BUYER BEWARE …

Biowood panelling, a wood-plastic composite made up of 70 per cent reconstituted timber and 23 per cent PVC that was believed to be a reliable alternative to dangerous aluminium composite has now also been found to be combustible, and has been declared unsafe.

Senior Member of NCAT, Philip Boyce ordered Taylor Constructions and Frasers Putney Pty Ltd to remove the Biowood attached on the facades and replace it with material that complies with the codes, standards and statutory warranties. He also ruled the two companies must pay the owners’ costs of the proceedings.

FROM LVO AT MACRO BUSINESS …

‘The bill for removing flammable aluminium cladding was already estimated to be “many, many billions of dollars”, so adding ‘biowood’ to the mess will obviously send the repair bill soaring.

This is an unmitigated disaster for Australia’s growing army of apartment dwellers who, through no fault of their own, are being left with financially crippling repair bills, alongside apartments whose values have been decimated.

When viewed alongside the myriad of structural faults discovered across Australia’s high-rise, it is clear that the whole industry is in crisis and deserving of a royal commission.

With Australia’s population growing like a science experiment due to mass immigration, and apartments now the dominant form of new housing across Australia’s major cities, the industry must be cleaned up urgently.

VIEW: https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2019/12/thousands-more-apartments-wrapped-in-flammable-cladding/

• Apartment owners face millions of dollars in re-cladding bills following landmark ruling

Biowood cladding on Ryde building. Photo: Supplied

Apartment owners face millions of dollars in re-cladding bills following landmark ruling

SUE WILLIAMS DEC 5, 2019

Thousands of apartment owners across Australia who thought they were safe from potentially deadly cladding fires now face millions of dollars in bills to remove and replace timber-based panels.

In a landmark legal ruling, timber-PVC cladding that was believed to be a reliable alternative to dangerous aluminium composite has now also been declared unsafe.

This puts the widely-used Biowood panelling into the same category of major defects of the kind that caused the catastrophic 2017 blaze at London’s Grenfell Tower in which 72 people died, and the Lacrosse building in Melbourne, where this year owners won $5.7 million in damages after a cladding fire in 2014.

“This will affect thousands and thousands more buildings all across Australia,” said Faiyaaz Shafiq of JS Mueller & Co Lawyers who conducted the case at the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal.

“We think this is the first ruling in Australia, and possibly in the world, against Biowood, and it will have consequences for so many buildings that used it, thinking of it as a safe and aesthetically pleasing cladding.

“But the tribunal found that it is not safe and, if ignited, a fire could spread from apartment to apartment on the exteriors of the façade and then flow inside the building to put residents at risk. It could cause another catastrophe like Grenfell or Lacrosse.”

The case was brought by the owners corporation of four multi-storey towers in Sydney’s Ryde, neighbouring blocks at the new complex The Gardens at Putney Hill by developer Frasers Property, and built by Taylor Construction. The cladding runs up and down the building, and between floors.

“They’re well-built and well-designed buildings, but we obviously became very concerned about the cladding problem,” said chair of the owners corporation Lindsay Spencer. “It’s the way the cladding was used that has created the hazard and means any fire could spread up and across the building, and send the whole towers up in flames.

“As we know, there have been disasters around the world, and this ruling will be useful too for other buildings in the same situation. It’s a hazard people need to know about as, in some cases, if something goes wrong, it could be a life and death situation.”

Owners commissioned reports from fire engineers who testified that the Biowood cladding was combustible and could lead to a fire spreading quickly over, and through, a building.

*Both the developer and builder argued that, while the material was combustible, it didn’t have the potential to spread.

*They refused to replace the cladding, so owners took them to NCAT before warranties expired, claiming they’d breached the statutory warranties of the Home Building Act by using defective materials.

*Senior member Philip Boyce found for the owners, ruling that: “there is an undue risk of fire spread via the Biowood extending up the facade of the building which would allow fire spread into the building … The Tribunal is satisfied that Biowood constitutes an undue risk.”

*He has now ordered Taylor Constructions and Frasers Putney Pty Ltd to remove the Biowood attached on the facades and replace it with material that complies with the codes, standards and statutory warranties. He also ruled the two companies must pay the owners’ costs of the proceedings.

Owners of apartments in buildings out of the six-year claims period, however, won’t be able to sue developers and builders for defects; they will be compelled to undertake the replacement at their own cost.

