The 2022 NCC will ensure that all new homes include at least some accessible features.

<div class="row" data-reactroot=""><div class="cell cs12 cx12"><div class="row ci"><div class="cell cs12 cx12"><div class="ci cl"><p>Australia’s building ministers at their meeting on April 30 decided to include minimum accessibility standards in the 2022 National Construction Code (NCC). </p><p>This is a significant decision that will shape our housing for generations to come. </p><p>The new standards will come into effect in September 2022 and reflect the fact that our housing needs are changing as our population ages.</p><p>The ministers said that a regulatory approach would “result in significant and lasting benefit to Australians who need access to homes with accessible features”. </p><p>The 2022 NCC will ensure that all new homes include at least some accessible features to meet the current and future needs of the nearly 6 million people likely to have a mobility limitation within 40 years.  </p></div></div></div><div class="row ci"><div class="cell cs12 cx12"><div class="ci cl"><iframe sandbox="allow-forms allow-scripts allow-pointer-lock allow-same-origin allow-top-navigation allow-presentation" class="embed-responsive-item" allowfullscreen="" frameBorder="0" style="max-width:574px;width:-webkit-fill-available" height="300px" src="https://youtube.com/embed/D3aIaXItw0A"></iframe></div></div></div><div class="row ci"><div class="cell cs12 cx12"><div class="ci cl"><p><br>Building ministers agreed to the Livable Housing Design Guidelines (LHDG) Silver level, which includes seven accessible design features.</p><p>These include a safe continuous and step free path of travel from the street entrance and-or parking area to a dwelling entrance that is level; at least one, level, step-free entrance into the dwelling; internal doors and corridors that facilitate comfortable and unimpeded movement between spaces; and a toilet on the ground or entry level that provides easy access.</p><p>Other features are a bathroom that contains a hobless shower recess; reinforced walls around the toilet, shower and bath to support the safe installation of grabrails at a later date; and stairways are designed to reduce the likelihood of injury and also enable future adaptation.</p><p>The ministers acknowledged the cost implications of implementing the new standards—especially in the context of economic recovery and the Covid-19 pandemic—and decided that states and territories would be “free to determine whether and how the new provisions will be applied”.</p><h2><strong>Accessible features easier than perceived</strong></h2><p>The new regulatory approach replaces voluntary guidelines on accessibility, long supported by Australia’s building industry due to perceptions of accessible features as being overly expensive or difficult to incorporate into new builds.</p><p>However, two recent studies by the Summer Foundation and La Trobe University indicate that many accessible features are already being incorporated in new homes, and that the expense and difficulty of including many of the features in homes are low.</p><p>The first study audited 20 popular homes being built by volume builders in Australia, and found that all of the homes already included some accessible features as standard.</p><p>The second study asked access consultants and architects to rate the relative cost and difficulty of incorporating 28 accessible features into new dwellings.</p><p>Respondents rated nearly half of the features as being “virtually cost neutral” and “not difficult at all” to include across all types of new housing.</p><p>Together, these studies demonstrate the relative ease of incorporating some accessible features into new builds.</p><p>They also show how accessible features can create long-term value that outweighs short-term costs.</p><p>Including the seven Silver-level LHDG features as standard in all new homes will transform housing in Australia.</p><p>It will greatly improve the quality of lives of the millions of Australians who are wanting to age at home, or who have a temporary or permanent mobility limitation.</p><p>The decision from the ministers makes perfect sense to ensure our homes can </p></div></div></div></div></div>

