Flack and CEO, National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIS)
[2025] ARTA 456
•14 April 2025
Flack and CEO, National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIS) [2025] ARTA 456 (14 April 2025)
Applicant: Angela Flack
Respondent: CEO, National Disability Insurance Agency
Tribunal Number: 2022/6855
Tribunal: Senior Member Clues
Place:Hobart
Date:14 April 2025
Decision:The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and remits the matter for reconsideration in accordance with the orders that:
1. The applicant’s statement of participant supports is to include:
i.Specialist Disability Accommodation (SDA).
Building Type
Villa/duplex/townhouse, 1 resident, 1 bedroom and onsite overnight assistance room
Design Category
High Physical Support
Location
Geelong, Melbourne (North East); Melbourne (South East) or Mornington Peninsula
ii.Funding for Onsite Shared Support.
2. The remaining aspects of the applicant’s statement of participant supports remains unchanged.
Senior Member Clues
Catchwords
NATIONAL DISABILITY INSURANCE SCHEME – Special Disability Accommodation – suitable building category – suitable building type – number of bedrooms – suitable location – whether 24/7 support at 1:1 ratio required – onsite shared support – participant’s preference – reasonable and necessary – benefits to be achieved – value for money.
Legislation
National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 (Cth)
Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No.1) Act 2024 (Cth)
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS back on Track No. 1) Act 2024 (Cth)
National Disability Insurance Scheme (Supports for Participants) Rules 2013 (Cth)
National Disability Insurance Scheme (Specialist Disability Accommodation) Rules 2020 (Cth)Cases
SPLC and CEO, National Disability Insurance Agency [2025] ARTA 74
McGarrigle v National Disability Insurance Agency [2017] FCA 308
National Disability Insurance Agency v WRMF[2020] FCAFC 79
QKNJ and National Disability Insurance Agency [2023] AATA 794Secondary Materials
NDIS Pricing Arrangements and Price Limits 2024 – 25
NDIS Specialist Disability Accommodation Design Standard
Pricing Arrangements for Specialist Disability Accommodation 2024 – 25
National Disability Insurance Agency, Our Guidelines – Reasonable and Necessary Supports
National Disability Insurance Agency, Our Guidelines – Specialist Disability AccommodationStatement of Reasons
The applicant is a 37-year-old lady who is a participant in the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS). On 3 December 2021 the applicant had an NDIS plan approved.[1] In that plan the applicant was deemed eligible for Specialist Disability Housing (SDA) funding for: ‘Design Category is Fully Accessible; building type is 3 people share; SDA location is Central Coast’ (the original decision).[2] On 27 February 2022 the applicant requested an internal review of the original decision.[3] On 8 April 2022 a delegate of the CEO of the respondent affirmed the original decision.[4] That internal review decision was not conveyed to the applicant until 27 July 2022. The applicant was advised that her request for SDA; ‘High Physical Support, 1 resident, House’ had been declined.[5] On 24 August 2022, the applicant lodged an application for review of the internal review decision with the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT).[6] Under the transitional provisions in the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No.1) Act 2024 (Cth) (the Transitional Act), applications for review to the AAT that were not finalised before 14 October 2024, are taken to be an application for review to the Administrative Review Tribunal (the Tribunal). The Transitional Act gives the Tribunal the authority to continue and finalise any aspect of the review not already completed by the AAT.
[1] JTB 209–218.
[2] JTB 217.
[3] JTB 171.
[4] JTB 10–14.
[5] JTB 15–16.
[6] JTB 5–7.
The plan the respondent implemented for the applicant on 3 December 2021, valid until 2 December 2022 was for the sum of $333,557.21 plus quotable items including the following Statement of Supports (SOPS):
·Core supports: $314,946.51.
·Capacity building supports: $17,710.70.
·Capital supports: Assistive technology $900; SDA quote required.
Since 3 December 2022, the applicant’s plan has been reassessed by the respondent, it has remained unchanged. The plan for the period 3 December 2024 until 2 December 2025 does not contain any additional SOPS.[7] Pursuant to s 103(2) of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013(Cth) (the Act), the application for review before the Tribunal is also taken to be an application for review of the decision to approve SOPS in the applicant’s current plan.
[7] JTB 586.
The Tribunal held a hearing via Microsoft Teams Video on 17 and 19 February 2025. The applicant was self-represented and the respondent was represented by counsel, Mr N Swan. By consent, the following documents were tendered and accepted into evidence:
·Joint Tender Bundle (JTB) – pages 1–584.
·Email from applicant dated 17 February 2025 regarding the identified property JTB page 585.
·Table of SOPS currently funded JTB page 586.
·SDA Design Standard – October 2019.
·NDIS Pricing Arrangements and Price Limits 2024-25.
·NDIS Pricing Arrangements for Specialist Disability 2024-25.
·Submissions on amending legislation.
On 18 February 2025, the applicant sought to admit into evidence the “National Construction Code – Sound Transmission and Insulation in Buildings” as well as a summary of the relevant sections. The applicant submitted that she wanted to have this evidence included to enable discussion with Mr Cleary, the Occupational Therapist whom the respondent was calling to give evidence at the hearing on 19 February 2025. The respondent did not consent to the additional documents on the basis that the respondent had been denied a reasonable opportunity to obtain its own evidence on any new issues the applicant may wish to raise based on those documents. The Tribunal determined not to take those documents into evidence on the basis of potential prejudice to the respondent.
At the hearing, the applicant gave evidence and was cross-examined by the respondent. The respondent gave notice to the applicant that it required a number of her witnesses who had provided reports and were included in the JTB to be made available for cross-examination. For various reasons none of the applicant’s witnesses gave oral evidence at the hearing. The respondent submits that the Tribunal should treat their evidence with caution as it has not been afforded the opportunity to question them and test their evidence.[8] The respondent called evidence from Mr Cleary, Occupational Therapist and he was cross-examined by the applicant. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Tribunal allowed the respondent to provide written closing submissions by 21 February 2025 and the applicant to provide written closing submissions by 28 February 2025.
[8] Respondent’s closing submissions p 3.
The applicant submits that her SOPS should include funding for SDA and that the amount of funding should be based on the following:
Building Type
House or apartment, 2 bedrooms, onsite overnight assistance (OOA) room, 1 resident
Design Category
High Physical Support
Location
Geelong, Melbourne (North East); Melbourne (South East); Mornington Peninsula.[9]
[9] JTB 17.
The respondent accepts that the applicant is eligible for SDA funding and that the amount of funding should be based on the following:
Building Type
Villa/duplex/townhouse,1 bedroom, onsite overnight assistance (OOA) room, 1 resident
Design Category
High Physical Support
Location
Central Coast, NSW
The applicant also seeks funding for a support worker to be present with her on a 1:1 basis, for 24 hours a day.
The respondent submits that the applicant’s present support worker funding is appropriate. She is presently funded for a support worker, on a 1:1 basis, for 12 hours a day (84 hours per week). She also has funding for a support worker, on a 1:1 basis, to assist her to access the community for 4 hours per week and she has 20 hours per year for house/yard maintenance (a little under one hour per fortnight).[10] The respondent further submits that it will fund, as part of and connected with the applicant’s SDA, Onsite Shared Support, which provides access, at any time (it is available 24/7) to unplanned supports at the applicant’s SDA dwelling. The support provides for an average of 2.5 hours of direct 1:1 support per day (see the NDIS Pricing Arrangements and Price Limits 2024 – 25,[11] page 50 (Price Guide). The respondent submits that the applicant’s current supports as well as the addition of onsite shared support appropriately meets the applicant’s needs.[12]
[10] Table of SOPS currently funded.
[11] Pricing Arrangements valid from 1 October 2024, Version: 1.3 (Released 1 October 2024).
[12] Respondent's closing submissions pages 2–3.
ISSUES
The matters in issue between the parties relate to:
i. the SDA building type;
ii. the number of bedrooms the building type should have;
iii. the SDA building location; and
iv.the number of hours for a support worker to be present with the applicant on a 1:1 basis.
The Tribunal must determine:
i.whether the appropriate SDA building type is a house, an apartment or a villa, duplex or townhouse;
ii.whether the building should have one or two bedrooms in addition to an OOA room;
iii.the location of the building;
iv.the number of 1:1 support worker hours the applicant requires.
LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
In a recent decision of SPLC and CEO, National Disability Insurance Agency [2025] ARTA 74 at [14]-[21] (footnotes omitted), Deputy President Dordevic summarises the relevant legislative framework as follows:
The Scheme provides, amongst other things, individual plans which fund certain supports (NDIS supports). The people who have access to the NDIS are referred to as participants.
Section 33 of the Act outlines what must be included in a participant’s plan. Subsection 33(2) requires that a plan must include a statement of participant supports prepared with the participant and approved by the CEO. Paragraphs 33(2)(a) to (e) of the Act dictate that it must include general, reasonable and necessary supports as well as the date or circumstances in which the Agency must reassess the plan, in addition to the management of other aspects of the plan.
Subsection 33(5) of the Act directs that when deciding whether to approve a statement of participant supports the CEO (and this Tribunal standing in her shoes) must have regard to the participant’s statement of goals and aspirations, relevant assessments, the principle that a participant should manage their plan to the extent that they wish, the operation and effectiveness of previous plans and compliance with spending in addition to being satisfied the supports are reasonable and necessary and the NDIS rules are applied. NDIS rules are legislative instruments and so are binding on the Tribunal.
