The recently tabled federal budget has outlined the Government’s plan to axe one of the commissioner roles at the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC). Graeme Innes’ term as the current Disability Discrimination Commissioner is reaching an end in June this year, and the Government’s intention is to merge this role with the portfolio of one of the other Commissioners at the AHRC. The details of this merging of roles and impact of what is likely to be a reduction in capacity in the area are yet to be addressed however.

The Disability Discrimination Commissioner’s role is multifaceted. The Commissioner is charged with promoting an understanding and acceptance of the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA)(1992). This may occur by way of a number of functions inclusive of research, advising and informing the relevant Minister regarding laws and enactments relating to discrimination on the ground of disability, monitoring the development of relevant Standards under the Act, as well as developing and publishing guidelines to assist in the avoidance of discrimination.

The DDA (1992) addresses discrimination on the grounds of disability in a number of areas such as education, employment, goods and services, and access to premises. The definition of premises is very broad under the Act but of course includes buildings and places that the public are allowed to enter. The Act also allows for Disability Standards to be formulated to further define relevant strategies, adjustments, and exemptions.

In 2010 the Disability (Access to Premises – Buildings) Standards were released with the objects of the standard being twofold:

‘to ensure that dignified, equitable, cost effective and reasonably achievable access to buildings, and facilities and services within buildings, is provided…’; and

‘to give certainty to building certifiers, building developers and building managers…’

 

To address the later, efforts were made to replicate most of the requirements of the Standard with that of the access requirements of the Building Code of Australia (BCA); this with the view to harmonising these as far as practicable.

The mechanism for beginning proceedings in the event of discrimination occurring, is via complaint to the AHRC. The AHRC consequently attempt to resolve complaints relating to disability discrimination by way of conciliation. Where complainants believe their complaint has not been adequately resolved, the complaint can be referred to the Federal Court of Australia. Where considered appropriate to do so, the Commission may also intervene in such court proceedings.

The AHRC Disability Discrimination Commissioner role is therefore pivotal in achieving the objects of the Act and relevant Disability Standards and significant concern has been consequently aired in recent weeks.

Some of this concern has centred on the capacity of another commissioner to adequately address the needs of people with disabilities, their families and networks on the basis of resources alone. The incumbent, Mr. Innes himself, has also suggested that having a Commissioner responsible for disability discrimination and not having a disability themselves as an issue. He describes that as the Sex Discrimination Commissioner should be a woman and the Aged Discrimination Commissioner should be an older person, the Commissioner responsible for disability discrimination should also have the ‘lived’ experience of disability in order to be able to fulfil their role effectively.

In some parts of the community there also appears to be a perception that the DDA is inherently ‘weak’ given the onus is on people with disabilities and their associates to initiate and pursue complaints. The recent events have given cause for this concern to grow further.

The change is likely to have a tangible effect on disability discrimination and how it relates to building design as well as the existing stock of buildings – an issue best to keep an eye on in the coming months.


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

 

Australian Bureau of Statistics data estimates that 17,000 people within Australia report a total loss of sight, and a further 260,000 report a partial loss of sight. In the context of Australia’s relatively small population, this represents a sizable proportion.

Further to this, a strong correlation between visual impairment and age is evident with more than 13% of the total population aged 75 years or older affected by some form of visual impairment which cannot be corrected by glasses alone. Coupled with the now established understanding that we are a society that is aging quickly, designing with this population in mind is increasingly important.

The type of lighting provided, its location and application within a particular building, as well as the importance of factors such as selecting materials which reduce glare are all important factors to be considered. However changes to the relevant Australian Standards (AS 1428 parts 1 and 4.1 2009) have raised very specific requirements with regard to the concept of ‘luminance contrast’ and its application in the selection and placement of materials within particular situations.

Luminance contrast as it applies to these Standards, is defined as the difference in the amount of light reflected from two adjacent building elements. According to the Standards, a suitable ratio in the Luminance Reflectance Value (LRV) of the two materials to be considered is 30% or greater. For materials that are to be used outdoors the need to test them in both wet and dry conditions is also raised as values can vary significantly.

