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

Floor finishes can have a significant aesthetic impact within a building and are often selected with the intention to make a statement as to what the building sets out to communicate and inspire. High gloss finishes and bold high impact designs have always had a presence in monumental public buildings, but many other types of buildings, such as your average suburban shopping center, now also aspire to a similar aesthetic. This inevitably raises the question of what functional impacts such aspirations might have.

People with balance and mobility difficulties are obviously a group at higher risk of sustaining injuries as a result of a fall. In Australia, a staggering 144,000 hospital day beds annually are attributed to admissions due to falls. Many of these falls can occur due to operational issues such as food stuffs being dropped within a food and beverage area, however a great many can also be attributed to the design of the built environment.


Glare / Reflectivity
Highly reflective floor finishes can be a significant source of glare; all the more troubling given the extensive surface area floor finishes, by nature, are applied to. Significant sources of glare can be extremely disorienting for many people, not just people with low vision, as the ability to locate important landmarks for orientation can be affected. Of greater concern however, is the possibility of sources of potential hazard (e.g. an unnoticed step, piece of furniture, or change in gradient) going undetected due to the presence of glare.


Wayfinding and Orientation
Selecting floor finishes which contrast with abutting finishes at walls and furnishings, assists in defining a space more effectively and clearly establishing pathways and movement through a building. This of course reduces the risk of trips, falls and collisions; and provides natural and intuitive cues for where movement should occur in order to locate key areas within the building.

When selecting contrasting finishes, luminance contrast is what is considered to be most perceivable to people with low vision. Luminance contrast is described as a comparison of light being reflected by two surfaces; not necessarily just colour. A luminance contrast of no less than 30% is what is considered to be appropriate for most people with low vision. For information on how this can be tested, appendices are included within AS 1428 Parts 1 and 4.


Patterned Designs and Flooring Layout
Flooring designs that include bold elements set together can be confusing to a person with low vision. These include contrasting tiles set together within a location, a bold pattern on a carpet weave, or mosaics with large bold elements. These can often be mistaken for a change in level or even a physical item placed on the floor.


Tolerances and Transitions in Flooring
Very small changes in level can be detrimental to people with mobility difficulties who are ambulant as well as those who use any type of wheeled mobility aid. Transitions of only a few millimeters can become the source of a fall, or a barrier which prevents a person from accessing areas within buildings which must be made available to all members of the public. AS 1428 Part 1 advises of changes in level of up to 3mm (5mm where individual tiles / surfaces a beveled or rounded). Carpet pile heights should be less than 6mm and recessed where applicable.


Slip Resistance
Recent changes to the Building Code of Australia (BCA 2014) now see a requirement for slip resistance at stairs and ramps. Step ramps, that is, pedestrian ramps with a gradient of 1:10 will require a higher level of slip resistance to longer 1:14 ramps. Designers and specifiers are also allowed flexibility with designing floor finishes on stair treads by either providing a suitably slip resistant surface to the entire tread or to just the nosing of each tread as well as the landing edge. The specific slip resistant values necessary are include in the BCA and the method of assessment is outlined in the Australian Standard AS 4586: 2013 Slip resistance classification of new pedestrian surface materials.

Even though the BCA does not require other pedestrian surfaces to meet a particular level of slip resistance designers are best advised to consider HB 197: 1999 - An introductory guide to the slip resistance of pedestrian surface materials in their selection of floor finishes.


Other Building Elements
Stairs are an area where falls often occur and, of course, where the resulting injury can be particularly serious in nature. Highlighting stairs at the nosing of the goings is an effective strategy which can assist in preventing unnecessary falls. A solid continuous band (50-75mm in depth) with a high level of slip resistance and luminance contrast should always be provided in these instances.

Tactile ground surface indicators are now a BCA requirement in public areas where potential hazards occur (i.e. stairs, ramps, road crossings), and of course provide a vital cue to people with vision impairment in locating these hazards. These must also provide a luminance contrast of no less than 30% - it is recommended that these are tested as a matter of fact in each application and subjective judgments of colour are not made as this can be both misleading and inaccurate.

