Flat Chat Strata Forum Living in strata Current Page

  • Creator
    Topic
  • #11201
    Jimmy-T
    Keymaster

      The recent scenes of thousands of people being evacuated from apartment blocks in London shocked Australian apartment residents – almost as much as the deadly Grenfell Tower fire that prompted Camden council to take such drastic action.

      Given that we seem to have even more buildings with inflammable cladding than the Brits, can we expect to see similar scenes here?

      To be clear, the Camden evacuations, in which 3000 residents were moved to emergency accommodation, wasn’t a bureaucratic over-reaction to the presence of unsafe cladding on their tower blocks.

      According to UK newspapers, the local fire brigade told the council they needed to get people out as quickly as possible because those buildings also had inflammable cladding on top of other serious fire safety issues, including faulty fire doors and exposed gas pipes.

      Which brings us to the Australian equivalent to London’s council flats – Housing NSW’s stock of apartment high-rises?

      Surely if an estimated 2000-plus privately owned unit blocks across this state have cheap cladding, then “houso” high-rises must be similarly endangered. And has anybody even checked?

      Well, yes, we have, says Family and Community Services Minister Pru Goward. And no, they don’t have buildings with aluminium cladding on them.

      “Family and Community Services (FACS) takes the safety of its tenants very seriously,” she told Flat Chat. “I am advised that none of our residential tower blocks have aluminium composite cladding on their facades.

      “All residential towers are solidly built and well equipped to reduce fire risk. Most are concrete structures, with concrete floors and brick infill,” she added. “The tower blocks are fitted with a range of additional active and passive fire safety measures to reduce fire risk.”

      Lucky us, you have to think.  In the UK, of the 80 or so apartment buildings covered with aluminium cladding that councils have so far checked, every one of them failed the fire safety test.

      And Grenfell, in which more than 70 council tenants died, was a perfect storm of unsafe materials, over-crowding, densely laid-out apartments, inadequate fire safety measures and fatally poor information that made the tragedy much worse than it otherwise might have been.

      Housing NSW high-rise tenants add up to a tiny fraction of the numbers of council tenants in the UK and represent a relatively small proportion of apartment residents here.

      And that reveals another reason we not seen scores of Australian families tipped out into the streets with only whatever goods and chattels they can carry.

      Is it because the majority of our buildings are safer than the Brits’?  Or is it because nobody is running around asking questions that could lead to a very expensive answer?

      If a building was deemed to be so unsafe it was uninhabitable, rental investors, who own the majority of units in this state, would have to pay to re-house their tenants as well as their share of the cost of replacing the cladding.

      Meanwhile, by the way, the developers and builders who put the cheap crap all over our buildings are highly unlikely to be held to account, either legally or financially.

      If the investors have little interest in identifying problems and the residents don’t want to end up sleeping in the local sports centre – nearly 100 people refused to leave the Camden flats – who’s going to ring the alarm bells?

      As we said recently, it is almost inevitable that we will see another high-rise fire in Australia, not least because we seem to have even more buildings covered in this stuff than the Brits do.

      We have all the ingredients – inflammable cladding on buildings with dodgy or inadequate fire safety equipment, laughable certification procedures, over-crowding, internally sub-divided units, blocked and locked fire escapes, open fire doors, junk-filled balconies and poor management that allows all this to go on.

      I’d wager that at least one building, somewhere in this city has most if not all of those issues.  If so, we are one dropped cigarette end, one neglected balcony barbecue, one faulty heater away from our own Grenfell.

      But, in the meantime, rest easy (albeit with crossed fingers): there will be no mass evacuation of flat dwellers in NSW because all the risk is on private property and not in Housing NSW blocks.

      The opinions offered in these Forum posts and replies are not intended to be taken as legal advice. Readers with serious issues should consult experienced strata lawyers.
    Viewing 7 replies - 1 through 7 (of 7 total)
    • Author
      Replies
    • #27445
      Bennifer
      Flatchatter

        A block of flats is being built in my parent’s suburb and my Dad was commenting on how well built is appears to be. He was genuinely surprised- because he knows how badly most apartment blocks are built. He decided to have a closer look and when he walked by, he noticed that it is being built by Housing NSW. He’s assumed that the government must have better regulations for their own buildings… While it’s great that it is being built so well for Housing NSW residents, it is disappointing that the rest of us (in the private market) are subjected to less protection and poorer quality blocks.

        If the government can seem to ‘get it right’ with their own blocks – what is stopping them from holding all developers to the same standards?

        #27447
        Jimmy-T
        Keymaster
        Chat-starter

          It’s all about accountability. Developers can walk away from defects without any comeback.  Councils can’t.  The government only needs to look in its own backyard to see how things should be done.

          The opinions offered in these Forum posts and replies are not intended to be taken as legal advice. Readers with serious issues should consult experienced strata lawyers.
          #27453
          BONNIE L
          Flatchatter

            Hi, If have read the above ‘right’, and if have this right, can I also please add that I read something through the week about the issue being taken seriously.   Maybe others also saw this reported in the papers? 