On 3 October 2024 the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS back on Track No. 1) Act 2024 came into force. Numerous provisions were amended. Relevant to this application it included significant amendments to section 34 of the Act regarding reasonable and necessary supports. It introduced the concept of a NDIS support and amended paragraph 34(1)(f) requiring the decision-maker to be satisfied that the support is a NDIS support. The amendments to the legislation must be applied when a SOPS is approved or varied on or after 3 October 2024, even if the Applicant’s plan came into effect before commencement.
Subsection 34(1) of the Act now provides that when considering what ‘reasonable and necessary supports’ are to be funded that the decision maker must be satisfied that each limb outlined in paragraphs 34(1)(aa) to (f) is established:
(1) For the purposes of specifying, in a statement of participant supports, the general supports that will be provided, and the reasonable and necessary supports that will be funded, the CEO must be satisfied of all of the following in relation to the funding or provision of each such support:
(aa) the support is necessary to address needs of the participant arising from an impairment in relation to which the participant meets the disability requirements (see section 24) or the early intervention requirements (see section 25);
(a) the support will assist the participant to pursue the goals, objectives and aspirations included in the participant’s statement of goals and aspirations;
(b) the support will assist the participant to undertake activities, so as to facilitate the participant’s social and economic participation;
(c) the support represents value for money in that the costs of the support are reasonable, relative to both the benefits achieved and the cost of alternative support;
(d) the support will be, or is likely to be, effective and beneficial for the participant, having regard to current good practice;
(e) the funding or provision of the support takes account of what it is reasonable to expect families, carers, informal networks and the community to provide;
(f) the support is a NDIS support for the participant.
Note: For the purposes of paragraph (aa):
(a) the time at which the disability requirements or the early intervention requirements need to be met is the time the CEO decides to approve the statement of participant supports; and
(b) a participant’s disability support needs arising from an impairment in relation to which the participant meets the disability requirements or the early intervention requirements may be affected by a variety of factors, including environmental factors or the impact of another impairment in relation to which the participant does not meet either of those requirements.
(2) The National Disability Insurance Scheme rules may prescribe methods or criteria to be applied, or matters to which the CEO is to have regard, in deciding whether or not he or she is satisfied as mentioned in any of paragraphs (1)(aa) to (f).
The term ‘reasonable and necessary support’ is not defined in the Act. In the matter of McGarrigle v National Disability Insurance Agency [2017] FCA 308 Mortimer J (as she then was) relevantly stated:
Whether a support is “reasonable” requires a different assessment to whether a support is “necessary.” Again, it is not necessary in the context of this proceeding to be definitive about the nature and extent of the meaning of the phrase, or its components. It is enough to observe that using the concept of necessity would appear to tie one aspect of the CEO’s assessment to an evaluation of the kinds of factors set out in s 34(1)(a) and (b) and (d). The word “reasonable” would appear to be directed at factors such as those set out in s 34(1)(c) and (f). That is not to say the meaning of each word is exhausted by the factors set out in s 34(1): rather, it is to illustrate the different work that each concept does as an adjective in the phrase “reasonable and necessary supports”.
The Full Court in National Disability Insurance Agency v WRMF[2020] FCAFC 79 at [151] considered the meaning of reasonable and necessary supports:
... the phrase connotes supports which meet a threshold which justifies - by reference to the context, objects and guiding principles of the Act and the facts of the case - the expenditure of public funds for that support, for a particular participant.
Subsection 34(2) of the Act states that the NDIS rules may prescribe methods or criteria to be applied, or matters to which the CEO must have regard, in deciding whether they are satisfied criteria under subsection 34(1) are met in respect of a requested support.
The support rules relevant to NDIS supports sought in this application are the National Disability Insurance Scheme (Supports for Participants) Rules 2013(Cth) (the Supports Rules), providing guidance when undertaking an assessment of reasonable and necessary supports to be funded.
The NDIS Operational Guidelines relevant to this application include Specialist Disability Accommodation as well as Reasonable and Necessary Supports.
The requirements for SDA are set down in the National Disability Insurance Scheme (Specialist Disability Accommodation) Rules 2020 (Cth) (the SDA Rules). Section 11 of the SDA Rules sets down that a participant is eligible to receive support for SDA if the participant has either an extreme functional impairment or very high support needs (as set down in sections 12 and 13 of the SDA Rules) and meet the SDA needs requirement (as set down in section 14 of the SDA Rules).
As stated by Senior Member Clausen in QKNJ and National Disability Insurance Agency [2023] AATA 794 at [17]–[19]:
Once it is established that a participant is eligible for SDA, section 15 of the SDA Rules is engaged and defines those “matters to be determined by CEO in respect of each eligible participant.” It is stated in subsection 15(1) that:
(1) The CEO must determine the following matters for an eligible participant:
(a) the SDA building type that is appropriate to support the eligible participant (see section 16);
(b) the SDA design category that is appropriate to support the eligible participant (see section 17);
(c) the area in which the specialist disability accommodation is to be located (see section 18);
(d) whether the specialist disability accommodation is to be provided as an in‑kind support.
Note: The CEO may determine more than one SDA building type, SDA design category or location in relation to an eligible participant. The SDA building type, SDA design category and location must be specified in the eligible participant’s plan: see section 19.
In subsection 15(2) note 2 it is stated:
The matters determined by the CEO under this section affect the amount of support that can be paid to an eligible participant for specialist disability accommodation. The SDA Price Guide sets out the maximum amount of support that is available for specialist disability accommodation.
Those matters “to be determined by CEO in respect of each eligible participant” in section 15(1) are comprehensively outlined in:
- Section 16: SDA Building type;
- Section 17: SDA Design category; and
- Section 18: the area in which SDA is to be located.
Medical evidence
Dr C Yeoh
Dr C Yeoh prepared a report dated 12 January 2018, in relation to the applicant’s “Application to NDIS for medical disability support”. In that report she says that the applicant’s primary diagnosis is myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME) and that she has secondary diagnoses of postural orthostatic tachycardic syndrome, inhalant chemical sensitivities and multiple food intolerances and allergies. Dr Yeoh states:
This patient is under my care. She has suffered from ME since 2009 and has a severe and permanent form of this condition.
She has undergone all the main treatments for this, done extensive cognitive behavioural therapy and physiotherapy/pacing.
She has not made significant progress and has inability to handle various treatment including drugs/chemicals. It is therefore unlikely that medical therapies are expected to help her.
She is very debilitated and requires as much help as possible to support her level of function and quality of life.[13]
[13] JTB 522.
In a Housing Pathways Medical Assessment report dated 24 August 2018, prepared by Dr C Yeoh, she states that the applicant is unable to tolerate numerous environments; she is unable to be physically upright; she is bed bound or a reclining wheelchair bound; she is unable to walk or transfer without assistance.[14]
[14] JTB 35.
Megan Yarrington – Occupational Therapist
Ms Yarrington provided occupational therapy assistance to the applicant during the period 2017 to 2023. In a report from Ms Yarrington, Occupational Therapist, dated 2 February 2021[15] she states:
[15] JTB 123–142.
·The applicant has been diagnosed with ME which is a chronic multi systemic neuroimmune condition characterised by post exertional malaise (a reduction in functioning and severe worsening of symptoms after even minimal exertion). It causes dysregulation of the immune, nervous and energy metabolism systems.
·She has been primarily bed bound since OT involvement in 2017, with her function declining since this time.
·On the spectrum of severity the applicant is considered to be very severe. She experiences profound weakness, almost constant pain, severe limitations in physical and mental activity and hypersensitivity to light, sound, food and medications.
·Mobility – the applicant is unable to tolerate sitting or standing. She has a power wheelchair with supine positioning, tilt in space and recline function.
·Motor function – it is not expected that the applicant’s ability to tolerate sitting or standing will change dramatically in the long term. She would not benefit from standard rehabilitation or exercise to improve muscle strength and function.
·Transfers – the applicant can change her position in bed and complete rolling/sliding transfer from her bed to a portaloo and supine wheelchair. She is unable to tolerate hoist transfers.
·Toileting – the applicant is independent with toileting.
·Showering – the applicant is unable to access the shower recess to complete showering. She has an inflatable bath and hair washing sink but is limited in her ability to complete bathing in this way. She usually manages her personal care and personal hygiene with wet wipes wiping over her body on a mostly daily basis.
·Bed mobility – the applicant is independent with her own bed mobility as her energy levels allow.
·Eating – the applicant is independent in feeding herself when food is prepared for her and left within her reaching range.
·Food preparation – the applicant is completely dependent on others to complete all her food preparation. Due to food sensitivities she has a very strict diet as she can only tolerate certain foods prepared in a certain way. All cooking is completed offsite due to the applicant’s sensitivities and the current location of the kitchen in proximity to her bedroom, without adequate barriers in between.
·Shopping – the applicant is dependent on others to complete all her shopping. She orders most of her consumable products online.
·Housekeeping – the applicant is dependent on others for all housekeeping tasks to maintain the home environment. She also requires support to maintain the lawns and gardens. Breaks are often required during cleaning tasks to limit the impact of symptom exacerbation through light, sound, chemicals and fumes.
·Medication management – the applicant experiences reactions to many medications. Her medication use is limited. She gets her scripts via online appointments.
·Self-management – the applicant is independent with making her own decisions in all aspects of her life and manages her own finances including self managing her NDIS plan. In relation to cognition the applicant sometimes experiences symptoms including difficulty with thinking quickly, retrieving words, working memory, disorientation and paying attention. She is able to communicate independently. The best form of communication is in text via phone or email.
·Behaviour – the applicant has no behavioural concerns.