The building elements identified include tactile ground surface indicators and the surfaces they are installed on; visual indication of glazing (decals) and the floor or wall finishes they will be viewed against through the glass; door finishes and their surrounding wall, frame, jams or architraves; and the nosings of treads at steps and stairs.

An appendix to these Standards outlines a very prescriptive method of assessment as well as instrumentation to be used. Even though the instrumentation identified is relatively accessible in industry, the viewing geometry specified is far less so. A limited amount of instruments meet the specifications documented. These instruments also tend to be significantly more expensive than other instruments without the capability of providing the required viewing geometry.

In many instances building certifiers are requesting certificates confirming compliance to the relevant standard during their assessments. Designers, developers, building owners and managers should therefore exercise some diligence in selecting suitable assessors of luminance contrast and the instruments they are using. It has been reported that some assessors are using instruments which do not meet the specific requirements of the Standards. Even though some important information can be gained from alternative instruments, they do not accurately meet the requirements of the Standards and therefore present some risk to all parties.

The relevance and value of applying the principle of luminance contrast in the selection of materials of course goes well beyond that of the elements indicated above. Paths of travel can clearly be indicated by selecting finishes to walls and floors which provide effective contrast. Furniture and movable items which contrast to the finishes they are viewed against reduce the hazard associated with collisions, trips and falls. Bench tops and work surfaces in joinery can be better identified and more usable to people with low vision.

The implications for a broader group of people are also obvious. Steps and stairs are possibly the largest source of falls and fall related injuries in the built environment. A study from the Monash University Accident Research Centre found that in excess of 19,000 such injuries were reported between 2002 and 2005. It may also be reasonable to suggest that the incidence of falls resulting in minor injuries which weren’t reported and therefore not identified in studies such as this may be far higher. Providing appropriately contrasting nosings, as well as handrails present important strategies in mitigating this risk.

People colliding with large format glazing is another common source of injuries within buildings regardless of ability and vision impairment. Applying suitably contrasting adhesive treatments as well as careful consideration of the finishes surrounding the glazing can contribute to reducing the associated rate of incidence.

It’s important to also note that testing is not always necessary when attempting to assess and apply luminance contrast effectively. Several paint manufacturers for example now publish LRVs for their products which allows designers to perform the calculations themselves. Greater awareness of this area over time will hopefully also see manufacturers of other building materials routinely publish these values for generic use and application.


George Xinos
Functional Access Solutions

Livable Housing Australia (LHA) was formed in 2011 as a partnership between community and consumer groups as well as government and industry. The partnership arose from the Kirribili Dialogue on Universal Design for housing which was undertaken to assist with the formulation of a set of guidelines for the creation of more ‘livable’ homes.

The Livable Housing Design Guidelines were consequently developed and promoted. The aim of these 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 still and includes additional features such living room and flooring guidelines.

Earlier this year LHA established a system of accreditation of homes under their published guidelines. LHA are responsible for the accreditation of dwellings under this system, and issues their quality mark in accordance with the performance level achieved. The LHA quality mark can then be used by the developer to assist with the marketing of their project.

LHA uses a number of registered assessors to assess and gather information regarding the proposed home in order to enable accreditation decisions to be made. Registered assessors have suitable prerequisite qualifications and experience, have completed approved training and have successfully undergone an exam to confirm their competency. They are directly appointed by applicants wishing to gain accreditation of a project.

Two stages of accreditation also apply within the process. A provisional quality mark can be gained for a project during the design phase. The final quality mark is only issued once the building has been completed and assessed by a registered assessor. It should also be noted that where existing homes meet the LHA guidelines, these could also gain the final quality mark through the same process.

LHA envisages that by the year 2020 all new residential dwellings will achieve at least the Silver Level accreditation.

For more information about the accreditation process visit LHAs website at http://livablehousingaustralia.org.au/.

George Xinos of Functional Access Solutions is a LHA Registered Assessor and can be contacted to assist with assessment and ultimately gaining accreditation for any aspiring projects.

George Xinos
Functional Access Solutions

Refurbishment works in existing buildings invariably generates the question, “What level of access do we need to provide for people with disabilities?”

It could be assumed that this is a relatively simple question; however, the history and evolution of the relevant legislative requirements has precluded a simple answer.

