Why an Aussie high-rise building blaze is more likely than not | 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
Why an Aussie high-rise building blaze is more likely than not
sp_BlogLinkWhite Read the original blog post
Avatar
JimmyT
Admin
Forum Posts: 4570
Member Since:
06/01/2014
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
1
17/06/2017 - 7:44 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print

A perfect storm of shoddy building practices, the fear and ignorance of apartment residents and a history of pro-developer politics means a high-rise building blaze like the Grenfell Tower tragedy in London is almost inevitable here in Australia.

With new apartment buildings defects often including missing or faulty fire dampers, there are very real concerns that tens of thousands of Australian high-rises could be at risk if they have cheap imported aluminium cladding on their walls.

Add overcrowding, illegal internal room division and sloppy resident behaviour (like fire doors being chocked open and smoke alarms being disabled) and you have a recipe for imminent disaster.

But how could this be the case more than two years after the Lacrosse building blaze in Melbourne,   where composite cladding of the type suspected of being instrumental in the London inferno is known to have accelerated the spread of a balcony fire?

And then there’s Bankstown blaze five years ago in which one female student died and another was seriously injured when they had to jump from a high window to escape? Is anyone in authority even paying attention?

The Lacrosse deadlock is a perfect example of the conflicting interests between owners, builders and politicians resulting in zero action when an urgent response is required.

In January this year the Victorian Buildings Appeals Board ordered the apartment owners to strip the remaining cladding off the 21-storey building as it presented a significant fire risk.

Yes, that’s right, more than two years after the fire, action is ordered. Even so, no timeframe was established so the cladding remains.

Why? Well, the owners are collectively suing the builders for the $15 million it cost for repairs and to replace the cladding.  But their case is not helped by Melbourne City council officials saying the building is safe to be occupied … provided residents remove excessive clutter from their balconies.

Have the residents done so?  Not according to Fairfax media reports that also revealed continued over-crowding in the building due to, for instance, lounge rooms being rented as bedrooms.

It’s this kind of narrow self-interest and political impotence that puts people’s lives at risk.  It won’t be the apartment owners, city councillors or developers running for their lives if the Lacrosse goes up in flames again.  It will be the students forced to live in conditions so overcrowded that they have to store their stuff on their balconies.

Reports that complaints of poor management of the Grenfell block in London – including a petition signed by 90 percent of residents but ignored by authorities – will have a familiar ring to apartment dwellers here who have struggled to navigate the swamp of dodgy developers, incompetent managers, an often impotent consumer protection regime, cost-obsessed apartment owners and bizarre Tribunal decisions.

Historically, politicians across Australia have been reluctant to do anything that might deter developers from building new apartment blocks.  That has led at various times to the farce of self-certification and the removal of compulsory building insurance from buildings over three storeys high.

Only last week the NSW government pushed back to next year the implementation of the bond designed to protect purchasers of defective apartments.  The defects bond of 2 per cent of a building’s cost, was due to come in on July 1, six months after other changes to strata laws.

At the other end of the scale, there is a “next guy” culture in Strataland where current owners often don’t want to know about problems that might cost them money or affect the value of their property – hoping the next guy who buys their unit can foot any bills.

So the incentive for apartment owners to establish if the cladding on their building is safe is severely tempered by the probability that they and not the developer or builder will have to pay for its replacement.

For while the law in most states allows builders and developers to walk away from defective projects as little as two years after completion, apartment owners have no choice once the defect has been identified. They must maintain and repair common property regardless of the cost and for as long as the building is standing.

No surprise then that few if any strata committees are rushing to discover if their cladding is the cheap imported variety, even if they are gambling with their own or their tenants’ lives.

That’s one reason Senator Nick Xenophon has been calling for an audit of buildings to see how many have the suspect cladding installed.

But what then? Can we really expect apartment owners to raise millions of dollars in special levies to cover the replacement of cladding they bought in the reasonable assumption it was safe?

Do we really expect developers to blithely accept they shouldn’t have saved money on cheaper cladding and pay for its replacement? Many will just shut up shop and “phoenix” into another entity, with the same directors, rather than pay up.

If expert opinions on the spread and seriousness of building defects are to be believed, and the collective inertia of strata politics, from strata committees to government ministers, prevails, the next ‘towering inferno’ headlines you read could be about your apartment block.

You can join the discussion by logging into flat-chat.com.au or sending an email to [email protected].

Avatar
Puddn
Flat(chat)Mate
Members
Forum Posts: 56
Member Since:
20/03/2015
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
2
17/06/2017 - 4:49 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print

Jimmy, I can't agree with you more. The Grenfell Tower tragedy (or is it a criminal act?) should be a warning to all high-rise residents here in Australia. The love-in between government, developers, councils and self-certifiers must cease.

Whilst the 2% bond may appear to be something of a solution for defects, it does not allow for the possibility of shoddy materials, such as cladding, or shoddy patch repairs to defects identified within the initial 2 year period or the problem of experts (builders, developers, self-certifiers, fire engineers) not agreeing that a defect exists (as happened with our fire dampers).

Or guess what........... by the time everyone does agree a defect exists (4 years in our case) the builder and developer go bust!   No prizes for who has to find that $1million.

And don't get me started on roof membranes that fail after 4 years leaving a trail of destruction down 8 floors. Only to be advised by developer that the problem was related to a lack of maintenance. Beside the absurdity of that comment, who would really be removing tons of pebbles to do regular inspections. That is another $2million!

I understand that major structural defects are not restricted to a 2 year window, but then I have also been advised that fire dampers and roof membranes are not structural. So the proposed 2% bond would not have helped us at all and certainly would not identify shoddy cladding.

I must also make the point that our builder/developer were fabulous in the first two years. Only now do we realise how much we were had!

A starting solution could be independent certifiers, insurance for buildings over 3 storeys, and a proper schedule of all mechanical, electrical, fire and hydraulic assets (including serial numbers and warranties) accompanied by a realistic maintenance and capital works schedule.

It is very scary to think that residents may not know they are living with shoddy fire protection until it is too late.

Forum Timezone: Australia/Sydney

Most Users Ever Online: 518

Currently Online:
37 Guest(s)

Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)

Top Posters:

kiwipaul: 613

struggler: 459

Austman: 305

Billen Ben: 232

Millie: 211

Kangaroo: 168

considerate band fair: 167

Cosmo: 167

FlatChatFan: 147

daphne diaphanous: 137

Newest Members:

mould problems

IFaulkner

strats all

ram298

napolilta

smallfry

Pears

firsttimer02

Susan H

brianjpxv

Forum Stats:

Groups: 4

Forums: 46

Topics: 4336

Posts: 20534

 

Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 241

Members: 4928

Moderators: 4

Admins: 1

Administrators: JimmyT

Moderators: Whale, Sir Humphrey, scotlandx, Lady Penelope