Australia’s building ministers’s decision to include minimum accessibility standards will shape our housing for generations to come…

b77b508b-cb89-4bb2-8b5d-bb97bd9b0ecb

<div class="row" data-reactroot=""><div class="cell cs12 cx12"><div class="row ci"><div class="cell cs12 cx12"><div class="ci cl"><p>The discovery of major defects in high-rise buildings across the nation has drawn attention to a “patchy and inconsistent” regulatory system, with five of Australia’s largest business groups calling for urgent reform. </p><p>The letter, published ahead of Building Ministers’ Forum on Thursday, calls for a national commitment to action on regulatory enforcement and compliance. </p><p>The five groups — the Ai Group, Insurance Council, Property Council, Australian Construction Industry Forum and Master Builders — wrote that the property sector (“Australia’s largest industry”) is a “vital engine” of economic growth.</p><p>“The economy must not be put at risk by the failure to provide certainty through a consistent approach in dealing with these issues,” the letter said.  </p><p>The news comes as a third Sydney apartment building came under scrutiny last week, with the <em>Sydney Morning Herald</em> <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/national/zetland-apartments-abandoned-in-secret-evacuation-over-severe-defects-20190709-p525lk.html?_ga=2.45741604.1893561781.1563146873-221438018.1560118305">reporting</a> that a Zetland block remains abandoned eight months after its occupants were evacuated over safety defects. </p><p>The total cost to rectify the damages in the inner-Sydney block have left owners with a $5 million-plus bill. Strata documents showed that owners received a $1.7 million payout from their insurer — despite being covered for up to $9 million — and attempts to claim from the builder have come to naught. </p><p>The five business groups said that regulatory inconsistencies has led to significant increases in insurance premiums, with insurers introducing strict cladding-related exclusions.</p><p>“Building surveyors, engineers and architects are now struggling to obtain the insurance they need to do their jobs, which in turn could seriously affect future building or construction activity.” </p><p>Master Builders chief executive Denita Wawn said that the building certifier insurance crisis has the potential to bring building activity to a halt.</p><p>“The problem is already causing delays to building projects across the country and will only get worse as more insurers withdraw from the market,” Wawn said. </p><p>“We need all governments to come together now to manage what has become a risk for the whole industry caused by the use of combustible cladding on some buildings.” </p><p>The NSW, Victorian and Queensland governments have proposed allowing building certifiers to continue to practice without insurance for cladding-related claims. </p><p>Related: <a href="https://theurbandeveloper.com/articles/study-finds-three-quarters-of-buildings-have-defects">Study Finds Three Quarters of Buildings Have Defects </a></p></div></div></div><div class="row ci"><div class="cell cs12 cx12"><div class="ci cl"><div><picture><img src="https://tud-prod-tudmedia-oj9w2zshuo0o.s3.amazonaws.com/raw/images/e4812660-1580-4203-a85e-a3998dbe46cc.jpg" width="700"/></picture><div><span style="align-content:center;opacity:0.8">▲Fire safety and structural defects forced residents to abandon the Zetland in November 2018. </span></div></div></div></div></div><div class="row ci"><div class="cell cs12 cx12"><div class="ci cl"><p><br>The signatories said that state government had taken a fragmented approach to implementing Shergold-Weir report <a href="https://theurbandeveloper.com/articles/biggest-overhaul-of-building-laws-in-nsw-following-opal">reforms</a> and stressed the need for a comprehensive approach to auditing buildings with combustible cladding.</p><p>“Though some action has been taken to amend the National Construction Code and effectively eliminate the use of many types of combustible cladding on new building facades, the response of state and territory governments [h]as been patchy and inconsistent.” </p><p>At the last Building Ministers’ Forum in <a href="https://www.industry.gov.au/sites/default/files/bmf-communique-8-february-2019.pdf">March</a>, federal industry minister Karen Andrews proposed a national taskforce to implement the recommendations of the Shergold-Weir Building Confidence report. </p><p>On Monday, Andrews <a href="https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/politics/karen-andrews-building-crisis-slowing-australia-down/news-story/759201f305e7ed87fe9a8fedad89d8d8">said</a> that she will again table the establishment of a national taskforce.</p></div></div></div></div></div>

The discovery of major defects in high-rise buildings across the nation has drawn attention to a “patchy and inconsistent” regulatory system.