The main object of the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) (1992) is to eliminate discrimination as far as possible across a number of areas, including education, employment and of course buildings. Any premises that allow for public access must also provide suitable access to people with disabilities.

A standard under the DDA was implemented in 2010, the Disability (Access to Premises – Buildings) Standards (2010), which intends to codify the requirements for access to people with a disability under the DDA. One of its main objectives is to provide certainty to the construction industry that their responsibilities under the DDA will be met if the requirements of this standard are satisfied. In 2011, the Access Code within the Access to Premises standard was essentially reflected by section D3 of the Building Code of Australia (BCA).

Under this standard and the BCA, all ‘new parts’, extended or refurbished, of existing buildings as well as ‘affected parts’ require access. Affected parts of buildings are defined as the principal entry of an existing building that contains a new part as well as the path of travel from the entry to the new part. ‘Affected parts’ are also required to provide access in accordance with the Standard and the BCA.

In the interest of reducing the cost of implementing access in existing buildings, a number of concessions have been included in the Access to Premises Standard. The concessions include:

• A lessee concession – building work by a lessee to a new part of the building will not see the “affected parts” requiring access under the standard. This concession does not apply where the lessee is the sole lessee to the building;
• A lift concession – an existing lift within a ‘new part’ or “affected part” of a building which travels more than 12 metres, will not require modifications to meet the increased internal car floor space required (i.e. 1,400 millimetres by 1,600 millimetres);
• A toilet concession – existing accessible sanitary facilities and compartments within a new or affected part of an existing building will not require modifications where it meets the requirements of the superseded AS 1428 Part 1 (2001).

Even though significant measures have been taken to harmonise the requirements of the Access to Premises Standard and the BCA, the BCA (2013) does not cite these concessions in any way. For the most part, however, these concessions have been included in the Building Regulations applicable to each state and territory.

The requirements of the Access to Premises Standard and the BCA are generally triggered by the need to obtain a building permit for works to an existing building and are assessed by a municipal or private building surveyor.

Further to this, however, the DDA also relies on a complaint-based system where a complainant could be a person with a disability or their associate. Complaints would normally be initially lodged with and mediated by the Australian Human Rights Commission along with the building owner, manager, etc. Where a suitable resolution cannot be reached, complaints under the DDA do have the capacity to escalate to proceedings within a federal court.

It should be noted that a complaint under the DDA can be made at any time and even though meeting the requirements of the aforementioned standards and codes may provide some certainty in defending such a complaint with regard to base build elements, there are some omissions in these documents which could also lead to possible discrimination. Some omitted items include furniture and fitments, directional signage and way-finding, lighting levels and lighting design, and emergency evacuation for people with disabilities.

An accredited access consultant can perform an access audit to identify and highlight potential areas of discrimination and provide advice in implementing sensible and cost effective measures to mitigate these.

George Xinos
Functional Access Solutions

http://sourceable.net/access-for-people-with-disabilities-in-existing-buildings/

The Disability (Access to Premises – Buildings) Standards 2010 cite a relatively small number of exceptions and concessions to building owners and managers in otherwise meeting the requirements of the Standard in full.

One of these exceptions which creates a significant amount of uncertainty and confusion for the design, construction and facilities management community is that of Unjustifiable Hardship.

The Standard states that it is not unlawful to fail to comply with the requirements of the standard where compliance would impose unjustifiable hardship. The standard goes on to set out a detailed list of considerations to be undertaken in determining whether unjustifiable hardship would result in any given case.

To achieve uniformity between the legislative requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) 1992, and that of the building legislation of each state or territory, the various states and territories have generally implemented additions to reflect these requirements. Many have also established an ‘Access Panel’ charged to make recommendations to building authorities about building access matters.

In the state of Victoria, the government has recognised the Building Commission’s Building Appeals Board (BAB) as the appropriate body to act as the Access Panel. Section 160b of the amended Building Act 2011 has also been included – Application for modification of building regulations relating to access for persons with disabilities; and recognises the BAB’s ability to make determinations in relation to unjustifiable hardship.