“But in the Ryde buildings, the panels will be removed to ensure lives are not in danger,” said Mr Shafiq. “Everyone up until now has been focussing on aluminium composite panels, but now we know a lot more buildings are in danger.”

A spokesperson from Frasers Property Australia said, “We acknowledge the ruling and will work with the construction contractor in the interest of our customers.” Taylor Constructions didn’t return Domain Group calls.

The wood-plastic composite Biowood – made up of 70 per cent reconstituted timber and 23 per cent PVC – has been used for cladding on both Ryde buildings, which were completed at 3 and 5 Lardelli Drive in 2016.

Biowood is supplied by Biowood Australia and commonly used throughout the country for wall panelling, decking, flooring, fencing, sun-shading and screening. Biowood Australia CEO Melvin Fontanilla didn’t return Domain Group’s call.

In NSW, 1422 buildings were identified as likely containing dangerous combustible cladding, but this case will make totals in every state and territory much higher.

SOURCE: https://www.domain.com.au/news/apartment-owners-face-millions-of-dollars-in-re-cladding-bills-following-landmark-ruling-915801/?utm_campaign=strap-masthead&utm_source=smh&utm_medium=link&utm_content=pos5&ref=pos1

CAAN FACEBOOK:

https://www.facebook.com/Community-Action-Alliance-for-NSW-744190798994541/?ref=aymt_homepage_panel

WEBSITE:

https://caanhousinginequalitywithaussieslockedout.wordpress.com/

Opal Tower builder blames engineer for cracks, $30m repair bill, court documents reveal

By Nick Sas

4 DECEMBER 2019

PHOTO: The Opal Tower saga has sparked questions about Sydney’s construction industry. (AAP: Mick Tsikas)

RELATED STORY: ‘Absolute stupidity’: Opal Tower’s multi-million-dollar repair bill revealed

RELATED STORY: How to avoid living in a ‘lemon’ — what you need to know before buying an apartment

RELATED STORY: What lies beneath the cracks in Opal Tower — and buildings across Australia

The builder behind Sydney’s Opal Tower has lodged a counter-claim in a NSW court, blaming the engineer for the cracking that caused the tower’s evacuation and repair bill of more than $30 million.

Key points:

• The builder of the Opal Tower, Icon, has alleged there were shortcomings in the design by WSP Structures
• The allegations are part of a counter-claim to the class action lodged by Opal residents
• Opal Tower was evacuated on Christmas Eve last year after cracks were found in its foundations

In the latest development in the continuing saga, Icon, the builder of the tower, has lodged documents in the NSW Supreme Court alleging the cracking and damage was caused by “shortcomings” in its design.

It alleges WSP Structures, the global engineering firm behind the $170 million apartment complex, prepared and approved all relevant structural designs.

As the builder, Icon alleges it undertook construction based on WSP’s designs, which it says were faulty.

The allegations are part of a counter-claim in response to the class action suit lodged in the NSW Supreme Court by Opal Tower residents in July.

Owners of units in the tower are seeking millions of dollars in compensation from the Sydney Olympic Park Authority (SOPA), a NSW Government-owned organisation.

PHOTO: Building damage on the exterior of Opal Tower at Sydney Olympic Park. (Supplied)

SOPA is the target of the lawsuit as it is the owner of the land on which the Opal Tower sits and considered a “developer” under State Government law.

The class action suit claims a “breach of warranty” and that the design and construction of the complex, which was evacuated on Christmas Eve after residents spotted cracks in its foundations, was not designed or constructed with “due care and skill”.

The lawsuit — which is set to be heard for an update in the Supreme Court on Friday — has turned into a blame game, with SOPA’s own counter-claim pinning the building’s problems on Icon.

Icon has rejected those claims and moved the blame on to WSP.

Who is responsible for the structural faults that caused the evacuation and more than $30 million repair bill — that Icon has paid for — will be a critical part of the class action suit.

Claims of ‘misleading’ conduct

It is understood Icon is referring to parts of the Opal Tower final report, released by the State Government in February, which outlined numerous key construction and material deficiencies, particularly the design of a critical hob beam that burst under pressure.

In its claim it alleges WSP engaged in “misleading or deceptive conduct” and Icon’s own construction works “did not causally contribute to that damage, or the extent of it”.

The ABC contacted both WSP and Corrs Chambers Westgarth — the firm that triggered the class action suit — for comment.

Welcome to Sydney’s ghost towers

Record apartment rental vacancies and a softening housing market are creating an odd phenomenon — apartments with no-one in them.

