Opal Tower

<html><body>
The NSW Government today released the final report from the independent investigation into Opal Tower. 
<div class="page" title="Page 8">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
<div class="page" title="Page 8">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
It has recommendations about ensuring qualified people design buildings and that buildings are built to those designs.
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
The biggest recommendation in today’s report is about registering engineers.
“We will be working through the detail of today’s report with our new Building Commissioner to make sure that when homeowners are handed over the keys to a new building, it is safe, structurally sound and free from major defects," Minister for Planning and Housing Anthony Roberts said.
The report came after Professors Mark Hoffman, John Carter and Stephen Foster were asked to consider the cause of the structural damage to the Opal Tower on Christmas Eve.
The report advised security camera footage showed the cracking in the bottom corners of the bottom panel (Panel A) on Level 10 with the time stamp on this video recording indicated that the cracking of the panel commenced at approximately 2.16 pm on Monday 24 December 2018 and continued for approximately 8 seconds.
<img src="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/c_scale,w_580,q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/po.images/2019/2/22/Crack2.jpg" alt="">
“Our final report confirms that a number of structural design and construction issues, including non-compliance with national codes and standards were responsible for the observed damage at Opal Tower.
“We found some of the as-constructed hob beams and panel assemblies were under designed according to the National Construction Code and Australian Standards, leaving the beams prone to failure.
"We also found construction and material deficiencies likely contributed to the damage to the hob beams on levels 4 and 10.
<img src="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/c_scale,w_580,q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/po.images/2019/2/22/Hobb-Crack.jpg" alt="">
“We consider that the building is overall structurally sound and the localised damage to the building can be rectified to ensure the building is compliant with the National Construction Code.
"We agree in principle with the rectification works planned to date, noting that these have advanced considerably since our interim report was released.
"However, we repeat our call for qualified structural engineers to check the final design and construction proposals in detail before major rectification works begin and before the building is deemed completely safe for occupancy, while noting the reoccupation of the building extends beyond the scope of our investigation and is a matter for residents and the builder."
<img src="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/c_scale,w_580,q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/po.images/2019/2/22/Level10.jpg" alt="">
<div class="page" title="Page 8">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
<div class="page" title="Page 8">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
It confirmed most, if not all, major columns in the building had been designed so that their maximum axial load carrying capacity far exceeded the design loading imposed on them, indicating a very high factor of safety to these critical elements. 
However, a preliminary analysis of the splitting forces near the interface with the two hob beams reviewed (Level 4 – grid line A and Level C -grid line C) indicates that this aspect of the design should be confirmed by a qualified engineer for all such features.
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<img src="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/c_scale,w_580,q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/po.images/2019/2/22/Opal2.jpg" alt=""> 
It found no evidence contradicting their interim assertion that the building is overall structurally sound, although there is significant damage to some elements. 
<div class="page" title="Page 8">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
<div class="page" title="Page 8">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
It advised it was notable that the observed damage was constrained to the inside facing of the hob beam; the outside of the hob beam at the critical section was supported by a lateral garden bed wall (Figure 16) built integrally with the slab and against the hob beam.
This wall likely provided support to the outer side of the hob beam forcing the damage inward where such support was lacking.
The damage remained “hidden” until exposed on 27 December 2018 after removal of an internal wall in the adjacent apartment. 
<div class="page" title="Page 12">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
The site observations of the damaged beam are consistent with a bursting failure.
"There are contradicting views and documentation as to the design strength of the hob beam concrete on Level 4. 
"Notwithstanding, 65 MPa concrete was understood to have been poured during construction as it was specified for the puddle pours in the slab around the columns and it was considered expedient to use the same batch of concrete when pouring the hob.
"During our investigations, and subsequent to the issue of our interim report, records of strength for the concrete used to construct the hob beam were provided to us. 
"These reveal 28 day strengths of these concrete samples as 50 MPa, where 65 MPa concrete was ordered for supply, indicating that the concrete in the hob may also have been of a lower strength. 
"Our independent analysis of concrete core testing samples, extracted and tested in January 2019 by Mahaffey Associates, did not contradict this observation.
"Clearly, this mis-match in design strengths points to a possible and unfortunate ambiguity in the interpretation of the design documentation."
</div>
</div>
</div>
The report noted that extreme environmental events, while rare, could precipitate further damage and consequently it would be prudent not to delay rectification works.
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
It formally noted: 
<div class="page" title="Page 3">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
<ol>
<li>
The as-constructed hob beam / panel assembly was under-designed, according to the National Construction Code (NCC) and the Australian Standard for Concrete Structures (AS36001), at a number of locations in the building. This left the hob beams susceptible to failure by shear compression and bursting.
</li>
<li>
The decision, taken after the initial design, to grout only partially the joints between the hob beams and panels, significantly raised the levels of stress in the hob beams on levels 4, 10, 16 and 26.
</li>
<li>
Construction and material deficiencies likely precipitated the observed major damage to hob beams on Level 10-C (electrical conduit and reinforcing steel in the cover region, and a panel repair) and Level 4-A (lower strength concrete than used in hobs elsewhere and partial grout coverage).
</li>
<li>
The observed damage in the concrete panel at Level 10 and in the Level 10 floor slab was likely a consequence of the adjacent hob beam failures and not the original cause of the damage observed at Level 10.
</li>
</ol>
It formally advised making the Opal Tower safe for occupancy
<ol start="5">
<li>
Appropriate rectification works can address deficiencies in the original, as- constructed, structural design and ensure the building is compliant with the NCC.
</li>
<li>
Significant rectification works are necessary to ensure that the building and all its structural components satisfy the NCC and specifically the current AS3600- 2018
</li>
<li>
The damaged hob beams should be rectified to provide the required load carrying capacity.
</li>
</ol>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="page" title="Page 4">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
<ol start="8">
<li>
Other hob beam / panel elements of similar as-constructed, structural design may not comply with the NCC and AS3600-2009 and, if so, will require rectification works. We also recommend checking of the forces in other structural elements adjacent to the hob beams, such as the columns.
</li>
<li>
We agree in principle with the rectification works planned to date, noting that these have advanced considerably since our interim report was released but have yet to be agreed by all parties and independently certified.
</li>
</ol>
     10. We recommended that a detailed analysis be undertaken of the potential redistribution of loads from the damaged elements to ensure that other newly loaded building elements, before and after rectification works, have suitable capacity and to avoid future damage. A preliminary analysis has been carried out and indicated structural loads satisfied the NCC in the non-damaged parts of the building structure. Nevertheless, this finding should be robustly and independently verified.
     11.We recommend that all designs and construction associated with the rectification works be checked and certified as safe for building occupancy by qualified independent structural engineers.
     12. The viability of residents re-entering the building extends beyond the structural issues considered here and hence beyond the scope of this investigation. Nevertheless, we would recommend that items 9-11 listed above be completed prior to re-occupation.
</div>
</div>
</div>
A full copy of the final report is available at: <a href="https://protect-au.mimecast.com/s/qP8qCzvkvEsGQKRWf4z48_?domain=planning.nsw.gov.au" target="_blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://protect-au.mimecast.com/s/qP8qCzvkvEsGQKRWf4z48_?domain%3Dplanning.nsw.gov.au&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1550870647570000&amp;usg=AFQjCNHpF5H2J5EYpQ-qQwaxqaNGSMtc2Q">https://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/finalopalreport</a>
 
