Too often in the built environment, we see accessibility elements that are almost right—but not quite. A step ramp that’s 80mm too long, a toilet sign missing Braille, a circulation space encroached by a poorly placed fixture. It might look okay, it might even feel “good enough”—but under Australian law and standards, partial compliance is not compliance. And that shortfall has real consequences for people with disability, for building certifiers, and for property owners.
Let’s be clear: access is either compliant or it is not. Near enough is not only poor practice—it’s legally inadequate.
What Do the Standards Say?
According to AS 1428.1—2009, the national technical standard for access in new buildings, each provision is crafted with precision. For example, Clause 6.3 mandates that a continuous accessible path of travel must have a minimum unobstructed width of 1000mm, excluding any encroachments such as door handles or fire extinguishers. If that path is 980mm because of a wall-mounted cabinet, it does not comply.
Similarly, handrails on ramps must follow exact dimensional and spatial rules per Clause 12. Any deviation—even if minor—compromises both usability and compliance.
This precision is echoed in the National Construction Code (NCC) 2022, which mandates full compliance with Performance Requirements through either Deemed-to-Satisfy Provisions or rigorously verified Performance Solutions. Part A2 of the NCC makes it clear: compliance must be with all relevant Performance Requirements—meeting some but not all is not a pathway to approval.
Why Partial Compliance is Problematic
It Risks Discrimination
The Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (DDA) requires equal access. If a person using a wheelchair cannot access a premises due to a non-compliant ramp or doorway, the building owner could be subject to complaints under the DDA—even if the intent was there.It Creates Safety Hazards
Non-compliant stairs, TGSIs, or circulation spaces are not just inconvenient—they’re dangerous. AS 1428.1 specifies details like luminance contrast, edge treatments, and slip resistance for a reason: to prevent falls, confusion, and harm.It Jeopardises Certification and Occupancy
Certifiers cannot sign off on buildings that only mostly meet compliance benchmarks. Without certification, buildings cannot be lawfully occupied.It Costs More in the Long Run
Rectification works, litigation, and reputational damage will always outweigh the initial investment in getting it right the first time.
But It Looks Accessible…
It might look like a ramp. It might even feel like a wide-enough hallway. But unless it meets the specific dimensional and performance-based criteria under AS 1428.1 or the NCC, it cannot be deemed compliant.
Take ramps, for example:
AS 1428.1—2009 Clause 10.3 states that a ramp must not exceed a gradient of 1:14 and must have landings every 9 metresAS 1428 1-2009 incorpor…. If a ramp has a gradient of 1:13.5 and the landings are spaced at 10 metres, it fails—not because someone is being pedantic, but because users may not be able to safely ascend or descend.
Tolerance is for Construction, Not for Compliance
Some might argue, “We’re only 15mm off—surely that’s within tolerance!” But AS 1428.1 only allows construction tolerances in specific cases, and even then, they are tightly controlled (e.g. ±3 mm at surface transitions per Clause 7.2). Compliance is based on finished dimensions and final usability—not intentions or approximations.
Case in Point: The Doorway Dilemma
Clause 13.3 of AS 1428.1—2009 specifies the minimum circulation space at doorways. A common issue is when this space is reduced by skirtings, projections, or misplaced light switches. Even if a doorway is “technically” 850mm wide, if the approach space or door handle positioning is wrong, it cannot be used effectively by someone using a wheelchair or walker—and is therefore non-compliant.
So, What Should We Do?
Stop Accepting “Close Enough”
Every dimension, every surface, every fixture matters. Specifications exist for a reason: to guarantee equitable access.Audit with Precision
Use detailed compliance checklists and onsite measurements to verify compliance against both the NCC and AS 1428.1. Don’t rely on visual inspection alone.Design for Function, Verify Against Standards
Good design starts with empathy and ends with exactitude. A beautiful space that fails to meet access requirements is neither accessible nor compliant.Demand Accountability
Whether you’re a certifier, architect, builder, or building owner—ensure that accessibility isn’t just a checkbox. It’s a human right, a legal requirement, and a professional standard.
In Conclusion
Partial compliance is not just a technical shortfall—it’s a barrier. It’s a denial of equitable access. And it’s a breach of both national standards and basic human rights.
If you want to do the right thing, the only acceptable standard is full compliance. Because when it comes to accessibility, close enough just isn’t good enough.