Icon has declined to speak specifically on the counter-claim ahead of Friday’s court hearing, however the company’s managing director Nicholas Brown said from “day one” it had been trying to find out what happened to prevent similar events in the future.

“While it won’t undo what happened, today’s developments are an important step forward for Opal tenants and owners, our business and employees,” he said.

“We will continue to work towards the return of the residents back into the remaining apartments at Opal Tower.”

The ABC understands about three to five apartments owners of the 392-apartment tower are still locked out of their homes following the rectification works, which are being carried out by Icon.

The number of parties involved in the suit — which, along with WSP, SOPA and Icon includes the developer Ecove — means it is expected to go well into next year before a resolution.

SOURCE: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-12-04/opal-tower-builder-launches-new-30m-crossclaim/11765280?utm_source=sfmc&utm_medium=email&utm_content=&utm_campaign=%5bnews_sfmc_newsmail_pm_df_!n1%5d%3a8935&user_id=9d3e1a2a4fb742155de35fe9b773876b533fd107ad480457f0d57b6b6c2ef332&WT.tsrc=email&WT.mc_id=Email%7c%5bnews_sfmc_newsmail_pm_df_!n1%5d%7c8935ABCNewsmail_topstories_articlelink

CAAN FACEBOOK:

https://www.facebook.com/Community-Action-Alliance-for-NSW-744190798994541/?ref=aymt_homepage_panel

WEBSITE:

https://caanhousinginequalitywithaussieslockedout.wordpress.com/

The urban development strategies of NSW and other states rely on higher-density cities with many more multi-unit strata title dwellings.

The human and economic impacts of the building defects crisis could undermine these strategies.

Lack of information on apartment defects leaves whole market on shaky footings

November 21, 2019 AEDT

Authors

1. Martin LoosemoreProfessor of Construction Management, University of Technology Sydney
2. Bill RandolphDirector, City Futures Research Centre, Faculty of the Built Environment, UNSW
3. Caitlin BucklePhD Candidate in Human Geography, UNSW
4. Hazel EasthopeAssociate Professor, City Futures Research Centre, UNSW
5. Laura CrommelinResearch Lecturer, City Futures Research Centre, UNSW

The litany of defects, poor building standards and regulatory failures has serious implications for apartment owners, occupiers and buyers alike. Fears of a loss of confidence in the sector have unfortunately come true. Our research suggests a lack of reliable information about building defects is a critical factor in the crisis.

---

Read more: Would you buy a new apartment? Building confidence depends on ending the blame game

---

About a year ago, we started a research project with six industry partners in New South Wales entitled Cracks in the Compact City: Tackling Defects in Multi-Unit Strata Housing. The context is compact city planning policies and a rapid shift towards apartment living in Australian cities.

The urban development strategies of NSW and other states rely on higher-density cities with many more multi-unit strata title dwellings. The human and economic impacts of the building defects crisis could undermine these strategies.

Even with our resources, obtaining data on the extent and nature of defects in NSW apartment buildings has been a challenge. Individual buyers and owners must face even greater obstacles.

This lack of access to information poses a clear challenge to the principle of “buyer beware” that underpins property sales. The imbalance it creates between buyers and sellers is a prime example of what economists call “information asymmetry”.

Why does this matter for the whole apartment market?

Nobel laureate George Akerlof explained how the price and quality of goods traded in a market affected by information asymmetries tend to gradually reduce to the point where only lowest-cost “lemons” remain. When buyers can’t tell the difference between products of good and bad quality, they typically prefer the cheapest available. This forces higher-quality products out of the market.

Sellers can also exploit this situation to hide poor-quality products from consumers. They might even charge the same as competitors selling higher-quality products.

While some unscrupulous sellers might profit in the short term, overall profits fall for everyone as confidence and links between price and quality are undermined. Ultimately, the entire market can collapse.

---

Read more: It’s not just the building cracks or cladding – sometimes uncertainty does even more harm

---

The risks are highest in markets with these two features:

• sellers are not rewarded for delivering information to buyers or cannot disclose it effectively
• buyers cannot discriminate between the quality of different products, as is often the case in apartment developments.

These problems are more likely when buyers cannot easily inspect products at the time of sale – as with apartment units bought off the plan.

When a vendor sells a product to multiple buyers, again typical in apartment developments, that can multiply the impact of information asymmetries.

The buyer of a standalone house might be able to make the sale conditional on an independent inspection of the entire building. But such clauses are very difficult to negotiate in off-the-plan sales for apartments in multi-unit buildings.

