Access Consultants and DDA Compliance for Developers

Access compliance is one of the few design constraints that costs almost nothing to fix at concept and a great deal to fix after a builder is on site. The rules are national, they are prescriptive, and they set door widths, circulation spaces, lift car dimensions, sanitary layouts and carparking counts. Those dimensions decide how much of a building ends up as lettable or saleable area and how much ends up as corridor.

Before committing a design to a development application (DA), you’ll need professional advice from an access consultant, and from a lawyer if a position on unjustifiable hardship or a discrimination complaint is ever in play. The Disability (Access to Premises - Buildings) Standards 2010 name building developers, alongside certifiers and building managers, as the people who must ensure a building complies with the Access Code (section 2.2). That means the consequence of a non-compliant design falls on the developer: a certifier who will not issue, a redesign after the contract is let, or a complaint to the Australian Human Rights Commission that can end up in the Federal Court. This guide is written to make those conversations shorter. It does not replace them.

The figures, clause numbers and commencement dates below were current at the date of writing and they move. The referenced edition of the main access standard changed as recently as 29 July 2025. Every load-bearing point is linked to the legislation or the regulator that publishes it, and that link is where to confirm the position for a specific project before it goes into a feasibility.

The people who hold the answers on a given building are the access consultant, who reads the design against the Access Code and the standards it calls up, and the certifier or building surveyor, who decides whether the approval issues. The design team draws to their advice.

What does an access consultant actually do on a development?

An access consultant reviews a design against the accessibility provisions of the building code and the Australian Standards those provisions call up, then writes a report the certifier and the consent authority can rely on. On most projects the work falls into four stages.

• Concept and design development. The consultant tests whether the building can be made compliant at the shape it is drawn: whether a lift is needed, where the accessible path of travel runs from the boundary and the car park, how much circulation width the corridors need, and how many accessible sanitary facilities and carparking spaces the mix of uses will trigger. This is where the advice is cheapest and worth the most.
• Development application (DA) stage. Many councils require an access report with the application. The report states which classes of building are involved, what the code requires for each, and how the design meets it. Some councils apply an access policy or development control plan that asks for more than the code minimum.
• Construction certificate or building permit stage. The consultant checks the detailed documentation, because this is where compliance is usually won or lost: door hardware, circulation at the latch side, threshold heights, luminance contrast, tactile indicators, handrail extensions and signage.
• Occupation and post-construction. An access audit after completion checks what was actually built. On existing buildings, an audit is also the usual starting point for an upgrade programme.

There is one more thing the access consultant does that developers tend to undervalue. Where the deemed-to-satisfy provisions cannot reasonably be met, the consultant writes the performance solution, and the quality of that document is what a certifier accepts or rejects.

Access consulting is not a registered profession in the way architecture is. There is a national qualification and a peak body for access consultants that accredits members, and the Australian Human Rights Commission points enquirers there rather than conducting audits itself. Since there is no statutory register, the useful questions are about qualification, accreditation, professional indemnity insurance, and how many buildings of your class and scale the consultant has taken through certification.

Which buildings do the Premises Standards apply to?

The Premises Standards apply to new buildings, and to new parts and affected parts of existing buildings, in most classes other than private housing. Scope is expressed in building class throughout, so the class your project lands in decides how much of this applies. Section 2.1 of the Standards sets out the list:

• certain Class 1b buildings (the Standards define which ones in section 1.4)
• a Class 2 building that has accommodation available for short-term rent
• Class 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 or 10 buildings
• existing public transport buildings still in use at the relevant target date

Two exclusions matter commercially. Section 2.1(2) says the Standards do not apply to the internal parts of a sole-occupancy unit in a Class 2 building, and do not apply to a Class 10 building or part associated with a Class 1a building or a Class 4 part. In plain terms, the inside of an apartment and the inside of a house sit outside the Premises Standards, as do the garage and shed attached to a house.