·Social interactions – as the applicant is essentially housebound, she has no social interactions face to face outside the home. She can maintain some social interactions and connections online.
·Community access – the applicant requires a wheelchair accessible vehicle to access the community. She last accessed the community in February 2019 for a medical appointment. This experience was very negative and she has not attempted another outing.
·Financial and medical self-management – the applicant is independent with managing her own finances and paying her own bills online. She can manage her own medical needs. She has been able to access medical support via Zoom meetings.
·Recommended supports – the applicant would benefit from ongoing self-managed flexible support services with the ideal model providing 24-hour care with some nights requiring active care when the applicant is experiencing sleep reversal. She is able to be left at home alone for short periods provided that her environment is appropriately set up. The applicant benefits most from staffing which is available on a flexible changing roster similar to shiftwork with a small team of regular workers who are familiar with her needs and requirements to minimise disruptions and unnecessary risks. The applicant requires direct contact to her support workers to communicate her needs during their shifts. The support services also need to be able to adopt their personal routines to meet the applicant needs such as not wearing deodorant or perfume and changing into work clothes at the start of each shift which are washed with safe detergents and kept at the applicant’s home.
·Onsite overnight assistance (OOA) – the applicant experiences periods of sleep reversal (sleep during the day and awake at night) during sleep reversal the applicant requires active overnight support services as her normal daily routine would need to be completed during the night so that the home environment is quiet during the day to allow her to sleep. The applicant has been able to more accurately predict when she will experience periods of sleep reversal so that she can arrange support services for this, but it is not always the case.
·Risks – due to her current unsuitable living arrangement the applicant is exposed to a number of factors that are out of her control that lead to symptom exacerbation. She has sensitivities to sound and is often exposed to loud noises from her neighbours, shared driveway and near a main road. She wears earplugs and noise cancelling headphones as required to help manage the noise levels. She experiences chemical sensitivities. Due to her close living arrangements to her neighbours she is experiencing chemical sensitivities due to the many products that they use such as cleaning products, cooking fumes and fragrances. She also experiences chemical sensitivities to car fumes which are exacerbated by the shared driveway which is outside her bedroom window and proximity to the main road. She uses an air purifier in her own room and restricts the products in her own home but cannot control external chemical elements that cause symptom exacerbation. She is unable to regulate her own body temperature. She uses ice packs and heat packs as needed. She has an air conditioner that is located in the living room which is the furthest room from her bedroom. She has fans to assist with the movement of air into her bedroom. Her bedroom is too small for her equipment needs. Her support workers are at risk of injury.
·SDA design category – the applicant requires high physical support design.
·SDA building type – the recommended building type most suitable for the applicant is a house. An apartment, unit, villa, duplex, or town house are not considered suitable due to their close proximity to neighbouring properties, shared driveways, walls, halls etc which would increase the applicant’s risk of exposure.
·Participant’s preference – the applicant’s preferred building type is a detached house with at least two bedrooms and no cotenants except for support workers who may be required to provide services overnight and require their own sleeping area. The house would also require sufficient space to store the applicant’s assistive technology (AT) when not in use.
·Why is a house appropriate? – It is detached and separated from neighbouring properties. This reduces the impact of stimuli outside of her control that cause her symptom exacerbation such as light, sound, smell and chemicals. It also allows for a greater degree of separation between the applicant and other areas where support workers may be required to complete cleaning or cooking tasks that involve chemical smells and fragrances.
·Location – the applicant wishes to relocate south to Victoria as it has a more temperate climate with lower temperature and higher barometric pressure which improves functionality. The applicant’s preference is to reside in a house in a quiet street or cul-de-sac away from any main roads or high traffic areas. It should have limited neighbouring properties, no shared access, footpaths or high traffic community spaces around its boundary.
·Specific housing requirements – ground floor level access home with minimum door whips 950mm, minimum hallway/corridor/pathway with 1500mm; second bedroom to be used as a breakout room during any scheduled support service it should have direct access to outside to allow support workers to come directly into the house and have access to suitable facilities to change clothing etc as required. The applicant’s bedroom requires sufficient circulation space for equipment needs including her power wheelchair and shower trolley. The bathroom needs to allow for the use of her shower trolley and the toilet is to be located within the bathroom with sufficient clearance between the wall and amenities. Living areas need to allow for sufficient circulation space for her power wheelchair in the supine position. The kitchen should be located furthest from the applicant’s bedroom and there should be at least one door between the bedroom and the kitchen. The flooring should be firm, even and slip resistant; the applicant requires a fully automated home and a video communication system. She requires an air conditioner in her bedroom and in the main living areas of the home. The home would require soundproofing, laminated glass and double-glazed windows to at least the bedroom of the home. The applicant requires a home that during construction makes use of low volatile organic chemicals (VOCs).
In a report dated 12 January 2023,[16] Ms Yarrington says that the applicant requires a minimum two-bedroom home as well as a suitable space for OOA. She states the applicant needs one bedroom to occupy and the other bedroom for equipment storage. On top of the two bedrooms the applicant requires a suitable space for OOA, which includes a bedroom for support workers to use as a breakout area or a place to sleep. It requires its own bathroom and its own separate entrance. The AT that requires storage in the second bedroom includes wheelchair battery charger pack; inflatable hair basin, pump and hoses; massage table; heaters and fans; supplements; power wheelchair when not in use; shower trolley; cooling bed pads, motor and attachments; bed pedals; transport trolley for ice packs; travel kits with masks/glasses/battery packs, etc.; personal care products – boxes of paper towels, wet wipes, etc; inflatable bath and equipment; car blackout blinds and car air filter; spare portaloos/commodes; water and dust proof cushions for travelling (15); charcoal bags.
[16] JTB 368–381.
In a report dated 24 February 2023, Ms Yarrington states that the applicant’s current housing is not suitable for the applicant for a number of reasons. She is of the opinion that the applicant requires access to SDA housing design category High Physical Support (HPS), sole occupancy, minimum two bedrooms, and onsite overnight active support to meet her functional care needs. It needs to be a freestanding dwelling with no shared walls or driveways with neighbouring properties.[17]
[17] JTB 416–417.
In a report dated 11 July 2023,[18] Ms Yarrington says:
[18] JTB 559–562.
·The applicant requires a mixture of active overnight supports, inactive night supports, and no supports overnight depending on where she is on her current sleep cycle or if she has experienced significant stressors which have led to symptom exacerbation, PEM [post exertional malaise] and/or a crash.
·There are periods of the applicant’s sleep schedule where all activities that would normally be completed during the daytime will need to be completed overnight while the applicant is awake. These are considered OOAs. During these periods it is possible that the applicant will require a rest break, a period of time where there is no support provided, to allow her to recover and restore her energy levels. During this time the support worker will need to spend time in the breakout room. This would follow the same schedule that the applicant would experience during the day.
·There are periods of the applicant’s sleep schedule where she requires support overnight for tasks such as provide food only. This could be considered drop-in services. For these services to be most beneficial the applicant would require the support worker to remain at the property inactive until called upon by her. Needs may arise during the night such as accessing food, assistance with temperature regulation, access to required items to meet basic care tasks which may have been placed out of the applicant’s reach or dropped.
·There are periods of the applicant’s sleep schedule where she is actively sleeping during the night-time hours and does not require support.
·The applicant has clearly documented her sleep/wake cycle which extends over a six-week period. This cycle is fairly consistent, however, when the applicant experiences periods of stress, illness or other events that lead to symptom exacerbation she experiences sleep dysregulation which impacts her sleep pattern.
·The applicant’s support services are directly related to her sleep patterns. She has provided a scheduling report outlining her sleep pattern and support service scheduling over a standard six-week period as well as a comparative sleep pattern and service schedule over a period where she was experiencing sleep dysregulation. This highlights the need for active support services both during the day and overnight.
Julie Newton and Chelsea Bartlett, Consultant Occupational Therapists
The applicant referred herself to Ms Newton and Ms Bartlett for the purpose of undergoing additional assessment relating to her SDA application. They prepared a report dated 21 December 2023 which was updated on 18 January 2024.[19] The applicant provided them with medical and allied health reports and extensive supporting information to supplement the assessment. The information gathered from a desktop review of the reports was corroborated with the applicant in a 2.5 hour telehealth assessment on 21 November 2023.
[19] JTB 523–553.
Ms Newton and Ms Bartlett reported that the applicant is advocating for approval of SDA which is:
·of HPS design;
·detached house;
·2–3 bedrooms pending circulation space available (one for [the applicant], one for support workers when providing on site overnight assistance, and ideally one for storage of her very large, cumbersome and complex AT needs).
25.The features the applicant seeks in her SDA include:
·having a home without shared walls;
·having sufficient spaces between nearby homes;
·ensuring suitable layout of the home where the kitchen is not within close proximity to the bedroom;
·doors to close off home spaces while not restricting sufficient airflow;
·living in a location whereby chemical exposure is limited.
26.Ms Newton and Ms Bartlett state that an apartment, unit, villa, duplex or townhouse are not considered suitable for the applicant due to their close proximity to neighbouring properties, shared driveways, walls, halls etc. They recommend a house as a suitable building type for the applicant. The reasons for this recommendation are that it is the applicant’s preference and she reported that she has lived experience of residing previously in a house, at the end of a quiet cul-de-sac where she was able to better control and limit her exposure to symptom exacerbating chemicals and sensory input, which resulted in an increased ability to participate in meaningful occupations and day-to-day tasks, and thus an increase in her functional capacity. They state that at a minimum the applicant requires two bedrooms but in an ideal situation the applicant would prefer a third bedroom. The reason for this is that the applicant requires one bedroom for her to occupy, another bedroom for the use of support workers who are at times required to work shifts overnight, thus providing OOA. The third room would ideally be used as storage for the applicant’s ‘numerous, cumbersome pieces of AT.’