It would also be too costly for each buyer to commission such an inspection. Buyers are unable to organise a joint inspection of the building until after they have settled, which greatly increases their risk. While NSW’s new defects bond scheme does require an inspection, it happens after ownership is transferred.

The negative impacts for buyers have spill-over effects as information asymmetries mean risks are perceived to increase across the entire apartment housing sector. Negative publicity, such as the flammable cladding and defects scandals, can cause values to fall market-wide, regardless of the quality of individual developments. At the same time, finance and insurance costs increase.

---

Read more: The big lesson from Opal Tower is that badly built apartments aren’t only an issue for residents

---

The issue persists for subsequent buyers too. Information about defects is often unavailable due to poor record-keeping or confidentiality agreements. Ironically, this adds to the information asymmetries that contributed to the problem in the first place.

What can we do about the problem?

To reduce information asymmetries, sellers and buyers tend to engage in two main types of behaviour: signalling and screening.

Signalling involves sellers flagging the higher quality of their products to buyers indirectly. For example, a reputable developer may use warranties and brands or quality marks, certificates and awards as a sign of their high-quality work. Buyers may well be prepared to pay more for higher-quality products that won’t cost more in the longer term.

Crucially, signalling only works if the signal is credible. At present, there are no construction-specific quality certifications and warranties, only generic standards such as the international ISO 9001: 2015. And the administrative burden and costs of independent third-party certification make it unviable for many small companies. So instruments like ISO 9001 are likely of very limited value for effective signalling in the apartment sector.

The NSW Building Commissioner is supporting an industry rating system that will enable better signalling. Data mining will be used to identify risky players and phoenix operators. It should take effect in the apartment sector by 2021.

Screening involves buyers investing time and resources to uncover the likelihood of defects. This includes examining available records and the behaviours of sellers and their representatives. But this adds to buyers’ costs, which disadvantages them in the marketplace.

Stakeholders in the building development process should be compelled to release this information. NSW’s new law on off-the-plan contract sales will increase sellers’ disclosure obligations and provide stronger protections for buyers. Importantly, sellers will have to identify material changes made during the development process at least 21 days before settlement.

A similar requirement involving an independent expert building inspection would help buyers better understand the risk of defects before they finalise their purchase.

---

Read more: Housing with buyer protection and no serious faults – is that too much to ask of builders and regulators?

---

Another positive move is the requirement in the new Design and Building Practitioners Bill for declared designs and as-built drawings to be lodged with the government. The Building Commissioner has said these will be made available on an easy-to-access platform.

This would enable buyers to check information as the development progresses, before the crucial building handover. It’s a step towards creating a “digital twin” for everyone licensed to perform construction work, making it easier for the public to check their record.

While the devil is likely to be in the detail, the NSW government is on the right track in tackling the information asymmetry problem. However, the various information gatekeepers will still have to be persuaded – or required – to release information they have long withheld in their own interests.

SOURCE: https://theconversation.com/lack-of-information-on-apartment-defects-leaves-whole-market-on-shaky-footings-127007

CAAN FACEBOOK:

https://www.facebook.com/Community-Action-Alliance-for-NSW-744190798994541/?ref=aymt_homepage_panel

WEBSITE:

https://caanhousinginequalitywithaussieslockedout.wordpress.com/

‘ … unfortunate processes of D&C procurement and squeezed design programmes have undermined the spirit of communication and teamwork …

District authorities are starting to tighten up “regulations” to get better outcomes for environmental sustainability.

“The city of Sydney” is leading the way, and without a doubt we will see these initiatives roll into state and federal regulations.‘

RELATED ARTICLE ON ‘DESIGN AND CONSTRUCT’: FOUR CORNERS: CRACKING UP

https://caanhousinginequalitywithaussieslockedout.com/2019/08/20/things-fall-apart/

A Crisis of Quality: The Disconnect Between Design and Delivery

To improve quality and sustainability, the industry now has no choice but to overhaul its design and procurement strategies.

As an architect working on large-scale projects internationally, I’ve seen a number of adverse practices introduced over the past decades.

Two in particular stand out as disproportionately negative influences on design and construction quality: the practice of shrinking design programmes, budgets and scope, and the rise in popularity of inappropriate procurement methodologies.

It’s no secret that decisions made early in the design process are easily implemented, and the later you leave them, the harder it becomes.

True cost savings—without the negative side effects on quality—are in fact made by proper collaboration between the design team and contractor at the outset of a project to embed value engineering, innovation and sustainability into the very bones of a new construction.

