Access to All Parts of a Building

Swipe access and DDA requirements​

NCC 2022 Volume 1 Amendment 2

Area of NCC Requirements:

• D1P1 – Acces for people with a disability
• D4D2, D4D3 & D4D4

The Challenge

In commercial fitouts—particularly secure workplaces—there are sometimes areas that are not intended to operate as “public access” spaces, even though they sit along common circulation routes. In this project (Class 5 office alterations), the key issue related to a reception sliding door proposed to operate under controlled access conditions.

The Deemed-to-Satisfy (DTS) provisions typically expect certain features for electronically operated doors (including user-operated controls) to support independent access and safe movement. When those prescriptive items aren’t provided, it can create a perception that access is being reduced—particularly for people who use wheelchairs, walking aids, or have reduced upper-limb function.

That’s where the approval risk sits: if the design outcome is interpreted as withholding reasonable access, the project can face redesign, delays, and heightened scrutiny under both the NCC and broader accessibility expectations. 

What This Really Means

Accessibility compliance isn’t just about installing a device—it’s about whether people with disability can access the building safely, conveniently, and without unreasonable delay or dependence.

Where a space is controlled for security and operational reasons, the compliance question becomes:

​Can the building still provide equitable access outcomes, even if the door doesn’t ​follow the usual DTS recipe?

The Solution 

A performance-based assessment was prepared to demonstrate that the door access arrangement still achieves the intent of D1P1, despite departing from the DTS provisions for door controls.

The assessment considered:

• The function and use of the area (including whether it is generally public-facing or controlled access)
• Whether the door interface supports reliable, predictable entry for people using mobility aids (without unreasonable delay)
• How the access system can be operated by users with disability (including reach and approach considerations) 
• Whether operational controls (staff presence, assistance protocols, wayfinding/signage, and procedures) provide an equivalent access outcome in practice
• How the proposed arrangement compares to the intent of the DTS provisions—focusing on user experience and functional access rather than a single prescriptive component  
  

Importantly, the solution approach focused on demonstrating that access is not denied—and that the building’s operating model supports equitable use for all occupants and visitors.

Why This Matters

The final report concluded that the proposal can satisfy D1P1 through a performance pathway that aligns the access outcome with the building’s operational reality (security, staffing, and tenancy profile).

This is a good example of how performance solutions can resolve a common commercial tension: secure access control vs equitable accessibility—without forcing a one-size-fits-all prescriptive approach where it doesn’t fit the use-case.

Have a similar problem? 

Reach out to our team for the solution.