Link to PropertyCommittee > CouncilAgenda20230417 > CouncilMinutes20230417 > DisabilityActionPlan2023

Disability Action Plan Advice

• Advice to Council April 2023 from WarrenGreenwood

Hi all, I apologise for the length of this document, but sometimes in our roles we have to research and learn a great deal before we can decide how we should act. The interpretations below are mine - you may see things differently.

The attached communication/s related to the Disabled Actions Plans (DAP) which were received from Assembly/Synod recently.

Synod also has an extensive set of tools and documents available to consider at:- https://victas.uca.org.au/ministry-mission/disability-inclusion/

They allude to a much wider conversation about UC Congregations and their preparedness for the enhancing of our inclusiveness for those people with disabilities, and how we are to make it possible for all persons to fully participate in the life of our congregation. They indicate that there may be “some” funds to help in this process, but the reality for me is that we would receive nothing. We might be able to get Government grants for some tasks - but that will require detailed research.

Although some of this material is to do with Synod and Presbyteries preparing an action plan on how these new initiatives are to be progressed into the wider UCA, and in particular into congregations, by late 2025, they are relevant to us now and require our prayer, our thoughts and our own action plans.

I thought it was relevant to share with you from a Property perspective our level of current preparedness and compliance and the steps we might consider in the immediate near future. So I will deal with the story in two parts. Firstly our manses, and then our worship complex.

I really encourage you to read all the attached material, absorb the implications and then relate them to our own circumstances.

Manses 15/17/19 Southdown

• 15/17 Manses were built 12 years ago and met all of the UCA building standards applicable.
  • Doorways, toilets, showers are “wheelchair” are disable friendly BUT:-
    • Both manses will need front and backdoor access ramps - either for a placement (MOW) with disability needs or if our MOW wishes to use the manse for confidential interviews rather than our Ministry office in the complex.
    • 17 would also need a stairwell hoist/track system should the occupant have any disabilities.

• 19 Southdown is totally non compliant in many ways - it is 45 years old:-

  • Significant access ramps will be needed due to the very high front porch and the odd shaped back door access.

  • Hallways, toilets, ensuite and showers are NOT of disabled standard so should we ever need it as a manse, or if Presbytery want it for a manse again in the future, we would have some significant expense.

And remember, if we rent out any of these properties for ANYTHING other than a manse or directly supporting our outreach programs, we will be up for Land Tax AND Rates. The fact is that we may be better off demolishing 19 Southdown (when vacated) and extending our car park.

Worship complex:

The Emergency Safety testing that is reported each 3 months to Church Council and the annual return to Monash Council includes certain tasks that help meet our obligations. The first is for example the test “Pathways are clear” - That includes ramps, footpaths and doorways and is why from time to time you will be asked to move items that are left around the building, or even our displays. It is why the garden must be cut back or changed to ensure footpath clear access. It is why we have a steel ramp from the car park, and adjusted some spots to provide two disabled spots with clear access to a ramp.
The second is emergency exists. We are 50% compliant in this area. Let me explain.

Under current (not the pre-1995 building regulations that we are controlled by) building regulations, all fire exit doors must have waist height locks and exit capability so that persons in a wheelchair can also open them. Our southern hall car park door does not comply due to their being no ramp, and also the 6 large plate glass foyer doors do not comply - more later.

The complex is therefore 80% compliant with all disabled access requirements.
We have ample disabled toilet access.
We have wheelchair access to all parts of the complex from car park and ceremonial entrances (except hall south door).
We have internal ramps and large doorways, including Room 3 that has a certified portable access ramp for use in the children’s area. This ramp is fully compliant and allows the doorway to be safely used.

There are only THREE exceptions to this compliance statement:-

• The sound room is not disabled access capable.
  

• The sanctuary.
  

• Large plate glass entrance doors

As to the sound room:
With the new digital mixer purchased last year, we are able to control sound for worship from an iPad and so limited mobility persons can be included in this operational and support task.

The Sanctuary:

To fully comply we have some options:-

• Build an access ramp - refer later discussion.
• A hoist would not be approved.
• Move worship to in front of the steps

• Remove the sanctuary raised floor and make it flat through to the wall.
  