George Xinos
Functional Access Solutions

The 2009 Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) Survey of Disability, Ageing and Carers (SDAC) found that approximately 110,000 Australians have dementia or Alzheimer’s Disease. Dementia is of course closely related to aging with less than 1% of people surveyed having dementia or Alzheimer’s in the age bracket of 65-69 year olds, and increasing progressively to 28% of centenarians.

It is also well established that our society is an aging one. Projections suggest that by 2056 the proportion of people aged 65years and over will represent approximately 24% of the population. The corresponding figure in 2007 was 13%. In the absence of significant medical breakthroughs, the correlation between aging and dementia would suggest a strong prevalence of the condition in the years to come.

Further to this, of those identified as having the condition, 62% were living in a health establishment such as a nursing home, an aged care hostel, or the cared component of a retirement village. This is significant as older adults with dementia encounter significant challenges in negotiating unfamiliar environments. The design of facilities for older residents is therefore crucial in supporting the ongoing function and independence of people with dementia.

The Dementia Centre founded by Hammond Care provide a number of resources inclusive of publications, guidelines, audit tools and design courses to assist in the creation of suitable environments for people living with dementia (www.dementiacare.com.au). Many of their resources and other previous research indicates that incorporating familiarity into environmental design can help augment deficits noted in dementia, this being reasoned to long-term memories remaining more intact than short term memories.

Of course with aging other co-morbidities also arise. These may include arthritis, limited mobility and fatigue due to stroke or heart condition, affected hearing and vision, amongst others. Balancing design to address ‘ease of use’ while maintaining familiarity is therefore important in achieving appropriate outcomes.

Some important considerations are summarized below:

• Increase lighting levels to assist with deteriorating vision. Maximizing natural light is especially useful as it not only assists with vision but supports people’s orientation to time. Take care not to produce sources of glare in increasing the lighting available. Locate switches consistently and provide contrasting colours to surrounding walls to assist users in finding them.
• Noise can have a detrimental effect on a person with dementia’s concentration and cognitive processing. Reducing and eliminating background noise is therefore an important consideration. Soft furnishing and finishes can assist in dampening noise. Due consideration of the age group should be applied in selecting these in order to make them as familiar as possible. The location of services within a building can impact on persistent low level noise, and of course acoustic separation via design as well as via materials used in partitioning, doors, etc. should be closely deliberated.
• Select materials and fixtures which are familiar to the age group. An example may be a capstan tap in lieu of a mixer tap lever even though levers are generally physically easier to use. Unfamiliar items and new methods to perform everyday tasks can be confusing and stressful for a person with dementia.
• Provide flooring finishes which are continuous and do not have bold patterns on them. Changes in floor finishes and patterns can be perceived as a change in level or an item forgotten in their path, sometimes becoming the precursor to a fall.
• Providing contrasting wall and floor finishes to assist in defining the shape and size of the room. This can also assist with orientation and navigation.
• Select furnishings, fixtures and fittings so that there finishes contrast against the background they will be viewed against. This is especially important in bathrooms where fittings are often white viewed against white wall tiles.
• Investigate appropriate assistive technologies which could be incorporated such as tracking devices, chair / bed occupancy sensors, enuresis alarms, motion detectors for lighting during night time toileting, etc.
• Consider suitable safety devices and strategies such as additional smoke, heat and gas alarms, tempering valves for taps, providing locked cabinets for storage of hazardous substances, monitoring devices, cooking appliances which switch themselves off, etc.
• Consider open shelving as opposed to cupboards, or cupboards with Perspex or safety glass fronts to assist with locating items.

 

George Xinos
Functional Access Solutions

This year’s release of the Building Code of Australia (BCA) 2014 and its application in May, as with every year, brings a number of changes. An ongoing ambiguity for many years was the requirements for stairway treads, landings and ramps to have slip-resistant, non-skid or non-slip properties. A very sensible inclusion given that in Australia a staggering 144,000 hospital day beds annually are attributed to admissions due to falls.

