When your certifier asks for a disability access Performance Solution (NCC)

The Deemed-to-Satisfy path did not fit, or cannot be demonstrated on the drawings. The Principal Certifier needs a Performance Solution that shows the design still meets the NCC access Performance Requirements. Sydney Access Consultants prepares the performance-based design brief and the report package for lodgement, independently of the certifier.

This page is the alternative pathway. If the issue is still a DtS access report for DA, CC or CDC, start at access reports for DA, CC and CDC.

When a certifier needs a disability access Performance Solution

A certifier typically needs a Performance Solution when the design cannot demonstrate compliance with NCC Deemed-to-Satisfy access provisions and referenced standards such as AS 1428.1:2021, but the project still proposes to meet the same Performance Requirements by another documented method. Common triggers: constrained or existing buildings, heritage fabric, structural limits, innovative layouts, or a consent condition or RFI that calls up a Performance Solution.

A standard access report that only records non-compliance is not enough for certification in those cases. Late briefs stall CC and CDC. Engage when the departure is first identified. Typical elements that land on this pathway include ramps that cannot achieve DtS gradient or landing geometry, door clear openings on a constrained existing opening, sanitary circulation that cannot be documented as DtS, TGSI layouts on irregular paving, and single-sided handrails where a second rail is blocked by heritage fabric or an adjacent tenancy.

Older search language still says “Alternative Solution” or “Section D3.” Alternative Solution is the former name for a Performance Solution. Section D3 was the disability access DtS heading under older BCA editions. Under current NCC Volume One the access DtS live primarily under Part D4 (and related parts), with Performance Requirements at the front of Section D. Current NSW work is assessed against NCC 2022 Amendment 2 until NSW adopts NCC 2025 on 1 May 2027.

Performance Solution vs Deemed-to-Satisfy

DtS is the prescriptive path: follow the NCC access provisions and the referenced Standards and the design is deemed to meet the Performance Requirements.

A Performance Solution is another way of complying with those same Performance Requirements. It is not an exemption from equitable access under the NCC or the Premises Standards. Cost, convenience or appearance alone are not a justification. Combination solutions are allowed: some elements DtS, some Performance Solution. Edition notes and the CC timing decision tree sit in AS 1428.1:2009 vs 2021 for Construction Certificates.

The process certifiers expect

NCC Governing Requirement A2G2 sets a four-step process. In plain language:

Step 1. Performance-based design brief (PBDB)

Scope the departure from DtS. Identify the relevant Performance Requirements. Propose Assessment Methods and acceptance criteria. Record assumptions, risks and limitations. Stakeholders typically include the client, architect, builder where relevant, access consultant and the PCA. Consult the certifier early. Do not ask them to design the solution they will later certify.

Step 2. Stakeholder agreement

Analysis proceeds against shared criteria. Circulating a draft brief to the PCA for comment is common commercial practice. Agreement on the brief reduces the risk that a finished report will be rejected.

Step 3. Analysis and evaluation

Carry out the agreed Assessment Method or methods and test the result against the brief. Methods include evidence of suitability, comparison with DtS, Verification Methods where they apply to the departure (including access Verification Methods published by the ABCB), and expert judgement used carefully. Verification Methods are not required for every access departure. Where a Verification Method is used, the report should show the inputs, the result and why that result meets the acceptance criteria in the brief.

Step 4. Final Performance Solution report

The report identifies the Performance Requirements and any DtS provisions departed from, the Assessment Methods used, the steps taken, confirmation that the Performance Requirement is met, and conditions or limitations. Certifiers need transparent reasoning, measurable criteria where used, drawings referenced, and any management controls clearly owned.

Independence from the PCA

The certifier must independently assess compliance. Involvement in designing the solution they will certify creates a conflict-of-interest risk. Official ABCB access-verification guidance flags that problem.

SAC’s role is independent access consultant: prepare the brief and the report, circulate a draft for PCA comment on the acceptability of the approach, then finalise. The certifier can reject a weak Performance Solution. Agreement on the brief is the checkpoint that reduces that risk. Architects should treat that draft loop as part of the fee and the program, not as an optional extra after the certificate date is booked.

What evidence certifiers typically accept

Comparison with DtS, measured drawings, site evidence on existing buildings, and product evidence of suitability are the usual backbone. Expert judgement used alone attracts extra scrutiny for Premises Standards-related access departures. Combined methodology and clear equivalence reasoning are the more defensible package. If a management plan or operational control forms part of the solution, say who owns it and how it will be implemented. Report discipline follows the same reasoning trail described in expert evidence and Makita.

What to send, and when to engage

Send drawings and specifications that show the non-compliant element, any prior access report or mark-up, consent conditions, PCA contact for draft circulation, and photographs for existing buildings. Engage as soon as DtS failure is identified. Do not wait until the day before the certificate.

Ask about this service on (02) 9586 3111.

How Sydney Access Consultants delivers

GJ Finn & DW Wong trading as Sydney Access Consultants prepare PBDBs and Performance Solution reports for disability access under the NCC and the Premises Standards. Signing consultants work as registered architects and Qualified Access Consultants where that applies to the author. Adjacent work: DA/CC/CDC access reports, Livable Housing assessments, and SDA pathways. An SDA assessment is not an NCC access Performance Solution. They may coexist on one project.

Work is based in Hurstville. On the Mid North Coast, Sandy Grey works from Black Beach. In Western Australia the same NCC process is explained against the certification practice in force there. See locations.

Frequently asked questions

Is a Performance Solution an exemption from disability access?

No. It is an alternative way of meeting the same NCC access Performance Requirements. It is not a waiver.

Can the certifier prepare the Performance Solution themselves?

The certifier determines the certificate. Preparing the solution they will certify creates a conflict risk. Engage an independent access consultant and keep the PCA in the brief loop for comment.

Do we always need a PBDB, or can we jump to a report?

The NCC process expects a brief, stakeholder agreement, analysis and a final report. Jumping straight to a conclusion is how reports get rejected.

How does this relate to our DA or CC access report?

The access report verifies DtS items and flags departures. The Performance Solution is the documented pathway for those departures. See also what certifiers want in an access report and DA vs CC.