That exclusion is regularly misread as meaning apartment buildings are outside the accessibility rules. They are not. The National Construction Code (NCC) applies its own access provisions, and the scope is not identical. Part D4 of National Construction Code (NCC) 2022 Volume One requires access to the common areas of Class 2 buildings generally, from an accessible pedestrian entrance to at least one floor containing sole-occupancy units and to the entrance doorway of each unit on that level, and to and within at least one of each type of common room or space. The Access Code in the Premises Standards reaches Class 2 common areas only where units are available for short-term rent.

The practical point for an apartment developer is that the certifier applies the code adopted in the state or territory, and the code is the broader instrument on Class 2 common areas. Compliance with the code is what gets the building approved. Compliance with the Premises Standards is what gives protection under discrimination law, which is a separate question dealt with below.

What does the Access Code require by building class?

Table D3.1 of the Access Code sets the requirement class by class. The pattern is worth knowing before a design is fixed, because it drives floor plate layout:

The Class 3 and Class 9c scale is the one that surprises people. A 200-key hotel falls in the 101 to 200 band, which requires 5 accessible units plus 1 more for every 25 units or part thereof above 100, so 9 accessible units. No more than 2 required accessible units may sit adjacent to each other, and where more than 2 are required they must be representative of the range of rooms available. That last requirement is what stops a developer from putting every accessible key in the cheapest room type, and it has real revenue consequences on a hotel or serviced apartment feasibility.

What is a “new part” and an “affected part”?

This is the concept that catches refurbishment and adaptive reuse projects. Section 2.1(4) says a part of a building is a new part if it is an extension or a modified part for which an application for approval was submitted on or after 1 May 2011. Section 2.1(5) then defines an affected part as:

(a) the principal pedestrian entrance of an existing building that contains a new part; and (b) any part of an existing building, that contains a new part, that is necessary to provide a continuous accessible path of travel from the entrance to the new part.

So a fitout or partial refurbishment does not only bring the area being worked on into scope. It also pulls in the principal pedestrian entrance and the path of travel from that entrance to the works, which can mean the front door, the lobby, the lift and the corridor, none of which appear in the scope of works or the builder’s price.

On a heritage building or a 1970s office tower, the affected part obligation is frequently the single largest cost item in an otherwise modest refurbishment, and it is routinely missed at acquisition. A due diligence access review before exchange is cheap compared with discovering the entrance must be regraded after the contract is signed.

There is a concession here, at section 4.3. If the lessee of a new part submits the application for approval for the building work, the certifier, developer and manager do not have to ensure the affected part complies. That concession does not apply if the building is leased to only one person. It is the reason the identity of the applicant on a tenancy fitout matters, and it is worth settling when the commercial lease is negotiated rather than when the fitout is documented.

What does the Access Code actually require inside the building?

The requirements that most often reshape a floor plate are these.

Entrances and accessways. Clause D3.2 requires an accessway from the main points of pedestrian entry at the allotment boundary, from any connected accessible building, and from any required accessible carparking space. Within the building, an accessway must run through the principal pedestrian entrance and through not less than 50 per cent of all pedestrian entrances. In a building with a total floor area of more than 500 square metres, a pedestrian entrance that is not accessible must not be more than 50 metres from one that is. Where a doorway on an accessway has multiple leaves, one leaf must have a clear opening width of not less than 850 millimetres in accordance with the referenced access standard.

Passing and turning. Clause D3.3 requires passing spaces at maximum 20 metre intervals where a direct line of sight is not available, and turning spaces within 2 metres of a dead end and at maximum 20 metre intervals. On a long, narrow floor plate this is the clause that widens corridors and takes area out of tenancies.

Lifts. Clause E3.6 sets the lift types that may be used and the features required. Low-rise platform lifts must not travel more than 1 metre. Low-rise, low-speed constant pressure lifts must not travel more than 4 metres enclosed or 2 metres unenclosed, and must not be used in high traffic public areas such as a theatre, cinema, transport interchange or shopping complex. Small-sized, low-speed automatic lifts must not travel more than 12 metres. Designing a mezzanine or a split-level retail tenancy around a platform lift only works within those travel limits.

