SPECIALIST DISABILITY ACCOMMODATION (SDA) – A SECTOR IN TRANSITION
As part of his continued commitment to industry education our Managing Director, Bill Katsabis, has once again been involved with NDISDA to deliver SDA related topics at conferences around Australia. With the changing requirements and complexities of the sector nationally and the more specific amendments to process within Victoria, Bill has delivered a couple of key presentations this year to assist with communicating future expectations and understanding of process.
From the time of its roll-out in 2016 as part of the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS), Specialist Disability Accommodation (SDA) has gone through stages as it has become available to all Australians. The SDA Design Standards were developed and introduced in 2019 to provide Architects with minimum requirements for individual disability classifications. For a residence to be accredited and registered for SDA, the SDA Design Standards must be met.
Since 2019, whilst the minimum requirements in the Design Standards have remained the same, the designs of SDA dwellings have evolved significantly for participants, SIL providers and with respect to the density and location.
Firstly, from a participant perspective, we have seen minimum bedroom sizes with shared bathroom facilities, minimum storage and Euro laundries develop into bedroom suites with individual ensuites, private outdoor spaces, full size laundries, secondary living areas and specialised storage. These enhancements have enabled participants to live with privacy, dignity and security, whilst still providing the benefit of communal living and interaction. It has also resulted in an ability for participants to host family and friends to create a layering to their social interactions.
For the SIL providers, study nooks, sofa beds, and shared bathrooms have evolved into secure and private areas with break out spaces, living spaces, ensuites and private entries. It is worth noting that there are no formal provisions or requirements for SIL providers in the Design Standards, yet we have all come to realise that without SIL providers many participants could reside in SDA. The residence is a place of work for a Sil provider, but needs to also be comfortable, inviting and accommodating for multiple members for them to provide their services effectively and professionally.
Lastly, the density and location that we see SDA developments being completed is continuing to change. When SDA was first introduced, land prices and building costs made Greenfields areas a very inviting proposition for an investment return. High-density, low-cost developments were completed by developers and investors to maximise their return. What was lost in these considerations was the participant, and acknowledgement that the participant has the ultimate choice on where they want to live. Investments and developments in reality became unsuccessful, and a shift in product has been evident. Many more developments are being completed in inner suburban, established areas, with a lower individual density to each dwelling, but with a greater communal density through developments such as villa units and apartments.
With the understandable shift in SDA designs, and the confusion and ambiguity of differing controls within the sector (SDA Design Standards, Planning and Design requirements, National Construction Code requirements, Australian Standards), the government has instigated a review of the Design Standards and provide greater direction for what the minimum requirements and expectations should be.
The concern with the current Standards is its specific nature as a result of consideration being largely limited to accessibility. Construction considerations, safety measures, and Building process delivery which are not reflected in the Standards create ambiguity and confusion to Architects, contractors and developers in how an SDA should be and is delivered.
As they currently stand, the Standards provide minimum requirements mostly for accessibility. They cover items such as access, circulation spaces, placement of fixtures, minimum room sizes, emergency power, and assistive technology. In addition to these requirements, there is a list of Recommended Best Practice items for considered inclusion, such as additional storage, adjustable fixtures and fittings, larger bedrooms, heating, ceiling hoists (in lieu of merely provision), and fire sprinklers and safety measures. Many of the Best Practice recommendations are commonplace, but without mandating them, or setting minimum requirements they are open to abuse, particularly surrounding participant safety.
The current standards also don’t consider acceptable construction methodology for Robust design or provide clarification on building classification expectation. They also don’t consider participant lifestyle, mental well-being, and independence, sustainability, and safety for participants, SIL providers and guests.
The review is looking to provide regulatory alignment, participant centric design, flexibility in design, flexibility in requirements, innovation and sustainability, whilst working within a commercial framework that creates a safe, secure, and independent environment for participants, their families and friends, and SIL providers.
The expectations of the review are that we will see the inclusion of many Best Practice measures, regulatory alignment, direction on safety, and participant focused design through an improved understanding of SDA and a consolidated shareholder approach. Hopefully we see referencing to existing standards, classifications, and requirements rather than creating a new set of rules.
Evolution of the current Standards is what is required, not Revolution.
Our industry and the greater sector have been anticipating the review and updates to the Standards. The large number of stakeholders, recent bad publicity for the NDIS, ambiguity in pathways, and an unclear direction on exactly what SDA should be and look like, have made it difficult to develop the Standards into a ‘one size fits all’ model that caters for a variety of participants that require unique design outcomes. Notwithstanding the complexities involved, the updates to the Standards need to be formalised so that the most vulnerable in our community are given access to a livelihood that most of us take for granted.