</body></html>

jchancellor-FAypfDUnLy

NSW's apartment construction reform set to follow the devastating eight seconds of Opal Tower low strength concrete cracking

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
For many of us, the reality of Australian homes now sits many storeys up in the sky. <a href="https://theconversation.com/higher-density-and-diversity-apartments-are-australia-at-its-most-multicultural-97176" target="_blank">High-rise apartment buildings have sprouted across the nation’s cities</a>. In recent weeks – <a href="https://theconversation.com/there-are-lessons-to-be-drawn-from-the-cracks-that-appeared-in-sydneys-opal-tower-but-they-extend-beyond-building-certification-109428" target="_blank">on Christmas Eve at the Opal Tower building in Sydney</a> and <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/feb/04/apartment-fire-in-melbournes-spencer-street-prompts-new-fears-over-cladding" target="_blank">on February 4 at the Neo200 Building in Melbourne</a> – that reality has turned into the nightmare for hundreds of residents of being turned out of their homes with little more than the clothes they were wearing.
The Opal Tower evacuation was <a href="https://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/-/media/Files/DPE/Reports/Opal-Tower-Investigation-Draft-Interim-Report-2019-01-15.pdf" target="_blank">due to structural cracking</a>. At Neo200, a fire raced up the building, <a href="https://www.afr.com/real-estate/combustible-cladding-main-contributor-to-melbournes-spencer-st-tower-fire-20190204-h1atix" target="_blank">fuelled by flammable cladding</a> on part of its facade.
The rapid spread of the fire, and <a href="https://www.theage.com.au/national/cbd-tower-residents-forced-out-of-apartments-after-blaze-20190204-p50vlt" target="_blank">its apparent origin in a smouldering cigarette on the balcony</a>, was eerily reminiscent of the <a href="https://www.theage.com.au/politics/victoria/docklands-owners-sue-for-24m-over-fire-as-date-to-fix-cladding-looms-20180909-p502pc" target="_blank">Lacrosse building fire</a> in Melbourne in 2014. It also brings to mind the Grenfell Tower inferno in London (probably <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-40301289" target="_blank">originating in a small electrical fire</a>). This catastrophe took the lives of 72 people and devastated the lives of many more.
Media reports of the Neo200 fire included two concerning aspects:
<ul>
<li>
<a href="https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/extra-fire-alarms-put-in-a-fortnight-before-blaze-ripped-through-tower-20190204-p50vjt" target="_blank">tenants had been unaware</a> the building was partially covered in combustible cladding
</li>
<li>
<a href="http://www.mfb.vic.gov.au/Media/docs/Post_Incident_Analysis_for_Lacrosse_Docklands_-_25_11_2014%20-%20FINAL-dd61c4b2-61f6-42ed-9411-803cc23e6acc-0.PDF" target="_blank">as the Metropolitan Fire Brigade found at Lacrosse</a>, <a href="https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/same-as-grenfell-tower-cladding-fears-as-fire-rips-through-melbourne-cbd-apartment-building-20190204-p50vgl" target="_blank">smoke detectors had been covered</a>, rendering them inoperable.
</li>
</ul>
Such behaviours and lack of knowledge compromise critical safety-related equipment. This represents both a challenge to, and reinforcement of, the critical role of residents in ensuring high-rise buildings are safe.
In the <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/property-observer" target="_blank">final report</a> of the post-Grenfell “Building a Safer Future” review for the UK government, Dame Judith Hackitt observed:
"Residents need to be safe, and feel safe, in their homes … they also have a responsibility towards their fellow residents to ensure that their actions do not compromise the safety of the building."
Six elements of residential building safety
The Hackitt Review joins a raft of reports that have influenced ongoing reform of residential construction regulations. In Victoria, notable recent contributions include the Auditor-General’s <a href="https://www.audit.vic.gov.au/report/victorias-consumer-protection-framework-building-construction" target="_blank">2015 report</a> on the consumer protection framework, and <a href="https://www.industry.gov.au/sites/default/files/July%202018/document/pdf/building_ministers_forum_expert_assessment_-_building_confidence.pdf" target="_blank">Shergold and Weir’s 2018 report</a> for the Building Ministers’ Forum.
There is significant agreement between these reviews. Their vision for an effective regulatory scheme can be distilled into six elements, which need to interact holistically:
<ol>
<li>
Information: all parties who have an influence on occupant safety need sufficient information about the risks in the building to make decisions consistent with protecting occupant safety.
</li>
<li>
Responsibility: while the “buck stops” with an adequately resourced regulator, all parties in the residential construction supply chain need to discharge clearly expressed, risk-based and complementary responsibilities.
</li>
<li>
Standards: people with appropriate expertise (for example, about how building materials interact) should set standards to be enforced throughout the supply chain.
</li>
<li>
Competence: where work requires particular skills and experience, only people who have these should do it.