Despite this obvious logic, we’re seeing design budgets and scope squeezed, alongside the rise in popularity of design and construct (D&C) procurement, with an associated decline in quality.

Design squeeze: a false economy

When you minimise consultant fees, you naturally constrain the scope of their services. This reduction in design scope leads to less research, less innovation and off-the-shelf vanilla solutions.

They might be quick to document, but they are not necessarily the best solution for the site or brief, with all outcomes potentially affected—architectural, structural, services, sustainability and construction.

Clients risk a potentially massive compromise in a holistic design outcome by not getting the right input at the right time—all for a saving in consultant fees that is negligible in the overall picture of the development cost.

This is a false economy when you consider the lifetime costs of building maintenance, servicing and energy use, all of which can have an exponentially negative effect on the asset. And the rapidly growing need to build in sustainability practices cannot be achieved within a reduced design programme.

D&C contracts inappropriate for complex projects

Procurement strategy has a substantial impact on project outcomes, with D&C contracts being particularly contentious, since tenderers typically compete on price. Usually the lowest price wins the contract.

But as we all know, you get what you pay for.

Certainly, this style of contract has its place in simple industrial structures. But at some point the industry started applying the model to more complex projects, which is where it has fallen apart conceptually and in practice.

The process hands a more or less developed design over to tenderers who are then invited to essentially “value engineer” the design and submit their best price.

I sympathise with D&C contractors, who typically have no choice when pricing a job.

In a fierce marketplace, all contractors will put a lot of money and effort into landing projects, and with the contract price as the overarching evaluation criterion, they are forced to be highly competitive to win work.

So in the four to six weeks they have to gather trade prices, of course they look at ways to value engineer, perhaps by lightening the structure, simplifying the mechanical and engineering design, finding cheaper alternatives for finishes and so on.

The only way to get to the lowest price is to cheapen everything. But this has nothing to do with value.

The broken piece of logic of the D&C approach is that the surest way to actually get the best results – including robust value engineering – is through the effort of a good design team combined with early contractor involvement.

A better strategy: early contractor involvement

Projects that achieve great outcomes across all aspects of a development are those that begin with broad collaboration across all consultants and stakeholders—including the contractor.

The benefits the design team and contractor can deliver are manifold, with superior buildings that perform on highly desirable criteria, such as:

• Lower lifetime energy costs – always an advantage to building owners and tenants.
• Lower building maintenance costs.
• Lifetime adaptability.
• Easier to market and let tenancies.
• Good environmental credentials.
• Longevity.

With the architect coordinating the engineers’ and other specialists’ input, and the contractor consulting on the practicalities of construction, you have a formula for success.

The design team do not get disconnected from the building delivery and the contractor participates actively in the design process. All stakeholders are involved throughout the process, and key information does not get lost in translation.

It should be obvious that all of this requires the willingness to collaborate, but the unfortunate processes of D&C procurement and squeezed design programmes have undermined the spirit of communication and teamwork. Both contractors and designers need to relearn to work together.

The impact of sustainability regulations

*District authorities are starting to tighten up regulations to get better outcomes for environmental sustainability.

*The city of Sydney is leading the way, and without a doubt we will see these initiatives roll into state and federal regulations.

There will be no choice for developers and building owners but to have specialist involvement from the outset of a project and follow through to completion, covering the entire lifecycle of a development.

We don’t have to wait for the National Construction Code to be rewritten; we have the tools and the knowledge to design and deliver quality, sustainable architecture. We just need to refocus the process.

---

Sven Ollmann is studio principal for Warren and Mahoney’s Sydney office. With over 25 years’ experience working at the forefront of sustainable design across Europe and Australia, Sven has an impressive career portfolio including Sydney’s Deutsche Bank Place for Foster + Partners and Frankfurt’s acclaimed Commerzbank building.

---

SOURCE: https://theurbandeveloper.com/articles/a-crisis-of-quality-the-disconnect-between-design-and-delivery?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=191119%20NSW&utm_content=191119%20NSW+CID_3078c590b5142702c1cde6a97d993fe5&utm_source=email&utm_term=Continue%20Reading

CAAN FACEBOOK:

https://www.facebook.com/Community-Action-Alliance-for-NSW-744190798994541/?ref=aymt_homepage_panel

WEBSITE:

https://caanhousinginequalitywithaussieslockedout.wordpress.com/

FROM the comments …

‘Isn’t HRH worth something like $12bn?

