South Australian authorities have surprised building and sustainability observers by introducing a drastic 10-year ban on any improvements to the National Building Code standards for new residential buildings in high-density urban areas.

The move effectively penalises lower-income earners forced to seek housing in lower-cost growth areas such as Mt Barker by piling high energy bills on top of transport costs unless they fork out extra funds to better insulate and protect their homes.

The decision freezes energy efficiency standards for residents in these areas at the 2019 NatHERS 6-star level, while affluent buyers living in city centres enjoy greater protection under the 2022 NCC standard of 7-star NatHERS.

However, all areas will be exempt from the new climate resilience standards in the 2025 edition of the NCC, agreed at a recent meeting of national construction ministers just weeks ago.

SA’s announcement came in a joint statement by Nick Champion, Minister for Housing and Urban Development, and was co-signed by Master Builders SA and the Housing Industry Association.

A spokesman for the minister said buyers had the freedom to choose to upgrade their homes to the 2019 standard if they wished, and agreed that the move would result in costs being borne by builders and developers.

Observers are outraged and say it will create deeper divisions in the social fabric of South Australians, with those less able to pay their own bills being forced to pay higher energy bills or upgrade their homes only to find out when they move in and the renovations prove more expensive.

All new immunity orders have been lifted

But all state residents will be denied the opportunity to benefit from improved construction and material standards in new homes that could protect them from extreme weather events as the climate worsens.

Nicolette Di Lernia, executive director of the Australian Institute of Architects SA, said the hardest hit would be low socio-economic groups in areas such as Mt Barker and low-income retirees on the Fleurieu Peninsula and in Victor Harbour,

The move comes in response to lobbying by housing and development groups agitating for more housing to be built. It is understood that only about 20 per cent of the housing approved 10 years ago in the Mt Barker area has been built.

“Anything to build apartments,” said one observer.

Mr Di Lernia said the Adelaide Hills were particularly vulnerable to cold in winter.

“The Adelaide Hills are not that hot in summer, but in winter it is very cold and wet.”

“People can now afford to upgrade, but if you are already suffering from a fixed income and rising living costs and have no other option but to move to a distant suburban estate, then you probably won’t be able to afford it,” she said.

Transport costs only made the problem worse. There were no toll roads, but there was no adequate public transport either.

She said most homes did not achieve the 2019 six-star standard; they were lucky to achieve three or four stars, according to numerous reports from the University of Adelaide and other researchers.

“This puts people with lung problems at greater health risk and loss of ability to work.”

Adelaide’s city centre has also been hit by extreme temperatures, with a recent incident in summer where temperatures in one flat were recorded at 50 degrees – and that was with the air conditioning on, she said.

But the state government is not stingy. The Mt Barker site was rezoned 10 years ago, but only 20 per cent of the land has been built on – so it was a bid by the developer to make building houses cheaper and quicker.

Architects feel “really disappointed,” Di Lernia said. “We worked really hard with other allied organizations to get a better result.”

But the MBA and HIA wanted more radical quality changes, she said. They lobbied for climate zones 5, 6 and 7 to be exempt from the 2022 NatHERS 7-star standard, which essentially covers the entire state.

The state government said the decision was made after consultation with representatives from the housing, climate, disability and ageing sectors.

A ministry spokesman said Adelaide expects its CBD population to double over the next 20 years.

Denial of disability benefits

Di Lernia was also disappointed that the gold standard for disabled access was limited to homes with plots wider than 10 metres, while people with severe disabilities could reasonably expect to be able to afford only smaller plots.

She added that problems with access to services affect a wide range of society.

In a press statement, the minister said the decision to downgrade the access issue was aimed at stimulating market activity.

“Given the significantly higher costs of a gold standard compared to a silver standard, introducing a gold standard as a minimum requirement would deter new home construction,” the statement said.

Here are more details from Minister Champion:

• each application for a building permit for a house or apartment submitted before 1 October 2024 will be considered in accordance with NCC 2019

• plots with a frontage of less than or equal to 10 metres or plots of irregular shape and an area of ​​less than 300 square metres will not have to meet the requirements for the design of habitable dwellings.

• exemption from the regulations on commercial housing projects in the case of small buildings with an area of ​​less than or equal to 60 square meters that are built outside the premises, as well as accommodation facilities for workers and tourists

• staff and tourist accommodation facilities will continue to operate in accordance with the NCC 2019 Energy Efficiency Regulations.

• exemption from the need to install a toilet on the entrance level if there are no living quarters on that level

• Applications for building regulations consent submitted before 1 January 2027 for plots for which an application for building consent for land subdivision was submitted before 1 January 2024 may be considered in accordance with NCC 2019

• A three-year exemption from building regulations within the Mt Barker District Council Planned Neighbourhood Zone

• concession on energy efficiency requirements for lightweight and portable houses

In a media statement, the decision was presented as providing “certainty.” But for whom? It looks like another case of shifting the costs of safety and quality of housing onto consumers in a way that would never be acceptable for other consumer goods.

Related