Articles

Sunday, 08 September 2024 18:16

Friday, 18 September 2015 13:51

Administrator

LHA Design and SDA Assessor

Livable housing designs

Home designs

As architects with many years in business designing, documenting and constructing livable housing solutions for Social Housing providers as well as private clients, we are highly specialised professionals and our services are available to you in the arduous process that is building procurement. We don't just prepare your plans, but that is some of what we can do for you. Indeed, many of our repeat clients are practising architect firms looking for peer review to satisfy their quality assurance programs, and improve the approvals processes.

SDA

NDIS SDA Accredited Assessor

NDIS SDA Accredited Assessor Logo

With the introduction of the NDIS, it has become important to meet the Platinum Level for registration of Specialist Disability Accommodation. The NDIS requirements exceed those indicated in the Livable Housing Design Scheme, so we prefer to refer to "Platinum Plus" or "Silver Plus" for SDA design assessments. We have designed and documented in excess of 40 group homes for the NSW Government, and more for the private and NGO sector. We are Accredited Livable Housing Design Assessors to assist developments of SDA and home modifications under the NDIS and My Aged Care. Because of our ageing population, we are passionate about the prospect of modifying existing homes so that owners can "age in place" with home care, without relocating to a nursing home if possible.

Be careful who you rely on for information. Notoriously, the internet is filled with "fake news". The Federal Government established SDA Rules 2016 (Compiled 27/03/19) to control the process. However, much of the detail of the rules applying to SDA are concealed on the NDIS web site, particularly, in the 2019/20 SDA Price Guide, the 2019/20 SDA Pricing Calculator (xls file) and on the SDA Pricing and Payments pages. There is also a useful resource in the SDA Innovation Plan and in the SDA Registration information page.

I February 2020 the NDIS released the SDA Design Standards which will take immediate effect but are enforceable from July 2021. SDA that is not already registered before that deadline must comply with the SDA Design Standards. I will try and keep these links to the NDIS site up to date, though it is always safer to check the NDIS site directly.

Accredited SDA Assessor, or SDA Design Services

SEPP 65

Any development of multi-housing required to meet the SEPP 65 needs to incorporate Universal Housing Solutions and comply with the BCA for Class 2 or mixed-use development. We have accredited access consultants and accredited Livable Housing design Assessors to assist SEPP 65 developments to meet their obligations, by auditing the designs prior to construction and certifying the building for its potential for compliance with the access obligations upon completion.

AS 4299

The Adaptable Housing Standard is often adopted by local government to provide housing which seeks to meet the needs of an ageing population. developers are often tasked with the opportunity to include AS 4299 compliant dwellings within new multi-dwelling developments. Our role is to audit the design documents and certify the compliance on completion, as Accredited access Consultants.

What is Livable Housing Design?

Livable Housing designs are designs that incorporate disability access solutions so that a family can age in place and cater for unplanned events. These solutions provide for great practicalities in circumstances where you may appreciate no immediate need for "access for the disabled". I can assure you that these come with little or no extra construction cost.

By using an access architect, best practice solutions are tailored specifically for your family and current circumstances, taking into consideration your own dreams and aspirations into the future.

That said, however, it is possible to outline a number of key principles that enable a livable design and these are well-founded on the Australian way of life.

Key Livable Housing Design inclusions

In brief, these are:

Access to your home from the street is made without steps on a stable surface. Going to the letterbox and putting the garbage out on the darkest of nights can be achieved without waking your neighbours.
Your entry doorway has no steps and is wide enough to fit your largest friend waiting undercover while you answer the door.
Internal corridors are wide enough to push one of those double prams for your twin grandchildren, and internal doors and doorways enable you to turn the handle and enter, carrying those bags of groceries or a basket of washing without scuffing your walls.
You ought to have a toilet which is located on the ground floor of your home in a space large enough to allow the help of an assistant, should you or a family member ever need it in unforeseeable circumstances, such as pregnancy, sports injury, work injury, illness or even terrible hangover.
Similarly you ought to consider a shower which is located on the ground floor of your home in a space large enough to allow the help of an assistant, should you or a family member ever need it in unforeseeable circumstances. The shower ought not to have any steps and the shower cubicle, for practicality, ought to have circulation areas generous enough to help prevent injury should you slip or faint.
If you reinforce your shower and toilet walls, this enables you to adequately fix, at a later date, grab rails, additional towel rails, shower seats, soap holders, footrests or whatever you desire or require.
Internal stairways should be wide enough for two people to pass and have an adequate handrail on at least one side to help you traverse the stairs safely, in the dark.
Your kitchen space should have adequate circulation so that at least a few of your nosey chef friends can get in there and feel needed, without really getting in your way.
Similarly, your laundry space needs adequate circulation space to turn around without tripping over the washing basket or clothes your child has left on the floor.
At least one bedroom on the ground floor ought to be provided in the event that you or a family member is unable to travel up a flight of stairs. It's good practice that this be of adequate proportions to accommodate your grandparents or a visiting couple of friends.
Switches and power points should be easy to operate and at a height that can be reached by a person with height challenges.
Door and tap hardware should be lever-action type so that you can operate them with one arm full of wriggling infant and still have an injured hand.
The family and living room space should allow sufficient space for dancing. It's becoming a lost art and yet is so very good for your health and well being.
Your window sills should be low enough to let you see the world outside while sitting in a comfy lounge.
Your flooring should not be slippery even when a glass of wine is spilled upon it. It should be firm enough so that stilettos do not puncture it and allow you to move furniture without leaving visible furniture indents. You ought to avoid trip hazards at changes in finishes by providing smooth level transitions.

If you incorporate all of these elements with due regard to the relevant Australian standards for access, your home will incidentally be suitable for purchase by a person with a disability and you will no doubt increase its potential value looking forward to a population of Australians who are aging.

If you would like a fee proposal for planning and getting this right, we are just a call away.

(02) 95863111

For the Federal Government "Livable Design Guidelines" visit http://livablehousingaustralia.org.au

Sydney Access Consultants ©

Universal Design - What does that mean?

ROOT

Articles

Sunday, 08 September 2024 13:20

Monday, 31 August 2015 10:01

We suggest that there are seven key elements to Universal Design.

A design that is equitable
A design that is flexible enough to accommodate our differences
A design that is simple and intuitive
A design that is perceptible and informative
A design that minimises errors
A designed product that requires low physical effort
A design providing appropriate size and space.

Existing Buildings undergoing Building Work

ROOT

Articles

Monday, 16 September 2024 08:41

Tuesday, 25 August 2015 10:30

Copyright - Acumen Practice Note DDA overview - Building Access

In 1992 the Australian Federal Parliament enacted the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA).

The DDA is a civil rights law, activated by lodging a complaint with the Australian Human Rights Commission. A valid complaint is resolved either by a conciliated agreement or, failing that, by an order of the Federal Court. When a successful complaint is about the design of a building, the resolution is most likely to result in an agreement or an order to modify the building, rather than to compensate the complainant.

With this likely outcome, it’s surprising that the provisions regarding discrimination in access in buildings against people with disabilities haven’t been more widely respected. One reason lies in the structure of the legal process. Pursuing an action to lodge a complaint is likely to be expensive and success is not assured, so the result is that many obvious design shortcomings have not been subjected to complaint. Insufficient case law has accumulated to persuade commercial developers that their chances of being brought to task are more than minimal. Despite many public buildings embracing the best principles of non-discriminatory access, new buildings – particularly commercial ones – have continued to be constructed to minimal building-law requirements. These often fall short of the standards the courts deem satisfactory for non-discriminatory accessibility in terms of the provisions of DDA.

Australia’s solution is to align building regulation with the intent of the DDA where it deals with access to buildings, so that a non-conforming building design fails to obtain a permit for its construction. The consequence of failing to meet the DDA is risk of complaint; the consequence of failing to meet building legislation is the absence of legal permission to build the building. The latter has real, immediate leverage.

