Category: Housing Design Policy

Research from AHURI found that 70 per cent of households reported one or more major building problems in 2022. Policy for housing quality standards is fragmented across governments and ministers’ portfolios. And industry lobbyists are getting the way of improving the quality of our homes. The Livable Housing Design Standard is a case in point.

The research report uses two case studies to show that change is possible, but takes persistent effort to overcome lobbyist resistance. They recommend that purchasers get a performance report at the point of sale or lease. The rental sector should also have minimum standards mandated.

Relative to other countries, housing standards are not only fragmented but in some cases ineffectual. Too many standards are voluntary. Without mandated standards we cannot expect improvements in decarbonisation or accessibility for our homes.

Case studies: Healthy Housing, Livable Housing Design

The case studies focus on the Healthy Housing Standards in Aotearoa New Zealand, and the Livable Housing Design Standard in Australia. The Healthy Housing Standard was eventually watered down to just insulation and smoke alarms.

In Australia, the Australian Building Codes Board controls the National Construction Code. According to the researchers, compared to other rule-making agencies, “there is a lack of transparency in the ABCB”. Among other missing information on their website, there is no annual report of the Board.

The report charts the history of the Livable Housing Design Standard from the National Dialogue on Universal Housing Design to the final Standard. An interview with a property industry professional confirmed their stance on retaining the status quo. That is, they lobbied for no change to standards or regulation. Hence the whole process took 20 years and still the state governments are lagging behind in adopting the Standard. Industry has not given up on their position.

Review reveals weak governance processes

An independent review of the process taken to assess the economics of adopting the Livable Housing Design Standard outlined 8 recommendations. They were based on four guiding principles that the ABCB should follow: transparency, robustness, integrity and fairness.

AHURI researchers found the Livable Housing Design Standard provided important lessons for the ABCB. The processes were not fit for purpose for this Standard.

The report is lengthy and is really about “why is it so difficult to get changes to the building code when those changes would benefit so many?”

The section on the case studies concludes with the need for significant policy changes. Without them, we are unlikely to address the issues facing the environment and the move to net zero by 2050.

The AHURI report is, A national roadmap for improving the building quality of Australian housing stock. There is a link to the full report, the executive summary, and a policy summary.

Homes for an ageing population in New Zealand

A report for FAAB Small Homes repeats much of what is found in Australia in relation to updating to housing design to suit the current and future population. Yet resistance by the housing industry to updating housing standards and codes remains. And older people are not seeking universal inclusive design in new homes either.

Although we, as individuals, know we are ageing, the concept of universal design and easier access to and throughout the home is not a selling point with consumers. In the report one builder-developer was surprised that older people were not interested.

The title of the report is Encouraging new-build small, affordable and accessible homes for an ageing population.

Jane Bringolf reported in 2011 the same issue of ‘selling’ universal inclusive features, even to older people. After all, ageing and disability is not an aspirational factor for one’s ‘dream home’. That is why we need regulation to suit the population into the future. The idea of getting old, even when people observe their parents, does not compute. Hence the market is not asking for it and housing industry stakeholders use this as a means of maintaining the status quo.

In more than ten years, nothing much has changed, particularly in terms of attitudes to ageing. The title of Bringolf’s paper is Hope I die before I get old: The state of play for housing liveability in Australia.

The UK organisation for accessible housing, Habinteg, has released new research on the social and economic value of wheelchair users homes. The research was carried out by the London School of Economics. They did a cost-benefit analysis of wheelchair user housing and a qualitative analysis of how their home impacts wheelchair users in everyday life. Together they showed benefits, particularly to government, outweighed the costs.

The UK already has a mandated standard of basic access features in new housing called Visitable dwellings. This covers door widths and corridors. However, it fails to guarantee true visitability to everyone and is not adaptable for households over time. There are two other standards which are not mandatory: accessible and adaptable dwellings, and wheelchair user dwellings.

The cost-benefit analysis used three models based on three groups of wheelchair user households.:

• Households with children who use wheelchairs
• Working aged, wheelchair user households
• People in later life who use wheelchairs (aged 65+)

They found that a working age wheelchair user, the benefit was £94,000 over a ten year period. A later years household was £101,000 over a ten year period, and for a child, the benefit was £67,000 over ten years. The financial value was divided between health, local government and the national government.

Benefits of wheelchair housing

The interviews with wheelchair users revealed the personal benefits of improved quality of life. Of being able to work, to come and go independently, and have peace of mind. Being able to work provides additional disposable income and tax revenue for the government. It also means less welfare payments and hours of home care services.

The title of the report is, Living not existing: The economic and social value of wheelchair user homes. The quotes from wheelchair users really tell the story of the difference between existence and living. The analysis shows that when it comes to cost, the real question is, how much and who pays?

The Queensland Government is leading the way with their new Modern Homes Standard. Queensland will begin rolling out mainstream universally designed eco-friendly homes based on the new standards in the National Construction Code (NCC) from October 2023. While the energy efficiency requirements might cost more, the universal design features will cost little, if any, more.