            #27507
            Paul Ritchie
            Flatchatter

              I wish people who comment on catastrophes would first get some facts before comparing to other buildings and especially other countries. I am a Civil Engineer and the Chairman of the SC in our complex.

              Modern Australian buildings MUST comply with the BCA and the fire requirement are quite severe, eg:-
              a) Must have sprinkler system in high risk areas, such as basement parking and storage areas.
              b) Must have smoke detectors (wired in with battery back up).
              c) Must have heat sensors in certain areas.
              d) Must have an audible alarm.
              e) Must have a back to base fire panel system (EWIS) which works 24/7 to alert the authorities immediately a fire alarm is triggered. This also has verbal evacuation statement to all Floors.
              f) Must have extinguishers on all floors and other areas.
              g) Must have a hose/hydrant system on each floor.

              From what I can find on the web sites, the Grenfell building had only SOME extinguishers!!! We are comparing chalk and cheese.

              The main issue is that the OC via the SC ensure that the fire system is correctly and continuously maintained (this is NOT done in some Stratas).

              The problem cladding is NOT just aluminium – it is a composite with a flammable core of some type of material. Does my Strata have it? I do not have any idea as you cannot tell from looking at it, nor from the construction plans. You would need to maybe contact the builder but would he tell you? Or – do a core sample. But – if you find the ‘wrong’ material, what then – the cost to either replace or install special external sprinklers would be at least in the $100,000’s. My building only has a cladding on the top floor, but still the cost, IF IT WAS NEEDED, would cost at least $100,000 – $200,000 – a special levy would be needed.
              My view is that the fire risk similar to Grenfell in my building EVEN if the cladding is the wrong type, is very low BECAUSE we have the complete fire safety system as detailed above.
              I think we all need to take a deep breath and not get overly concerned – in Australia.
              As you can see from the above – to even find the buildings with the wrong cladding is a very complex task and it will probably lie on the OC. To ascertain whether action is then required needs expert analysis of EACH building – an OC task?

              My view is that we should be targeting compliance with the BCA and for OC’s to ensure the fire systems are properly maintained.

              #27508
              TonyC
              Flatchatter

                True, but we apartment & strata owners are no experts and need to rely on others!
                The legal liability will lie upon the fire safety inspectors to identify flammable cladding when they issue annual fire safety inspection certificates. If no annual fire safety inspection is needed or obtained, the responsibility will lie on the owners corporation.
                And once the flammable cladding is identified, it must be removed or the strata building insurer might not respond to fire damage claim.

                #27509
                Benelyn
                Flatchatter

                  scared

                  #27510
                  Jimmy-T
                  Keymaster
                  Chat-starter


                    @Paul
                    Ritchie said:
                    I wish people who comment on catastrophes would first get some facts before comparing to other buildings and especially other countries. I am a Civil Engineer and the Chairman of the SC in our complex.

                    Yes, and I wish experts would realise that their experience is not universal before they make rude comments … but, hey, this is strata and all opinions are equal – it’s just that some are more equal than others.

                    Here are the facts:

                    We don’t know how many buildings in Australia have dangerous cladding but we do know there are a hell of a lot.

                    We do know that buildings are supposed to (i.e. “MUST”) have adequate fire safety measures in place but we also know that in some buildings (where Paul is not the chair) these are deficient, untested and routinely ignored.

                    We also know that there has been a major cladding fire in Australia and it occurred in a building where basic commonsense safety rules, like not cramming all your goods and chattels on to your balcony and not ramming as many students as you can into the available floor space, were ignored.

                    We have also seen fatalities and serious injuries where internal fire safety measures were ignored or avoided by the developers.

                    I too live in a building where fire safety regulations are observed and maintained punctiliously.  However, I have seen blocks that not only had emergency fire sprinklers that were not attached to a water supply, but which had been approved by fire safety checks at least 10 times.

                    Just a random search of the internet will find dozens of examples of fire safety “MUSTS” that don’t measure up.

                    Take this quote from an American plumbing contractors website:

                    My experiences have taught me that the standard could be effective — if it was enforced and used in its entirety. I use the word “could” because one of the significant fallacies … is its premise: that all sprinkler systems are designed, installed, tested and inspected correctly when they are installed or remodeled. But they are not!

                    Now, maybe American plumbers are less diligent than ours, but I doubt it.

                    In an ideal world we would all be safe, regardless of the kind of cladding we had on our exterior walls.  But it’s not an ideal world and we know that some developers, tradies, inspectors and residents can’t find a corner without wanting to cut it.

                    So yes, Paul, as you say “we should be targeting compliance with the BCA and for OC’s to ensure the fire systems are properly maintained.”

                    And as Anthony says (in item 6) we have to rely on the professionals.  But not all professionals are reliable and, more to the point, owners corporations can’t be depended upon to be super-diligent if it means it will cost owners money.

                    If you want to hear more experts’ views, CLICK HERE and listen to the guys who called in to the James Valentine radio show. That is truly scary stuff. 

                    The opinions offered in these Forum posts and replies are not intended to be taken as legal advice. Readers with serious issues should consult experienced strata lawyers.
                  Viewing 7 replies - 1 through 7 (of 7 total)
                  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

                  Flat Chat Strata Forum Living in strata Current Page