The necessary alignment of building regulations occurred in Australia on 1 May 2011, the date upon which the Disability (Access to Premises-Buildings) Standards (the 'Premises Standards') and the National Construction Code (NCC) became effective.

Why did such an obvious solution take 20 years to eventuate?

Australia's constitution established legislative responsibility and authority of the Australian Government. Matters not mentioned in the constitution remained, by convention, the responsibility of the states. There are now also two federal territories – the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory – with similar responsibilities.

Federal responsibility doesn’t prevent the states from making parallel or similar laws. All states except Western Australia have their own disability-discrimination legislation, some of which preceded the federal act. By protocol, an action brought under a state act disqualifies itself from processing under the federal one, and vice versa.

Building regulation, by default, is the responsibility of the states and territories. The legislation is not uniform. To remedy this, the Australian Model Uniform Building Code was first released in the early 1970s. Developing separately from building administration law, it recognised that uniform technical specifications – the regulations – could be agreed regardless of the administration of their application.

The Building Code of Australia (BCA) became a uniform specification for the technical requirements for buildings in 1990. BCA 96 was the first performance-based edition and was adopted by each of the eight jurisdictions in their building legislation between July 1996 and January 1998. Initially, it was amended twice a year and by 1 January 2002 the dates of adoption were at last aligned. The publication then assumed the year date for identification, and amendments were made annually. The last issue was BCA 2010. The 2011 edition is called the National Construction Code (NCC)

The method used to align the intent of the DDA with the legislative force of state and territory building regulation is to exploit the DDA’s capacity to make Disability Standards. The DDA states that it is unlawful to contravene a Disability Standard, but that compliance with a Disability Standard is an effective defence against a complaint brought under the broader provisions of the DDA. A Disability Standard acts like a Code of Practice. None of the state anti-discrimination laws contains a provision to make disability standards.

The DDA was amended in 2000 to include 'access to premises' as a legitimate subject for a Disability Standard. By 2009, and following a change in government, the Draft Disability (Access to Premises-Buildings) Standards 2009 were tabled in Parliament, subjected to scrutiny by Parliamentary Committee, disallowed, stalled by a federal election, amended slightly and finally passed by both Houses in September 2010. Their effective date was established as 1 May 2011. Although 'buildings' are only a subset of 'premises' as defined by the DDA, this disability standard is almost universally known as the Premises Standards.

The Premises Standards contain a section entitled the Access Code, which describes technical specifications, complete with performance requirements and deemed-to-satisfy provisions (the remainder of the Premises Standards contains administrative provisions). It references Australian Standards (not to be confused with Disability Standards – the AS/NZS1428 suite addresses similar subjects as BS8300) in the latter. The structure and style of the Access Code is identical to equivalent sections of the NCC.

The amendments to BCA 2010 included the insertion of the Access Code to replace the relevant provisions addressing accessibility, and the new document became NCC 2011. It also became effective on 1 May 2011.

The effect of this alignment is that a building which complies with its state or territory building legislation also meets the intent of the (federal) DDA insofar as the Access Code describes particular attributes. If a complaint is made under the federal law, the respondent(s) may use this compliance with state or territory building law as an effective defence.

Although the framework is robust, the fabric is far from perfect. The Report of the Inquiry into the Draft Premises Standards, by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs (June 2009), identified two matters which it considered were dealt with unsatisfactorily:

emergency egress by people who can't use stairs
wayfinding by people who are blind or vision impaired

The final version of the Access Code contained no amendment in respect of these specifications.

Furthermore, the Access Code is restricted to matters that were contained within the BCA so items of fitout generally, including furniture (reception desks, shop counters etc) were excluded. Elements of infrastructure – footpaths, pedestrian crossings, parks, playgrounds, bridges, tunnels and the like – aren’t 'buildings' so they, also, are not caught up by the Access Code. Existing buildings not undergoing building activity which triggers regulatory scrutiny are not subject to the Premises Standards.

