access to and sharing of accessible and assistive technologies, and through the transfer of technologies.

2.  The provisions of this article are without prejudice to the obligations of each State Party to fulfil its obligations under the present Convention.

Article 33 – National Implementation & Monitoring

1.  States Parties, in accordance with their system of organization, shall designate one or more focal points within government for matters relating to the implementation of the present Convention, and shall give due consideration to the establishment or designation of a co-ordination mechanism within government to facilitate related action in different sectors and at different levels.

2.  States Parties shall, in accordance with their legal and administrative systems, maintain, strengthen, designate or establish within the State Party, a framework, including one or more independent mechanisms, as appropriate, to promote, protect and monitor implementation of the present Convention.  When designating or establishing such a mechanism, States Parties shall take into account the principles relating to the status and functioning of national institutions for protection and promotion of human rights.

3.  Civil society, in particular persons with disabilities and their representative organizations, shall be involved and participate fully in the monitoring process.

.

The European Union’s Disability Strategy 2010-2020 [COM(2010) 636 final]

The general approach to, and the quality of, Accessibility Implementation in Europe … when compared, for example, with Japan … is pathetically inadequate.

It is quite amazing, therefore, that the texts which deal with Accessibility of the ‘Human Environment’ in the EU’s Disability Strategy Document 2010-2020 … are weak and far too vague … basically, meaningless claptrap drafted by desk jockeys / ‘suits who do not know’ !   We did not achieve a ‘Europe Accessible For All’ by 2010 (see below) … do you see it ??   And … at the current rate of progress, neither will we achieve a ‘Europe Accessible For All’ by 2020 !

The European Union’s Accessibility Strategy, related Policies and Programmes … and the monitoring, targeting and independent verification of Accessibility Implementation … all require a radical overhaul !

All those Officials in the European Commission who are involved, in any way, shape or form, with Accessibility of the ‘Human Environment’ would do well to RE-READ AND MEDITATE DEEPLY on the contents of the 2003 Final Report from the Group of Accessibility Experts, which was established by the European Commission itself …

EU 2003 (EYPD) Expert Group on Accessibility

October 2003

2010: A Europe Accessible For All

Click the Link Above to read and/or download PDF File (294kb)

I was a Member of that Expert Group !

.

AND SOME WIDER CONCERNS …

1.  The European Union HAS NOT RATIFIED the UN Disability Rights Convention’s Optional Protocol.  If the Union is so Open and Transparent … and so committed to Human and Social Rights for All EU Citizens … somebody, somewhere, has to scream out loud “Why is the EU Not Ratifying this Optional Protocol ???”.   And … we demand an honest answer !!!

Optional Protocol – Article 1

1.  A State Party to the present Protocol (‘State Party’) recognizes the competence of the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (‘the Committee’) to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals or groups of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by that State Party of the provisions of the Convention.

2.  No communication shall be received by the Committee if it concerns a State Party to the Convention that is not a party to the present Protocol.

2.  The EU Code of Conduct between the Council, the Member States and the Commission setting out internal arrangements for the implementation by and representation of the European Union relating to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.  Above, I talked about a short period of ‘bedding-in’.   BUT … get your teeth into the ‘meat’ of this document … which indicates that it might be a much longer and more difficult process !?!

Official Journal of the European Union (15 December 2010) – 2010/C 340/08

EU Council – UN Disability Rights Convention – 2010 Internal Code of Conduct

Click the Link Above to read and/or download PDF File (729kb)

3.  At EU Council … How Important is this Issue Considered ?   In the 37 Page Report on the Justice and Home Affairs Council Meeting, which was held in Brussels from 2-3 December 2010 … the adoption of the above Internal Code of Conduct rated just a very brief mention on the last page.  It was not mentioned, at all, among the Main Results of the Meeting !

4.  Will Disability Networks, at both European and Member State (National) levels, have the stamina … and be sufficiently competent and focused … to rigorously monitor European Union Implementation of the UN Disability Rights Convention ??   And … will these Networks be courageous in challenging the EU Institutions … if Implementation is found to be Inadequate ???   I’m not so sure !

.

.

