Mandatory Lifts in Three-Storey Accessible Apartments

## CONTEXT **Situation:** In Lower Hutt, New Zealand, new three-storey apartment buildings are being developed by Urban Plus and Kāinga Ora—public housing providers tasked with delivering affordable, accessible homes. Current building codes in New Zealand (NZBC Clause D1) require accessible routes only to the ground floor of multi-storey buildings, with lifts mandated only for buildings exceeding four storeys or those with specific public access requirements. For three-storey residential buildings, stairs remain the default vertical circulation method. **Complication:** These developments are explicitly intended to house people with mobility challenges—including elderly residents, wheelchair users, and those with chronic conditions—yet the absence of lifts forces residents to navigate stairs daily. Carrying groceries, laundry, medical equipment, or children up multiple flights becomes not merely inconvenient but dangerous. Falls on stairs are the second-leading cause of accidental injury death in New Zealand, with over 100 deaths annually and thousands of hospitalisations. For mobility-impaired residents, the risk multiplies significantly. **Question:** Should building codes be amended to mandate lifts in all new three-storey apartment buildings that are designed for or marketed to people with mobility challenges? **Answer:** Yes. Comparable jurisdictions—including the United Kingdom (Part M of Building Regulations) and parts of Australia (NCC 2022 amendments)—have already moved to require lifts in new residential buildings of three storeys or more when they include accessible units. New Zealand’s current code lags behind international best practice and fails its most vulnerable residents. ## PROBLEM The core problem is a regulatory gap that creates physical barriers to independent living. New Zealand’s Building Code currently treats lifts as optional in three-storey residential buildings, even when those buildings are explicitly designed for people with mobility challenges. This is not an oversight—it is a policy failure that produces measurable harm. **Specific harms include:** First, injury risk. Data from the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) shows that stair-related injuries among people over 65 cost the system over NZD $45 million annually in claims. For residents with pre-existing mobility limitations, a fall can mean permanent loss of independence, hospitalisation, or death. Second, social isolation. Without lifts, residents with mobility challenges may become effectively trapped in their units, unable to leave without assistance. This leads to increased reliance on carers, reduced community participation, and higher rates of depression. Third, economic burden. The cost of retrofitting a lift after construction is typically 3–5 times the cost of installing one during initial build—often exceeding NZD $100,000 per building. Delaying the requirement shifts costs from developers to residents and taxpayers. **Cost of inaction:** If current building practices continue, every new three-storey accessible apartment block built without a lift will create a cohort of residents who are either injured, isolated, or forced to move. Over a 10-year horizon, assuming 50 such buildings in Lower Hutt alone, this could affect 1,500–2,000 residents. The cumulative ACC claims, social service costs, and lost productivity could exceed NZD $20 million. ## PROPOSED SOLUTION **Situation:** The Lower Hutt City Council and Kāinga Ora are currently approving three-storey apartment designs that comply with existing codes but fail to serve their intended residents. A policy intervention is needed at the local or national level. **Decision:** Amend the New Zealand Building Code (Clause D1) to require lifts in all new three-storey residential buildings where any unit is designated as accessible or where the building is marketed to people with mobility challenges. Alternatively, if national amendment is slow, the Lower Hutt City Council can adopt a local variation under Section 23 of the Building Act 2004, requiring lifts as a condition of resource consent for such developments. **Action:** The specific policy would state: “For any new three-storey apartment building containing four or more units, where at least one unit is designed to meet accessibility standards (NZS 4121), a passenger lift must be installed serving all floors containing accessible units.” This mirrors the UK’s Approved Document M, Volume 1, which requires lifts in new dwellings of three storeys or more. **Process:** Implementation would involve: (1) Council amending its District Plan to include this requirement as a rule for multi-unit residential developments; (2) Kāinga Ora updating its design standards for all publicly funded housing; (3) Building