9ebd410f-e0f5-4ad2-998a-77a79ca654ae

<div class="row" data-reactroot=""><div class="cell cs12 cx12"><div class="row ci"><div class="cell cs12 cx12"><div class="ci cl"><p>Master Builders has voiced major concerns about proposed changes to the 2022 National Construction Code relating to accessible housing and energy efficiency.</p><p>Deputy chief executive Paul Bidwell said the association has been part of the conversation about changes to accessible housing and energy efficiency for many years, but in 2021 it became clear that these changes would finally come to fruition and be implemented as part of the 2022 National Construction Code. </p><p>The Queensland government confirmed its intention to adopt substantial changes and is now looking to push them through without addressing some very real concerns—which will impact home buyers and the building industry, Bidwell said.</p><p>“There’s no doubt that future provisions are needed. Whether it be accessibility changes that will provide benefits for the elderly or people with disabilities, or energy efficiency changes that will ensure we have sustainable housing stock into the future,” he said. </p><p>“But if the unintended consequences of these changes aren’t recognised and addressed, and the transition isn’t handled properly, these benefits simply won’t be realised for those they are intended to help.</p><p>“The changes that are being proposed will ultimately equate to a higher cost, so we must also have fair and practical outcomes for Aussie home buyers who are already struggling with housing affordability, and for the builders and tradies who deliver new homes for our communities.” </p><p>If the changes are going to have the desired impact and genuinely benefit those who need it, the industry broadly need more clarity, and more time to transition, he said.  </p><p>“As a general rule, we don’t support regulation that adversely impacts housing affordability, challenges good design or puts productivity at risk. Despite this, we have supported accessible housing changes in principle, although, our mantra has always been that these measures should not be regulated but achieved via non-mandatory means,” Bidwell said.</p></div></div></div><div class="row ci"><div class="cell cs12 cx12"><div class="ci cl"><iframe sandbox="allow-forms allow-scripts allow-pointer-lock allow-same-origin allow-top-navigation allow-presentation" class="embed-responsive-item" allowfullscreen="" frameBorder="0" style="max-width:574px" width="100%" height="323" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/6p6Cf024PTM"></iframe></div></div></div><div class="row ci"><div class="cell cs12 cx12"><div class="ci cl"><p><br>The changes proposed as part of the National Construction Code 2022 will not only have a significant impact on the cost of a new home, but the detail also provided to date has significant gaps and shortcomings and falls short of being a practical and workable solution, he said. </p><p>“We’ve highlighted concerns about the need for clear and precise definitions, the allowance of tolerances for on-site variables and ensuring builders have the flexibility to exclude costs from the building contract,” Bidwell said. </p><p>“We’ve also flagged the need for a three-year transition period, which will allow builders to adjust their built sales product, and exemptions for a variety of scenarios that would otherwise be impossible to implement.”</p><p>On the energy efficiency front, the proposed changes will mean all new houses will be required to meet 7-star requirements, having a significant impact on the cost to build. </p><p>The changes will mean higher glazing requirements, increased ceiling and wall insulation, stricter provisions for heating and air-conditioning systems and hot water systems, all which will mean home buyers ultimately bear the cost.</p><p>“We are calling on the government to listen to our feedback and ensure there are as few unintended consequences as possible when the 2022 NCC is introduced next year,” Bidwell said.</p><p>“We need to build the new code right.”</p></div></div></div><div class="row ci"><div class="cell cs12 cx12"><div class="ci cl"><hr/></div></div></div><div class="row ci"><div class="cell cs12 cx12"><div class="ci cl"><p><strong><em>The Urban Developer</em></strong><strong> is proud to partner with </strong><a href="https://www.mbqld.com.au/"><strong>Master Builders Queensland</strong></a><strong> to deliver this article to you. In doing so, we can continue to publish our daily news, information, insights and opinion to you, our valued readers.</strong></p></div></div></div></div></div>

Master Builders say they have real concerns about proposed changes to the 2022 National Construction Code...

Australia’s Building Codes

<div class="row" data-reactroot=""><div class="cell cs12 cx12"><div class="row ci"><div class="cell cs12 cx12"><div class="ci cl"><p>A prestige apartment building in Sydney built by a well-known developer is undergoing a second replacement of a terrace waterproof membrane five years after replacement of the first one, which had leaked from completion. </p><p>The second membrane almost certainly complied with the <a href="https://ncc.abcb.gov.au/ncc-online/About">National Construction Code (NCC)</a> and was certified as compliant; the first one might also have complied. </p><p>Yet, for 15 years, owners and tenants living under the terraces have put up with mouldy walls, carpets and ceilings because the code does not adequately control waterproofing materials and methods.</p><p>A key assumption made by governments and regulators has been that confidence will return to the market if apartments are built to meet National Construction Code requirements. </p><p>As the story above shows, complying with the code alone will not be enough to fix many common defects. Public confidence will still be lacking.</p></div></div></div><div class="row ci"><div class="cell cs12 cx12"><div class="ci cl"><p>In 2017, the <a href="https://www.industry.gov.au/regulations-and-standards/building-and-construction/building-ministers-forum">Building Ministers’ Forum</a>, the group of federal, state and territory ministers responsible for building regulation in Australia, commissioned a report from Peter Shergold and Bronwyn Weir. </p><p>Their <a href="https://www.industry.gov.au/sites/default/files/July%202018/document/pdf/building_ministers_forum_expert_assessment_-_building_confidence.pdf?acsf_files_redirect">report said</a> there was “… diminishing public confidence that the building and construction industry can deliver compliant, safe buildings which will perform to the expected standards over the long term”.</p><p>Since then, the high-profile structural failure and<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-big-lesson-from-opal-tower-is-that-badly-built-apartments-arent-only-an-issue-for-residents-109722"> evacuation of Opal Tower</a> on Christmas Eve 2018, the <a href="https://theconversation.com/cladding-fire-risks-have-been-known-for-years-lives-depend-on-acting-now-with-no-more-delays-111186">cladding fire at Neo200</a> in February 2019 and the structural failure and <a href="https://theconversation.com/buck-passing-on-apartment-building-safety-leaves-residents-at-risk-119000">evacuation of Mascot Towers</a> in June 2019 have kept this issue in the media spotlight. </p><p>If anything, the public <a href="https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/the-apartment-building-crisis-explained-20190716-p527k0">crisis of confidence</a> has deepened.</p></div></div></div><div class="row ci"><div class="cell cs12 cx12"><div class="ci cl"><h2><strong>Part of the problem is the code itself</strong></h2></div></div></div><div class="row ci"><div class="cell cs12 cx12"><div class="ci cl"><p>The National Construction Code originated as a minimum standard to deliver structural integrity and fire safety. </p><p>It was never intended to provide effective control over all the aspects of building work that make houses or apartments liveable and durable. </p><p>This might come as a surprise to many people, including those in government, but it is inherent to the “minimum standard” approach that underpins the structure and objectives of the code.</p><p>The objectives on page 9 of volume 1 of the code, which covers apartments, are instructive:</p><ol> <li><p>ensure requirements have a rigorously tested rationale; and</p></li><li><p>effectively and proportionally address applicable issues; and</p></li><li><p>create benefits to society that outweigh costs; and</p></li><li><p>consider non-regulatory alternatives; and</p></li><li><p>consider the competitive effects of regulation; and</p></li><li><p>not be unnecessarily restrictive.</p></li></ol><p>In attempting to consider “competitive effects”, avoid being “restrictive” and by encouraging “non-regulatory alternatives”, including self-certification and self-regulation, the code has opened the door to an “anything goes” mentality on many fronts.</p><p>Waterproofing requirements for houses and apartments under section F of the code are clearly ineffective, for a start.