Sanitary facilities. Clause F2.4 requires accessible unisex sanitary compartments in accessible parts of the building, accessible unisex showers where the table requires them, and an ambulant sanitary compartment at each bank of toilets where there is one or more toilets in addition to the accessible unisex compartment. The circulation spaces, fixtures and fittings must comply with the referenced access standard. An accessible unisex sanitary compartment with compliant circulation is materially larger than a standard cubicle, and the ambulant compartment is an additional cubicle that many early plans simply do not show.

Carparking. Clause D3.5 requires accessible carparking spaces in accordance with Table D3.5, complying with the relevant off-street parking standard for people with disabilities. The rates are worth committing to memory because they feed straight into a car park layout:

• Class 5 offices, Class 7 carparks and warehouses, Class 8 and Class 9c: 1 space for every 100 carparking spaces or part thereof
• Class 6 retail: 1 space for every 50 spaces up to 1,000 spaces, then 1 space for each additional 100
• Class 9a hospital outpatient areas, clinics and day surgeries: 1 space for every 50 spaces or part thereof
• Class 9b assembly buildings other than schools: 1 space for every 50 spaces up to 1,000, then 1 space for each additional 100
• Schools, hospitals (non-outpatient), nursing homes: 1 space for every 100 spaces or part thereof

Accessible spaces are wider and need a shared area, so on a basement at a fixed excavation depth each one costs more than a standard bay and can reduce the total count.

Signage and wayfinding. Clause D3.6 requires braille and tactile signage identifying sanitary facilities and spaces with hearing augmentation, and exit door signage stating “Exit”, “Level” and the floor level number or descriptor. This is a late-stage item with a long lead time, and it is a common reason an occupation certificate is held up.

Wheelchair seating. Clause D3.9 sets wheelchair seating spaces in Class 9b assembly buildings, starting at 3 spaces for up to 150 fixed seats and rising on a scale. In a cinema with more than 300 seats, not less than 75 per cent of the required wheelchair seating spaces must be located in rows other than the front row. On a cinema, theatre or stadium feasibility this reduces the sellable seat count in the best rows.

Exemptions. Clause D3.4 exempts an area where access would be inappropriate because of the particular purpose for which the area is used, an area that would pose a health or safety risk for people with a disability, and any path of travel providing access only to an exempted area. It is a narrow provision. It does not exempt an area because access is expensive.

Which edition of AS 1428.1 applies to your project?

This changed recently and it is the single most common thing out of date on competing pages.

The Premises Standards were reviewed in 2021. The resulting amendments were made on 23 November 2024, and because a legislative instrument amendment cannot take effect until parliamentary processes are complete, they did not commence immediately. The Australian Building Codes Board states that the parliamentary process was completed on 28 July 2025, so the updated Premises Standards took effect from 29 July 2025. On the same day, National Construction Code (NCC) 2022 Amendment 2 was published, and the primary change was a reference to the 2021 edition of AS 1428.1 Design for access and mobility, Part 1: General requirements for access. The previous referenced edition was 2009.

The practical consequences on a live project are worth raising with the access consultant directly:

• A design documented against the 2009 edition may not satisfy the current referenced edition. Whether that matters depends on which code edition applies to the approval, which depends on when the application was lodged and which jurisdiction it is in.
• The toilet concession at section 4.5 is written against the current edition. It disapplies parts of clause F2.4, to the extent they require compliance with the 2021 edition of AS 1428.1, for existing accessible sanitary compartments and existing compartments suitable for use by people with a disability, provided they comply with the 2001 edition of AS 1428.1 and sit in a new part of a building. That is a genuinely useful concession on a refurbishment, and it is narrower than it first reads.
• The lift concession at section 4.4 disapplies the requirement in Table E3.6(b) for a lift floor of not less than 1,400 millimetres by 1,600 millimetres, for an existing passenger lift in a new part or affected part, if the lift travels more than 12 metres and has a lift floor not less than 1,100 millimetres by 1,400 millimetres. On an office refurbishment, this is often the difference between keeping the existing lifts and replacing them.

There is a second, more mundane trap. The Access Code was drafted in 2010 and still uses the old building code clause numbering, while National Construction Code (NCC) 2022 renumbered everything. The Australian Building Codes Board notes that the corresponding provisions of the Access Code and the code Volume One now carry different clause references, and has published a table of equivalents. So an access report citing “D3.2” and a certifier citing “D4D3” may be referring to the same requirement. When a consultant’s report and a certifier’s mark-up appear to disagree, check the referencing system before assuming a substantive dispute.