END

DAC’s & An Bord Pleanála (Ireland) – Brief SDI Announcement

Posted by CJ Walsh

The following ‘Warrant of Appointment’ as a Specialist Consultant to the Board … was signed on 17 December 2010 by Mr. John O’Connor, Chairperson of the Board …

An Bord Pleanála

Building Control Acts, 1990 to 2007  |  Building Control Regulations, 1997 to 2009  |  Building Regulations, 1997 to 2008

An Bord Pleanála hereby appoints  C.J. Walsh – Sustainable Design International (SDI)  to:

     (a)  carry out Inspections in relation to appeals against decisions of Building Control Authorities for applications for a Disability Access Certificate (DAC) ;

     (b)  conduct Meetings convened by the Board under Article 34 of the Building Control Regulations, 1997 ;

     (c)  make Written Reports (including Recommendations) to the Board in relation to such appeals ;

and

     (d)  be an Authorized Person, for the purposes of Section 11 of the Building Control Act, 1990.

.

.

The Functions of the Board in Ireland are …

An Bord Pleanála (Irish) … established in 1977, under the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act of 1976 … is responsible for the determination of appeals and certain other matters under the Planning and Development Acts, 2000 to 2010 … and the determination of applications for Strategic Infrastructure Development, including major road and railway projects.  The Board is responsible for dealing with proposals for the compulsory acquisition of land by Local Authorities and other Agencies, under various legal enactments.  The Board also has functions to determine appeals under Water and Air Pollution Acts, and the Building Control Act.

.

.

END

Disability Access Certificates (DAC’s) – Acceptable Accessibility ?

Posted by CJ Walsh

A few weeks ago … in a post dated 20 October 2010 … Japan in April & May 2010 – Accessibility-for-All ! … I discussed some of the many aspects which, together, facilitate a high level of quality in ‘real’, or actually realized, Built Environment Accessibility Performance in Japan … and I illustrated that quality with a number of photographs.

In time, I will add more photographs from my valuable ‘Accessibility in Japan’ Collection !

Note:  Built Environment … Anywhere there is, or has been, a man-made or wrought (worked) intervention by humans in the natural environment, e.g. cities, towns, villages, rural settlements, roads, bridges, tunnels, transport systems, service utilities, and cultivated lands, lakes, rivers, coasts, seas, etc. … including the Virtual Environment.

Note:  Social Environment … The complex network of real and virtual human interaction – at a communal or larger group level – which operates for reasons of tradition, culture, business, pleasure, information exchange, institutional organization, legal procedure, governance, human betterment, social progress and spiritual enlightenment, etc.

Note:  Virtual Environment … A designed environment, electronically-generated from within the Built Environment, which may have the appearance, form, functionality and impact – to the person perceiving and actually experiencing it – of a real, imagined and/or utopian world.

However … many of these aspects are missing in European Approaches to Accessibility-for-All … and, typically, the level of Accessibility Performance which we are used to experiencing, and accepting, is inadequate, sloppy, poor … and to be direct and honest … BRUTAL !!

.

As far back as 2001 … in an Introduction to a Page on our Corporate WebSite illustrating the Inaccessibility of European Union Institutional Buildings … specifically, the European Parliaments in Brussels and Strasbourg … I wrote …

‘ Many times each year, our work takes us to Brussels, Luxembourg and Strasbourg.

In spite of all the rhetoric from European politicians, and the extensive body of European legislation actually in force at national and regional levels in every Member State … the inaccessibility of Institutional Buildings is shockingly and unacceptably bad … in some cases, dangerously so !

Yet, these buildings should represent, in built form, the ideals, values and aspirations of the peoples of Europe – as expressed in the EU Treaties.

What a bitter disappointment ! ‘

.

Today … France, in particular, continues to be a depressing experience … where Talk is far, far too cheap … and Good Accessibility Performance is still all too rare !!

Last Thursday, 25 November 2010 … I attended a Paris Meeting of the Editorial Team for the CIB W108 Report: ‘Sustainable Climate Change Adaptation in the Built Environment’.  My airline flights from Dublin brought me in and out through Terminal 1 of Roissy Charles de Gaulle (CDG) Airport in Paris.

A spanking new automatically operated Métro (shuttle) … CDGVAL … connects Terminals 1, 2 & 3, various Multi-Storey Car Parks and Train Stations within the Airport Complex …

Colour image showing the Airport Complex Plan of Roissy Charles De Gaulle in Paris. Note the New CDGVAL Métro ... an important interconnecting transportation system. Click to enlarge.
Colour image showing the Airport Complex Plan of Roissy Charles De Gaulle in Paris. Note the New CDGVAL Métro ... an important interconnecting transportation system. Click to enlarge.

.