The Victorian BAB only accepts applications on the grounds of unjustifiable hardship and will consider these on that basis that they a presented as an alternative solution which meets the performance requirements of the Building Code of Australia (BCA). In developing solutions to present to the panel, applicants are expected and encouraged to produce solutions that still comply with the relevant performance requirements to the maximum extent possible which would not otherwise impose unjustifiable hardship.

Further to this, the BAB also identifies Action Plans as prescribed under the DDA 1992 as items of consideration in considering applications. DDA Action Plans should include provisions which:

• Devise policies and programs geared toward achieving the aims of the Act
• Facilitate the communication of these policies and programs to stakeholders within the organisation
• Provide for the review of practices within the organisation
• Set goals and targets for the practices identified in the Plan and the methods by which these will be evaluated
• Identify the key persons within the organisation who are charged with implementing the provisions identified

The DDA 1992 does not require organisations to lodge their plans with the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) but the BAB will only consider lodged Action Plans as part of an application.

As of 10 May 2013, the BAB reported having heard and made a total of 25 determinations with regard to applications regarding unjustifiable hardship as it relates to access to people with a disability. Of these only eight were approved, with the majority of the approvals provided subject to additional conditions.

Two examples of approved applications include:

• To permit horizontal access width between the carriage of a platform lift and opposing obstructions to be reduced from 300 millimetres to 200 millimetres. This was determined as such, as in order to achieve the required clearance it would require the demolition and reconstruction of a significant part of the existing historic building. The Panel also felt that the access would be significantly improved by the proposal and would not be perceivably detrimental to any person. The Board also took into account alternative entries which were currently accessible. The subject building was a Church even though this does not appear to have any bearing in the determination.
• To permit the deletion of the requirement to provide access to the retail part of a building. The Panel determined that compliance by providing an internal ramp would significantly reduce available retail space (23 square metres at the time of application) by approximately 50 per cent. The Panel felt compliance would render the space unsuitable for retail purposes and therefore would result in unjustifiable hardship. An external ramp was unreasonable as the shop was built up to the street boundary. The building was also covered by a Heritage Planning Overlay and the Panel felt that the façade features were integral to the heritage significance of the building. The conditions of the determination were that a portable ramp be permanently stored inside the entrance and that a doorbell be also installed so that assistance with placement of the ramp could be requested of staff.

http://designbuildsource.com.au/unjustifiable-what

The past 20 years have seen significant changes in the way we design public buildings. Entrances must be at grade and of a suitable width, as should be pathways within buildings. Stairs require particular components and arrangements, and in most instances, upper levels should be accessible by lift or ramp.

In the past, these inclusions were not a given. As an example, elements such as a main entry were seen as a dominant feature of a building and were consequently raised to extend their prominence, often with a number of steps preceding them.

There are a number of legislative mechanisms that interact to impact both heritage conservation and the provision of access for people with disability. Architects, designers, building managers, heritage consultants and access consultants have all contributed significantly in negotiating the requirements of the legislation in place while assisting in the delivery of solutions which are sensitive to their respective objectives.

Even though it has been demonstrated successfully that significant scope does exist in achieving suitable outcomes, it is worth noting that the Federal Attorney-General’s Department has previously suggested that where conflicting, the Disability Discrimination Act (1992) should be given prevalence over the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (1999). The Disability (Access to Premises – Buildings) Standard (2010) does, however, cite heritage significance as one factor that may be relevant to an assessment of a claim of unjustifiable hardship under the act.

The Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural Significance (Burra Charter) acts as the guiding document for conservation practice in Australia and outlines a process for practice.

The first stage of this process is understanding a site’s significance. In practical terms, this may mean reviewing the function and history of the building or place to identify significant elements. Clearly identifying and understanding what makes a place significant is paramount to defining the scope of what can be changed and how it may be changed, and will ultimately shape the final solution. A heritage consultant could be engaged to produce or update a Conservation Management Plan or review an existing Statement of Significance. The aim is to clarify significance but also consider and provide comment on how access for people with disabilities could be achieved.

Following on from here is a stage of policy development, which relates to understanding other factors affecting the future use of the place. Given the focus on providing access to people with disabilities, a suitable initial activity would include engaging an access consultant to undertake an access audit of the facilities. Once the access deficiencies are identified, options can then be developed in conjunction with a suitably experienced designer with a view to maximising access while minimising the impact on items of heritage significance.