Perhaps, … in a magnanimous gesture he would like to gift his fortune to the country to help fix the cladding problem bequeathed by his developer industry brethren?’

RECOMMEND you click the comments link below for more!

High-rise Harry demands faulty towers bail-out

By Unconventional Economist in Australian Property

November 18, 2019 | 24 comments

With Australia’s East Coast littered with flammable and faulty towers, Meriton Apartments founder, “high-rise” Harry Triguboff, has demanded banks rescue the sector:

“If the cladding is a problem the banks will suffer a lot because of the value of the apartments dropping,” Mr Triguboff told The Australian.

“For a few thousand dollars each they can fix it. The banks have to get together and help the people.”

The Meriton chief argues the problems with apartments will only get worse if banks don’t step in. If they don’t, owners will not be able to get good prices for their properties when they sell.

“The longer it lasts, the worse it will get,” he said.

Fire & Rescue NSW has identified 629 buildings at risk, according to an update of its cladding register.

A statewide audit by the Victorian Building Authority has discovered 275 cases of cladding that it considers are “high to highest risk”. A further 228 across Victoria are deemed “moderate risk”, taking the total to 503.

Is this a joke? Why should the banks be responsible for shoddy builders?

Those who profited from these dodgy buildings should be required to fix them.

Instead of listening to vested interests like High-rise Harry, a warts-and-all royal commission into Australia’s construction industry should be launched. This would identify the causes of the crisis, finger those parties responsible, recommend solutions, and help to prevent a recurrence down the road.

Privatising profits and socialising losses seems to have become the key wealth generation strategy for Australia’s wealthy elite.

• Author
• Recent Posts

Unconventional Economist

Leith van Onselen is Chief Economist at the MB Fund and MB Super. Leith is an economist and has previously worked at the Australian Treasury, Victorian Treasury and Goldman Sachs.

SOURCE: https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2019/11/high-rise-harry-demands-faulty-towers-bail-out/

CAAN FACEBOOK:

https://www.facebook.com/Community-Action-Alliance-for-NSW-744190798994541/?ref=aymt_homepage_panel

WEBSITE:

https://caanhousinginequalitywithaussieslockedout.wordpress.com/

Building inquiry hands down report over Opal, Mascot Towers

Warranties for major and minor building defects must be extended to a minimum of seven years and strata defect bonds should be increased, a parliamentary committee investigating the state’s construction crisis has found.

Anna Caldwell, The Daily Telegraph

November 13, 2019

AAP4:17New powers to tackle shoddy building work

October 23, 2019. NSW Minister for Better Regulation Kevin Anderson speaking to media at state parliament about new legislation to reform the building industry. “Today we…

• Opal Tower owners launch class action
• Sydney towers cracking under the strain

Warranties for major and minor building defects must be extended to a minimum of seven years and strata defect bonds should be increased, a parliamentary committee investigating the state’s construction crisis has declared.

A financial support package to help owners remove flammable cladding is also required, the first report of the NSW parliamentary committee tasked with considering the regulation of building standards has found.

The committee handed down its initial report today, with 19 recommendations, following the highly publicised defect issues in Mascot and Opal towers and a series of pubic hearings which have flushed out more horror stories.

The government currently has a bill before the parliament to tackle issues in the construction industry, however the Committee’s view is that it is insufficient to deal with the problems.

Committee chair David Shoebridge slammed the government for not doing enough for any of the thousands of homeowners currently struggling with defects.

“The government’s current bill offers not one red cent not one dollar, no assistance to any of those thousands of homeowners currently struggling with defects,” he said.

“Whether its flammable cladding or major structural defects we need the government to come forward with an assistance package.

“Homeowners didn’t create this problem by themselves. It wasn’t a lack of investigation by homeowners for Mascot Towers that has seen them face potentially millions of dollars in remediation cost.

“We believe the government needs to step up and assist those homeowners with a comprehensive rescue package.”

The report also recommends the establishment of a Building Commission that is “sufficiently resourced” with powers to regulate the construction industry.

“We are disappointed with the government’s piecemeal approach to legislation, and the lack of progress implementing it,” Mr Shoebridge said.

The Committee will further consider the issue of flammable cladding in more detail next year.

The report has also called for the NSW government to immediately investigate the licencing system of building trades in NSW and whether independent examination is required before a licence is granted.

Mr Shoebridge said the committee heard “harrowing evidence”.

“We had homeowners in tears about the personal financial and emotional costs they are facing,” he said.