The benefits to consumers are obvious, but the benefits to government perhaps less so. Consumers will eventually have homes that are suited across the lifespan that cater for most life events. Governments stand to save on unnecessary extended hospital stays, and early entry to aged care. They will also save money on government funded home modifications.

However, this has not stopped the housing industry from heavily lobbying against the universal design changes at state level. They claim that the industry has too many problems, it’s technically difficult and it would cost homeowners $40,000.00 more. Are these claims true or are they myths and misunderstandings?

Dispelling the myths

Here are some of the common claims by industry where the cost claims are confused with specialist disability housing or the old adaptable housing standard. So these claims are easily dismissed.

You can download a PDF of this list. 

Myth	Response
You can’t do level entry to the home on steep sites or on small lots.	Steep sites are exempted from dwelling access requirements. Or you can make the entry via the garage.
You can’t do Livable Housing features in a studio apartment.	It’s often easier in studio because they only have 2 doors and no corridors.
These bigger bathrooms really add to the cost.	No big bathroom required because it can be achieved in less than 4sqm. See Livable Housing Handbook.
You can’t do it on narrow lots.	Narrow properties use space smartly with minimal corridors relying on shared circulation and open plan spaces.
Grab rails make the place look ugly.	Grab rails are not required. They can be added later if ever they are needed.
People just want a regular-looking home.	The design tweaks are not noticeable other than a level entry.
People don’t want a disability bathroom.	They won’t get one. The Standard asks for a small extra space in front of the toilet pan.
Some people want a traditional closet WC.	They can have one. Only one toilet pan on the ground or entry level needs to have some extra space in front of it.
People don’t want a front yard full of ramps.	They won’t have one. Access is from the street, parking space or garage.
The extra accessible parking places will add enormous cost to apartments.	There are no changes to parking requirements. Only the internal fit-out applies to apartments.
Door manufacturers will have to re-tool to make new products.	The door sizes are standard already.
Only a few people need these changes.	These provisions are for improving amenity and liveability for everyone. It’s about future-proofing a consumer’s biggest asset.
It’s going to be expensive.	The main cost will be some timber noggins for wall reinforcement in the bathroom.
There’s a cost of living crisis.	That’s why it’s even more important to build homes that protect families from future-shock – the cost of adaptation if life circumstances change. It makes them more sustainable.
I’ve built this kind of home before and I know it costs a lot more.	This is not Specialist Disability Accommodation or housing to the Adaptable Housing Standard. These do cost more. The Livable Housing Standard normalises these common design features. That’s why they are called universal design features. And there is little, if any, extra cost.
It’s bound to cost more because this is all new and we have to learn how to do it.	These features have been applied in seniors living since 2004 and specialist disability homes. Community housing associations apply these features. There is nothing new or onerous.
It’s not a good time for the industry to do this.	It is never a good time for industry. Meanwhile it is a very good time for people wanting to move into a home with no steps.

Why we need it

Building homes based on last century ideas of housing the population has to change and it has to be more than fashion changes. We are living much longer and want to stay put as we age. The pandemic has made people even less eager to go to aged care. People who use mobility devices want to visit family and friends in their own homes. In summary we want homes that are fit for purpose for all family members regardless of what life has in store.

The Livable Housing Design Standard is a tweak to existing designs, but it is these little details that make the difference to longer term liveability for all family members.

The size of Australian homes will easily accommodate all the new provisions in the Livable Housing Design Standard. We wait for Victoria, ACT, NT, South Australia and Tasmania to keep to their promises to follow Queensland’s lead. However, NSW still agrees with industry lobbyists and is saying “no”. ABC News has an article on Queensland’s commitment to housing fit for purpose in the 21st Century.

Publicly funded home modifications are a regular feature of My Aged Care and the NDIS schemes. NDIS participants seeking independence and desires to age in place are increasing, but our housing stock is not fit for this purpose. Consequently, homes need adaptation as people age or acquire a disability. However, there is a clash of values between what the client wants, what the funder wants, and what the occupational therapist (OT) deems functional. That’s a finding from researchers at the Hopkins Centre.

Researchers interviewed OTs experienced in prescribing home modifications. They wanted to gauge their experiences in the assessment process. They found that clients (homeowners) value aesthetics and property values. On the other hand, funding bodies value the cheapest option, and OTs are looking for the most functional outcome. OTs are also confronted with different decision making criteria across the various schemes.

Consequently, it is up to the OT to balance the desires of the client with those of the funder using their professional knowledge. Not an easy task, and unlikely to lead to optimum outcomes. And OTs become de facto bureaucrats in this process, which can also be a challenge to their professional values.

But what is “value”?

The research paper discusses the various aspects of value from different perspectives. The best outcomes are achieved when there is open discussion between the client, the funder and the OT. This encourages a better alignment of values.