In the final stage of the Burra Charter process, policies associated with heritage and access can now be established and included in an action plan as identified under the DDA. Solutions to be implemented may vary enormously and may be influenced by a whole host of considerations including the anticipated impact on the identified significant elements, the use and management of the facility, the materials and original fabric of the building, the ability to make ‘non-permanent’ modifications, amongst many others.

It is highly likely that some of the solutions identified sit outside the deemed-to-satisfy provisions of the BCA, and that alternative solutions which are in line with the performance requirements of the BCA will need to be developed. The need to gain heritage and planning approvals when undertaking modifications to a place of heritage significance will also often arise.

Previous successes and the Charter process serve to reinforce the notion that each case requires careful and individual assessment to ensure that the equity and dignity of people with disabilities is maintained and that cultural history is preserved.

http://designbuildsource.com.au/providing-access-within-heritage-buildings

The Disability (Access to Premises – Buildings) Standard 2010 and the corresponding changes to section D3 of the BCA went into effect in May 2011. One of the major aims for the creation and implementation of this standard was to provide certainty to certifiers, developers and managers that compliance with the standard will prevent a successful complaint under the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) 1992 in relation to any matter covered by the Premises Standards.

The Australian Human Rights Commission is tasked within the Act to perform a variety of functions. Some of these include to monitor the operation of Disability Standards, to promote an understanding of compliance with the Act, and to publish guidelines to assist in the avoidance of discrimination on the grounds of disability.

As such, last month the Commission published the second version of its Guideline on the Application of the Premises Standard. The guideline itself does not have any legal standing and building professionals must continue to refer to the Standard itself as well as to the Explanatory Statement also published at the time of the Standard’s release. However, given the Commission’s role in conciliating complaints under the DDA and intervening in court proceedings that involve issues of discrimination on the grounds of disability, the guideline provides some insight into the Commission’s view of various issues and what they may consider an appropriate ‘built’ solution for these.

There are a number of areas and potential situations where greater clarity has been provided since the Commission’s first version of the document which was released in 2011. Some of these include:

• Clarification that complying with the Premises Standards does not mean that all obligations under of discrimination under the DDA with regard to ‘Premises’ are fulfilled. It is important to note that the definition of premises encompasses a number of additional items and elements beyond those documented in the Standard. Items such as parkland, playgrounds, transport vehicles, additional way finding features and ‘fit-out’ items such as joinery and other fittings, fixtures and equipment such as drinking fountains, retail change rooms, reception joinery, etc.
• It is noted that the requirement to ensure suitable access for people with disabilities is provided to ‘affected parts’ of existing buildings as well as the concessions to lessees, existing accessible toilets and existing lifts, sit outside the requirements of the BCA. However, states and territories have been encouraged to implement – and to a large degree have implemented – these changes in their state and territory building laws and regulations to achieve harmony with the Access to Premises Standard. Certifiers, developers and managers are expected to understand and comply with these mechanisms.
• New parts of buildings are described as the areas where actual work is being undertaken (subject to ‘affected part’ requirements) and not additional areas to a floor such as the toilets on the floor that the works are to be undertaken on.
• ‘Affected Parts’ are further defined as being limited to the area between the principal pedestrian entrance and the new work. This excludes paths to the toilet facilities, any rooms adjacent to the area, paths to allotment boundaries or any accessible car parking bays.
• An outline of the ‘deemed to satisfy’ changes included in the BCA 2013 with regard to egress for people with a disability and the inclusion of the new Performance Requirement DP7 which will allow the possibility of lifts to be used in evacuation through an Alternative Solution. The development and use of policies and procedures for emergency egress is strongly encouraged through the use of Personal Emergency Egress Plans (PEEPS).
• Clarification that Class 2 buildings (residential buildings containing two or more sole-occupancy units) not containing ground floor units needing to provide lifted or ramped access to the first floor where the path to this floor (i.e. stairs) is commonly available.
• Clarification on right hand and left hand transfers from toilet pans and implications for their provision and associated signage.
• A definition for mezzanines and a note allowing exclusion of mezzanines in floor area calculations when considering the small building exemption.
• Clarification of accessible features to be provided to floors exempted under the small building exemption.
• A definition stating a single ‘bank’ of toilets consists of separate male and female facilities, even where male and female facilities are located separately.
• Clarification that a single accessible sanitary facility does not constitute a ‘bank’ of toilets and therefore additional cubicles for people with ambulant disabilities are not required.
• That, as for accessible sanitary facilities, where multiple banks of toilets are provided to a storey, cubicles for people with ambulant disabilities are only required to be provided to 50 per cent of these.