27.The applicant would like to live in the state of Victoria, in a location that is not too populated (i.e., not in a city centre) where there is sufficient space between homes. She would also like a location where there is access to home visiting doctors, allied health professionals and access to support workers.
28.The conclusion of Ms Newton and Ms Bartlett is that the applicant is best suited to an SDA comprising a single occupancy, 2–3-bedroom, HPS house taking into consideration her goals, aspirations and disability specific requirements.
Thomas Cleary, Consultant Occupational Therapist
Mr Cleary conducted an assessment at the request of the solicitors for the respondent based on a detailed examination of documentation/file material including a letter of instruction dated 1 September 2023. He did not conduct a formal assessment of the applicant. He based his report on the documents provided as well as his clinical experience.
Mr Cleary prepared a report dated 7 September 2023,[20] in that report he says:
·the applicant’s condition is extremely debilitating on her life and it has resulted in her being socially isolated, restricted from accessing the community and restricted in the level of support she can receive. He notes that the applicant has a number of restrictions with respect to carers that can support her, including they cannot have used an air freshener in their vehicle in the last 1–2 weeks, cannot wear deodorant, need to change into clothes onsite which have been washed without detergents, have washed underwear in bicarb soda only, remove shoes and socks, use body wash or sanitiser, have used shampoo or conditioner or bring any items which have been washed with dishwashing detergent. This severely limits the range of carers who are able to accommodate the applicant’s very specific needs.
·The applicant is restricted in her ability to access the community. The last date she accessed the community was in February 2019 for a medical appointment. She cannot travel in a taxi that would expose her to deodorant or fumes from cleaning products.
·He believes that it would be preferable for the staff that provide care to the applicant to have a second bedroom where they could change and use as a breakout room if needed and it would be preferable if this room had a separate toilet and shower.
·In his opinion the proposed SDA of a three-bedroom, newly constructed house with specific design features is not fair and reasonable for the applicant’s needs. He believes there are other housing options that could accommodate her needs whilst also providing a cost-effective solution. He agrees that two bedrooms would be required for the applicant [one for the applicant and one for support staff]. He believes that a property in a quieter location, with double glazing and increased space would improve the applicant’s quality of life and reduce her risk of being exposed to aggravating factors [noise, smells and chemicals]. He recommends a unit that is a modern disability specific property with suitable turning circles, space to use her wheelchair and bathroom space for the shower trolley.
·The applicant needs night-time care at times and a separate space is required for care staff during this time. She also has particular needs around care staff needing to change onsite so a bedroom where they can change is required. It is also preferable that they have a separate toilet and shower.
·The applicant reported social isolation and difficulty getting to medical appointments. If she was relocated to a more remote location without access to transport this issue will be further exacerbated. Also moving further away from a population base will compromise the potential access to the care staff required for her substantial care needs. A more isolated location would worsen her long-term opportunities to engage in social activities. He considers that alternative solutions need to be better explored such as more suitable accommodation near her current location.
[20] JTB 565–577.
At the hearing Mr Cleary gave evidence that his recommendation that the applicant’s SDA have two bedrooms, was to enable care staff to access an OOA room. Accommodation that had a bedroom for the applicant and an OOA room for a carer to access would be sufficient. He did not consider that a second bedroom was required to store the applicant’s AT.
Mr Cleary said that a freestanding home would not be required to deal with the applicant’s sensitivities to noise, smells and chemicals. He said other solutions could be explored to accommodate these concerns.
In cross-examination Mr Cleary agreed that the applicant’s bedroom needed to accommodate her wheelchair in a fully reclined position. He agreed that the accommodation would need to store various AT items but that a separate bedroom for that purpose was not required. He did not accept that an appropriately appointed villa with SDA would be similar to her current accommodation.
The applicant’s evidence
The applicant provided the Tribunal with a significant amount of evidence both in written form (contained in the joint tender bundle) and orally at the hearing. She was also cross- examined by counsel for the respondent.
In a document titled ‘Participant statement: Lived experience of Housing’, the applicant says that prior to living in her current accommodation (a one-bedroom disability accessible villa), she lived in a two-bedroom house at the end of a cul-de-sac. This change (moving from a house into a villa) significantly impacted her quality of life. She says that at her previous property, her carers (both live-in and later carers self-managed under the NDIS) were able to complete routine maintenance and preparatory tasks regardless of her schedule: whether she was asleep or crashed. Examples of these tasks included: dusting, cooking, eating their own food, washing machine and clothes dryer, packing away items, tidying benches, making and sorting supplements, stocktake, coming and going to do groceries, fold washing, pack away washing, wash icepacks, emptying bins, sorting and emptying recycling, entering and leaving the house to garden or check the mail. During stable times tasks such as mopping, cleaning the toilets and manual yard maintenance could also be done during sensory breaks and sleep. The applicant states that these things could be done during irregular and unpredictable sleep and while allowing full sensory breaks because the house had adequate space, such as a hallway and two doors. The applicant maintains that because her current villa does not have adequate space, it is not possible to continue doing these tasks during crashes and still recover and stabilise which means they don’t get done for weeks at a time. The applicant believes that if she was to relocate to a villa even with carer space and carer entrance and separation between living spaces her care and living situation would be functionally unchanged within such a property, with her functionality and ability to tolerate care worse having relocated which would not be sustainable or manageable.[21]
[21] JTB 554–555.
The applicant gave oral evidence that if she has to move into an existing SDA property it will never be exactly what she needs. She referred to a ‘proposed concept floor plan’, for a bespoke built house which is on page 412 of the JTB. She said that house plan works because it offers more space, more doors and more buffers.
As a result of her current accommodation she is in a continued state of instability of functionality, so she is unable to schedule any crucial support or care. On-call care does not work. She has unpredictable needs so she can’t schedule any care. She requires 24 hours of care per day where three carers work an eight-hour shift each, morning, afternoon and overnight. She also wants to move south because there will be better air pressure there and she wants to organise home visits with doctors who are not available in her current location.
During cross-examination the applicant accepted that her current villa is not built to the standard of an HPS, SDA. She also accepted that it will be extremely difficult to find a property that meets all of her requirements which include: no tenants, no main street, no schools or parks, no heavy population, no industrial activity and no trains or buses. She was referred to the floor plan of an SDA villa at page 409 of the JTB, she agreed that this was a one-bedroom villa with an internal separate OOA kitchen, laundry, living areas and bedroom. It also had HPS width doors, power doors and windows, video coms, a soundproofed main bedroom and a soundproofed shared wall with a next-door villa. The applicant maintained that she needed a house or an apartment, because she currently lived in a villa and it was not suitable.
CONSIDERATION
At the outset, the Tribunal will address the contention made by the respondent that the applicant at least partly seeks funding for a single occupancy, standalone property due to MCS and she has provided limited evidence about MCS and how it justifies a particular type of SDA or 24/7 support worker funding. First, the Tribunal observes that the applicant is not only seeking funding for a single occupancy, standalone property due to her chemical sensitivity, she is also seeking this on the basis of her sensitivity to noise. Secondly, the Tribunal refers to the applicant’s statement of “Lived Experience of Housing”. In that statement the applicant reports that as a result of her MCS she now experiences:
continual brain fog and loss of cognitive function and memory as a result of the exposures and not being able to use medication that previously alleviated it when used sparingly for occasional unavoidable exposures. As a result my memory and recall is significantly affected and I am unable to have functional recall and continuity of my own experiences. It affects my executive function and makes it difficult to plan care or express my needs to carers, which exacerbates frustration and causes avoidable strain.[22]
In the same statement the applicant also says:
I have six air filters, with at least three of them running continuously 24/7 to purify the air from outside that comes into the house (during brief door opening and closing with carers coming in and out, and through cracks in door and window frames). This results in an ongoing sensory fatigue for me as they are continually noisy, at a level which carers also comment that they experience as noise pollution/sensory stress. As a result of both the requirement for continual active air filtration and general neighbour noise in proximity to me, I use noise cancelling headphones around the clock, including during sleep, which is often in the daytime. This is uncomfortable and hot, and has caused issues with ear infections, despite switching between in year and over ear headphones. Not only is it not adequate to reduce the sensory fatigue, it is not sustainable or compatible with quality of life, and also impacts my ability to engage with carers and perform routine care tasks.[23]
[22] JTB 555.
[23] JTB 556.
In that statement the applicant says that these problems could be alleviated by distance from neighbours and activities of daily living to allow fresh air. She says she needs to not live in a villa that is guaranteed to be in close proximity to people’s activities of daily living.[24]
[24] JTB 556.
The Tribunal accepts that the applicant has sensitivities to chemical exposure and noise. The Tribunal also accepts that there is limited medical evidence about how these sensitivities specifically affect the applicant and how will these sensitivities justify a particular type of SDA, or 24/7 support worker funding.
Throughout these proceedings the applicant presented as an extremely intelligent and articulate person. She was extremely well prepared. Both her written and oral submissions are of a very high standard. She also capably cross-examined the respondent’s Occupational Therapist, Mr Cleary. During the hearing which extended over two days (with a break day in between), the Tribunal did not observe the applicant to display any symptoms of brain fog, loss of cognitive function or memory or lack of capacity to express her needs and her position. To the contrary, at one point during the hearing the Tribunal asked the applicant whether she was recording the proceedings on the basis of her ability to recall verbatim a statement that was made. Further, after the hearing concluded the applicant prepared detailed final submissions extending over 51 pages. The Tribunal accepts that at the end of the proceedings the applicant may have suffered a ‘crash’ but it is clear that she was able to maintain a very high level of functioning during her preparation for the hearing, during the hearing and after the hearing.