</li>
<li>
Quality assurance: inspection regimes need to provide a robust “last line of defence” to catch defects before they threaten occupants’ safety.
</li>
<li>
Rectification: recognising that litigation is slow and expensive, dispute avoidance processes and insurance should expedite rectification.
</li>
</ol>
The Victorian regulatory regime for residential construction mainly comprises the <a href="http://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/domino/Web_Notes/LDMS/LTObject_Store/ltobjst10.nsf/DDE300B846EED9C7CA257616000A3571/FF534BFE5E1FF524CA2583150019BDAF/%24FILE/93-126a117.docx" target="_blank">Building Act 1993</a>, its recently updated <a href="http://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/Domino/Web_Notes/LDMS/PubLawToday.nsf/b12e276826f7c27fca256de50022686b/d6ce1ed4cf4cae14ca25833000014a82!OpenDocument" target="_blank">regulations</a>, the <a href="https://ncc.abcb.gov.au/ncc-online/NCC" target="_blank">National Construction Code</a> which underpins those regulations, and the <a href="http://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/Domino/Web_Notes/LDMS/LTObject_Store/LTObjSt10.nsf/DDE300B846EED9C7CA257616000A3571/513B8F096A77B1A7CA2583300080DA1F/%24FILE/95-91a084.docx" target="_blank">Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995</a>. Justifiably, much of the recent reform focus has been on the role of the regulator under element 2 – the Victorian Ombudsman’s <a href="https://www.ombudsman.vic.gov.au/Publications/Parliamentary-Reports/Own-motion-investigation-into-the-governance-and-a" target="_blank">2012 report</a> led to the Victorian Building Authority replacing the Victorian Building Commission – and elements 3-6. Contributors to The Conversation have, for example, noted:
<ul>
<li>
the difficulties of <a href="https://theconversation.com/cladding-fires-expose-gaps-in-building-material-safety-checks-heres-a-solution-111073" target="_blank">tracking compliant products throughout globalised supply chains</a> (element 3), and how technology can help overcome these challenges
</li>
<li>
the importance of enforcing competence (element 4) in a <a href="https://theconversation.com/beyond-opal-a-10-point-plan-to-fix-the-residential-building-industry-110975" target="_blank">ten-point plan to fix the residential building industry</a>
</li>
<li>
scapegoating <a href="https://theconversation.com/there-are-lessons-to-be-drawn-from-the-cracks-that-appeared-in-sydneys-opal-tower-but-they-extend-beyond-building-certification-109428" target="_blank">private building inspectors</a> (element 5), as happened after the Opal evacuation, attacks a symptom of the disease, rather than the inherent tension between cost and quality in residential construction.
</li>
</ul>
The regulatory response on each of these four elements remains a matter for ongoing debate. This is justified given that the performance-based nature of most standards-setting results in increased competence requirements.
What about the role of residents?
The Neo200 experience highlights, however, that the role of residents can be underestimated. In particular, where regulatory elements 1 and 2 refer to “parties”, this very much includes dwelling occupants and others who enter these buildings. It also includes the designers, builders and other construction professionals who are the primary concern of elements 3-6.
Given the diverse ways in which people visit, live or work in high-rise buildings, it will always be a challenge to devise ways to make sure occupants:
<ul>
<li>
have enough information to understand the risks of being in such buildings (whether or not there is combustible cladding)
</li>
<li>
act in ways that reflect their responsibility to keep themselves and their fellow residents safe.
</li>
</ul>
As recent moves in Victoria to <a href="https://www.vba.vic.gov.au/consumers/swimming-pools/information-for-consumers-who-have-an-existing-pool-or-spa" target="_blank">register and inspect backyard pools and spas</a> arguably demonstrate, there seems to be robust community support for intruding into people’s homes where the safety risk is seen as high. Is it time, therefore, to mandate airline-style safety briefings in apartments, regular inspections of apartments to make sure smoke detectors are working, and other similar interventions? Certainly, a recognition of occupants as active stakeholders would suggest such measures are appropriate in pursuit of a deeply held community goal of dwelling safety.
As a society, though, are we ready for such state-based assaults on our homes – upon what the Kerrigans regarded as their “<a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118826/" target="_blank">castle</a>”? Time will tell. In the meantime, the residents of the Neo200 building – like those at the Opal building before them – are left searching for alternative accommodation, and for answers.<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/111255/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important; text-shadow: none !important;">
Matthew Bell, Senior Lecturer and Co-Director of Studies for Construction Law, University of Melbourne.
This article is republished from <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/dont-overlook-residents-role-in-apartment-building-safety-111255" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