Colour photograph showing the new, automatically operated CDGVAL Métro at Roissy Charles De Gaulle Airport in Paris. Yet another magnificent example of Sloppy French Accessibility Implementation ! Photograph taken by CJ Walsh. 2010-11-26. Click to enlarge.
Colour photograph showing the new, automatically operated CDGVAL Métro at Roissy Charles De Gaulle Airport in Paris. Yet another magnificent example of Sloppy French Accessibility Implementation ! Photograph taken by CJ Walsh. 2010-11-26. Click to enlarge.

.

IF … you search hard enough on the CDG Airport WebSite, you will find these three highlighted short sentences under content with the title ‘Personne à Mobilité Réduite’ … total rubbish and complete bullshit when you actually see the airport’s buildings and many facilities.  And … as usual, in French, the disability-related terminology is evil … and sucks !

‘Aéroports de Paris assure l’assistance des passagers handicapés et à mobilité réduite dés leur arrivée, et tout au long de leur parcours dans le terminal.

Aéroports de Paris a depuis longtemps entamé une démarche d’équipement et d’adaptation de ses terminaux pour faciliter les déplacements de tous.

Aujourd’hui, les problématiques d’accessibilités sont systématiquement prises en compte dans l’aménagement de nos infrastructures.’

Colour photograph showing the Door Threshold Detail of the new, automatically operated CDGVAL Métro at Roissy Charles De Gaulle Airport in Paris. In totally new construction ... an unacceptably huge difference between platform height and the shuttle's floor ! This is also now a trip hazard for everyone !! Photograph taken by CJ Walsh. 2010-11-26. Click to enlarge.
Colour photograph showing the Door Threshold Detail of the new, automatically operated CDGVAL Métro at Roissy Charles De Gaulle Airport in Paris. In totally new construction ... an unacceptably huge difference between platform height and the shuttle's floor ! This is also now a trip hazard for everyone !! Photograph taken by CJ Walsh. 2010-11-26. Click to enlarge.

.

Why is this relevant for us now … here in Ireland ?

The new scheme of Disability Access Certification, closely modelled on the existing highly problematic scheme of Fire Safety Certification … is undergoing a normal, introductory ‘teething’ process within this jurisdiction … and many questions about interpretation of the law and its operation are being asked.

Important Clarification:  The Guidance Text contained in Technical Guidance Document M … is not Law … is not Prescriptive Regulation … is not ‘Deemed to Satisfy’ … and … because the guidance is so incomplete, incoherent and inadequate … does not even indicate Minimum Accessibility Performance !

Part M Functional Requirements – Access for People with Disabilities     Second Schedule of the 1997 Building Regulations – As Amended by the Building Regulations (Amendment) Regulations, 2000 – Statutory Instrument No.179 of 2000

Access and Use     M1     Adequate provision shall be made to enable people with disabilities to safely and independently access and use a building.

Sanitary Conveniences     M2     If sanitary conveniences are provided in a building, adequate provision shall be made for people with disabilities.

Audience or Spectator Facilities     M3     If a building contains fixed seating for audience or spectators, adequate provision shall be made for people with disabilities.

Definition for This Part     M4     In this Part, ‘people with disabilities’ means people who have an impairment of hearing or sight or an impairment which limits their ability to walk, or which restricts them to a wheelchair.

Application of This Part     M5     Part M does not apply to works in connection with extensions to and the material alterations of existing dwellings, provided that such works do not create a new dwelling.

.

Today in Ireland … Talk IS too cheap … and Good Accessibility Performance IS almost non-existent !!!   Yes … and that even includes the work of those mighty superheroes in the Office of Public Works (OPW).

Furthermore … the big fun will really start when the New Part M Requirements come into operation on 1 January 2012 … and we will enter a surreal Alice’s Wonderland of Accessibility Ambiguity …

Part M Functional Requirements – Access and Use     Second Schedule of the 1997 Building Regulations – As Amended by the Building Regulations (Part M Amendment) Regulations, 2010 – Statutory Instrument No.513 of 2010

Access and Use     M1     Adequate provision shall be made for people to access and use a building, its facilities and its environs.

Application of The Part     M2     Adequate provision shall be made for people to approach and access an extension to a building.

M3     If sanitary facilities are provided in a building that is to be extended, adequate sanitary facilities shall be provided for people within the extension.

M4     Part M does not apply to works in connection with extensions to and material alterations of existing dwellings, provided that such works do not create anew dwelling.

.

.

END