“We have regulators who don’t regulate and people buying homes which are not fit to live and in some cases desperately unsafe, facing bills of hundreds of thousands of dollars to simply make their homes liveable.

“That cannot be allowed to stand in NSW.”

Labor MP John Graham said the government needed to act quickly on the issue of flammable cladding.

“The most concerning evidence we received is that the building commissioner has advice sitting on the desk of the Minister about how to deal with flammable cladding and today it has still not been acted on,” he said.

Better Regulation Minister Kevin Anderson yesterday accused Mr Shoebridge of attempting to delay the bill, saying it was a “betrayal of the public’s trust”.

“We must act now to restore confidence to the residential high-rise market by passing this Bill now, as the first step in the Government’s commitment to fully implement the Shergold-Weir recommendations,” he said.

“Despite this, Labor and the Greens have made a deal which will see them attempt to delay this Bill, and deny current and future homeowners new protections against defects.”

SOURCE: https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/building-inquiry-hands-down-report-over-opal-mascot-towers/news-story/30f5162f451e1d17df6d7ffcc4369d62

CAAN FACEBOOK:

https://www.facebook.com/Community-Action-Alliance-for-NSW-744190798994541/?ref=aymt_homepage_panel

WEBSITE:

https://caanhousinginequalitywithaussieslockedout.wordpress.com/

We agree with this Commentator …

‘The government could impose personal liability and criminal penalty on the directors of development and building companies, then the flammable cladding problem will ‘magically’ solve itself .

They won’t do that though … ‘

Defective apartments to cost taxpayers $6 billion

By Unconventional Economist in Australian Property

November 5, 2019 | 7 comments

A new report from Equity Economics warns that the cost to taxpayers from apartment faults and flammable cladding could surpass $6 billion:

The report, set to be released on Tuesday, estimated the overall national cost of apartment defects, including flammable cladding, to be upwards of $6 billion and called for a harmonisation of state laws. The report put the onus on Canberra to bring the states into line and use the billions of dollars in federal infrastructure funding as leverage to ensure better compliance…

“Unfortunately, though, [the federal government] has applied this leverage to advance an ideological agenda,” the report said.

But Federal Industry Minister Karen Andrews said the federal government didn’t have the constitutional power to act. She said the states were already working together to develop a consistent approach to implementing the recommendations of the Shergold-Weir Building Confidence report…

The CFMEU report took aim at a decades-long strategy by the states to handball big infrastructure projects to the private sector to reduce risk, which it said had slowly diminished government’s institutional knowledge and expertise.

It described the National Construction Code as an effective framework which was being applied inconsistently at a state level rendering it “defunct”…

The blame for the flammable cladding crisis runs deep and wide, including dodgy certifiers and fraudulent certificates, phoenixing building companies and lax regulators.

Australia’s mass immigration ‘Big Australia’ policy has also facilitated the crisis. With cities like Sydney’s and Melbourne’s populations growing at third-world rates, lots of dwellings need to be built very quickly. This inevitably means that build quality is compromised.

*The proliferation of shoddy high-rise will continue as Sydney’s and Melbourne’s populations balloon to a projected 10 million each in around 50 years:

Such manic immigration-fuelled population growth will necessarily require the rapid construction of high-rise shoe boxes, resulting in compromised quality.

The only way to truly fix the problems in the construction industry is to conduct a ‘warts-and-all’ royal commission and cut immigration. No more band-aid solutions.

SOURCE: https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2019/11/defective-apartments-to-cost-taxpayers-6-billion/

CAAN FACEBOOK:

https://www.facebook.com/Community-Action-Alliance-for-NSW-744190798994541/?ref=aymt_homepage_panel

WEBSITE:

https://caanhousinginequalitywithaussieslockedout.wordpress.com/

GOOD isn’t it? It looks like defective construction is starting to backfire on the perpetrators … and commercial interests will weed out the badies.

Shouldn’t it be the developers and the banks that need to solve this?

Apartment defects turns insurance crisis

By Houses and Holes in Australian Property

November 1, 2019 | 6 comments

Via The Australian:

Construction projects worth billions of dollars could grind to a halt as hikes to professional indemnity insurance premiums begin to force building certifiers out of business in what the industry warns is a “national crisis”.

One of Queensland’s biggest certifiers, GMA Certification Group, declared on Thursday it was “dead in the water” following a rise of 200-300 per cent in professional indemnity premiums.