The problem arising with these inclusions however, was that the terms were not clearly defined, that an objective level of slip resistance for each application was not provided, and that a method for measuring slip resistance was not outlined or identified.

To address this issue, the relevant Australian Standard regarding the measurement and classification of slip resistance, AS 4586: 2013 Slip resistance classification of new pedestrian surface materials, was revised accordingly and is now referenced to the BCA 2014. This standard sets out suitable testing methods as well as the resulting classifications for each of the test methods.

Test methods included in the standard allow for both wet and dry conditions and the limitations of some of the test methods are also raised. The BCA however only references classifications achieved via a Wet Pendulum Test or Oil-Wet Inclining Platform Test; these are generally classification values preceded by P or R.

The Australian Building Codes Board (ABCB) had raised their intention to reference the revised standard in early 2013, soon after the release of the standard. The intent being to allow manufacturers of flooring materials to undertake the necessary testing in time for the incoming changes to the BCA. Given this, many manufacturers and suppliers should be now well placed to provide the information necessary to architects and designers when specifying flooring.

It should be noted however that the inclusions to the BCA are targeted at only two building elements identified as presenting a higher risk of slips and falls. These are stairs and ramps with some differentiation also identified based on the gradient of a ramp. Step ramps, that is, pedestrian ramps with a gradient of 1:10 will require a higher level of slip resistance to longer 1:14 ramps. Designers and specifiers are also allowed flexibility with designing floor finishes on stair treads by either providing a suitably slip resistant surface to the entire tread or to just the nosing of each tread as well as the landing edge.

Also significant is that these requirements have been included in both Volumes of the BCA, effectively making them a requirement across all building classifications. Volume 2 however does not include reference to ramps given that access to people with a disability is not a BCA requirement to private individual residential dwellings.

Following on from this however, all other building classifications must be accessible to people with disabilities under the BCA with the referenced Australian Standard outlining requirements for access being AS 1428.1: 2009 Design for access and mobility – General requirements for access – New building work. AS 1428.1 subsequently states that continuous accessible paths of travel and circulation spaces defined in the standard must have a slip resistant surface; as with the BCA previously, no further information is however provided with regard to testing and classification. To better address this omission, designers are best advised to consider HB 197: 1999 - An introductory guide to the slip resistance of pedestrian surface materials in their selection of floor finishes to the remainder of the buildings they design. This guide is also raised as a suitable guideline within the revised AS 4586: 2013.

Factors arising at occupation and use must also not be forgotten in the consideration of floor finishes. Frequency and type of usage, cleaning systems, coatings and patterns of wear can all have a significant impact on the characteristics of the floor affecting slip resistance. The limitations of the new requirements and their application to only new materials should also be acknowledged. Installed flooring materials should be tested in accordance with AS 4663: 2013 Slip resistance measurement of existing pedestrian surfaces.

George Xinos
Functional Access Solutions

 

Intelligent use of lighting in buildings is an essential ingredient in providing a safe and functional environment. Inadequate and inappropriate lighting can be detrimental to many people, increasing their risk of tripping, falling or sustaining injuries; either during general mobility, or during tasks involving the use of utensils.

Most people who are considered legally blind have some residual vision and can perceive some level of light. Low vision can be the result of a myriad of conditions, many of these associated with aging. The strong correlation of low vision and aging, coupled with the trend of an exponential growth in the 60 plus age group, highlights the importance of providing environments with well designed lighting.


General lighting
An inadequate or inconsistent level of general or ambient lighting to a space can present a formidable problem to many people with low vision. People with low or affected vision often require two to three times the amount of light to perform tasks and to facilitate general orientation and mobility.