Finally, there is no provision for access to or within privately occupied dwellings except for those intended for short-term occupation. Section 23 of the Act only deals with access for 'members of the public'. The campaign for accessibility in housing has its own strategy, identifiably separate from these initiatives.

Nonetheless, the introduction of the Premises Standards ensures that the elements in the carcasses of new Australian buildings – entrances, lifts, stairs, ramps, doorways, circulation spaces, sanitary facilities and car parking etc – will be configured in such a way that the need for future structural modification to satisfy the intent of the DDA is obviated.

Those elements of accessibility which are not subject to the Access Code remain the province of the broader reach of the DDA. Although it is early days, it is expected that the Access Code will be used as a yardstick in assessments for many such cases although they may lie outside its precise scope.

The Premises Standards apply to existing buildings undergoing renovation, refurbishment, or extension, where the activity constitutes 'building work'. One of the considerations in establishing the degree of accessibility in the Premises Standards was how onerous the requirements should be for such buildings. If the bar was set too high, commercial buildings – particularly high-rise ones – may face accelerated redundancy. The option of establishing different requirements for new buildings was tested, and rejected.

From inception, the DDA invoked the defence of unjustifiable hardship against a claim of disability discrimination. The burden of proving that something would impose unjustifiable hardship lies on the person claiming it. The Premises Standards now define 16 circumstances which must be taken into account, together with any other relevant ones in determining whether compliance with the Access Code would involve unjustifiable hardship. These are likely to be the criteria by which apparently onerous requirements applied to existing buildings will be assessed. Despite this additional detail, the way to determine conclusively whether unjustifiable hardship exists is through the same process that determines whether or not unlawful disability discrimination has occurred – in other words, through ruling on a complaint by a federal court. Neither the Act nor its Disability Standard has any provision to consider those premises subject to the Premises Standard, and those that are not differ from each other in respect of their need to comply with the DDA.

Although state and territory building legislations already contain provisions for relief from full application of the BCA/NCC, the mechanisms differ – they cannot determine a claim of unjustifiable hardship under the DDA, because they don’t have the authority of the federal court. The liability of a building certifier (and all others nominated in the Premises Standards) has existed since 1992, but the introduction of the Premises Standards has focussed attention on it.

A further mechanism for use by all state and territory jurisdictions to advise a building certifier considering an application for building consent where the NCC is not met in full was prepared by the ABCB at the time the Premises Standards were developed. It is titled 'A Model Process to Administer Building Access for People with a Disability' and known colloquially as 'The Protocol'(4) . It anticipates the establishment of access panels, which may advise the certifying authority about the likelihood, should it exercise its discretion to grant building consent, of the decision being accepted by a federal court. Adoption by separate states and territories jurisdictions has been far from consistent.

The Protocol is not intended to apply to existing buildings where no building work is being carried out other than where there is a change of use or classification.

This is uncharted territory. It is hoped that a body of case law will develop to provide better guidance, and that the decisions will be reasonably consistent. The Protocol proposes that each administration is to draw the attention of all other administrations to any activity, which in its opinion, affects the implementation of the objectives and principles of The Protocol.

Architect's advice: What is inclusive design? RIBA Series Part 1/7

ROOT

Articles

Friday, 04 September 2015 17:07

Tuesday, 25 August 2015 09:13

This film is intended to be a highly useful tool for student and practicing architects/designers, planners, clients and others involved in the built environment.

The role and relationship of the architects, the client, the user advisors, access consultants, and other members of the design team are examined in the film (clips 1 to 7). The film provides viewers with differing practical examples of inclusive design.

The film features three projects:

1.The Roundhouse in London, a Grade 2 Listed building, refurbished as a public Arts venue.

2.The Eden Project, in Cornwall, a well known, large-scale and complex visitor attraction.

3.And the Willows, in Wolverhampton, a new school under construction, that will bring together the population of a primary school, a special needs school, and a community facility on one integrated site.