Category: Housing Design Policy

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. 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, 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.

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,  

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. The Victorian Government is doing the same. 

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. 

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

Why wouldn’t you?

The catch cry “Why wouldn’t you? is the three word tag used in promotional material to promote universal design in housing. A builder, and a building designer are calling their collaboration Project Silver. 

The six minute video (below) puts the case very well. It includes contributions from different people, including the mayor of the Sunshine Coast. It’s worth a watch. Another builder in Townsville is telling the same story. 

Editor’s comment: The builder claims Silver Level costs an additional $3000 to potentially save $60,000. Possibly it is another way to sell an “extra” and therefore the customer pays over and above the actual cost of the features.

 

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 2021 it was decided to adopt features similar to “silver level” 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. South Australia and Western Australia say they need a bit more time. That leaves NSW. The features will be in the 2022 edition of the NCC ready for implementation in 2023. However, it is up to each state to enforce it.

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”.

Livable Housing Design: a DCP approach

How many local governments in New South Wales have Livable Housing Design Guidelines in their Development Control Plans (DCP)? And what mechanisms do developers use to find this information? With different terms being used for the same thing, how do developers navigate this environment? This is what Masters student Matthew Gee Kwun Chan wanted to find out. 

The recent change to the National Construction Code (NCC) to mandate LHDG “silver” level is discussed in the context of the refusal by New South Wales to adopt this change.

NSW Government claims increased cost as the reason for not adopting the changes. This claim is challenged by economists, activists and consumers. NSW Government responses indicate that they still view the LHDG as “disability housing” not a mainstream issue. Consequently they claim there are sufficient properties available in the market and in social housing to meet current and future demand.

Local government and DCPs

Councils create DCPs to provide detailed information for implementing Environmental Planning Instruments (EPI). Some councils can seek higher accessibility standards beyond the statutory minimum. However, Chan found that councils “fail to adopt LHDG in their DCPs despite making the argument for such in other council documents”. He provides an analysis of 24 selected councils to compare their development and planning documents.

Chan claims that conflicting terminology is not the issue here. Rather, it is the amount of information, or lack thereof, about LHDG in the DCPs and where to find out more. So, the barriers to implementation are not helped when professionals lack understanding of the requirements. This is exacerbated by minor conflicts between DCPs, LHDG and Australian Standards.

The regular reference to the Adaptable Housing Standard of 1995 is also unhelpful. Document analysis reveals that each Council has its own interpretation of the LHDG and how it relates to other instruments. In some cases the references are outdated. Reference to the public domain access standard (AS1428) further complicates matters.

Chan found that on one hand councils wanted more accessible inclusive environments, including housing, but they also wanted group homes, seniors housing and boarding houses. Some councils only encourage dwellings to LHDG while others require additional features as in the Gold and Platinum levels.

Case study

Four Sydney suburban development sites were studied: Berowra Heights, Darlinghurst, Miranda and Roseville. The analysis is necessarily technical and detailed and shows how many regulatory instruments planners and designer need to heed. The need to have an accredited assessor for some dwellings adds another step in the approval process.

There is an argument here for rationalising these instruments, particularly those relating to the design of dwellings. In the final part of the thesis, Chan challenges the NSW Government’s refusal to adopt the design features in the 2022 NCC. His rationale is that individual councils are trying to solve the problems themselves and refusal to adopt the NCC changes works against them. This is what has brought about differing provisions using different instruments across the system. And it won’t get better without adopting the silver level in the NCC.

The complexity of applying LHDG in DCPs could be solved by adopting the changes to the NCC. This would clear up most of the complexities, create a level playing field and give certainty to developers. 

Conclusions and recommendations

The thesis concludes with many recommendations. Some are related to revision of standards and related instruments. One of the recommendations for councils is to include the LHDG in their DCPs for all housing. The recommendations for the NSW Government appear to be “workarounds” on the basis of not adopting the NCC changes. The title of the thesis is, To Promote or to Limit Livable Housing Design Guidelines within Development Control Plans is the question for governments and built environmental professionals. It is available for download in Word, or download as a PDF. There is also a spreadsheet of all the councils showing those with and without DCPs requiring dwellings to LHDG.

We ain’t getting any younger

Why are we still building homes as if we never going to grow old? This question and others are the subject of a Building Connection magazine article about the purpose of Livable Housing Australia and their design guidelines. These guidelines, devised by industry and other stakeholders, clearly state that universal design features are easily included in regular housing and don’t need to be considered “special” just because they suit people who are older or have a disability. That’s because the features are convenient and easy to use for everyone. But why hasn’t the idea caught on in mainstream housing? 

More than half Australian households would benefit from these features. That’s because If you add together the number of older people, people with disability and those with a chronic health conditions, it comes to more than 60%. The title of the magazine article on page 42 is, We ain’t getting any younger.    

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. 

Everyone’s a winner in the upcoming amendments to the National Construction Code (NCC). These changes represent meaningful social change for Australia. They herald a new era in home design which is good for business as well as occupants. At last there is recognition that building design has a significant impact on the way we live our lives. So why has it taken so long for these amendments to happen? 

Housing sits in a complex web of regulations, financing, planning and market forces. The housing production system involves many stakeholders, all independent actors, but dependent on each other to maintain a level playing field. To complicate matters further, politicians decide amendments to the NCC. Consequently, the political dimension cannot be ignored. This is discussed further in the Sourceable article, A New Era in Home Design. 

But these changes will be good for business. With basic access features in place, modifications and renovations will become easier. Homeowners will be more willing to have modifications because it will minimise major works. Previous concerns over the value of their home will be reduced too. Smaller builders should get ready for this market.

However, the amendments to the NCC are not yet mandated. That should happen in September 2022, and there is some concern that industry will argue that this is too soon. 

There’s more work to do

In April 2021 state and territory Building Ministers agreed to include basic access features in new homes. But the Devil is in the detail. Before the changes to the NCC are mandated, a draft standard based on technical detail must be agreed. Consultation on the draft standard is currently open for comment.  Anyone can comment on the draft standard. The consultation period is open until 8 July 2021. 

To make it easier, ANUHD has shared a rough draft to help others with their comments and submissions.