Category: Housing design

The Queensland Government is wasting no time in adopting access features for all new homes. The Government is preparing industry for the changes to the National Construction Code agreed by state building ministers in April. The Victorian Government is doing the same. Only New South Wales, Western Australia, and South Australia are bucking the trend.

New South Wales believes it is already doing a good job. So they are refusing to adopt the changes to the building code. However they are only able to claim 125 dwellings to Silver level in the last year. Social housing is only 5% of the total housing market, so that is a drop in the bucket. Old stock is still inaccessible. The claims were reiterated by Minister Anderson in a NSW Senate estimates committee meeting (page 20 of Hansard).

The Queensland Government is keen to support industry and local government to transition to the new requirements. “This will make a real difference to the large number of people who struggle to find accessible housing”. 

The Victorian Government’s media release encourages all jurisdictions to adopt the changes. If all states and territories adopt the standard we should have 50% of housing stock with access features. The Minister for Planning said that it is time a regulatory standard for all housing in Australia. That’s because the voluntary solution hasn’t worked. 

The Master Builders Association in Victoria is still complaining about the changes. They have been the major barrier to implementation in the last eleven years. Their claim that a voluntary standard is best has not resulted in any mainstream accessible homes.

There are more posts on the 20 years of campaigning by advocates in the Housing Design Policy section of this website. 

A new OECD working paper says there is a housing crisis on the horizon for people with disability and older people. Most jurisdictions in Australia are signing up to some basic universal design features in all new homes. But will it be enough?  In the UK, their home access regulations are being reviewed because they don’t go far enough. So partial access solutions are no solution, but for policy-makers it looks like they are doing something. 

The OECD working paper says there is talk about housing for people with disability, but no real action. The shortage of suitable accessible housing is still lacking. And it will get worse. By 2050 more than one quarter of the population will be over 65 years – it’s 18% now. Major modifications will be needed if people are to age in place. 

Social housing is a help provided it is accessible, but it is not the best option for everyone or every family. Grants and loans for home modifications can help too. People with complex needs might need specialised accommodation. Briefly, the working paper suggests the following policy actions:

• • Finding out what people with disability need from their housing and what supports are available. An evidence base is important.
  • Developing tools to match available stock with people needing it.
  • Strengthening access standards for new residential construction.
  • Providing financial incentives such as loans and income-tested grants for upgrading existing stock. 
  • Ensuring people with disability benefit from increased accessible, affordable and social housing. 

The document concludes with ways that governments can improve housing support for people with disability. It also has examples from different countries. The title of the report is, A crisis on the horizon: Ensuring affordable, accessible housing for people with disabilities. The writing style makes this type of document relatively easy to read. 

Abstract

This paper discusses housing challenges facing people with disabilities in OECD and EU countries, and policy supports to make housing more affordable, accessible and adapted to their needs. It focuses on the adult population with disabilities living outside institutions, drawing on data from the European Union Survey of Income and Living Conditions (EU-SILC), household surveys, national population census and disability surveys, and country responses to the 2021 OECD Questionnaire on Affordable and Social Housing. The paper summarises housing outcomes; discusses policy supports to ensure that people with disabilities can be safely, affordably and independently housed; and outlines actions for policy makers.

A good reference document for people working in the housing policy space. 

The building ministers from each state and territory are a group of politicians who decide what goes into the National Construction Code. Their decisions are by majority rule. In April this year it was decided to adopt Silver level features in all new housing. However, there was one major dissenter – New South Wales said ‘no’. The Silver level refers to that in the Livable Housing Design Guidelines.

Victoria, Tasmania, Queensland, ACT and Northern Territory will be adopting the features in their jurisdiction. Western Australia says it needs a bit more time. That leaves South Australia and NSW. The features will be in the new edition of the NCC due out September 2022. However, it is up to each state to enforce it.

After many letters of appeal to the NSW building minister, Kevin Anderson, advocates received a definitive no – NSW will not be adopting the features. It is not known whether this was a NSW Cabinet decision or just his own. Regardless, this decision is perplexing.

Why is NSW saying ‘no’?

One thing the construction industry wants and needs is consistency across jurisdictions. The NSW decision goes against this. Many of the larger developers are already incorporating some of the silver features, and even some gold, in their newer designs. The decision by NSW does not support this. The NSW Housing Strategy 2041 specifically supports universal design in housing. The NSW decision contradicts this. It makes no sense. So what is, or who is, the stumbling block?