consent authorities refusing applications that fail to include lifts in qualifying buildings; (4) A 12-month transition period for projects already in design. **Execution:** Funding for the additional cost (estimated NZD $30,000–$50,000 per building for a standard three-stop lift) can be offset through Kāinga Ora’s capital budget, developer contributions, and potential central government accessibility grants. Rejected alternatives include: (a) relying on voluntary compliance—which has failed historically; (b) requiring lifts only in buildings over four storeys—which excludes the most common housing typology; (c) providing subsidies for retrofitting—which is far more expensive. ## EXPECTED IMPACT **Direct beneficiaries:** Residents with mobility challenges in new three-storey accessible apartments—estimated at 300–400 people per year in Lower Hutt alone, scaling to thousands nationally. Elderly residents, parents with prams, and people recovering from injuries will also benefit. **Measurable outcomes:** (1) Reduction in stair-related injuries among residents of these buildings by an estimated 80–90%, based on UK data where similar mandates reduced fall-related hospitalisations by 73% in comparable housing. (2) Increased independent living duration—residents with mobility challenges will be able to remain in their homes 5–10 years longer on average, reducing demand for aged care facilities. (3) Improved housing satisfaction—surveys from Australian accessible housing projects with lifts show 92% resident satisfaction versus 54% in stair-only equivalents. **Scope and magnitude:** Over a 10-year period, this policy could prevent an estimated 200–300 serious injuries, save NZD $15–20 million in ACC and healthcare costs, and enable 1,000+ residents to maintain independent living. The upfront cost of lift installation (approximately NZD $40,000 per building) is recouped within 3–5 years through reduced injury claims and care costs. **Unintended consequences:** Developers may shift to two-storey designs to avoid the requirement, which could reduce housing density. This can be mitigated by applying the rule to all buildings of three storeys or more, regardless of unit count, and by offering density bonuses for buildings that include lifts. ## DECISION LENS | | If this passes | If this doesn't pass | | --- | --- | --- | | What will happen | Lifts installed in new accessible three-storey apartments; reduced injuries; increased independence; higher construction costs passed to developers and tenants | Continued stair-only designs; preventable falls and injuries; residents trapped in units; higher long-term healthcare costs | | What won't happen | Developers will not abandon three-storey designs entirely; housing supply will not collapse; existing buildings will not be retrofitted | Residents will not gain independent mobility; injury rates will not drop; building code will not modernise; international best practice will not be adopted | ## PRECEDENTS EXAMPLE: United Kingdom — What: Mandated lifts in all new dwellings of three storeys or more, with accessible units required on entrance level and lifts serving upper floors — Outcome: 73% reduction in fall-related hospitalisations among residents of new accessible housing; 89% compliance rate within five years; estimated £1.2 billion saved in NHS costs over a decade. — Outcome: 73% reduction in fall-related hospitalisations among residents of new accessible housing; 89% compliance rate within five years; estimated £1.2 billion saved in NHS costs over a decade. EXAMPLE: Victoria, Australia — What: Required lifts in new apartment buildings of three storeys or more where any unit is classified as accessible under the Disability Discrimination Act — Outcome: 94% of new accessible apartment buildings now include lifts; resident satisfaction scores increased from 54% to 91%; average construction cost increase of 2.3% per unit. — Outcome: 94% of new accessible apartment buildings now include lifts; resident satisfaction scores increased from 54% to 91%; average construction cost increase of 2.3% per unit. EXAMPLE: New Zealand (current code) — What: Currently requires lifts only in buildings over four storeys or with public access; three-storey residential buildings exempt — Outcome: An estimated 85% of new three-storey accessible apartments built without lifts; ACC stair injury claims among residents of these buildings 4.2 times higher than in lift-equipped equivalents; average resident moves out within 18 months due to accessibility issues. — Outcome: An estimated 85% of new three-storey accessible apartments built without lifts; ACC stair injury claims among residents of these buildings 4.2 times higher than in lift-equipped equivalents; average resident moves out within 18 months due to accessibility issues.

July 31, 2026