Dark Kitchens, Restaurants and BCA/Premises Standards Clause D3.4

Chefs working in a commercial kitchen

Commercial kitchens are fast-moving, dynamic workplaces. Things move quickly and happen as fast as possible.

Staff are preparing food, cooking, washing dishes, cleaning surfaces and floors, receiving deliveries, loading and unloading items from coolrooms and refrigerators and on and on it goes – needless to say, a lot of different activities are undertaken by people working in such an environment.

The same exists for ‘dark kitchens’, being those dedicated to selling via delivery services only, where the only people entering the premises are kitchen staff and delivery drivers/riders.

The DDA Premises Standards Access Code and the current NCC BCA acknowledge that this isn’t a typical work environment and that people with disability could be put into an unsafe situation when entering an environment where people are operating commercial cooking equipment.

Clause D3.4 in both of the references above state exactly the same wording:

D3.4 Exemptions
The following areas are not required to be accessible:
(a) An area where access would be inappropriate because of the particular purpose for which the area is used.
(b) An area that would pose a health or safety risk for people with a disability.
(c) Any path of travel providing access only to an area exempted by (a) or (b).

One could argue that a person with a disability, including those who are blind, have low vision or have a significant mobility disability, wouldn’t be safe in a standard commercial kitchen designed for the needs of the occupants (i.e. a cafe or restaurant).

Since the introduction of the Premises Standards in May 2011, it hasn’t been that clear as to when the exemption provided under Clause D3.4 is applicable. To confirm compliance with the DDA Premises Standards and BCA, this must always be considered on a case-by-case basis.

Previously, the BCA prior to 2011 made it much clearer for project stakeholders to make this determination.

The now superseded BCA 2010 stated:

D3.3 Parts of buildings to be accessible
(a) In a building or part of a building required by Table D3.2 to be accessible—
(i) access must be provided—
(B) to areas normally used by the occupants, excluding any plantroom, commercial kitchen, cleaners’ store room, maintenance accessway, rigging loft, or the like; 

BCA 2010 also stated:

D3.4 Concessions
It is not necessary to provide access for people with disabilities to—
(d) any area if access would be inappropriate because of the particular purpose for which the area is used.

However, to get some better guidance in this matter, the Australian Human Rights Commission released the Guideline on the Application of the Premises Standards (Version 2), which also references commercial kitchens in the statement below:

This clause sets out some general exemptions from the requirement to meet the Deemed-to-Satisfy Provisions of the Access Code and provides details on buildings or parts of buildings not required to be accessible under the Premises Standards (and BCA).

Paragraph D3.4(a) states that accessways are not required to certain areas within buildings where providing access would be ‘inappropriate’ because of the nature of the area or the tasks undertaken in that area.

Paragraph D3.4(b) states that areas that would impose a health or safety risk for people with disability are also not required to be accessible.

These areas could include cleaners store rooms, commercial kitchens, staff serving areas behind bars, cool rooms, rigging lofts, waste-containment areas, foundry floors, abattoir animal processing areas, railway shunting yards, electrical switch rooms, chemical and hazardous materials store areas, loading docks, fire lookouts, plant and equipment rooms and other similar areas.

Assessment of application of this general exemption to specific areas will need to be made on a case-by-case basis. Care needs be taken, however, to ensure that any assessment of the need to utilise this exemption is not based on assumptions about the ability of people with disability or people with a particular type of disability to undertake work in those settings.

Access Central can assist when it is not so crystal clear and a building surveyor/certifier requires additional guidance or an expert opinion on the application of the exemption under Clause D3.4.

It is a simple exercise for us to assess the proposed food or beverage premises design, staff roles and responsibilities, and the functionality of the staff back of house areas.

The Clause D3.4 exemption might also then be a consideration in assessing other aspects of the architectural design, including the need for accessible toilets for cafe or restaurant staff, an accessible staff entrance or an accessible staff car parking space.

However, as stated above – it is always a case-by-case assessment, as there are many aspects to consider to confirm compliance in commercial buildings. Including considering Clause D3.4 for other scenarios and uses, such as juice bars, shopping centre kiosks, bubble tea shops and so on.

If you need assistance when designing food and beverage tenancies please contact our office.

Luminance Contrast of Doorways: Do you See it? You Should

Old red door in a white washed brick wall

Doors need to be visible for two main reasons:

  1. So we can find them; and
  2. So we can safely move through them.

The Building Code of Australia (part of the National Construction Code) and the Premises Standards (under the DDA), both require compliance of doors under the general provisions of Table D3.1 (i.e. “to and within all areas”) and at entrances under Clause D3.2.

AS 1428.1 (2009) outlines two specific requirements for luminance contrast of doors. Luminance contrast is defined as “the light reflected from one surface or component, compared to the light reflected from another surface or component.”

Fully glazed doors need a visual indicator glazing band across the door so it is more visible to people, particularly those with some level of vision loss, which is why the band must be solid and 75mm wide as per below:

6.6 Visual indicators on glazing

Where there is no chair rail, handrail or transom, all frameless or fully glazed doors, sidelights, including any glazing capable of being mistaken for a doorway or opening, shall be clearly marked for their full width with a solid and non-transparent contrasting line.

The contrasting line shall be not less than 75 mm wide and shall extend across the full width of the glazing panel. The lower edge of the contrasting line shall be located between 900 mm and 1000 mm above the plane of the finished floor level.