Does complying with the building code mean you have complied with discrimination law?

Not automatically, and the distinction is the reason access exposure does not end at the occupation certificate.

Section 34 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (DDA) provides that if a person acts in accordance with a disability standard, the unlawful discrimination provisions of that Part do not apply to the act. The Premises Standards are a disability standard. Within the scope of what they cover, compliance is a complete answer to a complaint.

Outside that scope, the general provisions of the Act still apply. The Australian Human Rights Commission states plainly that compliance with the building code does not necessarily mean the building complies with the Act, that an organisation operating out of a building that does not provide equitable access may be subject to a complaint even if the building complies, and that nothing in the Act operates to diminish or excuse non-compliance with other laws. Both sets of obligations have to be met in their own terms.

Where the gap opens up in practice:

• Footpaths and the public domain. The Commission notes that a footpath meets the definition of premises in section 4 of the Act but has no building classification, so it is not subject to the Premises Standards while remaining subject to the general non-discrimination provisions. A developer using the footpath during construction, or delivering a public domain works package under a planning agreement, is in that territory.
• The inside of apartments. Excluded from the Premises Standards by section 2.1(2)(a). Livable housing provisions in the National Construction Code (NCC) now cover some of this ground in some jurisdictions, which is dealt with below.
• Existing buildings not being altered. Not covered by the Premises Standards at all, but still covered by the general provisions of the Act, which is why an access audit on an income-producing asset is a risk management exercise rather than a compliance one.
• Operations after handover. How a building is managed, staffed and used sits with the building manager and the tenant, not the code.

There is a second layer: state and territory anti-discrimination law, which sits alongside the Commonwealth Act in most jurisdictions.

What is unjustifiable hardship, and can it be relied on?

Unjustifiable hardship is a real exception with a demanding test, and it is not something anyone grants in advance.

Section 4.1 of the Premises Standards says it is not unlawful to fail to comply if, and to the extent that, compliance would impose unjustifiable hardship, but that “compliance is required to the maximum extent not involving unjustifiable hardship”. The example in the legislation makes the point: enlarging a lift may impose unjustifiable hardship while upgrading the lift control panel to provide braille and tactile buttons may not.

Section 4.1(3) lists the factors, and reading them as a developer is instructive because most of them are financial:

• additional capital, operating or other costs, or loss of revenue, directly incurred by or reasonably likely to result from compliance
• reductions in cost or increases in revenue that compliance would achieve
• the extent to which the building has been financed by government funding
• the extent to which the building is used for public purposes and has a community function
• the financial position of the person required to comply, and any effect on their financial viability
• exceptional technical factors, such as the effect of load bearing elements on structural integrity, or geographic factors such as gradient or topography
• whether the cost of alterations is disproportionate to the value of the building, taking into account the improved value the alterations would produce
• benefits likely to accrue from compliance and detriment likely to result from non-compliance
• where loss of heritage significance is claimed, whether the heritage features are essential or merely incidental to the significance of the building
• evidence of good faith efforts to comply, including consulting access consultants or building certifiers
• the nature and results of consultation with people with a disability about how to achieve compliance

Two of those deserve emphasis. Good faith efforts, including engaging an access consultant, are an express statutory factor. And where a substantial issue of unjustifiable hardship is raised, section 4.1(4) requires consideration of the extent to which substantially equal access is or may be provided by other means.

The procedural point matters more than the test. The Australian Human Rights Commission states that it cannot grant permanent exemptions or dispensations on unjustifiable hardship grounds, that the authority to determine unjustifiable hardship rests with the courts, and that it is therefore not appropriate for a council or a building certifier to make a development approval conditional on the Commission granting an exemption. The Commission can grant temporary exemptions of up to five years, and its stated practice is to use that power to protect an organisation while it fixes an identified access problem, not to excuse one permanently.

So unjustifiable hardship is a defence argued after the fact, not a consent obtained before it. A feasibility that assumes it will be available is assuming the outcome of litigation that has not happened.

