Accessibility inaction

Virginia Fallon thinks officials are on the wrong track when considering the accessibility of Wellington Railway Station (July 22).

Whilst she may well be right, I am sure those officials would say they were only following established procedures based on government requirements. If so,

how have we got to a position where rules and regulations result in a built environment often being unfit for purpose?

The concept of what is acceptable in terms of accessibility is driven by the content of the Building Code, published in 1992. From this code more detailed guidance has been developed which architects and designers follow. Whilst the world has moved on since 1992, the minimum requirements for people to be able to use buildings have not.

In 2014 the Ministry of Building, Innovation and Employment, responsible for the Building Code, undertook a review into accessibility to identify if current legislation was being implemented, whether an accessible environment resulted and, if not, to identify why.

Seven years later it would be easy to repeat the conclusion from this exercise: ‘‘There has been a lack of progression in updating and developing the regulations governing accessibility’’.

Detailed evidence was given to the 2014 review on what was wrong

with the Building Code and the inconsistencies present in its supporting documentation.

These shortcomings not only continue to cause confusion for building owners, architects and building officers, they also set the tone for what is deemed by these groups to be important. The result is a race to the bottom to provide the absolute minimum in terms of accessibility.

The solution to this conundrum is in the hands of the minister, who has the power to direct MBIE accordingly.

Richard Cullingworth, chartered building surveyor, Upper Moutere