From the time of its roll-out in 2016 as part of the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS), Specialist Disability Accommodation (SDA) has gone through stages as it has become available to all Australians. The SDA Design Standards were developed and introduced in 2019 to provide Architects with minimum requirements for individual disability classifications. For a residence to be accredited and registered for SDA, the SDA Design Standards must be met.
Since 2019, whilst the minimum requirements in the Design Standards have remained the same, the designs of SDA dwellings have evolved significantly for participants, SIL providers and with respect to the density and location.
Firstly, from a participant perspective, we have seen minimum bedroom sizes with shared bathroom facilities, minimum storage and Euro laundries develop into bedroom suites with individual ensuites, private outdoor spaces, full size laundries, secondary living areas and specialised storage. These enhancements have enabled participants to live with privacy, dignity and security, whilst still providing the benefit of communal living and interaction. It has also resulted in an ability for participants to host family and friends to create a layering to their social interactions.
For the SIL providers, study nooks, sofa beds, and shared bathrooms have evolved into secure and private areas with break out spaces, living spaces, ensuites and private entries. It is worth noting that there are no formal provisions or requirements for SIL providers in the Design Standards, yet we have all come to realise that without SIL providers many participants could reside in SDA. The residence is a place of work for a Sil provider, but needs to also be comfortable, inviting and accommodating for multiple members for them to provide their services effectively and professionally.
Lastly, the density and location that we see SDA developments being completed is continuing to change. When SDA was first introduced, land prices and building costs made Greenfields areas a very inviting proposition for an investment return. High-density, low-cost developments were completed by developers and investors to maximise their return. What was lost in these considerations was the participant, and acknowledgement that the participant has the ultimate choice on where they want to live. Investments and developments in reality became unsuccessful, and a shift in product has been evident. Many more developments are being completed in inner suburban, established areas, with a lower individual density to each dwelling, but with a greater communal density through developments such as villa units and apartments.
With the understandable shift in SDA designs, and the confusion and ambiguity of differing controls within the sector (SDA Design Standards, Planning and Design requirements, National Construction Code requirements, Australian Standards), the government has instigated a review of the Design Standards and provide greater direction for what the minimum requirements and expectations should be.
The concern with the current Standards is its specific nature as a result of consideration being largely limited to accessibility. Construction considerations, safety measures, and Building process delivery which are not reflected in the Standards create ambiguity and confusion to Architects, contractors and developers in how an SDA should be and is delivered.
As they currently stand, the Standards provide minimum requirements mostly for accessibility. They cover items such as access, circulation spaces, placement of fixtures, minimum room sizes, emergency power, and assistive technology. In addition to these requirements, there is a list of Recommended Best Practice items for considered inclusion, such as additional storage, adjustable fixtures and fittings, larger bedrooms, heating, ceiling hoists (in lieu of merely provision), and fire sprinklers and safety measures. Many of the Best Practice recommendations are commonplace, but without mandating them, or setting minimum requirements they are open to abuse, particularly surrounding participant safety.
The current standards also don’t consider acceptable construction methodology for Robust design or provide clarification on building classification expectation. They also don’t consider participant lifestyle, mental well-being, and independence, sustainability, and safety for participants, SIL providers and guests.
The review is looking to provide regulatory alignment, participant centric design, flexibility in design, flexibility in requirements, innovation and sustainability, whilst working within a commercial framework that creates a safe, secure, and independent environment for participants, their families and friends, and SIL providers.
The expectations of the review are that we will see the inclusion of many Best Practice measures, regulatory alignment, direction on safety, and participant focused design through an improved understanding of SDA and a consolidated shareholder approach. Hopefully we see referencing to existing standards, classifications, and requirements rather than creating a new set of rules.
Evolution of the current Standards is what is required, not Revolution.
Our industry and the greater sector have been anticipating the review and updates to the Standards. The large number of stakeholders, recent bad publicity for the NDIS, ambiguity in pathways, and an unclear direction on exactly what SDA should be and look like, have made it difficult to develop the Standards into a ‘one size fits all’ model that caters for a variety of participants that require unique design outcomes. Notwithstanding the complexities involved, the updates to the Standards need to be formalised so that the most vulnerable in our community are given access to a livelihood that most of us take for granted.