Category: Housing Design Policy

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. 

At last! The national Building Ministers’ Meeting agreed to change the building code to mandate accessible features in all new homes. This represents a major social change in Australia. While evidence showed that Gold level of Livable Housing Design Guidelines was the most cost effective, Silver will do for now.  However, there is still work to do.

The building ministers were not unanimous in their decision. The Communique released after their meeting gives states and territories discretion in applying the changes. It states, “Each state and territory will be free to determine whether and how the new provisions will be applied in their jurisdiction to minimise the regulatory impact on the construction sector.”

WA, NSW and SA do not support the changes. That means they will not adopt them in their state based legislation – at least, not right away. Queensland and Victoria are keen to get going with the new legislation. 

Potentially, the property industry will find it inconvenient to work with differing codes across jurisdictions and decide to conform regardless. But that will mean longer time frames before full implementation. It also means more confusion for everyone.

So, from October 2022, those states that support the changes will have new homes designed to Silver level. A voluntary guide for Gold will be developed to encourage the industry to go beyond minimum. This will be a better match for the old adaptable housing standard AS4299 for those who want to go beyond minimums.

Who said what to the CRPD Committee about housing

The international Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disability asked Australia some important questions about accessible housing. The answers depend on who you ask. The Australian Government indicated it was doing OK. Australian Human Rights Commission said a lot more needed to be done, including regulation. The Australian Civil Society Report, which provides the perspective of people with disability, said aspirational targets by industry haven’t worked, so it has to be mandated. 

Australian Network on Universal Housing design has more detail and links to the various documents: Who said what to the CRPD Committee about Australia’s lack of accessible housing. 

The advocates

The Australian Network for Universal Housing Design (ANUHD) led the campaign for change for almost 20 years. ANUHD is a national network of committed volunteers who meet via Zoom every month. Dr Margaret Ward’s leadership and determination were instrumental to the campaign’s success. Her many letters over many years to politicians and others in power positions eventually paid off. Make no mistake, this change was not given willingly. And that is the never-ending story of all human rights campaigns. 

The success of the campaign is also due to the recent push by the Summer Foundation and their financial support for extra research and a campaign director.  

CUDA has actively supported the campaign and congratulates all involved. This issue has been a regular feature across the six years of this website. If you are interested in the history, the section of this website on Housing Design Policy has several posts. Universal Design in Housing in Australia: Getting to Yes, by Dr Ward provides an history of the campaign and the barriers advocates faced.

Builders are beginning to incorporate some basic universal design features in new home designs. An audit of 10 of the largest home builders in Australia revealed some interesting results. But it is still a hit and miss affair – the features are not consistently applied. So builders are doing it – just some of it and so it is not yet universal design in housing. 

The Summer Foundation and University of Melbourne carried out the research. Their preliminary findings show that many of the new homes meet several criteria of the Livable Housing Design Guidelines. That means it can’t be too hard or too costly as the housing industry claims. However, these features are probably by default rather than design.

Three key features that would make a home accessible are absent from all designs. These are wider doorways, circulation space in front of the toilet pan, and a shower on the ground level. Those three features are the ones that cost the most to modify later. 

The short report has a chart comparing the accessible features across the 10 builders. The report concludes that housing to suit people with mobility impairments does not compromise the design for others. The title of the report is, Preliminary Findings: Audit of Accessible Features in New Build House Plans.

Scotland has a grand vision for housing. It’s strategy encompasses all the vexed policy issues in one document. The central principle is that housing impacts all other aspects of life. Health, wellbeing, life chances and job prospects are all affected by our housing situation. With this in mind, Scotland’s ambitious strategy sets out a 20 year work program to 2040. 

The policy issues addressed are: homelessness, affordability, security of tenure, affordable warmth, independent living, the housing market, housing standards, and zero emissions. The section on independent living is where the specifics of accessible housing sit. One aim is to change the accessible housing standard to incorporate accessibility into all new homes. But not yet. However, it is a good example of how to draw all the vexed housing issues into one document.

Universal design elements still require good overall planning and design, consideration of climatic conditions, and connected communities. Scotland’s Housing to 2040 weaves them all together. The government website has additional downloads related to the document.

There is a short PDF version incorporating an infographic for those who want a quick overview. However, the page on Principles has little contrast between words and background so it is difficult to read. 

Key sections related to accessibility

“To make sure that we build in accessibility and adaptability to new homes and future proof them, we will introduce new building standards to underpin a Scottish Accessible Homes Standard which all new homes must achieve. This will mainstream a high standard of accessibility, delivering a step change in the availability of housing options for disabled people and enable the delivery of new homes in all sectors which can be readily adapted to meet varying needs. (p56)

“We will build on the review of the Housing for Varying Needs Design Guide and the implementation of all tenure wheelchair accessible housing targets, intending to introduce these new requirements into building standards from 2025/26 alongside the new Housing Standard. (p56)

“Provide help to older and disabled home owners who want to move to a home that better meets their needs. We will work with all those involved in making a house move happen, from the solicitors to removal companies, to develop a scheme that helps with every step of the process. We will also consider with banks the potential for cost effective bridging loan schemes to help people to move over several days and take the pressure off a single-day move. (p57)

Key Action

“Action 20: Ensure that everyone who wants to is enabled to live independently in a home of their own.
• Review Housing for Varying Needs.
• Introduce a new focus on increasing the supply of accessible and adapted homes and improving choice, particularly for younger
disabled people.
• Use NPF4 to help make more accessible homes available by helping to deliver tenure-neutral wheelchair housing targets, supporting sites for self-provided housing and delivering homes in accessible locations.
• Introduce new building standards from 2025/26 to underpin a Scottish Accessible Homes Standard which all new homes must achieve. (p 63)

The timeline shows that the housing standard will be introduced in 2026 and will be fully enforced in 2030. It remains to be seen whether the ideas are implemented or stay as words on a page. Twenty years is a long time. 

Specialist Disability Accommodation (SDA) is not just something the NDIS deals with. When it comes to planning and building, local government has to get involved. SDA will not solve all the housing problems for people with disability within a council area. So, the City of Whittlesea is pro-actively tackling this issue. Their approach is outlined in a paper for the upcoming Universal Design Conference.  

As Linda Martin-Chew points out in her paper, many people with disability are not eligible for SDA housing. So Council needed to understand the risks and benefits for residents with disability and the SDA market. As Whittlesea has a strong focus on access and inclusion they decided to take action. 

Linda’s paper, From niche to mainstream: local government and the specialist disability housing sector outlines how Council tackled the issues. This should make for an interesting and informative presentation at the Conference.