Whilst the Tribunal does accept that the applicant has sensitivities to chemicals and noise, there is insufficient independent evidence to support a finding that she is as constantly and profoundly affected by these sensitivities as she claims. Prior to moving into her current property, the applicant was able to tolerate her carers attending her property whilst she was there to complete routine maintenance and preparatory tasks regardless of her schedule or whether she was asleep or crashed. Her carers were able to undertake tasks such as dusting, cooking, eating their own food, operating the washing machine and clothes dryer, packing away items, tidying benches, making and sorting supplements, stocktake, coming and going to do groceries, folding washing, washing ice packs, emptying bins, sorting and emptying recycling, entering and leaving the house to garden or check the mail. During stable times they could perform tasks such as mopping, cleaning the toilets and manual yard maintenance.[25] The Tribunal does not accept the applicant’s submission that all of these activities were possible at that time solely because she lived in a two-bedroom house at the end of a cul-de-sac.[26]
[25] JTB 555.
[26] JTB 554.
The applicant’s evidence is that she requires SDA in the HPS category, sole occupancy, minimum two bedrooms, with an OOA room. It needs to be a freestanding dwelling with no shared walls or driveways with neighbouring properties.[27]
[27] JTB 417.
SDA needs requirement
The respondent does not contest and the Tribunal finds that the applicant meets the SDA requirements set out in s 14 of the SDA Rules.
SDA design category
Section 17 of the SDA Rules provides that for the purposes of determining the SDA design category that is appropriate to support an eligible participant, the CEO of the respondent or the Tribunal on review must have regard to the specific needs of the eligible participant.
The respondent does not contest, and based on the evidence, the Tribunal finds, that the applicant requires sole occupancy as well as a separate OOA room and the appropriate SDA design category for her is HPS.[28] The NDIS Specialist Disability Accommodation Design Standard (the Design Standard)[29] describes HPS as housing that has been designed to incorporate a high level of physical access provision for people with significant physical impairment and requiring very high levels of support. The Design Standard sets out the design requirements for each design category, it ensures that the access ways, doorways, corridors, bathrooms, kitchens, participant bedrooms, living areas, storage, heating and cooling, etc. all comply with a minimum standard for HPS properties, ensuring that the participant’s physical disabilities can be accommodated.
[28] Section 17 SDA Rules.
[29] Edition 1.1 Date 25 October 2019.
SDA Building Type
The SDA Rules provide for three different “Building Types” (noting the fourth, a group home, is not relevant):
Apartment
The features of an apartment are:
(a) it is self-contained occupying only part of a larger residential building; and
(b) it is typically built above or below another dwelling.
A self-contained dwelling that is separated from other dwellings by walls alone is not an apartment but is likely to be a villa, duplex or townhouse.
Villa, duplex and townhouse
The features of a villa, duplex or townhouse are as follows:
(a) it has 3 or less residents;
(b) it is a semi-attached property within a single land title or strata titled area;
(c) it is separated from other villas, duplexes or townhouses by a fire-resistant wall (not required for existing stock);
(d) it has a separate and reasonably accessible entry;
(e) the residents are not able to internally travel between dwellings (restricted internal access between dwellings may exist for support staff only);
(f) it may be an ancillary dwelling that is located on the same parcel of land as another dwelling (e.g. a fully self-contained granny flat).House
The features of a house are as follows:
(a) it is a low-rise dwelling with gardens or a courtyard;
(b) it is located on a clearly separate land area (separated by, for example, a fence, hedge or other form of delineation);
(c) it has no shared wall, roof, entry area, driveway, carpark or outdoor area with any other dwelling other than an ancillary villa, townhouse or duplex that has no more than one resident;
(d) the parcel of land on which the house is located is proportional to the number of residents and is consistent with similar properties in the neighbourhood in which the house is located;
(e) the parcel of land on which the house is located has no more than 2 ancillary villas, duplexes or townhouses.The applicant submits that whilst an SDA building type of a villa, duplex or townhouse would be completely inappropriate she would accept funding for an SDA building type of an apartment or a house. The applicant’s evidence is that the most appropriate SDA for the applicant is a standalone house that “should not share walls with other residences or have close neighbours”.[30] The applicant gave evidence that the soundproofing for an apartment is better than for a villa, duplex or townhouse. This is a very broad generalisation and the Tribunal rejects that submission. The applicant submits that apartments are more often beside bodies of water, with fresh air flow and so lower VOC in the air. As accepted by the applicant there is no evidence of this. It is another broad generalisation and the Tribunal rejects this submission. The applicant’s own evidence is that an apartment, unit, villa, duplex or townhouse would not be considered suitable for her due to their close proximity to neighbouring properties, shared driveways, walls, halls, etc. which would increase her risk of exposure.[31] Her evidence is that she needs a freestanding dwelling with no shared walls or driveways with neighbouring properties.[32]
[30] Report A McCampbell JTB 366.
[31] MLEA report JTB 539.
[32] JTB 417.
Based on this evidence, the Tribunal finds an apartment is the least appropriate building type for the applicant. An apartment is more likely to be in close proximity to neighbouring properties. An apartment is more likely to have shared halls, multiple shared walls and higher density living which is likely to exacerbate her symptoms. Having ruled out an apartment on the basis that it is an inappropriate building type the question is whether a house or alternatively a villa/duplex/townhouse will be appropriate for the applicant’s needs.
The SDA Market Search Report dated 24 Feb 2024[33] makes a finding that at that time there were no current properties of any building type or design category that existed which fully satisfied the applicant’s needs.[34] The report concluded:
It is technically and financially possible to achieve a suitable SDA housing solution in the market for [the applicant]. However, this requires a scale of funding equivalent to HPS apartment, 2 bedrooms, 1 resident, OOA, and approval from the NDIA to use this funding flexibly and in its entirety in an alternate setting (HPS house, 3 bedroom). Such an approval is necessary to enable the market to supply an innovative solution to meet [the applicant’s] identified needs.
[33] JTB 393–413.
[34] JTB 397.
The SDA Market Search Report includes a ‘Proposed Concept Floor Plan’,[35] that is for a two-bedroom house with a separate area for OOA. As submitted by the respondent,[36] the Tribunal is not approving a particular floor plan or an internal design. It can only approve a building type which will determine the level of funding a participant receives and the Tribunal’s task does not go beyond this.
[35] JTB 412.
[36] Respondent’s closing submissions pp 6–7.
The SDA Market Search Report, also includes a floor plan for a villa that was available at that time in Windsor, Victoria.[37] That villa comprises clear separation from the main bedroom, the OOA room and the kitchen. The main bedroom is separated from other parts of the villa by a hallway and doors. Further, the OOA room has its own separate entrance and ensuite which support workers could use when the applicant required a sensory break. Support workers could enter the villa, via the separate entrance, shower if necessary and change their clothes before providing assistance/care to the applicant. According to the report that villa best met the applicant’s identified needs including HPS width doors, power door window (HPS), power backup (HPS), video coms (HPS), soundproof main bedroom, OOA room (with own shower). That floor plan was put to the applicant by the respondent’s counsel during cross-examination. The applicant said that it was not suitable because it was the same size as her current villa, which was too small.
[37] JTB 398 and 409.
The applicant’s evidence is that a house is a preferable building type because it was on a separate block of land. As submitted by the respondent, it can be seen from the definition of house above, that is not necessarily so. A house is located on a clearly separate land area but it can be separated by, for example, a fence, hedge or other form of delineation. Further the parcel of land on which the house is located can also have up to two ancillary villas, duplexes or townhouses. Whilst a house does not share a wall with another property, there may be very little separation between it and up to two other structures on the same piece of land.[38]
[38] Respondent’s closing submissions p 7.
As stated above it is not the role of the Tribunal to approve a particular building. The building and its surroundings into which the applicant will eventually move is unknown. In its closing submissions the respondent notes the following:
·a house may be on a quiet street or a noisy street with busy traffic and/or buses.
·a house may be next to neighbours who regularly practise the drums and have young children who noisily play outside.
·a house may be next to neighbours who regularly cook aromatic foods and BBQs or use fertiliser in their garden, the smells from which waft over the fence.
·A house on a noisy street, or with noisy neighbours, could readily be “noisier” than a villa/duplex/townhouse with a quiet neighbour, or on a quiet street, notwithstanding that the villa/duplex/townhouse is far closer to other dwellings and shares a wall with one of them.[39]
[39] Ibid pp 7–8.
The respondent submits that there is no basis to assume that a house will necessarily be less prone to noise, smells and chemicals than a villa/duplex/townhouse.[40] The respondent relies upon the evidence of Mr Cleary, who says in his report:
While the applicant has sensitivities to noise, smells and chemicals; the solutions proposed appeared to be excessive to accommodate these. A property in a quieter location, with double glazing and increased space would improve the quality of life and reduce her risk of being exposed to these aggravating factors.[41]
[40] Ibid p 8.
[41] JTB 575.
In her report of 2 February 2021 Ms Yarrington states:
The primary feature of a house that makes it the most suitable option for [the applicant] is that it is a detached dwelling and therefore separated from neighbouring properties. [The applicant] requires this separation from other properties to reduce the impact of stimuli outside of her control that cause her symptom exacerbation impacting on her function such as light, sound, smell and chemical.