JMG Building Surveyors chief executive John Massey, who wrote to Scott Morrison in July to warn the construction industry was on the brink of the “collapse”, described GMA’s imminent closure as “unfathomable”.

The crisis was triggered by London’s Grenfell tower inferno and a similar firestorm at the Lacrosse apartment building at Melbourne’s Docklands in 2014.

Construction defects, which led to the evacuation of three Sydney apartment blocks, also put pressure on the industry.

It’s a play book, really. Let it run into outright crisis then demand the tax payer pick up the tab.

Just another mass immigration growth model outrage as the profits are privatised while the costs are socialised.

Meanwhile, goodbye:

Until the tax payer catches it right in the team.

photo: The Australian

SOURCE: https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2019/11/apartment-defects-turns-insurance-crisis/

CAAN FACEBOOK:

https://www.facebook.com/Community-Action-Alliance-for-NSW-744190798994541/?ref=aymt_homepage_panel

WEBSITE:

https://caanhousinginequalitywithaussieslockedout.wordpress.com/

IT would appear that Mr Chandler has not yet made any official recommendations on the historical defects problem … is that because there are just so many of them?

… however he has on the issue of flammable cladding.

Buyer beware: Building tsar’s warning over faulty units

The man hand-picked by the Berejiklian government to tackle Sydney’s defective apartment crisis has declared regular homebuyers need to take more responsibility for inspections and adopt a “buyer beware” mindset. 

Anna Caldwell, State Political Editor, The Daily Telegraph|

October 29, 2019

AAP1:30What went wrong at Opal Tower

February 22, 2019. UNSW’s Professor Mark Hoffman speaks to reporters in Sydney alongside Minister for Planning and Housi…

• Opal Tower owners launch class action against NSW Government
• Sydney buyers abandon off-the-plan units for houses after building disasters

The man hand-picked by the Berejiklian government to tackle Sydney’s defective apartment crisis has declared regular homebuyers need to take more responsibility for inspections and adopt a “buyer beware” mindset. 

Building Commissioner David Chandler made the remarks as he revealed he has identified another 200-apartment building last week which had “significant issues” and was “incomplete” despite being certified for occupancy, and that there were “at least another two” buildings like it.

Mr Chandler was appointed this year to restore confidence in the building and construction industry after hundreds of people had to be evacuated from defective or risky apartments in the Mascot and Opal Towers and other buildings were identified as unfit for occupancy.

Mr Chandler said last night under a state parliament estimates grilling that people “should go and spend a little bit more time having a look (at their apartment) before they settle”.

He said one of his priorities was to find a way to tackle the defective building problems from “the front end” rather than waiting for owners to move into bad apartments.

*He also conceded he had not yet made any official recommendations on the historical defects problem, but had on the issue of flammable cladding.

*Mr Chandler told the hearing he would “be quite confident to buy an off the plan apartment” in Sydney “if people were prepared to do a little bit of research to work out who might be risky and who’s less risky”.

He said “there are 60 or 70 per cent of developers building an entirely high quality product”.

The comments were described as “remarkable” by Labor MP Courtney Houssos who pursued Mr Chandler with relentless questions, asking him if his “advice is that homeowners become experts themselves?” and whether there was a role for government to regulate.

Mr Chandler said there was a “role for everyone to do what would be appropriate”.

“If I was in the market for a $750,000 apartment I would certainly be looking at who was the builder and I would certainly be wanting to have a better look at the apartment and the building before I settled,” he said.

“We can risk assess the market and we can get out and look at complaints but everyone should have a hand in a little bit of buyer beware.”

Ms Houssos said that Mr Chandler’s implication was that owners in places like Mascot Towers had not done their due diligence but Mr Chandler said he wouldn’t testify on whether those owners had done due diligence.

Mr Chandler said that of the project he’d visited last week, of the 200 people who had settled “only one owner took it upon themselves to inspect the property and that party refused to settle”.

A government spokesman last night confirmed the building in question was currently occupied and did not require evacuation, but would not reveal its location.

Labor MP Daniel Mookhey said: “I would have thought the consumer in NSW would expect the government to regulate so that the product served up (is acceptable)”.

SOURCE: https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/building-commissioner-points-finger-at-buyers/news-story/d2a209e3803d437d447b5bd32f40140a

CAAN FACEBOOK:

https://www.facebook.com/Community-Action-Alliance-for-NSW-744190798994541/?ref=aymt_homepage_panel

WEBSITE:

https://caanhousinginequalitywithaussieslockedout.wordpress.com/