The new guideline is publicly available for download at the AHRC website.

http://designbuildsource.com.au/new-application-guidelines-on-the-access-to-premises-standard

The provision of access for people with disabilities within public buildings has seen significant improvements over the previous two decades. People with disabilities, in the most part, can now enter and navigate their way around a building. The great oversight in this however was that little has been done to assist people with disabilities evacuating safely and with suitable dignity in situations of emergency.

Until now the legislative requirements provided little by way of identifying specific provisions for people with disabilities and emergency egress, with the exception of items such as wider and shorter egress paths in buildings such as aged care facilities and hospitals. Where lifts have been used in emergency situations they have generally been for emergency services only, leaving stair only access from all floors other than those directly connected to external ground levels.

People with mobility impairments, who are unable to use stairs, have therefore effectively been exposed to the immediate hazard while all other occupants have a means of escape from the source.

International Standards have long existed providing more holistic and functional solutions for a more diverse group of occupants. These included items such as visual and other auxiliary alarms; resting places along accessible egress paths; suitable way finding strategies; the use of lifts and the incorporation of fire and smoke isolated areas which connect to egress lifts and accessible egress paths. The current form of the Building Code of Australia (BCA) Performance Requirements however often precluded the introduction of such strategies.

ABCB and many other stakeholders have recognised this and through an investigative project aimed to address these issues, are now proposing some significant changes to this year’s BCA to better respond to the needs of people with disabilities.

Among the proposed changes is a new Performance Requirement (DP7) which is intended to facilitate the use of lifts to evacuate occupants from buildings in addition to traditional exits. ‘Deemed to Satisfy’ provisions have not been included to facilitate this change, however the possibility of developing suitable ‘alternative solutions’ now arises and encourages diverse inputs from Fire and Structural Engineers, Architects and Designers, Certifiers as well as Access Consultants.

In their recent BCA 2013 Information Seminars, ABCB have also flagged the publication of an information handbook ‘Lifts Used During Evacuation’ to assist relevant professionals and stakeholders in their development of alternative solutions. This is planned for publication closer to the time of the BCA’s publication (May 2013).

A number of ‘Deemed to Satisfy’ provisions are set to also be included to further address the accessibility of exits for egress. These include:

• Doors to egress paths were previously allowed to provide a 190mm threshold, these will now be required to provide a compliant (i.e. AS 1428.1:2009) threshold ramp or step ramp;
• Stair and ramp exits serving accessible areas will now require at least one AS 1428.1:2009 compliant handrail;
• Door furniture to egress doors will now be required to be accessible and located at a height of 900mm to 1200mm above the finished floor level;
• Braille and tactile signage will be required to identify exit doors and the associated Specification (D3.6) will also be amended to clarify the location of these signs.

The BCA is published in May each year, and all buildings designed after this date will of course need to implement the aforementioned requirements. These changes represent a significant step forward for people with disabilities and the comfort and dignity afforded to them in buildings intended for the public.

Hopefully unsettling anecdotes of people being transferred from their wheelchairs and left at the top of evacuation chairs will be a thing of the past, and all occupants are better able to evacuate buildings on an equivalent basis, without the external assistance of emergency services.

http://designbuildsource.com.au/emergency-egress-for-people-with-disabilities

The Australian Human Rights Commission has recently updated the Guideline on the Application of the Premises Standards which was first issued with the relevant standard in March 2011.

The update is not intended as a review of the actual Premises Standards but an attempt to draw on the experience gained over the first 18 months of implementation.

It is currently in Draft form and will be finalised in the near future. Visit http://humanrights.gov.au/disability_rights/buildings/access_to_premises_2012draft.html to download the document.