The Tribunal finds that a detached house does not necessarily mean that there is a significant distance between a neighbouring dwelling. There is no evidence that a house would have less light coming in than another building type. In all building types light can be controlled by doors, blinds and curtains. Sound, smell and chemicals will all be location dependent and may be controlled by double glazing as well keeping doors and windows shut. It cannot be assumed that a house will be less prone to light, sound, smells and chemicals.
The applicant submits that a villa/duplex/townhouse is not an appropriate building type for her because it is internally too small and a house would be internally larger. The applicant referred to the fact that the bathroom, the bedroom and the living area in her current villa are too small. The applicant’s position is that a one-bedroom HPS villa is unlikely to be markedly different or better than her current one-bedroom villa which has been accepted as inappropriate. The SDA Design Standard contains requirements for the sizing of certain rooms and that sizing is the same for houses as well as villas/duplexes/townhouses. If the applicant has SDA with HPS, she will have the greatest level of accessibility available, regardless of the building type. The applicant asked Mr Cleary questions in relation to the turning circle of her wheelchair that she uses in a supine position. Due to the fact that Mr Cleary was unable to assess the applicant’s wheelchair in person, he was unable to give specific evidence in relation to this. However, he indicated that he had worked with other clients who were in SDA properties and those properties were able to accommodate a wheelchair and had sufficient turning space for their use internally.
The respondent accepts the SDA design category that is most appropriate for the applicant is HPS. This is the highest category available to any SDA whether it be a house or a villa/duplex/townhouse. In any SDA the applicant would not be provided with any additional circulation space for her wheelchair exceeding the HPS design as set out in the SDA Design Standard.
The respondent has agreed to fund an OOA room in the applicant’s SDA. This is a separate room for support workers, which they can access separately to shower, sleep and spend time in when not with the applicant. This is not a bedroom. As submitted by the respondent, because the applicant will be funded for an OOA room, there is no need for a second bedroom for a support worker and that funding a second bedroom (in addition to an OOA room) for a support worker would be an impermissible duplication of supports.[42]
[42] Rule 5.1(c) Support Rules.
In addition to a separate OOA room that the respondent has agreed to fund, the applicant also requests a second bedroom for storage of her AT equipment. The AT equipment that the applicant claims needs a separate room for storage is listed in the report of Ms Yarrington dated 24 February 2023.[43] The applicant gave evidence that this AT is currently cluttering her villa. As stated, her villa does not meet the HPS design category. In SDA with HPS, the bathroom, bedroom, and living areas should be able to accommodate the applicant’s AT equipment. The applicant’s power wheelchair and battery charger pack would be frequently used and best stored in the applicant’s bedroom as would the bed pedals, cooling bed pads and personal care products. The shower trolley as well as the inflatable hair basin and bath would best be stored in the bathroom. The spare portaloos could be stored in the garage together with car blackout blinds, car air filter and cushions for travelling. Heaters and fans are regularly used by the applicant and would not require storage. Supplements, charcoal bags, transport trolley for ice packs and travel kits with masks/glasses/battery packs could be stored in the kitchen or other suitable storage cupboards that would be available within the building. When the massage table is folded up it does not take up significant space and could be stored in a garage or elsewhere out of the way.
[43] JTB 413.
The sole purpose for the applicant seeking a second bedroom is for storage, she is not seeking a second bedroom to support:
· income earning activities and economic participation in the form of a home office or study.
· social participation.
· accommodation for carers (already provided for by OOA room).
· accommodation for friends and family when visiting.
The Tribunal finds that if the applicant’s SDA has an OOA room, she does not require two bedrooms, where the second bedroom is to be solely used for storage purposes. A second bedroom for storage purposes is not appropriate, reasonable or necessary on the facts of this case.
In reaching a decision with respect to the appropriate building type the Tribunal needs to consider section 16 of the SDA Rules:
·Section 16(a) requires the Tribunal to have regard to the applicant’s preference and whether it aligns with her statement of goals and aspirations. In her NDIS plan the applicant’s short-term goal is to remain living on her own inappropriate housing. Her medium and long-term goals cannot be pursued until she obtains appropriate housing. The respondent accepts that the applicant should remain living on her own and that her current housing is inappropriate. The applicant wants a building type comprising a single occupancy, two-bedroom house with a separate OOA room. The respondent supports a single occupancy one-bedroom villa/duplex/townhouse with a separate OOA room.
·Section 16(b) requires consideration of the features of the building type in relation to the applicant’s needs. The applicant needs to live alone in SDA in the HPS design category, with an OOA room that has a separate entry for support workers in which they can shower and spend time when the applicant needs a break. The respondent has agreed to fund this. The applicant also needs an SDA where her exposure to noise, light, smells and chemicals is reduced. The Tribunal finds that a house will not necessarily be less prone to noise, light, smells and chemicals than a villa/duplex/townhouse. The Tribunal also finds that the applicant does not need a second bedroom for storage of her AT.
·Section 16(c) and (d) requires consideration of the appropriate support model for the applicant’s support needs. The Tribunal finds that the applicant’s support needs are best met if the SDA has an OOA room which has separate access and in which support workers can shower and change and spend time in when not with the applicant.
·Section 16(e) requires consideration of whether the building type represents value for money in that the costs would be reasonable relative to both the benefits achieved and the cost of alternatives. The respondent refers to the Pricing Arrangements for Specialist Disability Accommodation 2024-25[44] (SDA Price Guide) and submits:
[44] Valid from: 20 September 2024, version 2.0 (Released 1 October 2024).
The SDA Price Guide sets out the Annual Base Prices for post-2023 new build SDA properties at pages 21–24. The Annual Base Price is then modified by the Location Factors set out in the table at pages 30–32. The Respondent also publishes on its website an SDA Price Calculator tool that will allow the user to enter the design features of any SDA housing, and it will then generate the maximum funding available for a property with those design features. Within the SDA Price Guide, there is no pricing provision for a 1-bedroom and/or 1-resident house. However, and as referred to by the Applicant in her evidence, Appendix H to the SDA Price Guide sets out the SDA funding amounts for 2- and 3-bedroom houses in SDA where only one SDA-eligible participant will be residing, typically as a result of the SDA-eligible participant residing with family members (SDA Price Guide, pp 37–46).
The SDA funding amount for a HPS villa/duplex/townhouse with OOA in the Applicant’s current location is $67,582. For the equivalent building type in a 2- or 3-bedroom house, as modified by Appendix H, the SDA funding amount is $88,718.[45]
[45] See respondent’s closing submissions p 12.
The Tribunal accepts these submissions and finds that a villa/duplex/townhouse is better value for money than a house for the applicant. The Tribunal cannot be satisfied on the evidence before it that the additional cost of in excess of $21,000 per year will necessarily provide better outcomes for the applicant.
·Section 16(f) requires consideration to which the building type would facilitate social and economic participation. In a report from Prof Pete Smith dated 12 January 2018 he says:
I believe [the applicant] to be both intelligent and motivated to improve, however I cannot foresee that she will be able to meaningfully or reliably return to work in the long-term, even in a part time capacity. Unfortunately the physical and functional effects of this condition are likely to be life-long.[46]
In a report from M Harrington dated 2 February 2021, she says that the applicant “is essentially housebound and has no social interactions face to face outside the home. She can maintain some social interactions and connections online.” The last time the applicant accessed the community was in February 2019 for a medical appointment. Due to exposure to deodorant and chemical fumes used in the wheelchair taxi and issues she had with muscle spasms in the taxi as a result of poor suspension she has not attempted another outing. She has been in touch with local organisations and has been informed that they would not be confident they could meet her needs.[47] Based on the evidence, the Tribunal finds that regardless of the building type, the applicant’s social and economic participation would not be facilitated.
·Section 16(g) requires consideration of the extent to which the building type would facilitate cultural and community connections. As the applicant is housebound all of her cultural and community connections will need to take place, via telephone, video calls or online. The building type will not impact this.
·Section 16(h) requires consideration of the risks to the participant and the interaction of the participant with the environment. As previously stated, the Tribunal is not satisfied that a house will be less prone to noise, light, smells and chemicals than a villa/duplex/townhouse. These risks will exist for the applicant whether she is in a house or a villa/duplex/townhouse.
·Section 16(i) and (j) requires consideration of the long-term benefits and whether the building type will impact on the applicant’s capacity and capabilities. The Tribunal finds that there is no difference between a house and a villa/duplex/townhouse with respect to its impact upon the applicant’s capacity and capability of meeting her goals and impacting her capacity or capabilities.
·Section 16(k), (l) and (m) requires consideration of the extent to which the building type will facilitate informal supports, other supports and access to other support or specialist services required by the applicant. There is no evidence that the applicant has access to informal supports, the separate OOA room will facilitate the ability for care workers to assist the applicant. The building type will have no impact on the applicant’s ability to access other support or specialist services.
[46] JTB 32.
[47] JTB 130
Having considered s 16 of the SDA Rules, the Tribunal also needs to consider s 3.1 of the Support Rules. Taking those matters into account the Tribunal finds:
·A building type of a villa/duplex/townhouse would achieve the same outcome for the applicant as a house at a substantially lower cost.
·There is no evidence that a building type of a house as opposed to a villa/duplex/townhouse will substantially improve the life stage outcomes for and be of long-term benefit to the applicant.
·Funding of a building type of a house as opposed to a villa/duplex/townhouse is unlikely to reduce the cost of the funding support for the applicant in the long term.
