As private certifiers in South Australia, we’re often challenged on our decision to classify certain Specialist Disability Accommodation (SDA) dwellings. Common questions include:

• “Aren’t these effectively care facilities?”
• “Don’t evacuation needs require stricter safeguards?”
• “Isn’t it safer to default to the most conservative classification?”

These are important questions. But this is not about taking shortcuts. It’s about legal correctness, regulatory integrity, and supporting the core intent of SDA: to provide a home — not an institution.

SDA Is Residential Housing — Not Institutional Care

SDA is defined under the NDIS Act 2013 as a housing support, not a care service. Its design and delivery are guided by the principles of autonomy, choice, and community inclusion, reflecting Australia’s obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD).

Recent NDIS guidance (April 2025) reinforces this separation:

“Specialist disability accommodation doesn’t include the services or NDIS supports you might get in your home.”
“The SDA provider provides your home, not the support you receive living there.”

These dwellings are private homes:
• With domestic kitchens and bathrooms
• Configured for accessibility and dignity
• Often indistinguishable from neighbouring residences

As stated directly on the NDIS website:

“It’s their home. They can decorate it the way they like, and with their NDIS Supported Independent Living (SIL) funding they can choose any provider they like to support them so they can come and go as they please and lead the life they want.”

This isn’t institutional care; this is independent, rights-based living.

NCC Interpretation: Misapplying Class 3 Criteria

Some argue that because SDA residents may need evacuation support, the buildings should be Class 3.

But the definition for Residential Care Buildings in the NCC only applies after a building is classified as Class 3, 9a or 9c. It does not apply to Class 1 or 2 buildings.

In other words: classification comes first, not the occupant profile.

As Advisory Notice 01/24 makes clear, SDA dwellings are “intended to look, feel and operate as domestic buildings.” This aligns with the NCC’s Class 1b intent:

Small dwellings housing unrelated persons in a domestic setting, such as boarding houses or supported homes, can be Class 1b.

The NCC even acknowledges that in some jurisdictions, additional advice may be required when housing elderly or high-care individuals — not to prohibit Class 1b, but to ensure State-level input is sought where necessary.

Common Objections — Addressed

1. “But the residents receive 24/7 care.”
That may be true — but the building itself does not deliver that care. It’s:
• Not embedded in the design (e.g. no medical bays or nurse stations)
• Delivered by external SIL providers
• Optional and under tenant control

This is fundamentally different from a facility designed to operate like a hospital or aged care home.

2. “But evacuation support is required.”
Of course — and it’s provided through:
• Interconnected smoke alarms
• Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans (PEEPs)
• Support personnel (if elected by the resident)

Support is responsive, not embedded. The need for evacuation assistance does not automatically invoke the residential care building definition unless the building is Class 3, 9a or 9c; which these are not.

3. “But Class 3 is the safest bet.”
Defaulting to Class 3 is not conservative, but could be potentially misleading. It can:
• Restrict housing supply
• Undermine participant independence
• Risk non-alignment with the NDIS Act and UNCRPD

Onsite Overnight Assistance (OOA)

Some believe the presence of OOA invalidates the Class 1b classification. But OOA is:
• Not mandatory
• Provided via separate enrolled units
• Often office-like (no beds required)
• Shared across multiple dwellings (1 OOA per 10 units)

This is incidental support, not institutional infrastructure.

What the ABCB Said

Even the Australian Building Codes Board (ABCB) has provided clear guidance, which was later removed:

“A boarding house… that typically accommodates up to 12 people with a disability (including of a nature that requires a caregiver): Class 1b.”

This reaffirms that support needs do not preclude a Class 1b classification, so long as the building remains domestic in nature. The NDIS (Specialist Disability Accommodation) Rules 2021 also reflect the use of Class 1a and 1b dwellings within the definition and context of SDA, acknowledging their role as legitimate forms of compliant housing.

Final Word: Let’s Get the Balance Right

We’re not resisting higher standards. We’re calling for standards that fit the purpose.

We believe:
• Classification must follow form, function, and legislative intent
• Risk-based solutions are essential, but they don’t require institutional reclassification
• State governments should clarify where stricter requirements apply

Until then, Class 1b remains legally valid, practically appropriate, and aligned with the NCC, NDIS legislation, and the intent of the UNCRPD.

This is not a workaround.
This is proportionate, rights-based compliance.
This is how we build homes, not facilities, for people who deserve autonomy, dignity, and inclusion.

Still, current reclassification logic creates inconsistency.

Aged-care sites often include detached dwellings that remain Class 1a or 1b, despite housing occupants with high support needs. Many Australians requiring daily assistance are already living (and receiving end-of-life care) in private homes, still regulated as Class 1a.

Why does the standard shift when the term “SDA” is applied?

Reclassifying SDA solely due to support needs may undermine the intent of the NCC, the NDIS, and Australia’s obligations under the UNCRPD, which promotes the right of people with disability to live independently in the community.

The debate is not over. But it must be grounded in facts, not fear.