Providing general lighting to an appropriate level is therefore essential. Lux levels for rooms of a variety of functions are outlined in Australian Standards AS1680 Interior lighting, and more specifically for people with low vision in AS1428.2 Design for access and mobility Part 2: Enhanced and additional requirements – Buildings and facilities.

The lighting levels indicated in these can sometimes become problematic for designers when attempting to also meet sustainability requirements for buildings given the amount of energy used. Even though these standards provide important guidance in designing lighting, a number of considerations can be incorporated to assist in improving the function and safety of an internal space.


Location of lighting
Wall washers which use the walls and ceilings as reflectors, assist in illuminating without glare as well as defining a space more effectively. It can assist with identifying rooms and therefore facilitate orientation.

Daylight is generally a source of light that most people (including people with low vision) find very useful. Maximizing this through the use of windows and openings, while also considering their location and potential for providing a glare source is essential. Providing a means of excluding low-elevation sunlight such as an eave, screen or blind will assist in reducing glare.

Consideration of anticipated occupant sightlines within a space is essential in the provision of both natural and artificial light sources in order to reduce direct glare and any associated silhouetting.

Locating light switches to the latch side of a door and aligning them with the height of door hardware also provides consistency for users in locating them upon entering a potentially dark space.


Use of task focused lighting
Providing focused illumination for particular activities in set locations improves visual clarity and can offset fatigue. Task lighting enhances contrast and improves clarity and should be provided in areas where people are expected to perform specific tasks such as reading, writing, craftwork, preparing food etc. Task lighting should always be provided in conjunction with general lighting.


Selection of appropriate lighting and fittings
Quality fluorescent light sources provide a more diffuse source of light which reduces the possibility of dark areas and provides a more consistent lighting level. Triphosporus halogens should be selected as they provide more natural lighting. Where incandescent or halogen lighting is preferred, it should be noted that these produce a narrower band of light. A larger number of lighting fittings will therefore be required to provide uniform lighting across a space and to reduce the production of shadows which can also be disorienting for people with low vision.

Diffusers should generally be used to reduce glare, and light fittings should not be mounted at or around eye level. Up-lighting projecting into habitable spaces (especially along established paths of travel) should also be avoided.


Use of finishes
Providing contrasting finishes between items such as walls and floors, as well as furniture and fitment items, assists in defining a space and a safe path through the building. Attention should also be given to the reflectivity of finishes. Matte finishes are preferred to reduce potential glare from reflected light sources.

Ensuring a logical design and layout is provided within a room based on the activities performed in the space will assist people with low vision to anticipate and search out appropriate routes for navigation.

George Xinos
Functional Access Solutions

Elevator call destination systems have been making their way into Australian buildings since the 1990s. These systems allow users to request a specific floor when calling an elevator as opposed to selecting the floor when they have entered the lift car. Through programming, this allows the system to allocate users to a particular car, consequently reducing the amount of stops a lift might make and ensuring a suitable amount of users are traveling in each lift.

As with most new technologies they offer a host of advantages. For building users they potentially offer shorter waiting times, faster travel times and less crowded lift cars; for building owners and managers these systems can reduce operating and energy costs and in some instances even reduce the amount of elevator shafts necessary to service a building.

With all the benefits of new technologies however, often a new host of additional considerations also arise. For all the convenience these systems offer, for people with vision and hearing impairment as well as physical and mobility disabilities these systems can be very difficult to negotiate.

Touch screen interfaces at the lift lobby can provide the added function of graphics or way finding information, however for people with limited dexterity, pressing the required button in the time allowed may not be realistic. The lack of tactile information can also limit access by people with affected vision. Large keyed key pads with large bold lettering, appropriate luminance contrast, as well as tactile and Braille features can reduce the effect of these barriers.

The location of the keypad is also critical. Establishing clear visual contact to the controls from the key areas of the building (e.g. entry foyer as well as lift lobby) facilitates better way finding and navigation through the building. Locating the controls at a suitable height for both standing and seated users, and in an area with sufficient circulation will facilitate use by a larger group of people. Auditory cues and feedback may further assist people with vision impairments.