·A building type of a house as opposed to a villa/duplex/townhouse is unlikely to increase the applicant’s independence and reduce her needs for other kinds of supports.
Having regard to all of the matters contained in s 16 of the SDA Rules and s 3.1 of the Support Rules, the Tribunal determines that the building type that is appropriate to support the applicant’s needs is a villa/duplex/townhouse with one bedroom and a separate OOA room.
Location
The applicant’s position is that she wishes to relocate south to Victoria as it has a more temperate climate with lower temperature and higher barometric pressure which improves functionality. There is no specific expert evidence to support this contention. At the hearing, the applicant gave evidence that she was willing to move anywhere that had a suitable premises for her so long as it was ‘south’.
As indicated above, the SDA Price Guide sets out the annual base prices for post-2023 new build SDA properties at pages 21–24. The Annual Base Price is then modified by the Location Factors set out in the table at pages 30–32. In the applicant’s “Reasons for Review” document,[48] it states that the applicant seeks funding for SDA in the location of Geelong, Melbourne (North East); Melbourne (South East); Mornington Peninsula.[49]
[48] JTB 17–26.
[49] JTB 17.
The respondent submits that the evidence before the Tribunal raises real concerns about the applicant’s ability to relocate. In the report of M Harrington dated 21 February 2021, she says that the move to the applicant’s current property ‘caused symptom exacerbation with prolonged recovery’.[50] In the report of M Harrington dated 11 July 2023 she says:
relocating will have a dramatic impact on [the applicant’s] function and is expected to lead to a crash which will require a prolonged period of increased care including active overnight support until [the applicant] returns to her baseline level of function. This could take weeks or even months.[51]
[50] JTB 125.
[51] JTB 561.
In Mr Cleary’s report he expresses significant concerns about how the applicant would relocate. He says he fails to understand how she would be able to tolerate a lengthy drive. In the past she has been unable to tolerate short distances in a taxi and would need specialist transport for the journey. She would need to break a long trip down into a number of smaller journeys, with her current reported tolerances this would take an arduous toll upon her. She would need accommodation during this journey and as she would be unable to control the environment this would be a great risk to her reported intolerances.[52]
There is no doubt that the applicant’s current accommodation is unsuitable for her. Accordingly, she will have to move. The challenges faced by the applicant are finding suitable SDA and moving to that SDA. The Tribunal considers that finding suitable SDA is going to present a greater challenge to the applicant than moving to that SDA. No matter where she moves she will suffer symptom exacerbation and will require prolonged recovery. However the Tribunal is of the view that the applicant should not be limited to attempting to find suitable SDA in her current area of NSW – Central Coast. The applicant wants to move south to Victoria. As stated, the following areas have been identified by her as being suitable: Geelong, Melbourne (North East); Melbourne (South East); Mornington Peninsula. The note in s 15 of the SDA Rules states that the CEO [or the Tribunal on review] may determine more than one location in relation to the eligible participant.
[52] JTB 576.
Section 18 of the SDA Rules provides that for the purpose of deciding the area in which the SDA accommodation for an eligible participant is to be located the CEO [or the Tribunal on review] must have regard to a number of matters including:
·The applicant’s preference.
·The extent to which the location would assist the applicant pursue her goals, objectives and aspirations.
·The features of the location.
·Where the applicant currently lives and where she has lived.
·The extent to which the location would facilitate connections.
·The extent to which the location would facilitate social and economic participation.
·Whether the location represents value for money having regard to informal, other and mainstream supports or specialist services.
The applicant has expressed a preference to reside in the locations listed above. Once the applicant finds suitable SDA she is more likely to be able to pursue her goals, objectives and aspirations. The locations she has identified as being her preference, are not so remote that would hinder access to support workers or other mainstream supports. She is currently living in NSW – Central Coast, but apart from the concerns expressed about the applicant’s ability to tolerate a long journey from her current location to the locations identified in Victoria, no other reason has been identified by either party as to why she should remain in her current location. The applicant is housebound, therefore her social participation is limited to telephone calls, video calls and online. She could maintain this in any location. There are no other connections that the applicant has that would impact upon her location. There was no evidence of any informal support being available to the applicant in her current location and other supports and specialist services should be available in the locations identified by the applicant. Accordingly, there is no evidence that the locations identified by the applicant do not represent value for money. The Tribunal has considered the Location Factors set out in the relevant table of the SDA Price Guide. The factors for the applicant’s current location and her preferred locations are not significantly different and should have no real bearing on the cost of funding the applicant’s SDA.
73.The Tribunal is of the view that the applicant’s quest to find suitable SDA should not be limited to the NSW – Central Coast location and she should be able to access her preferred locations to find suitable SDA. The Tribunal finds that whilst a move to Victoria will take an arduous toll upon the applicant and that locating SDA in the applicant’s current location will be easier for her to facilitate, she should not be restricted in her search of suitable SDAs to her current location. The Tribunal determines that Geelong, Melbourne (North East); Melbourne (South East) and Mornington Peninsula are the areas in which the SDA is to be located.
74.For the above reasons the Tribunal determines that the appropriate SDA which is reasonable, necessary and appropriate for the applicant is a villa/duplex/townhouse, one occupant, one bedroom, HPS and an OOA room in the locations of either Geelong, Melbourne (North East); Melbourne (South East) or Mornington Peninsula.
Support worker hours
75.The applicant seeks funding to enable her to have a support worker present and available to her on a 1:1 basis, 24 hours a day.
76.The applicant is currently funded for:
·A support worker to be present with her, on a 1:1 basis, for 12 hours a day (i.e. 84 hours/week).
·A support worker to access the community with her, on a 1:1 basis, for 4 hours/week;
·House/yard maintenance – 20 hours/year (i.e. a little under 1 hour/fortnight).
The respondent submits that it has agreed to fund Onsite Shared Support in SDA and that this provides access, at any time (i.e. it is available 24/7), for unplanned support that is not part of a participant’s routine activities. According to the Price Guide 2024 (page 50):
This support item provides access to 24/7 assistance for unplanned supports that are not part of a participant’s routine daily activities. It includes ad hoc assistance to a participant where incidental or unplanned assistance is required within the SDA dwelling. As a guide, the support provided should not exceed an average of 2.5 hours of direct person-to-person support per day. A participant must be able to wait for up to one hour for unplanned assistance.
The respondent notes that because it is an average, some days can permissibly have more than 2.5 hours support, some less.[53]
[53] Respondent’s closing submissions p 15.
The respondent contends that with the applicant’s current funding and the addition of Onsite Shared Support funding, the applicant would be effectively funded for approximately 15 hours of support per day which represents a very significant degree of support for the applicant.[54]
[54] Ibid p 15.
As stated in the applicant’s plan, her funding for a support worker to be present with her, on a 1:1 basis per day ‘may be used flexibly’.[55] Accordingly the applicant is able to choose when and for what hours a support worker is present with her. She can decide and then engage support staff at suitable times.[56]
[55] JTB 214.
[56] Respondent’s closing submissions pp 15–16.
In the respondent’s closing submissions, it contends that:
·The applicant’s most recent evidence dealing directly with the appropriate number of support hours is in the report dated 21 December 2023 and updated on 18 January 2024, prepared by J Newton and C Bartlett (Consultant Occupational Therapists).[57] In that report they state:
[57] JTB 523–553.
Within a suitable living environment, [the applicant] would benefit from access to a minimum of 16 hours per day of support, however [the applicant’s] support needs can increase beyond this at times, pending symptom exacerbation. [The applicant’s] requirement for access to overnight here is also anticipated to be ongoing. [The applicant] has records of the specific structure of these support hours, the tasks and aspects included within these time frames, and how her support needs can further increase pending her symptoms.
It is the respondent’s submission that this does not support an increase to 24-hour care and no explanation or justification is provided for this recommendation.[58]
[58] Respondent’s closing submissions p 16.
·In the report from M Yarrington dated 2 February 2021 she describes the applicant’s activities of daily living.[59] Those activities have been referred to above. In relation to those daily activities M Yarrington says (emphasis added):[60]
[59] JTB 127–128.
[60] JTB 132.
[The applicant] currently receives daily support to assist with a range of supports as outlined above. She requires full support for all household tasks as well as her basic daily care needs. The primary support that consumes most of the daily service is around food preparation due to [the applicant’s] food sensitivities and need for food to be prepared fresh and in a specific way.
Other tasks completed include shopping, cleaning, laundry and general errands. Throughout the day the applicant also receives support to assist with care tasks such as washing (bed bath), dressing, temperature regulation, getting items which are out of reach or have been dropped.
In relation to this the respondent submits that M Yarrington also states: ‘When considering food preparation including shopping and cleaning after meal preparation this service usually takes about 12–20 hours per week’.[61] Accordingly, given that the applicant is presently funded for 12 hours per day or 84 hours per week of 1:1 support worker funding (putting aside Onsite Shared Support, community access funding and household maintenance funding), this then leaves approximately 9–10 hours per day or 64–72 hours per week for other daily support needs. Accordingly, there appears to be no need to increase funding for support workers to 24 hours per day.
[61] JTB 128.
·In the report from M Yarrington dated 11 July 2023 she says:
[The applicant] requires a mixture of active overnight supports inactive night supports, and no supports overnight depending on where she is on her current sleep cycle or if she has experienced significant stress soars which have led to symptom exacerbation, PEM [post exertional malaise], and/or a crash.
