Flammable cladding report makes chilling viewing | Another day in paradise | Flat Chat Forum: Your Questions Answered




A A A

You must be registered and logged in to reply to posts or post new topics. Click on "How to Use This Forum" for simple instructions on how to get on board. NB: Please do not use your real name or email address as your screen name - if you do it will be changed to something less insecure.

Avatar

Please consider registering
Guest

Search

— Forum Scope —




— Match —





— Forum Options —





Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters

Register Lost password?
sp_Feed sp_PrintTopic sp_TopicIcon
Flammable cladding report makes chilling viewing
sp_BlogLinkWhite Read the original blog post
Avatar
JimmyT
Admin
Forum Posts: 4641
Member Since:
06/01/2014
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
1
05/09/2017 - 12:38 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print

Did you see Four Corners on the ABC this week?  It was all about the dangers of inflammable cladding and how they've been around for two decades.

You will be able to catch up with it on iView, if you missed it - and it's well worth watching.

Now, I have written in the past that I think the potential risk to buildings that have flammable cladding could be reduced with a bit of common sense. If your fire safety is up to scratch and you ban anything that could start a fire on your balcony - like smoking and barbecues - do you need to remove and replace the composite cladding?

People more expert than I say, yes, you do. Which makes this week's Four Corners all the more chilling.

Did you know that every square meter of flammable cladding is the equivalent of 5 litres of petrol in a fire.

Did you know that the dangers from cladding have been known for more than 20 years.

Add the cladding risks to the scandals of self-certification and poor enforcement of building codes and you have the recipe for disaster now confronting us.

Meanwhile Fair Trading Minister Matt Kean has copped a roasting in the NSW parliament for only telling committees and strata managers - and not tenants and other residents - that their buildings may be in danger.

Also, says the Opposition,  there are no time limits or penalties for not responding to the letter telling them to check their cladding is safe.

And is there such a thing as safe cladding anyway?

Regardless of my belief that the risk is behavioural as much as structural, the government needs to follow the lead of Queensland and make everyone who was involved in the decision to put dangerous cladding on residential buildings responsible for the cost of making it safe.

It certainly shouldn't be us poor suckers who naively thought no one would sell us a flat in a block they knew could be a fire trap.

 

Avatar
rthorburn
Flat(chat)Mate
Members
Forum Posts: 27
Member Since:
16/08/2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
2
05/09/2017 - 7:57 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print

I'm not a huge fan of private certification, but I believe this cladding has been used on commercial buildings before the advent of private certification.

Avatar
Austman
Victoria
Flat(chat)Mate
Members
Forum Posts: 305
Member Since:
22/01/2014
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
3
05/09/2017 - 4:14 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_EditHistory

It was compulsory viewing for everyone who lives in or owns a lot in a multi-storey strata.

The combustible cladding is of course the major issue.

But I noted other issues touched on included overcrowding and factors like clutter and storage in inappropriate areas. Fires have been started not only by cigarettes but also by equipment like air conditioner compressors.

Many strata buildings have such equipment on balconies, in car parks or elsewhere on common property.

There's a lot advice available on some of those issues eg:

a-warning-about-the-fire-risks-of-clutter

Keep-your-balcony-safe-from-fire

I think too, that the effectiveness of modern fire safety systems (that Grenfell unfortunately didn't have), if properly maintained and not compromised by other factors like overcrowding, was demonstrated.  That part at least was reassuring.

Avatar
Ray
North Bondi
FlatChatter
Members
Forum Posts: 10
Member Since:
16/02/2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
4
06/09/2017 - 5:36 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print

It is the same at all levels of the economy now, the only thing government will check is what a person is doing on the road as it is very easy to pry the dollars away, but for business it is check the work yourself and say it is good, and as we all know business is about making $$$$$$ and only that.

Avatar
tharra
Flat(chat)Mate
Members
Forum Posts: 85
Member Since:
09/10/2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
5
08/09/2017 - 1:52 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print

"Buildings with non-compliant cladding may not get insurance, industry warns"

http://www.abc.net.au/news/201.....ed/8885162

Avatar
JimmyT
Admin
Forum Posts: 4641
Member Since:
06/01/2014
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
6
08/09/2017 - 3:20 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print

tharra said
"Buildings with non-compliant cladding may not get insurance, industry warns"

Here is a thing that isn't law - developers and builders must make good all the dodgy work they've done just to save (i.e. make) more money.

Here are two things that are law - owners corporation MUST have insurance and MUST repair and maintain common property, regardless of the costs.

Would anyone care to join the dots?

Forum Timezone: Australia/Sydney

Most Users Ever Online: 518

Currently Online:
27 Guest(s)

Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)

Top Posters:

kiwipaul: 613

struggler: 459

Austman: 305

Billen Ben: 232

Millie: 213

Cosmo: 170

Kangaroo: 168

considerate band fair: 167

FlatChatFan: 147

daphne diaphanous: 137

Newest Members:

ChrisOldCodger

[email protected]

tonyd

oceancalls

Shazzz

ewright

McCash

Herbie01

Gburraston

Peter M Mills

Forum Stats:

Groups: 4

Forums: 46

Topics: 4398

Posts: 20891

 

Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 241

Members: 5005

Moderators: 4

Admins: 1

Administrators: JimmyT

Moderators: Whale, Sir Humphrey, scotlandx, Lady Penelope