• Rotate worship (say 90 deg) and use the fernery as the sanctuary backdrop and worship all on the same level.

Foyer entrance doors:

These 6 large plate glass doors do not comply with CURRENT building regulations as they have floor mounted locks. They would not be allowed in any new building now, but because they were constructed prior to the 1995 changed regulations, we do not have to make any changes UNLESS we do any other building works on the property that require a planning or building permit at which time Monash Council COULD require us to change those doors to be able to get a revised “Certificate of Occupancy”.
Particularly if we are making other changes to make the property “Disabled friendly”, this is a probability in my view.
A very expensive change as the existing doors could not be adapted. It would require new doors at a cost of $50,000 to $80,000 plus.

So that is the story as I see it at this time.
Should Assembly/Synod/Presbytery want to implement a more “disabled friendly” environment these are our immediate impacts as I see them.

The Assembly DAP also has an underlying requirement.

The Uniting Church wishes to be be inclusive and welcoming to all persons, irrespective of any physical limitations and to make it possible to fully participate in the life of a congregation. Our properties are to be welcoming to all before they attend - NOT adjusted after a disabled person starts attending.

Finally - a ramp to the sanctuary.
You will recall that Property committee has been researching this matter for some time (here is a summary):-

• Given the height of the sanctuary area any ramp will need to be 7.5 meters in length because of the 1:14 ratio rules.
• You cannot use a “portable” ramp.
• You cannot (anymore) use a small (very expensive) hoist as a hoist “highlights the disability of a user”, and therefore is in breach of the DAP policies as I read them. A discussion with Synod may best settle that matter but I am told by other churches with hoists they are expensive, difficult to maintain and embarrassing when often broken.
• A ramp at the centre of the sanctuary would extend to the 3rd row of seats and create a “fashion parade” type environment that would completely impact the use of the front of the church for other activities such as weddings/funerals/worship and more.
• A ramp on the south side would require the relocation of the organ, choir and impact the children’s area to the extent that they would all have to be moved elsewhere in the space.
• I believe the only plausible location is the north side, with the following impacts:-
  • Pulpit would need to move to the south side of the sanctuary in front of the cross (more detail shortly).
  • The band and all technology and instruments would need to move forward 2 meters
  • The first 3 rows of pews on the north side will need to be removed - more detail shortly.
  • The flowers at the top step of the sanctuary area will need to move to the south side.
  • The communion table will need to be set back to allow a wheelchair to access both the front and back of the table.
  • The ramp will block the view of the north side stain glass portholes.

I have had an architectural drawing prepared to better explain these impacts. It is not a building drawing, it is a representation of the ramp to enable people to better see what this means. The actual estimated cost is unknown however, I was given a figure of $15,000 to $20,000 including all technology, carpet and other changes.

• 

• The green is the length of ramp required to meet the Australian Standard for “Unassisted Access” for a wheel chair. It extends from the top step of the sanctuary down the north wall and would terminate halfway across the corner window. To that area you then have to allow a large turning circle for the user to clear the bottom of the ramp, rotate left and move along the window to a point where they could then turn left and access the exit isle. The yellow line 2/3rds down the ramp is the length required if we created an “Assisted Access only” ramp.
• Likewise at the top, we would require a turning circle sufficient to allow the user to rotate right to access the sanctuary. This area must never be blocked by equipment/flowers or decorations.
• You will also see on the drawing two other representations:-
  • A view of the ramp WITH the required handrail showing how it would impact the windows. The handrail could be either stainless steel like our current sanctuary handrail, or glass with a timber top that matches the existing wall handrails.
• We would not require any step fall protection.
• All the band electronics and power points would be moved to the front of the ramp, and we could also insert an access hatch to the ramp. we have sufficient carpet squares to cover the ramp.

So folks, these are the challenges we face if we are asked to implement a 100% DAP compliance program over the next 5 years.
There may be many other smaller challenges I have not detailed.

I really must encourage you to read the Assembly and Synod document, website information, and to consider the sanctuary ramp solution. Remember - Assembly wants us to be DA compliant before people engage with us, not after.

Yours In Christ
WarrenGreenwood