hobart

Luminance Contrast Requirements for Doors

Posted on February 2, 2019February 2, 2019 by Lee Wilson, Access Consultant, Universal Design Consultant

AS 1428.1 Clause 13.1 is often a topic of discussion by building certifiers, building surveyors, architects, designers and project managers.

Clause 13.1 outlines the luminance contrast requirements for doorways. Each doorway in an accessible part of a building must achieve compliance with AS 1428.1 Clause 13 (luminance contrast, door clear width, controls/door handles, and spatial/circulation spaces).

Luminance contrast of doors is required so people can easily identify a doorway, and a door doesn’t blend into the wall background, making it difficult to see.

There a range of options to achieve compliance. Each option is independent of the others and only one option is required to achieve compliance. These options are detailed in AS 1428.1 Clause 13.1.

Clause 13.1 says:

13 DOORWAYS, DOORS AND CIRCULATION SPACE AT DOORWAYS
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.

The wording of this Clause could be a lot clearer to indicated that each option is an “OR”. There is not an invisible “and” after each option.

If you comply with one of these options listed above, the doorway will comply. This can be achieved using a 50mm band (minimum) in a painted colour, a timber or metal finish, using a powder-coated steel plate, by painting the door or many more finishing options.

What AS 1428.1 Clause 13.1 should say to remove any confusion or misinterpretation is the following:

13 DOORWAYS, DOORS AND CIRCULATION SPACE AT DOORWAYS
13.1 Luminance contrast
All doorways shall have a minimum luminance contrast of 30% provided between—
(a) door leaf and door jamb; or
(b) door leaf and adjacent wall; or
(c) architrave and wall; or
(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.

If you have any questions about luminance contrast please contact our office.

Alternatively, please visit www.luminancecontrast.net.au to read more about the area and to register for our free Luminance Contrast Assessment Tool (LCAT).

We’re also offering training for a limited number of people on 4th April 2019 in our offices. See the Eventbrite listing for more information.

Lastly, for those observant readers, you’ll see a step in the doorway used in the feature image. We can also help design a compliant step ramp to provide an accessible doorway for everyone.

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

Posted on August 20, 2018April 2, 2020 by Lee Wilson, Access Consultant, Universal Design Consultant

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.

The AFFECTED PART: Do Not Lease a Commercial Tenancy Without Reading This!

Posted on August 20, 2018February 21, 2020 by Lee Wilson, Access Consultant, Universal Design Consultant

Man looking at camera with finger pointed out.

A Costly Mistake

As an access consultant with many years experience, I have lost count of the amount of small businesses who have leased a commercial space, only to find they are forced to undertake extensive and costly building upgrades.

This not only causes a lot of stress for a small business owner, but may potentially see their fit-out budget go through the roof after seeing quotes from builders for upgrades.

In particular, this has been a very common issue for tenants of shops along strip shopping precincts, which historically all had stepped entrances and narrow or recessed doorways.

In this post, I share two key things a small business owner really needs to consider before signing any lease:

Building and disability legislation may require you to remove existing stepped entrances into shops and provide new ramp access and possibly a new doorway; and
If you change the use of the tenancy space then building legislation may require you to upgrade existing toilets, corridors, doors and parking spaces and a passenger lift may be required between levels of a building.

The Disability Discrimination Act 1992 requires that equitable access into premises is available. In 2011, the Disability (Access to Premises – Buildings) Standards 2010 or Premises Standards for short was introduced, which outlined prescriptive requirements for new building works with the Standards (detailed in Schedule 1 – Access Code). At that time, these prescriptive requirements were also mirrored into the Building Code of Australia (BCA).

Therefore, any new work you are undertaking in an existing building/tenancy under a building approval (construction certificate/building permit etc., depending on what State or Territory you are in) must comply with the Access Code and BCA.

The Premises Standards refers to this new work as the ‘new part’ of the building. The new part must comply. So if you are planning on making changes to the entrance door, this would then form part of the new part and require some thought to how you will deal with the step and provide access for wheelchair users.

However, if you’re fitting out an area that might be considered inappropriate for access for people with disability, then there might be an opportunity for an exemption under Clause D3.4. You can read this post to understand more about Clause D3.4: Commercial Kitchens and BCA / Premises Standards Clause D3.4

More significantly though, which is the cause of much stress for many startups, is the concept of the ‘affected part’. The affected part may be triggered for upgrade in any existing building.

The affected part is defined as the pathway from the new part building works to and including the existing principal pedestrian entrance, and this is generally seen to include any ramps, stairs and step structurally attached to the entrance and forming part of the entrance arrangement.