Heritage does not change this. The Commission states that registration or claim of heritage value does not create an exemption and is not in itself a defence, although heritage issues can be taken into account in assessing reasonableness and hardship.

What is a performance solution, and when does one make sense?

A performance solution is the route through the code when the deemed-to-satisfy provisions cannot reasonably be met. Section 3.2 of the Premises Standards is explicit that the deemed-to-satisfy route is not the only way to satisfy the performance requirements, and that a building is taken to comply if it provides a level of access not less than it would have provided had it complied with those provisions.

That last phrase is the whole test. A performance solution is not a discount. It has to deliver equivalent access by a different means, and the certifier has to be willing to accept it. The Commission separately notes that it has no authority to certify whether a performance solution meets legal requirements, so acceptance by the certifier does not settle the discrimination law position either.

Where performance solutions are commonly used on development projects: steep sites where a compliant ramp gradient cannot be achieved within the allotment; heritage entrances where a level threshold would destroy the fabric; existing structures where a compliant lift shaft cannot be formed without removing load bearing elements; and tenancy fitouts inside a base building with fixed core dimensions.

Where they are commonly refused: as a way of avoiding an accessible sanitary facility, of reducing accessible carparking below the table, or of deleting an accessible entrance because a secondary one exists.

The programme cost is the part that gets underestimated. A performance solution usually needs the access consultant, the certifier and sometimes a fire engineer to agree, and on the construction programme that iteration sits on the critical path to the construction certificate.

Where does access compliance hit the feasibility?

In four places: area, plant, programme and rework. The first three are manageable if the access consultant is engaged at concept. The fourth is what happens when they are not.

Consider a three storey mixed-use building: 600 square metres of ground floor retail (Class 6) and 600 square metres of offices (Class 5) on each of two upper levels, 1,800 square metres in total. The figures below are illustrative and rounded, and a real project would use a quantity surveyor’s cost plan.

Scenario A, access resolved at concept.

Scenario B, same project, access issues found at construction certificate stage. The changed inputs are: the accessible sanitary facilities on both office levels do not achieve compliant circulation, the lift car is undersized, and the corridor on each upper level cannot accommodate the required turning spaces.

The development margin on cost falls from 20.0 per cent to about 11.4 per cent, and the largest single item is not a construction cost at all. It is the lettable area permanently lost to circulation and sanitary space that a concept-stage review would have planned around. An access consultant’s concept review would typically be a small fraction of that.

Two structural points follow from the example.

The first is that access risk is rarely priced in the construction contingency, because contingency is generally sized against construction uncertainty rather than against a design that does not comply. A compliance failure produces cost, time and revenue effects at once.

The second is contractual. Under a design and construct contract, where design responsibility passes to the builder, the position on who carries the cost of an access non-compliance depends on how the design responsibility and the fitness for purpose obligations are drafted, and on whether the non-compliance sits in the principal’s project requirements or in the contractor’s design. That is a question for the construction lawyer before the contract is executed, not after the certifier’s mark-up arrives. Note also that the Premises Standards impose the obligation on the building developer directly, so a contractual allocation of cost between developer and builder does not transfer the statutory obligation.

How do the states and territories differ?

The Premises Standards are Commonwealth law and apply uniformly. The National Construction Code (NCC) is adopted by each state and territory, and that is where the variation sits: which edition is in force, which provisions have been excluded or varied, and what councils add on top.

Which code edition applies. National Construction Code (NCC) 2025 was published on 1 May 2026 and is available for adoption from that date, subject to each jurisdiction’s implementation arrangements. Victoria applied it from 1 May 2026. New South Wales has announced it will adopt National Construction Code (NCC) 2025 on 1 May 2027, with a twelve month transition and a number of New South Wales variations, and National Construction Code (NCC) 2022 continues to apply there until then. Other jurisdictions have taken their own positions, and the current state is published on the National Construction Code (NCC) 2025 pages. Because the accessibility provisions are renumbered between editions, the first question on any project is which edition the approval is assessed against.