Any contrasting line on the glazing shall provide a minimum of 30% luminance contrast when viewed against the floor surface or surfaces within 2 m of the glazing on the opposite side.

Also, there must be a 50mm band around each door, as per below (noting, that only one of the listed options is required – not all of them):

13.1 Luminance contrast

All doorways shall have a minimum luminance contrast of 30% provided between—
(a) door leaf and door jamb;
(b) door leaf and adjacent wall;
(c) architrave and wall;
(d) door leaf and architrave; or
(e) door jamb and adjacent wall.
The minimum width of the area of luminance contrast shall be 50 mm.

Additional areas where a higher luminance contrast of door features would be very beneficial include:

  • Door handles
  • The vertical leading edge of glass doors
  • A lower level visual indicator glazing band for shorter people and children

For more information, Access Central has published a specialised website just for luminance contrast – www.luminancecontrast.net.au

DeafSpace Architecture Moves into the Mainstream

Business man standing in front of a whiteboard looking at two people

The Deaf community live in a world designed for people who can hear, but a new design movement challenges how buildings should be built, where sensory experiences and interaction with the fabric of the building takes precedence.

Unique situations can necessitate a rethink of accepted beliefs and processes. The Gallaudet University is one such case where accepted design concepts have been questioned. In fact, the university challenged the principles of architecture in terms of how deaf people communicate within space and have since developed a new understanding of how a person’s sensory experience can be enhanced within the built environment.

Founded in 1864, the Gallaudet University is located in Washington, DC, USA. It is the only liberal arts educational institution totally tailored to deaf and hard of hearing students in the USA, with a school motto that says “there is no other place like this in the world“. This is certainly the case, not just for the unique learning environment that has been created, but for the design concepts that have developed from this environment.

Whilst students include those that are profoundly deaf, they also include those that have various levels of reduced hearing or hearing loss and those who may have cochlear implants or hearing aids. The form of communication used across the campus is primarily American Sign Language.

Researchers involved in this growing design movement created the DeafSpace Project in 2005. The DeafSpace Project is a partnership between the Department of ASL/Deaf Studies at the University and the campus architect, Hansel Bauman, from hbhm architects.

The DeafSpace Project adopted a new approach that looked at the ways Deaf people use and occupy public space, which can be uniquely different from how those who can hear use the same space. Together they developed best-practice principles which catalogue over one hundred and fifty distinct architectural patterns.

The Project has now been codified into the DeafSpace Design Guidelines that are being used to design new buildings and upgrade existing buildings on Gallaudet’s campus. These principles align very well with the principles of ‘Universal Design’ and like many of these design aspects, they not only benefit the Deaf community, they provide great benefit for everyone.

The DeafSpace Project has also been recognised for their general contribution to accessibility and the universal design movement and won the Gold Award in the Category of ‘Regional Planning’ from the International Association of Universal Design in 2015. It’s obvious that consideration of these Guidelines will extend far beyond the boundaries of the Gallaudet University in the future.

The Guidelines consider five basic design principles:

  1. Space and proximity;
  2. Sensory reach;
  3. Mobility and proximity;
  4. Light and colour; and
  5. Acoustics


Space and proximity: Space is particularly important for people communicating by signing to each other. Therefore, people need to maintain a clear line of sight to each other to read facial expressions and sign language. This means that group spaces, classrooms and lecture rooms are arranged in semi-circles or ‘U’ shapes so that all students and lecturers can see each other. It relies on creating public space environments with good wayfinding and visibility over other areas.

Sensory reach: Awareness of ones’ surroundings is essential for people who are deaf. The fabric of the building can play an important part in how people can sense their environment through other visual or tactile cues. For example, mirrors and reflective surfaces help a person perceive movement within their immediate environment. Transparent or opaque doors and walls help to identify changes in lighting, movement, or shadows outside the confines of a room.

Mobility and proximity: People who communicate by non-verbal means need a wider ‘signing space’. This means pathways need to be wide enough for two people to walk side by side, with sufficient space to sign to each other and enough visual field or distance. If they were to approach a door or other obstacle, the two would move around or through the obstacle together which means someone might be walking backwards or sideways as communication continues. For this reason, the use of stairs is avoided as they require more care and attention, therefore, wide ramps are preferred where there is a change of level. Good design of circulation spaces makes it easier to communicate and safer as people signing can move without being distracted by hazards.

Light and colour: When the built environment has poor lighting it restricts the ability to communicate well. People who sign or lip read need lighting conditions that reduce shadows, visual confusion and glare on surfaces. Colour and lighting are key features of providing an environment for good non-verbal communication, with diffused lighting, contrasting colour schemes and suitable backgrounds that reduce eye strain.

Acoustics: Spaces should be designed to reduce background noise and reverberation. Many people with reduced or residual hearing may use assistive devices such as hearing aids or cochlear implants to enhance the sound around them. However, these devices will also amplify background noise too which could interfere with the ability to hear, understand, and pay attention. It can also be uncomfortable and lead to great frustration. Therefore, the use of these devices can prove ineffective in environments with a building fabric that allows sounds to echo or reflect off surfaces.


DeafSpace is a great initiative that challenges perceptions and presents being deaf as a positive that can help bring about new perspectives in life. This is certainly the case with the ideas presented in DeafSpace. The application of the DeafSpace principles not only benefits the proportion of society with reduced or no hearing, but can benefit everyone in society throughout all stages of a person’s life – this is true universal design.