• Creator
    Topic
  • #9239
    leif
    Flatchatter

      In strata we know about dwellings used for different use including private and commercial.

      Safety regulation is different in that for private use they are approved as built unless there has been a change to construction or usage unless the amended or new regulation specifically states retrospectively but commercial property must meet current requirements.

       

      In strata common property can be private but if there are no locks on the entry doors or gates and no signage about illegal trespassing the public has right of entry like a door to door sale person can legally enter the property and use the stair wells etc.

       

      If the railing in the stairwell is legal as built but significantly lower than current minimum requirement and known by all including the executive committee to be unsafe to today’s standard and a door to door sale person enters legally and falls down the central light well over the known unsafe railing that is legal as built, who is the then responsible for building safety.

       

      Is the intent of the strata Act that clearly define the difference between different usages to allow unsafe common property that is legally accessible by the unsupervised public?

    Viewing 2 replies - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)
    • Author
      Replies
    • #20316
      Whale
      Flatchatter

        leif..I’m sorry but much of all that is a bit rambling, but I think you’re asking if an item of common property, to wit the handrail of an internal staircase, is illegal and therefore a safety hazard because it’s known to be non-compliant with current building standards / codes.

        In my opinion the handrail would remain compliant if and until such time as the Owners Corporation undertook some works on its Common Property that affected it, such as replacing a section or perhaps raising the stairs (e.g. by re-tiling), whereupon the entire handrail would likely need to be made compliant (i.e. higher) concurrently.

        That’s a bit rambling too, but suffice to say that if your Committee is aware of the safety issue, then compliant or not, it probably has a moral obligation to do something the lessen the risk (of someone falling) by perhaps installing an additional handrail above that existing or even by placing appropriately worded signage at/near the stairway; not advising that the handrail’s low but perhaps advising people to take care on the stairway and not to run whilst negotiating them.

        #20326
        leif
        Flatchatter
        Chat-starter

          Sorry about rambling put the point still seems lost

          Common property that is open for public access does not have to comply with current safety standards, only as built, if registered as a domestic dwelling, with no changes to construction or usage, the question was who then is responsible for safety.

           

          With the current news about schoolies on the roofs in the gold coast dangling over the edge and taking pictures.

          Must have been approved when built or a building approval would not have been given.

           

          Not morally but legally who then is responsible for safety.

           

          I thought I knew but was looking for independent advice.

           

          Owners Corporation

           

          Sometimes it is not sufficient to read all the relevant law but also Judges view.

           

          Is this the answer?

          NSW Court (Tobias JA’s) judgment is significant; he held that just because the property complied with building standards at the time the building was built, and even though the new standards did not apply retrospectively, an owners corporation could still be in breach of s 62 for failing to update the common property.

           

          The alternative would be it is ok for the public to access but a trades person cannot access under NSW WorkCover?

           

          Unless proven the Owners Corporation will not justify the cost of enhancing the common property by either preventing access or increasing railing height, any warning sign will only be admitting to knowledge about the unsafe condition.

           

          From memory railing height for free fall of more than 2m:

          Current as built 88cm measured

          WorkCover 90cm

          Current NSW requirement 100cm

          Children’s hospital recommended 120cm (Seems no longer stated in new info)

        Viewing 2 replies - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)
        • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.