The South Australian government has stunned housing and sustainability observers with a dramatic 10 year ban slapped on any improvements in National Construction Code standards for new housing in urban growth zones.
The move effectively penalises lower income people forced to find housing in lower cost growth zones such as Mt Barker with big energy bills added to transport costs unless they stump up additional funds to better insulate and protect their houses.
The move freezes energy efficiency standards for people in these areas at 2019 6-star NatHERS levels, while well heeled inner city buyers enjoy better protection under the 2022 NCC standard at 7 star NatHERS.
However, all areas will be exempt from new climate resilience standards in the 2025 edition of the NCC, agreed upon by a recent meeting of national building ministers just weeks ago.
The SA announcement came in a joint statement from Nick Champion, Minister for Housing and Urban Development. It was jointly signed off by the Master Builders SA and the Housing Industry Association.
A spokesman for the minister said buyers were free to choose to upgrade the homes they bought from the 2019 standard should they wish and agreed that the move externalised costs for builders and developers.
Observers are furious and say it will cleave deeper divisions in the social fabric of South Australian residents – with those less able to do so forced to pick up the tab with bigger energy bills or upgrades to homes that they discover after moving in when refurbishment is more expensive.
All new resilience mandates abandoned
However, all state residents will be deprived of better building and material standards in new housing that can protect them from extreme weather as the climate deteriorates.
Nicolette Di Lernia, executive director of the Australian Institute of Architects SA, said those that would suffer most were low socio economic groups in areas such as Mt Barker and low income retirees in the Fleurieu Peninsula and Victor Harbour,
The move was made in response to housing and building lobby groups agitating to get more housing built. It’s understood that only around 20 per cent of the housing approved 10 years ago in the Mt Barker area had been built.
“Anything to get housing built”, said one observer.
Di Lernia said the Adelaide Hills was particularly prone to cold weather in the winter.
“The Adelaide Hills are not as hot in summer, but they are very cold in winter, and they’re damp.”
“People can pay for a higher standard now, but if you’re already suffering from a set income and cost of living going up and you have no choice but to go to a far flung suburban development, you’re unlikely to be able to afford it,” she said.
Transport costs only added to the problem. There were no toll roads there but neither was there adequate public transport.
Most houses, she added, didn’t reach the 6 star standard of 2019; they were lucky to make it to 3 or four stars, according to a raft of reports from the University of Adelaide and other researchers.
“It’s putting people with pulmonary issues at greater health risk and risks of missing work.”
Adelaide’s inner city also suffered from extreme temperatures, with one apartment reportedly measured at 50 degrees during one recent summer event – with the airconditioning on, she said.
But the state government is unrepentant. The land had been rezoned in Mt Barker 10 years ago, but only 20 per cent of the land had been built – so this was a pitch by the development industry to make constructing the houses cheaper and faster.
Architects are feeling “really disappointed,” Di Lernia said. “We’ve worked really hard with the other allied organisations to get a better outcome.”
But the MBA and HIA had wanted more severe changes to quality, she said. They had lobbied for climate zones 5, 6 and 7 to be exempted from the 2022 7 star NatHERS standard, which is in effect the entire state.
The state government said the decision had come after consulting with the stakeholders in the housing industry, climate, disability , and ageing sector.
The ministerial spokesman said Adelaide expected its population in the CBD to double in the next 20 years.
Disability provisions denied
Di Lernia was also disappointed that the gold standard for disability access was restricted to houses with plots of land wider than 10 metres, while those who had significant disability might be reasonably expected to be able to afford only smaller blocks.
She said access issues affected a broad range of the population.
The minister’s media statement said the decision to downgrade access issues was to stimulate market activity.
“Given the significantly higher costs of gold versus silver standards, mandating the gold standard as a minimum requirement would stop new houses being built,” the statement said.
Here’s more detail from Minister Champion:
• any development application for a house or apartment that has been lodged prior to 1 October 2024 will be considered under NCC 2019
• allotments having a frontage of less than or equal to 10 metres or irregular allotments with an area of less than 300 square metres will not be required to comply with Livable Housing Design provisions
• an exemption from the Livable Housing Designs provisions for small buildings less than or equal to 60 sq m that are built offsite, and workers and tourist accommodation
• workers and tourist accommodations will continue to operate under the energy efficiency provisions of NCC 2019.
• an exemption from installing a toilet on the entry level where there are no habitable rooms located on that level
• applications for building rules consent submitted prior to 1 January 2027 on allotments for which a development application for land division had been lodged prior to 1 January 2024 can be considered under NCC 2019
• a three-year exemption to the building fabric provisions within the Master Planned Neighbourhood Zone in the Mount Barker District Council
• a concession on the energy efficiency requirements for lightweight and transportable homes
The media statement framed the decision as one of providing “certainty”. But for who? It looks like another case of externalising the cost of safety and quality in housing to consumers in a way that would never be accepted with any other consumer goods.