In the response to advocates, Kevin Anderson’s office advised, in a nutshell, that they are already doing enough. However, when questioned for evidence of this, it was not forthcoming. Without such evidence NSW cannot claim they are “already doing it”.

ANUHD did some research on the NSW development and planning policies. It’s an attachment to the letters referenced previously. They found that even if developers followed through with 20% of silver level in apartments, that is still a very small number in the overall scheme of things. It would be less than 10% of total new apartments.  Regardless, there is no-one checking to see if the apartments actually got built to Silver level. 

The other issue is that NSW still thinks that disability and ageing is a niche issue – a niche market. The statistics and evidence to the contrary is being ignored. Also ignored is that universal design and accessibility is for everyone – we will all need it sometime in our lives. And our family members too. Most people want to age at home and this is how to do it – in a home fit for purpose. 

The Building Better Homes Campaign continues and they are encouraging everyone to write to their local member to lobby Kevin Anderson and other ministers with responsibility for planning and housing. We all need accessible housing. 

Housing policy people think you can’t have universal design and affordability in housing. However, the opposite is likely to be true. The national Building Ministers’ Meeting in April this year agreed to include Livable Housing Silver level in all new housing. But not all states agreed to call it up in their jurisdiction. 

Victoria, Queensland, ACT, Tasmania and NT are right behind the changes to the National Construction Code, but NSW is not. Indeed, they informed advocates by letter that they have no intention of including silver level in NSW legislation. Their reasoning is that they believe they are doing enough already. By this, they mention some policies asking for a proportion of accessible dwellings in apartments. However, there is no evidence they are actually built, and if they were, there is no way of knowing where they are. 

The other reason for not changing the NSW code is that the politicians believe it costs too much. Accessible housing continues to be perceived as a niche area. A few good points were made by Kay Saville-Smith at a roundtable after the 2014 Australian universal design conference. Sadly, we are still no further forward and her words hold true today. 

Universal design is affordable design

Here are Kay Saville-Smith’s five key points about universal design in housing and affordability: 

“The usual argument is that universal design is consistently unaffordable (by which they mean more costly) than poor design because of the difficulties of retrofitting the existing environment and lack of economies of scale. But the reasons why universal design is seen as costly can add cost. Five points are interesting: 

1. 1. Most products are not designed but driven off existing tools, processes and organisational  structures. To change these does require some investment (hump costs) but these are one off and should not be seen as an ongoing cost. Indeed, those changes can bring reduced costs in the long term through increased productivity etc.
   2. The costs of poor design are externalised onto households, other sectors or hidden unmet need.
   3. Comes out of an advocacy approach that pitches the needs of one group against another and treats universal design as special design etc.
   4. Win-win solutions need to be built with the industry participants that are hungry for share not dominant players who have incentives to retain the status quo.
   5. Universal design is different from design which is fashion based. The trick is to make universal design fashionable so no one would be seen dead without it.”

Her keynote presentation provides more information about affordability and why it is so hard to get traction with universal design in housing. 

For more history on the Building Ministers’ Meeting and decisions to include Livable Housing Silver level in the NCC, go to the housing design policy section. 

The Australian Network for Universal Housing Design (ANUHD) has responded to the draft provisions to the National Construction Code (NCC) on accessible housing. Much of the required information is technical. So ANUHD is happy for others to utilise this information in their own response. All responses must be made by 2 July 2021. The Melbourne Disability Institute has also responded to the final cost benefit analysis by the Australian Building Codes Board.

While the Building Ministers agreed to most aspects of Silver level in the Livable Housing Design Guidelines, the devil is in the detail. Step-free hobless showers, step-free entry to the dwelling, parking spaces and doorways need greater clarity to ensure accessibility is maximised. Simple misunderstandings in drafting the technical changes can minimise the benefits of these changes. 

ANUHD still promotes Gold level of the Livable Housing Design Guidelines as the most cost effective. Regardless, their comments serve to make the best of the current agreed changes to the NCC. 

Comments are open until 2 July 2021.  You can submit a response.  See “How to use this response sheet” and proforma.  You don’t need to be a building professional to respond. This is also about advocacy for all of us.