So if the work is being planned for a small private dining room at the back of a restaurant for example, the affected part would be the pathway from the door into the private dining room back to the existing entrance into the restaurant. Any steps, narrow corridors or doors within this affected part would also technically need to be upgraded too (unless they are managed through the use of a Performance Solution). This may result in the need for some structural work to the entrance doorway, or even automation of the door to offset any reduced circulation spaces around the door.

The Premises Standards does include a concession for some scenarios. This is referred to as the Lessee Concession and would be applicable where the tenant is leasing the tenancy/building, the tenant is planning the works and is making the application for the building approval and the tenancy space is within a building with at least one other tenant.

An example would be a small juice bar or cafe on the ground floor of a three-storey office building. The Lessee Concession allows the tenant to complete the new part works without upgrading the affected part.

Lastly, if you change the use of the tenancy space then building legislation may require you to upgrade existing toilets, corridors, doors , parking spaces and a passenger lift may be required between levels of a building. This is certainly the case in Victoria and some other States, where you might need to provide a new accessible toilet, ambulant toilets, new accessible car parking space or even a passenger lift between levels in some cases.

The solution is do your homework before signing a lease.

Discuss your planned use and works with a building surveyor/certifier and an accredited access consultant to help identify any project risks (i.e. time delays, cost blowouts and your own health).

Please contact Access Central if you have any questions.

Fire Stairs Need Accessible Features Too! But Why?

Posted on August 19, 2018August 19, 2018 by Lee Wilson, Access Consultant, Universal Design Consultant

Old fire stair looking down the centre of the stair to the bottom.

This might come as a surprise, but fire exit stairs in Australia need some level of accessibility provided, even when they are just used as an exit path between levels of a building during an emergency.

This helps people move through a stairway to an exit and a safe place outside the building. Having a suitable handrail to hold is important for many people, including those older occupants, people with some level of mobility limitations, or those who need support during what could be a stressful event.

The ability to identify the edges of stair treads also aids people with low vision and provides great benefit for everyone. Ultimately, a high contrast to the treads edges will help to reduce slips, trips and falls in the stairs, the last thing one wants during an emergency evacuation.

Back in May 2011, with the introduction of the Premises Standards and changes to the Building Code of Australia, we saw the first of the accessible features introduced into fire-isolated stairs.

Fire exit stairs have a specific purpose when only used for emergency egress, therefore, they do not need to comply with all aspects of the stair provisions of AS 1428.1 (2009). But there are some relevant requirements that help provide a more inclusive, usable, and safer stair during an emergency evacuation of a building.

BCA/Premises Standards Access Code Clause D3.3(a)(iii) introduced in May 2011 states “for a fire-isolated stairway, clause 11.1(f) and (g) of AS 1428.1”. This means a fire-isolated exit stair (but not a non-fire-isolated exit stair…) must have compliant stair tread nosing strips, in a compliant profile, and with a minimum of 30% luminance contrast.

BCA Clause D2.17(a)(vi) was added in May 2013, which states “(vi) in a required exit serving an area required to be accessible, designed and constructed to comply with clause 12 of AS 1428.1”

What does this mean, well, the BCA now requires at least one handrail in each flight of an exit stair, whether it is an fire-isolated stair or not, to have a handrail profile that complies with AS 1428.1 (2009) profile. An example is shown below.

BCA Clause D2.13(a)(v), Clause D2.14(a)(ii) and Table D2.14 were added in May 2014 prescribing minimum slip-resistance classifications for stairs and landings.

However, notwithstanding the minimum requirements for accessible features in a fire-isolated stair or an exit stair discussed above, there is nothing wrong with a developer or designer going above the minimum requirements and introducing some of the other aspects of AS 1428.1 (2009) or other best-practice references, to a fire-isolated stair or an exit stair.

The most obvious benefits would be:

A handrail in an accessible profile on each side of the stairs;
A wider width beyond 1000mm, allowing for the movement of slower and faster people, and the contraflow of emergency services personnel; and
Larger landings on each occupied level of the building, that have been designed as refuge areas for people who have difficulty using stairs, those who might need to rest, or those occupants who have a mobility disability and need assistance to evacuate the building.

You can also read more about how to make buildings safer in an emergency here

DeafSpace Architecture Moves into the Mainstream

Posted on August 19, 2018 by Lee Wilson, Access Consultant, Universal Design Consultant

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:

Space and proximity;
Sensory reach;
Mobility and proximity;
Light and colour; and
Acoustics

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PcSnNMSkbf4

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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNGp1aviGvE

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.

References

Share this:

Share this:

A Costly Mistake

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: