In 2010 the National Dialogue for Universal Housing Design took place at Kirribilli House. The National Dialogue was the result of the previous Australian Government inviting housing industry leaders and community leaders representing people with disability and older people to address the issue of a lack of suitable housing stock in Australia.

Members of the National Dialogue included the Australian Human Rights Commission, the Australian Institute of Architects, National People with Disabilities and Carers Council, The Property Council of Australia, and Stockland amongst several others. The overarching aim of convening the group was to address the lack of accessible housing available in Australia, this in light of an ageing population and an increasingly impending crises in housing approaching.

A number of activities have been initiated at a state and municipal level across Australia to better address this issue, however the direct result of the National Dialogue was the establishment of Livable Housing Australia (LHA) in 2011. The strategies implemented by LHA were developing the Livable Housing Design (LHD) Guidelines, commencing a certification process based on compliance with the Guidelines, establishing mechanisms and registering assessors to support the accreditation process, and the ongoing promotion of the Guidelines to industry. Compliance and subsequent certification remains an entirely voluntary scheme to builders and developers.

The stated aim of the Guidelines are to produce homes which are easier and safer to use for all occupants inclusive of people with disabilities, older people, people with temporary disabilities and families with young children. They state that a ‘livable home is designed to:

·        Be easy to enter and exit;
·        Be easy to move around in;
·        Be capable of easy and cost effective adaption; and
·        Anticipate and respond to the changing needs of home occupants.’

Three performance levels are identified under the guidelines – Silver, Gold and Platinum levels. Silver is the least onerous and focuses on key spatial elements allowing for future adaptability of the home at far lower cost to the occupant. Gold allows larger circulation to key areas within the home and extends to other areas such as the kitchen and bathroom. Platinum circulation requirements increase further and includes further features such living room and flooring guidelines.

During the initial convening of the National Dialogue, a number of agreed targets were identified regarding uptake by industry and the general community. These included:

·        25% to Silver level by 2013;
·        50% to Silver Level by 2015;
·        75% to Silver level by 2018; and,
·        100% to Silver level by 2020.

Agreement was also reached to review uptake at two to three year intervals across the nominated 10 year period with the review including residential building, aged care as well as public and social housing. This review was not however initiated by the National Dialogue or by government. As a result and as a founding member of the National Dialogue, the Australian Network for Universal Housing Design (ANUHD) in conjunction with RI Australia, recently published a report attempting to assess progress against the aforementioned targets.

The report states that in early May 2014 LHA had issued 294 certificates across Australia with 24 of these actually built. LHA did however also state at the time that 500 dwellings were registered for certification but had not yet been certified, that they identified over 1850 other dwellings which claim to have been designed or built to at least Silver level but had not registered for certification, and that they anticipate that there are hundreds more dwellings delivered which would meet the Silver level requirements of the Guideline.

The report goes on to suggest that in light of conservative estimates for new housing starts per year at approximately 140,000, the initial goals of the National Dialogue have not and will not be met. That even with the limited data available, it was clear that the housing industry has not responded to the voluntary scheme and that without sufficient incentives little progress is likely to be seen in future.

ANUHD and RI Australia’s recommendations following their review were for Government to continue supporting and evaluating the stated targets, but also assess the impact that minimum features to all housing being adopted would have on individual residents as well as on cost projections of home modifications and funded services for older people and people with disabilities. Where the target of Silver level features to 50% of new housing is not achieved in 2015, their recommendation is that minimum access requirements for housing be incorporated into the BCA as a priority.

In more positive news for the scheme, soon after the publishing of the report Grocon announced that they will commit to all future Grocon residential developments meeting the Livable Housing Design Guidelines. Maybe a change is yet to come?

George Xinos
Functional Access Solutions

For some time mobility scooters have been exponentially increasing in prevalence in the general community. They have offered older people and people with mobility difficulties a relatively cost effective option which has been targeted predominantly at outdoor mobility.

Mobility scooter users will often be able to ambulate independently over shorter distances or use alternative forms of mobility equipment such as a walking stick, crutches or a wheeled walking aid. The powered mobility scooter therefore provides assistance with many community based activities such as accessing the local shopping area, or visiting a municipal space where longer distances generally need to be negotiated. Some users however find that their mobility and seating needs are best addressed by mobility scooters in all situations and therefore also use these in the indoor environments they need to access and visit.

Mobility scooters by nature of the terrain and application they are designed for are however substantially larger than a powered or manual wheelchair and therefore also require significantly larger circulation spaces in order to be operated safely and independently.

The relevant Australian Standard that informs the Building Code of Australia with regard to circulation spaces within buildings, AS1428.1:2009 Design for access and mobility - General requirements for access - New building work, is based on research undertaken some time ago. This research did not include mobility scooters and as a consequence most buildings are not very accommodating to this form of mobility.

Research has been recently commissioned by the Australian Building Codes Board (ABCB) regarding current wheelchair dimensions and to review the building feature dimensions currently contained in the relevant Australian Standard. The scope of the updated research again does not allow for the inclusion of mobility scooters. The difficulties currently encountered by mobility scooter users are likely to therefore continue well into the future.

The Australian Human Rights Commission recently published an Advisory Note on the use of Mobility Scooters in Registered Clubs. This Note was instigated by an approach from the RSL & Services Clubs Association in response to issues arising from increased scooter use within their clubs. The Note acknowledges the difficulties of accommodating scooters in the context of highly variable existing buildings but also provides some useful suggestions in managing the issue more effectively. Some of these include:

·        Providing designated parking areas for scooters, preferably indoors and clear of pathways, exits and entries, and with clear signage designating their location;

·        Modifying or rearranging key areas likely to require additional circulation such as seating areas, ATMs, public telephones, etc.;

·        Providing designated and accessible recharging points;

·        Developing and displaying mobility maps directing people to the designated parking and charge points as well the most accessible paths within the building;

·        Providing intermittent seating through buildings for people only able to walk short distances;

·        Automating entry points and key doorways in the facility;

·        Developing an Action Plan (as defined under the Disability Discrimination Act (1992)) which considers organisational policies and programs as well as future modifications to improve access to people with disabilities.

Even though the measures raised in the Note are provided in the context of existing buildings, useful insights can be gained by building owners and designers in the planning and design of new buildings or new building parts. Given that designing to the Building Code of Australia will not necessarily provide a scooter friendly environment gaining advice from a suitably accredited Access Consultant is advisable.

Informal schemes have emerged where local public facilities and businesses can be listed as places where people are welcome to go and charge their device while in the community, with often large networks established. A more consistent approach across a broader range of buildings would however greatly contribute to the availability as well as the confidence of mobility scooter users in the community.


George Xinos
Functional Access Solutions