Livable housing design. This is the largest genuine divergence, and it concerns Class 1a houses and the inside of Class 2 apartments, which the Premises Standards do not reach. National Construction Code (NCC) 2022 introduced minimum accessibility provisions for those dwellings, based on the silver level of the livable housing design guidelines. Adoption has not been uniform:

• Queensland phased them in from 1 October 2023, as Business Queensland records.
• The Northern Territory applied them to building permit applications from 1 October 2023.
• Victoria’s livable housing design requirements took effect on 1 May 2024.
• South Australia applied the livable housing and energy efficiency provisions to new homes from 1 October 2024 through a ministerial building standard, as set out on PlanSA’s modern homes provisions page.
• Tasmania took a staged approach, with a further stage of the livable housing design standard commencing from 1 October 2025.
• New South Wales has not adopted the livable housing provisions into its edition of the code, so they operate there as guidance rather than as a requirement.
• Western Australia moved to disallow the livable housing provisions through amendments to its building regulations, as described in the state’s National Construction Code (NCC) 2022 implementation clarification.
• The Australian Capital Territory’s current position and commencement dates are published on the ACT Government’s National Construction Code (NCC) page.

For a residential developer, this is a direct cost and yield question rather than a compliance formality. Step-free entry, wider doorways and corridors, a ground floor toilet with clearance, and reinforced bathroom walls all consume floor area or add cost, and they apply in some jurisdictions and not others. A standard apartment or house type that works in Sydney may need replanning in Melbourne, Adelaide, Brisbane, Darwin or Hobart.

Council access policies. Above the code, many councils apply an access policy or a development control plan that requires more than the code minimum, for example wider doorways or greater circulation in accessible sanitary facilities. The Australian Human Rights Commission has supported councils doing this, and states that where an access feature is required by a council policy rather than the code, the appeal is to the council rather than to the Commission. It also considers councils should have a clear process allowing developers to argue that an additional requirement is too onerous. The practical implication is that the local instrument has to be read alongside the code before a design is fixed, and that a request for the council to exercise discretion is a planning conversation with the town planner, not a discrimination law one.

Adaptable housing. Several jurisdictions and many councils separately require a proportion of apartments to be adaptable, drawing on the adaptable housing standard. This is distinct from both the Premises Standards and the livable housing provisions, and the requirement typically comes from the local planning instrument rather than the code. It is one of the first things to check on an apartment site, because it changes unit mix and therefore revenue.

What applies in New Zealand?

New Zealand takes a different route to a similar place, and one feature of it is stricter than the Australian position.

Section 118 of the Building Act 2004 requires that where provision is being made for the construction or alteration of any building to which members of the public are to be admitted, whether free or on payment of a charge, reasonable and adequate provision by way of access, parking and sanitary facilities must be made for persons with disabilities who may be expected to visit or work in the building. The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment notes that section 118 applies but is not limited to Schedule 2, and that Schedule 2 includes almost all buildings other than private houses, private apartments and small industrial buildings.

NZS 4121:2001 Design for access and mobility is an acceptable solution for the accessibility requirements of the Building Code, and is the document a New Zealand designer works to.

On existing buildings, section 112(1) requires that an alteration comply, as nearly as is reasonably practicable, with the provisions of the Building Code relating to access and facilities for persons with disabilities. Section 115(b)(i) applies a similar test on a change of use, and section 116A applies it on a subdivision under section 224(f) of the Resource Management Act. The “as nearly as is reasonably practicable” test is more flexible than the Australian affected part rule, and the Ministry notes that territorial authorities and designers have built up considerable expertise in applying it.

The point of difference that matters most is section 67(3). The Ministry quotes it directly: “The territorial authority cannot grant an application for a building consent subject to a waiver or modification of the Building Code relating to access for people with disabilities.” There is no council-level waiver for accessibility in New Zealand. Where a dispute arises, the route is a determination from the Ministry, and past determinations on access are published and used as guidance. That is a materially different risk profile from the Australian performance solution pathway, and it belongs in any New Zealand feasibility alongside the resource consent assumptions.

When should the access consultant be engaged, and what does it cost?

Engage at concept, before the floor plate is fixed and before the core is located. Every stage after that narrows the options and raises the cost of change.