While this paper is focused on the OT professional, it links closely with the notion of disability and ageing stigma. The idea of having a grab bar or a ramp appears to be an affront to one’s dignity. Older people see this as the beginning of the “downhill run” of life. The new Livable Housing Design Standard will help minimise this stigma by providing a step free entry and better bathroom design. Until we have sufficient stock, OTs will continue to provide home modification assessments.

The title of the paper is, Valuing home modifications: The street-level policy work of occupational therapists in Australian home modification practice.

There is also a webinar on the Hopkins Centre website that discusses client perspectives of home modifications. In a nutshell, they see modifications as value for money if they meet their specific needs to a high standard. Also, the process of getting a modification has to be straightforward without wasting time and money.

Phillippa Carnemolla’s research showed the number of care hours saved and improved quality of life with appropriate modifications.

Future-proofing is best

For those who can afford to renovate their home now, it is worth considering future-proofing, rather than leaving it “until the time comes”. The Livable Housing Design Guidelines are a good reference for anyone updating their home at any point in their life. This Guideline is the basis of the mandated Livable Housing Design Standard, but has more useful information for homeowners.

Basic access features are now mandated in the latest edition of the Australian National Construction Code (NCC). This achievement took 20 years of dedicated advocacy for universal design in housing. This was achieved against the backdrop of strong housing industry lobbying for the status quo.

A paper presented at the International Universal Design Conference, UD2022, documents the achievements brought about by people power. It follows three previous papers and could, and should, be the last chapter. But that depends on ongoing political decisions.

While the features are mandatory in the NCC, not all states are ready to adopt these changes. Also, the features are very basic and will not meet the needs of an ageing population. Hence, advocates continue their work.

The conference paper has lessons for other jurisdictions and was written by Margaret Ward with input from Jane Bringolf. The title is, Universal design in housing in Australia: An example of people power. The paper is open access from the IOS Press website.

Or you can have a look at the slides in the short PPT presentation to get a quick overview.

Abstract: This paper follows three previous ones which have reflected on the grassroots campaign in Australia to mandate a basic access standard in all new housing. The original negotiations with government and the housing industry for this reform were at first disingenuous then reluctant despite human rights obligations.

A tenacious campaign over two decades by user stakeholders, researchers, and principled housing providers finally convinced political leaders to mandate national access provisions for all new housing in the National Construction Code. The paper discusses what assisted and hampered this campaign. It then discusses why politicians eventually favoured the interests of ordinary people over the self-interests of the housing industry.

Livable Housing Design: Not our problem

Why do we keep building homes as if we are never going to grow old? A paper from 2014 illustrates that the answer is complex. But the perceptions of developers, designers and builders gives us some insights that remain today. A Brisbane study collected data from site-visits, building documents and interviews with industry stakeholders. Four key themes emerged showing attitudes remain the same: voluntary approach, otherness, immediacy, and inertia.

The title of the open access article is, Livable Housing Design: The voluntary provision of inclusive housing in Australia. Although published in 2014 much of the document remains current. 

State of housing in Ireland

The Centre for Excellence in Universal Design in Ireland has found housing the most difficult area to address in terms of inclusion. A 2024 PhD thesis looks at the issues and compares them with the progress, or lack thereof, in the UK. Even with regulation, new builds in England have been found to be mediocre or poor.

The research findings suggest a small minority of new housing is at least functionally accessible. And even in Australia, even in states where the Standard is adopted, it is unknown if the features are actually present in new builds.

The title of the thesis: Appropriate housing choices for a whole lifetime – how accessible are new housing proposals in Ireland? Costings and worked examples are included in homes that have less floor space than the average Australian home.

Housing Design for All?

Environments that include older people include everyone else too. So it’s good to ask older people what works for them. The findings from a Helsinki study indicate that neighbourhood design, public transport and green environments influence mobility and social integration. Mainstream housing design is a key factor in supporting older people to stay within their communities.

From the abstract: The results indicate that the neighbourhood design, public transport network and proximity of green environments influence mobility and the sense of integration within a community. Moreover, the length of residency was related to the familiarity of the living environment, which gave residents a sense of security, and supported their activities of daily life. Furthermore, the results show that older residents preferred the local services that were the most accessible ones.

A study on planning to move in later life is based on the notion that people will need to move regardless. If this is the case, the question becomes, who does the planning? The researchers are taking medical approach in two ways. First, by suggesting older people should be encouraged to plan their move. Second healthcare professionals can “help them better adjust to a new living environment”. 

Poor health was the main reason for not planning a move, and wanting to live closer to children was the main reason for a planned move. Planning for moves in late life: who plans and how does planning influence outcomes?, shifts the focus from staying put to moving so that people can age-in-the-right place.  

Does educating homeowners about universal design influence any repairs following a home insurance claim?  Researchers found that almost all homeowners included universal design features in repairs. This lead to a voluntary 6- week online training program to educate contractors who work with customers to discuss and promote universal design with policy holders at the time of a claim. 

The title of the article is Educating home contractors on universal design modifications: an academia and corporate collaboration,