Principal | Accessibility
Principal | Accessibility
Our audit of every NSW council found that AS4299 Adaptable Housing is applied inconsistently across the state. The result adds cost and complexity to housing delivery while doing little for the people adaptable housing is meant to serve.
The Productivity Commission’s research report on housing construction productivity identifies a range of issues that add complexity to building homes in Australia. Among the most significant is the volume and complexity of regulation, which the Commission links directly to higher construction costs. Regulation here is broad: zoning, built form controls, setbacks and even the pitch of a roof.
Regulatory burdens “unambiguously increase the cost of development and construction, and ultimately the cost of housing for Australians.”
Productivity Commission
The report does not name adaptable housing specifically. It does sit squarely within the category of regulatory burden the Commission describes.
Adaptable housing is residential accommodation designed and built so it can be modified easily in the future to meet the changing needs of its occupants. That may mean supporting older residents who want to age in place, or people living with disability or another impairment.
In NSW, many councils set their own adaptable housing requirements through local planning controls, most often by calling up AS4299. Because each council does this differently, compliance standards and outcomes vary from one Local Government Area to the next.
To test how consistent the current approach is, we reviewed the planning controls of all 128 NSW councils and recorded whether each one sets an adaptable housing requirement, and at what level.
NSW adaptable housing requirements by Local Government Area, with the Sydney metropolitan councils inset. Class A and Class B refer to AS4299 classes.
65 councils that set a percentage. A further 2 councils set Livable Housing Design levels instead, and 61 have no requirement identified. Source: DC Partnership register of adaptable and Livable Housing requirements for all 128 NSW councils.
Sixty-five councils set a share of new dwellings that must be adaptable. That share ranges from 1% to 100%, and the most common settings are 10% (27 councils) and 20% (20 councils). Two more, Canterbury-Bankstown and Ku-ring-gai, set Livable Housing Design levels instead. The remaining 61 councils have no adaptable housing requirement we could identify.
The detail varies as much as the percentage. Of the 65 councils, 38 name an AS4299 class, and 34 of those call for Class C. Trigger points differ too, with some councils applying the requirement from five dwellings and others from six or ten. With 61 councils setting no requirement at all, AS4299 cannot be assumed to shape new housing across the state.
Our data shows that fewer than 1% of dwellings designated as adaptable are ever converted or occupied by someone with a disability. That is a clear gap between what AS4299 is intended to achieve and what happens in practice.
The issue is broader than some councils opting in and others opting out. AS4299 was published in 1995, and it is being applied inconsistently and, in many cases, in outdated forms. Under this patchwork, many people, including people with disability, may not benefit from housing that is genuinely adaptable, while developers and designers carry the cost of meeting a different requirement in each LGA.
The Livable Housing Design requirements in the Building Code of Australia, part of the National Construction Code, already provide a single national framework. Adopting it in place of council-by-council mandates would give NSW a uniform standard that simplifies compliance, reduces red tape and keeps the focus on accessibility outcomes.
This approach also aligns with the NSW Housing Pattern Book, which requires compliance with the BCA Livable Housing Design requirements.
The Productivity Commission noted that the Livable Housing Design measures were projected to impose a net cost to society, and that non-regulatory approaches such as direct subsidies might offer better returns. Councils are unlikely to remove adaptable housing requirements from their planning controls altogether, however, and leaving the decision to each council has not worked. It fragments policy, creates inefficiency and pushes costs up.
We are not arguing for less accessibility. We are arguing for accessibility that is more effective, reflects current design practice and is adopted consistently across NSW. Streamlining these requirements under a single framework such as the BCA’s Livable Housing Design would:
The likely result is lower construction costs, more certainty for developers and designers, and a better chance of improving housing affordability, in line with the Productivity Commission’s call to address regulatory burden.
DC Partnership works to close the gap between policy and practice, so that accessibility requirements deliver real benefits to the communities they serve. Contact us to discuss how a consistent approach applies to your project.
Further reading: Productivity Commission, Housing construction productivity research report. An earlier version of this article was published on LinkedIn in March and April 2025. Figures have been updated from our current register of council requirements.
Ellie is the powerhouse behind DC Partnership’s financial, operational and people performance. With over a decade of experience in consultancies, startups and corporate environments, she’s a master at combining big-picture strategy with hands-on problem-solving. Since joining DC Partnership in 2021, Ellie has streamlined operations, expanded the company’s footprint and kept everything running smoother than ever. A champion of diversity, inclusion and female leadership, Ellie is all about creating a workplace where everyone feels valued—and where no challenge is too big to tackle.