There is no published government fee scale for access consulting, and fees are a matter of market practice rather than regulation. What can be said honestly is that fees are generally quoted either as a lump sum per stage or as a small percentage of construction cost, that a concept review is typically the smallest engagement and a full documentation review plus performance solutions the largest, and that a current fee proposal against a defined scope is the only reliable figure. The scope questions that move the number are how many building classes are involved, whether existing buildings and affected parts are in play, whether performance solutions are anticipated, and whether post-construction audit and defect close-out are included.

The comparison that matters is not the fee against other fees. It is the fee against the redesign, delay and lost area in the scenario above.

Two scoping traps are worth naming. The first is a concept-only engagement with no documentation review, which leaves the highest-frequency failures, the detail items at construction certificate stage, unchecked. The second is assuming the architect’s consultant team includes an access consultant. On smaller projects it often does not, and access is left to the certifier to pick up, which is the most expensive place for it to be picked up.

What to ask your access consultant

These are questions the consultant can answer on your specific building and this guide deliberately does not.

• Which building classes apply to each part of the project, and which access requirement does Table D3.1 set for each?
• Which edition of the National Construction Code (NCC) will this approval be assessed against in this jurisdiction, and which edition of AS 1428.1 does that edition reference?
• Does this project involve a new part of an existing building, and if so what is the affected part, from which entrance, and along what path of travel?
• Does the lessee concession at section 4.3 apply to this fitout, and is the building leased to more than one person?
• Do the lift or toilet concessions at sections 4.4 and 4.5 apply to any existing element we were planning to retain?
• How many accessible sole-occupancy units does the unit count trigger, and which room types do they have to be drawn from to satisfy the representative range requirement?
• How many accessible carparking spaces does the mix of uses trigger, and what does that do to the total bay count at the current basement footprint?
• How much circulation width do the passing and turning space requirements add to the corridors as currently drawn, and how much lettable or saleable area does that consume?
• Where are we relying on a performance solution, what is the equivalent access argument, and has the certifier indicated they will accept it?
• What does the council’s access policy or development control plan require above the code on this site?
• Does this jurisdiction apply the livable housing design provisions to the residential component, and what does that do to the standard unit plan?
• What are the long lead items, particularly signage and lift specification, and when do they need to be locked?

What to ask your lawyer

• Where does the design sit outside the scope of the Premises Standards, and therefore outside the protection of section 34 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (DDA)?
• What is our exposure under state or territory anti-discrimination law in addition to the Commonwealth Act?
• If an unjustifiable hardship position is ever contemplated, what evidence would need to be assembled contemporaneously, given the factors in section 4.1(3)?
• Under the building contract, who carries the cost and time consequences of an access non-compliance, and does the answer change depending on whether it originates in the principal’s project requirements or the contractor’s design?
• What access warranties, if any, are we giving on sale or on lease, and what do the disclosure obligations require us to say about known non-compliances?
• On an existing asset we are acquiring, what is the exposure under the general provisions of the Act for a building that is not being altered?

What to ask your certifier

• Will you accept the access consultant’s report as documented, and are there items you will require to be resolved before the construction certificate or building permit issues?
• Which clause referencing system are you assessing against, and does it align with the referencing used in the access report?
• What access items will you inspect at each stage, and which of them will hold the occupation certificate if they are not complete?

Where to confirm the current position

• The Premises Standards on the Federal Register of Legislation, which is the source for every section and Access Code clause cited above.
• The Disability Discrimination Act 1992, for the general provisions and for section 34.
• The Treasury’s Premises Standards page, which carries the five yearly reviews and information on accessing the referenced Australian Standards.
• The National Construction Code, for the edition in force in each jurisdiction and the current accessibility provisions.
• The Australian Human Rights Commission’s guidelines on the application of the Premises Standards, for how the Standards are read in practice.
• The design team brief, which is where the access consultant’s advice either lands or does not.

Access is one of the few areas of building regulation where the cheapest possible intervention, a few hours of review before the floor plate is fixed, protects against one of the more expensive failure modes in development. It is worth treating as a concept-stage input rather than a certification-stage formality.