Following on from assigning a destination, the user must then of course proceed to find the relevant lift car corresponding to their selection. Users with vision impairments may have difficulty reading the standard visual displays associated to each car. The lift cars should therefore be clearly singed with tactile and Braille information, and the auditory information provided should include additional cues regarding locating the lift car (e.g. ‘please proceed to lift B which is the second elevator to your left…’).

For people with mobility difficulties traveling to and negotiating entry to the lift may take longer than other users. For this application many call destination systems include a button, often marked with the international symbol for disability. When activated upon making a destination selection, the system will provide a longer period for the user to travel to and through the entry of the designated lift car.

Visual and auditory indicators and announcements within the car to assist with confirming the location of the lift car and finding the required floor are of course equally important. A verbal announcement of the floor upon arrival as well as a visual numerical indication of a suitable size, contrast and location are necessary to ensure success for people with low vision.

It should also be noted that the relevant Australian Standard referenced to the BCA 2013, AS 1735.12 (1999) Facilities for persons with disabilities, is largely silent on these types of systems.  Helpful information regarding items such as lighting, the provision of a handrail and audible information can be found in this standard, but no guidance with regard to the overall function and organisation of call destination systems is present.

In light of this, and of course the lack of controls within a lift car in such systems, it could be considered that call destination systems do not meet the ‘deemed-to-satisfy’ requirements of the BCA and should therefore be considered as an ‘alternative solution’. A suitably qualified and accredited access consultant could therefore be involved to assist in developing the alternative solution and ensuring that an accessible system is provided which does not discriminate against any of its potential users.

George Xinos
Functional Access Solutions

The current legislative requirements for providing access to people with disabilities is centred on research conducted some time ago. Items such as circulation spaces and location of fixtures were determined based on two resultant wheelchair footprints from the original research: one representing the 80th percentile of wheelchair users and the other representing the 90th percentile. The Australian Standard AS 1428.1 2009 ‘Design for access and mobility – General requirements for access – New building work’, is the Building Code of Australia (BCA) referenced standard whose requirements are interpolated from this research.

Of course, this suggests that a sizable proportion of people simply cannot enter and interact with the buildings that are currently being built and certified; where they can enter, they may not be able to perform essential functions such using toilet facilities or travel through and operate doorways. It should also be noted that the aforementioned research also predated the increasing prevalence of motorised scooter use. The needs of scooter users are therefore also not addressed.

The people most likely to be excluded from publicly available spaces within the built environment are those with more severe disabilities. These are people who may require specialised seating systems to remain safely seated in their wheelchairs or on a toilet pan; or may not be independently continent and require specialised lifting equipment to attend to their continence needs via the use of an adult change table or specialised toilet pan.

It is logical to assume that certain decisions made in producing the current set of requirements were influenced on the economics of obligating all building owners to construct specialised facilities and preserving the maximum lettable space possible. In the context of a long established Disability Discrimination Act (1992) however, this may not be entirely appropriate.

Many access consultants have been long advocating for such facilities in certain types of the buildings. Buildings such as shopping centres, aquatic centres, airports, hospitals and civic spaces represent society’s modern day Agoras, where all people should be able to freely congregate and participate in the public discourse. The establishment of a National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) reinforces the need for such facilities given that people with severe and profound disabilities will also be better equipped to access the community in future.

A consortium was formed in 2012 called ‘Changing Places Victoria’ which was inspired by the ‘Changing Places’ campaign in the UK. The UK based organisation reports in excess of 550 Changing Places facilities across the UK. An information kit has since been developed by Changing Places Victoria to assist architects, designers, developers and building owners in incorporating these facilities into their buildings.

Recommendations in the design of these facilities include: a height adjustable, adult size change table; a ceiling mounted track hoist system; adequate circulation space allowing for the person with a disability and up to two carers; a centrally placed toilet pan with space on either side for carers; disposable change table covers; an automated entry door; a screen or curtain for privacy; a non-slip floor; suitable grabrails; and accessible showers where these are required – such as in leisure centres and travel hubs.

The ‘Changing Places Transforming Lives - Information Kit’ is available from the Association for Children with a Disability (ACD); alternatively download an electronic copy via the link below.

Anecdotally, much is said about the indignity, difficulties and the impositions on the safety on people with disabilities and their carers, however this cannot be adequately appreciated by people who have not had an intimate experience with disability and the way it can affect people’s lives. The UK ‘Changing Places’ website (http://www.changing-places.org) also shares several videos of people’s interactions with what is currently being provided in accessible sanitary facilities. I encourage all designers, building owners and managers to watch these to better appreciate the challenges faced.

George Xinos
Functional Access Solutions

Most buildings regardless of scale generally provided at least one plant room. These rooms are essential to the buildings operations and typically house a variety of different plant and equipment. These may include:

·        Air handlers Boilers,
·        Chillers, Heat exchangers,
·        Water heaters and tanks,
·        Water pumps (for domestic, heating/cooling, and fire fighting water),
·        Main distribution piping and valves,
·        Fire fighting equipment (Sprinkler distribution piping and pumps),
·        Back-up electrical generators,
·        Elevator machinery, HVAC (heating, ventilation and air-conditioning) equipment,

Most owners and occupiers understand that the equipment in the plant rooms provides the means for the heating and cooling for the building but often little thought to the safety of the included equipment on and ongoing basis. Plant and equipment located within such rooms may be 10, 20 or even 50 years old and it is increasingly evident that this plant and equipment, although compliant  with the codes of the day, can poses a significant risk to the health and safety of the people that are required to maintain it.

Due to the very nature of the plant and equipment located within these rooms there are substantial implications to technicians, and maintainers of such equipment. Plant, as defined within workplace health and safety terms, is a major cause of workplace death and injury in Australian workplaces.

Severe injuries to technicians, and maintainers of such equipment can result from unsafe design, manufacture, installation, maintenance and use of plant. Plant and equipment located within such rooms have moving parts and the action of moving parts may have sufficient force in motion to cause injury or death. In addition to the moving parts there are non-mechanical risks including harmful emissions, contained fluids or gas under pressure, chemicals and chemical by-products, and electricity and noise; all of which can cause serious injury to technicians and others if not adequately controlled.

The importance of the equipment contained within these rooms are paramount to the smooth operation of the building and as such technicians are required to periodically assess, maintain and repair these items of plant and equipment  to guarantee the ongoing performance of the building.  

Risks to health and safety exist throughout the lifecycle of the plant from manufacturing through to installing, commissioning, using, maintaining, repairing, decommissioning and disposing of the plant. As such building owners , facility managers as well as persons who conduct a business or undertaking (PCBU)must ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that the fixtures, fittings and plant are without risks to the health and safety of any individual.

In order to ensure that the risk associated with the items of plant and equipment are controlled, a systematic process involving the following should be implemented:

o   Identify hazards – find out what could cause harm from using the plant;
o   Assess risks if necessary – understand the nature of the harm that could be caused by the hazard, how serious the harm could be and the likelihood of it happening;
o   Control risks – implement the most effective control measures that are reasonably practicable in the circumstances;
o   Review control measures to ensure they are working as planned.

Designers, manufacturers, importers, suppliers and installers of plant are also required apply this process as a way of making plant as safe as possible before it is used within the building in addition to obtaining and providing information about plant so other duty holders can fulfil their responsibility to manage risks. 

The most readily available source of information pertaining to the safe operation and maintenance of plant and equipment is contained within the equipment operations manuals. WHS legislation requires (amongst other things) persons who supply machinery to, so far as is practicable, ensure that persons using the machinery in the manner intended are not exposed to hazards. As part of this obligation suppliers are required to provide adequate information in respect to any dangers associated with the machinery, the proper maintenance of the machinery and the correct use the of  machinery.

Given that most of the equipment located within such rooms may have been present from the day of completion, the reality unfortunately is that operator's manuals are frequently not available.

Building owners, facility managers as well as persons who conduct a business or an undertaking must ensure information pertaining to the safe operation and maintenance of the plant and equipment is readily available and up to date.

Andrew Angelides
Functional Risk Solutions

One of our fundamental needs is the feeling of safety and security. This is evident across all cultures and historical periods. What deviates however is the strategies by which these needs are addressed. 

More recent events such as natural disasters and the frequency at which they are now occurring has heightened public awareness and interest toward efforts to protect people, building and operations from their devastating effects.
Within Australia safety and public liability of common and tenanted areas are covered by a variety of applicable health, safety & environmental legislation, Australian Standards, Codes of Practice and the National Construction Code (NCC).

The National Construction Code (NCC) defines types of building and structures and also contains technical provisions for the design and construction of buildings and other structures, covering such matters as structure, fire resistance, access and egress, services and equipment, and energy efficiency as well as certain aspects of health and amenity.

The goal of the NCC is to enable the achievement of nationally consistent, minimum necessary standards of relevant health, safety (including structural safety and safety from fire), and amenity and sustainability objectives efficiently. All buildings are required to have essential services fitted and maintained in an
operational state to ensure adequate level of safety over the life of the building. So we take this as inherent safety mitigation and a minimum design standard. This level of safety mitigation alone however does not necessarily achieve what may be reasonably considered a safe building. It does however provide a suitable base level of design in developing safe and functional buildings for most users through all stages of the building life.

Facility and property managers are faced with many challenges in ensuring the health and safety of tenants, workers (including contractors) and the public within the buildings they manage. Further complicating the matter are additional inherent safety and environmental risks associate with older building stock and associated superseded design standards, fittings and fixtures. Recurrent fit outs and improvement undertaken by tenants over time add additional layers of complexity. 

With the above in mind it seems fit to explore the relationship and continuum formed between safety, building design and property management and how risk management can influence the function and
safety of a building.
With Risk Management being defined in ISO 31000 as “the effect of uncertainty on objectives, whether positive or negative”. 

The objective for applying a systematic risk management approach to facilities and property management is to prevent undesirable events proactively through responsible action, as well as a detailed and timely allocation of responsibilities in the event of a disruption or incident.

In simple terms risk management is a process for identifying, assessing and systematically controlling events that may lead to a loss. In order to achieve the objective above, given that there are many tools and techniques that can be used, it can be helpful to consider the complexity of the problems, the nature and degree of undertenancy based on the information available, the extent of resources that are required, the desired output in terms of qualitative or quantitative data and the timing. 
 
Although risk management processes potentially present a powerful tool, as with all tools, if it is not used with care and understanding, the outcomes may well be totally incorrect and lead to inappropriate decisions being made that are not practicable and ultimately not successfully implementable.
 
Examples of key safety risks in buildings include: 

• Slip Trip Fall hazards in building entrances, especially where rain is tracked inside;
• Contractors staff and tenants working at height, confined spaces, plant and under exposure to electromagnetic radiation;        
• Inadequate lighting affecting building users’ ability to identify and negotiate hazards in their immediate environment;    
• Security for both staff and public; 
• The analysis and management of the interaction between vehicles and pedestrian using the facility;        
• Types and location of hazardous materials (e.g. asbestos, lead, PCBs);      
• Inadequate way finding signage;        
• Poor siting and design of car parks can have a significant impact on the safety of buildings where sightlines, lighting requirements and direct access by pedestrians is affected;        
• Inadequacy of emergency services and their communication preventing an effective response.

With the use of both active and passive measures, the benefits of the risk management approach to managing safety within facility or a building provide both direct and indirect benefits that may include premium reductions, reputation, and increased savings. They can assist with meeting due diligence obligations as well as in providing a safe and healthy environment for tenants, employees, contractors and the public.


Andrew Angelides
Functional Risk Solutions