Good

day Janet
You state: The planning decision
clearly sets out that commercial floorspace on
a 1st floor does not require a lift or lifting
platform if it is below 100 sq.m.

Planning approval was granted for up to a total
of 240 sq.m. of commercial floorspace. ( first
floor level ) It is envisaged that this will be
implemented in a number of commercial units
which will each be less than 100 sq.m. In such
circumstances none of the resulting offices
would need to provide a lift.

You are informing me that any building in the
Sunderland area with upper floors can now be
subdivided into commercial units of less than
100 sq. meters and they will not require a
lift!!!

The planning decision is incorrect and I
believe you have been wrongly advised please
see the attached report (AidAccess) and
Approved Document M and The Equality Act 2010.

If what is stated is correct then why were
other developments required to provide a lift?
Why would an owner of a building not simply
save the cost of installing a lift? What would
stop me buying a three storey commercial
building and subdividing into areas of less
than 100 sq. meters and renting them as
commercial units?

Can you please inform me of any other premises
in Sunderland that have been granted planning
permission for commercial units on first floor

level under the circumstances you mention? In

fact lets just say commercial units above
ground floor level, as I would love to know
where the limits are.

Access for all (inclusion) is required for all
new buildings unless there are exceptional
circumstances, which in this case there is not.
This new development is not in a flood plane
and there are no constraints to the site other
than the physical size of the site and the size
of the proposed development. I find it
incredible that I, as an individual have had to
go to the lengths I have and still Sunderland
Council try to find loopholes in legislation /
policy / guidance!!! Just to allow Fitz
Architects to build a development without
inclusive access for all simply to increase
internal floor area.

It does sum up Councillor Mel Spedings reply to
me that "the law is just opinion". It seems to
me this is the attitude Sunderland Council has
adopted. If we can find a way around it we
will, never mind all the statements we make
regarding equality. Sunderland City Council -
Unitary Development Plan, Main Strategic Aims
were to ensure that any special needs of those
residents of the City who experience social,
economic, racial or physical disadvantages are
taken into account in all development and
regeneration proposals!!!

I note that the shop fronts and the large
outdoor public seating area have not been
mentioned. Level access to the shop fronts and
ramped access to the seating area have also

been ignored during this planning application

I have paid for an experts report on the issues
of access to this development and his report is
attached. The issues raised within the report
highlight the utter contempt Sunderland Council
has towards people with physical disadvantages.
Considering the ageing population and the
general population who have children in
pushchairs access for all is even more
imperative.

If this development does get built without
regard to access for all, then obviously, I
will need to reconsider the expense of ramps
etc in my plans. It would be unfair for me to
have to spend money on items and construction
if this development is not required to do so,
and of course a precedent will have been set
not only for Sunderland but for all of England.

Regards Len Lowther

From: Janet Johnson <Janet.Johnson@sunderland.gov.uk>

Date: Wednesday, 18 December 2013 08:57
To: Leonard Lowther <lowther27@gmail.com>
Cc: Cllr Paul Watson <Cllr.Paul.Watson@sunderland.gov.uk>
Subject: FW: Leonard Lowther/The Shocking Reality

Dear Mr. Lowther

I understand that you spoke to the Leader of the Council at the
State of the City event and he promised to look into the issue you
raised about the difference between the 100 and 240 square
metres areas, as outlined in your email below. The Leader has
asked me to reply on his behalf.


The planning decision clearly sets out that commercial floorspace
on a 1st floor does not require a lift or lifting platform if it is below
100 sq.m.

Planning approval was granted for up to a total of 240 sq.m. of
commercial floorspace. It is envisaged that this will be implemented
in a number of commercial units which will each be less than 100
sq.m. In such circumstances none of the resulting offices would
need to provide a lift.

However, the planning approval makes it clear that this is an
indicative layout. If the applicant were to wish to implement the
permission with a unit or units exceeding 100 sq.m. appropriate
access arrangements would have to be approved through Building
Control Regulations.

I understand that this was explained to you in a comprehensive
letter from the Planning Service in August and from the Complaints
Team in October.

I believe the situation to be very clear. I trust this answers your
query.

Janet Johnson
Deputy Chief Executive
Sunderland City Council

Tel: 0191 561 1114

From: Leonard Lowther [mailto:lowther27@gmail.com] Sent: 03

December 2013 22:22 To: Dave Smith (Chief Executive); Cllr Melville
Speding; Cllr Barry Curran; Cllr Paul Watson Subject: The Shocking
Reality

David Smith Chief Executive Quote: I have made

my decision take me to court.

Councillor Mel Speeding Quote: The Law is just
opinion.

Councillor Barry Curran Quote: What do I know
Im not an expert.

Council Leader Paul Watson Quote: I dont
understand but I will have another look and
ask why the Delegated Decision Report argues
the case, not to provide a lift to the first floor
offices as it is less than100 sq meters but later
approves 240 sq meters of office space.

Delegated Decision Report Page 12


Ingeneral,thereare provisionsto
incorporatea liftI liftingplatform tonon-
residential properties.However,inthis
instanceit isnot required.LABCServices
have nationalagreements,thatnon-
residentialunits under100m sq&
incorporateno uniquefacilities,donot
require theprovision ofa liftI
liftingplatform. Suchsmall
commercialunits,asin thisinstance
cannotjustify thecost Imaintenance

costsfor sucha small facility.

Inlight ofthe above,asthe proposedscheme
fullycomplies withthe requirementsof AppDoc
M,there areno accessrelated issuesthat
wouldprevent BuildingRegulation
approvalbeing granted.As thescheme raisesno
concernsfrom aBuilding
Regulationperspective,thereis no
materialplanning justificationto refusethe
application basedon theprovision ofdisabled
access.

Delegated Decision Report Page 14

5Notwithstanding thesubmitted plans,no
morethan 240square metresof theavailable
450 squaremetres ofinternal floorspace
atfirst floorlevel shallbe usedfor thepurposes
ofuse class B1