</p><p>The relevant Australian Standards, <a href="https://infostore.saiglobal.com/preview/315369811573.pdf?sku=120285_SAIG_AS_AS_252122">AS 4654.1</a> and <a href="https://infostore.saiglobal.com/preview/315378204076.pdf?sku=120284_SAIG_AS_AS_252120">AS 4654.2</a>, were written with a lot of input from the building materials supply industry. </p><p>The standards permit the use of unsuitable waterproofing membranes in many situations, particularly where ceramic tiles are directly bonded to an inappropriate liquid-applied membrane. As the example at the start of this article shows, this solution rarely lasts longer than four or five years and considerably less in some cases.</p><p>Rectification is expensive and inconvenient. It involves hacking up and replacing all the tiles.</p><p>In addition, every apartment building built without a step in the slab at the junction between walls and floors will probably develop leaks within a similar timeframe.</p><p>These practices are driven by the desire to save a few dollars in construction cost, not by a commitment to deliver a required standard of durability. Durability is not part of the code objectives.</p></div></div></div><div class="row ci"><div class="cell cs12 cx12"><div class="ci cl"><h2><strong>How can the code be fixed?</strong></h2></div></div></div><div class="row ci"><div class="cell cs12 cx12"><div class="ci cl"><p>We could improve the code in a number of simple ways:</p><ol> <li><p> Class 1 (houses) and class 2 (apartments) buildings should both be in volume 2, which would be dedicated to housing intended for sale. <br><br>Houses and apartments should be required to be “fit for purpose” with a clearly stated objective to provide protection to the buyer. </p><p>These should include a mandatory minimum statutory warranty of seven to ten years, backed by government.</p></li><li><p>The required durability of waterproofing membranes and details for all housing, and class 2 apartments in particular, must be clearly stated. </p><p>Waterproofing should be required to last at least 25 years without significant maintenance, and perhaps 40 years for buildings where access to the waterproofing element requires demolition or is fundamentally difficult. </p><p>Details that are not durable, including slabs without steps at wall junctions, or terrace and balcony tiles directly bonded to liquid-applied waterproof membranes, should be banned.</p></li><li><p>The structure of an apartment should be required to last with no substantial maintenance for at least 50 to 60 years. </p><p>The minimum expectation for durability for any envelope component and associated finishes on buildings over three storeys should be 25 years, and perhaps 40 years for taller buildings.</p></li><li><p>The “performance requirements” of section F of the code, “Health and Amenity”, should be expanded to ensure apartments are comfortable, economical to maintain and <a href="https://theconversation.com/dont-forget-our-future-climate-when-tightening-up-building-codes-113365">sustainable</a>.</p></li></ol><p>Houses and apartments should be required to be “fit for purpose” </p><p>Some developers are already delivering well-designed apartment buildings that are durable and fit for purpose. They are to be commended. The p<a href="https://theconversation.com/lack-of-information-on-apartment-defects-leaves-whole-market-on-shaky-footings-127007">roblem for buyers is identifying </a>these amid a sea of dross.</p><p>For new houses and apartments, we need to ensure the National Construction Code matches community expectations on fitness for purpose and durability. </p><p>This requires a return to more active and interventionist regulatory framework, including putting independent “eyes on the site” to inspect work during construction.</p></div></div></div><div class="row ci"><div class="cell cs12 cx12"><div class="ci cl"><hr/></div></div></div><div class="row ci"><div class="cell cs12 cx12"><div class="ci cl"><p><strong>Author</strong></p><p>Geoff Hanmer, Adjunct Lecturer in Architecture, UNSW</p><p>This article is republished from <em>The Conversation</em> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/to-restore-public-confidence-in-apartments-rewrite-australias-building-codes-126678">original article</a>.</p></div></div></div></div></div>

  Compliance with the National Construction Code provides no guarantee that an apartment won’t leak.

NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CODE