There are periods of [the applicant’s] sleep schedule where all activities that would normally be completed during the daytime will need to be completed overnight while [the applicant] is awake. These are considered active overnight supports. During these periods it is possible that [the applicant] will require a rest break, a period of time where there is no support provided, to allow her to recover and restore her energy levels. During this time the support worker will need to spend time in the breakout room. This would follow the same schedule that [the applicant] would experience during the day.
There are periods of [the applicant’s] sleep schedule where she requires support overnight for tasks such as provide food only. This could be considered drop-in services. For these services to be most beneficial [the applicant] would require the support worker to remain at the property inactive until called upon by her. Needs may arise during the night such as accessing food, assistance with temperature regulation, access to required items to meet basic care tasks which may have been placed out of [the applicant’s] reach or dropped.
There are periods of [the applicant’s] sleep schedule where she is actively sleeping during the night-time hours and does not require support.[62]
[62] JTB 560.
The respondent submits that when the applicant has a sleep reversal, she is sleeping during daylight hours. She can use her flexible 12 hours per day of funding to have a support worker who is available overnight. When she is asleep during the day, she would not need a support worker present. When the applicant is sleeping during the night she does not require a support worker to be available overnight. Further Onsite Shared Support (an average of 2.5 hours per day) would provide extra assistance if something unexpected arose. Sleep reversal does not justify having a support worker available 24/7. A drop-in service, or ad hoc assistance is exactly what Onsite Shared Support provides. Given that there has been agreement to fund Onsite Shared Support, there is no justification to increase the applicant support hours to 24/7. In the applicant’s evidence she raised concerns about scheduling of support workers and the need for her to have support workers available at differing time periods, given her schedule changes due to her sleep patterns.
The respondent submits that this does not justify having 24/7 support worker funding because:
i.the applicant will have Onsite Shared Support, which provides ad hoc assistance when needed.
ii.The applicant’s current 12 hours of 1:1 care funding is flexible that is, it is not tied to specific hours of the day and the applicant can engage support workers at the times she sees fit. She can use her funding flexibly to meet her changing schedule.
iii.It is not appropriate to fund 24/7 support worker care on the basis that the applicant may, sometimes, need it as “just in case” type support. It is very expensive and that is not an appropriate use of funds.
·Finally, the respondent submits that funding for 24/7, 1:1 support worker care is not a reasonable and necessary support. It would not be effective and beneficial, especially over and above what is already funded.[63] It does not represent value for money, the current plan funding is budgeted to cost $428,941.72, increasing the funding to cover 24 hours of care per day will see an increase of approximately $280,000.[64]
[63] Section 34(1)(d) of the Act.
[64] Respondent’s closing submissions p 18.
In the applicant’s closing submissions she contends:
·She requires funding for 24/7, 1:1 support workers because her sleep schedule is unpredictable.
·As a result of her current level of funding for a support worker on a 1:1 basis for 12 hours per day, there has been ‘severe carer shortages, severe neglect, malnutrition, house and yard falling into disrepair, bugs, etc.’
·All of her personal care tasks take much longer than would be expected for a regular care service due to her complex needs. She requires rest breaks and these tasks can only be done by familiar carers.
·The detailed schedule she prepared shows that she has a 35-day crash and recovery cycle.[65]
[65] JTB 428.
·The detailed care needs schedule she prepared shows the time it takes for her to complete personal care tasks and activities of daily living.[66]
[66] JTB 431.
·She does not need more than 12 hours of activity per day but that 12 hours of activity cannot be spread unevenly across each 24-hour period without scheduling carers for 16–24 hours per day.
·She suffers severe sleep instability (beyond standard sleep reversal) which is expected to be three of every six weeks and is expected continually for 14 days following every single activity of accessing the community or performing substantial self-care which is reasonably expected to be continual if she is to participate in life even to a basic degree of hygiene and medical care.
·The NICE Guidelines for ME/CFS state that ‘flare-ups and relapses’ will occur ‘even if symptoms are well-managed, so planning for these should be part of the energy management plan’.[67]
[67] JTB 391.
The applicant gave evidence and M Yarrington states in her report of 11 July 2023, that:
[The applicant] has clearly documented her sleep/wake cycle which extends over a six-week period. This cycle is fairly consistent however when [the applicant] experiences periods of stress, illness, or other events that lead to symptom exacerbation she experiences sleep dysregulation which impacts her sleep pattern.
[The applicant’s] support services are directly related to her sleep patterns. [The applicant] has provided a scheduling report outlining the sleep pattern and support service scheduling over a standard 6-week period as well as a comparative sleep pattern and service schedule over a period where she was experiencing sleep dysregulation due to attending an appointment which clearly outlines the impact on her sleep wake cycle on her support service needs and further highlights the need for active support services both during the day and overnight. During periods of sleep reversal due to symptom exacerbation [the applicant ] requires additional around the clock care to manage her functional decline until she returns to her base line level of function and usual sleep pattern.[68]
[68] JTB 560–561.
This evidence supports a finding that the applicant’s sleep/wake cycle and periods of sleep dysregulation are to some extent predictable and as stated in the NICE 2021 Guidelines for ME/CFS, relied upon by the applicant, planning for these is part of managing the condition. The Tribunal accepts that any planning will not always be accurate, but the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant requires funding for 24/7, 1:1 support workers because her sleep schedule is unpredictable.
In relation to severe carer shortages the Tribunal refers to the letter dated 16 March 2023 from Ms Cato-Symonds, who is the owner of Complete Wellness Disability Support.[69] In that letter she says:
[69] JTB 470.
[The applicant] has again recently approached me needing support due to ongoing care shortages. I understand [the applicant] has severe disability and significant daily care needs. Unfortunately, due to the circumstances surrounding her care needs, I am unable to confidently offer her our services.
I understand that [the applicant] does not have access to overnight carer space such as OOA, doesn’t have a breakout space, or anywhere for carers to change or shower at the start of shifts, to take lunch breaks away from her, or to enter the house when she is sleeping. As a result, scheduling care shifts with her becomes very difficult and I have again had to deny her access to our services. Some of the issues to take into account are:
·The requirement for rapid changes with start and finish times means not being able to offer continuity of care and support with unique requirements
·Inability to support fragrance requirements as we can’t shower before attending on short notice and pick up shifts without a day’s notice and therefore leaving her vulnerable and without support.
·Not being able to offer overnight support due to not having appropriate OOA space to facilitate both client requirements and staff needs during longer shifts.
I am not comfortable to be able to meet all of her care requirements as the situation stands. As providers of support, we have an enormous responsibility to our clients and staff and don’t refuse services lightly, however, we are unable to facilitate the fluidity the situation requires due to her specific care needs and the lack of suitable housing to support the provision of care and so cannot confidently and reliably support her as a client. I understand other care providers are in the same situation and have given her the same response.
The main problem identified by Ms Cato-Symonds as being the underlying cause for being unable to offer the applicant support is the lack of an appropriate OOA space. If staff were able to access an OOA room with a separate entrance, as well as bathroom and bedroom facilities, they could shower before attending on short notice, pick up shifts at short notice, offer overnight support and offer continuity of care. The problems identified by Ms Cato-Symonds would be alleviated by the applicant’s SDA having an OOA. That OOA room would be separated from the applicant’s living area by a door. It would have a separate entrance which means the support workers could enter/exit the OOA room without going into the applicant’s living area until they had removed all odours and chemicals from their clothes and bodies. An example of this type of villa which was put to the applicant during cross-examination can be seen in the top image on JTB page 409, which is part of the SDA Market Search Report dated 24 February 2024. It is the Tribunal’s view that the provision of an appropriate OOA room in the applicant’s SDA would overcome the current problems she is experiencing with carer shortages, neglect, malnutrition as well as house and yard maintenance.
Due to the fact that the respondent has agreed to fund SDA for the applicant with an OOA room as well as Onsite Shared Support, the Tribunal finds that there is no need to increase the applicant’s support worker hours that are already funded by the respondent for flexible 12 hours of 1:1 support worker care. Taking into account the matters in s 3.1 of the Support Rules, the Tribunal is not satisfied that 24/7, 1:1 support worker care represents value for money or that the costs of such support are reasonable relative to the benefits to be achieved. It follows from this and the Tribunal finds that 24/7, 1:1 support worker care is not reasonable and necessary in accordance with s 34(c) of the Act.
CONCLUSION
The Tribunal determines that the appropriate SDA which is reasonable, necessary and adequate for the applicant is a villa/duplex/townhouse, one occupant, one-bedroom, high physical support with an OOA room in the locations of either Geelong, Melbourne (North East); Melbourne (South East) or Mornington Peninsula. Further, the Tribunal determines the respondent should fund Onsite Shared Support, providing ad hoc assistance when needed for an average of 2.5 hours of direct person-to-person support per day but that there be no increase in the existing funding for the applicant’s support worker care.
DECISION
The reviewable decision is set aside and is remitted to the respondent for reconsideration in accordance with the orders that the applicant’s statement of participant supports is to include:
i.Specialist Disability Accommodation (SDA)
Building Type
Villa/duplex/townhouse, 1 resident, 1 bedroom and onsite overnight assistance room
Design Category
High Physical Support
Location
Geelong, Melbourne (North East); Melbourne (South East) or Mornington Peninsula
ii.Funding for Onsite Shared Support.
The remaining aspects of the applicant’s statement of participant supports is to remain unchanged.
Date(s) of hearing: 17 and 19 February 2025 Date final submissions received: 21 February 2025 from the Respondent and 28 February 2025 from the Applicant
Solicitors for the Applicant: Self-represented Solicitors for the Respondent: Mills Oakley
0
4
0