j.ballantyne1990-6AQqhLzZaK

Don't overlook residents' role in apartment building safety: Matthew Bell

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
The reasons for the <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/fears-of-50-per-cent-loss-in-value-as-opal-tower-owners-consider-legal-options-20190103-p50pgg" target="_blank">cracked concrete</a> that triggered the evacuation – twice – of residents from Sydney’s Opal Tower over Christmas and the New Year are unknown and will take time to properly establish. Many commentators are jumping to the conclusion (yes that includes you, <a href="https://www.afr.com/real-estate/labors-kim-carr-promises-building-industry-reform-says-nsw-indolent-over-opal-20190102-h19mgk" target="_blank">Senator Carr</a>) that the problem is the result of the privatisation of building certification. Instead of being done by government or council inspectors, certification is now done by private contractors engaged by the developer.
It might well be a contributing factor, but what went wrong at Opal Tower is is much more complex than that. Making certification a government responsibility again won’t solve it.
Opal is unusual. Very few residential buildings in Australia have ever been evacuated due to construction defects, and fewer still because of structural cracking. The vast majority of construction defects in multi-unit residential buildings are waterproofing failures. Rather than creating short-term alarm, they create long-term misery. Because misery does not generate headlines, the problem of quality in multi-unit housing continues to be ignored by governments.
Most strata buildings are defective
Strata title allows each resident to own the space in which they live as well as a share of the common property including pipes and walls. It’s the way apartments are usually sold after they are developed.
We don’t have definitive, current data on the extent of defects in strata title buildings. Researchers from UNSW’s City Futures Research Centre have begun collecting the information for Sydney. But there are clear indications that defects are significant and widespread.
A 2012 study by City Futures surveyed 1,020 strata owners across NSW, and found 72% of all respondents (85% in buildings built since 2000) knew of <a href="https://cityfutures.be.unsw.edu.au/research/projects/governing-the-compact-city-the-role-and-effectiveness-of-strata-management-in-higher-density-residential-developments/" target="_blank">at least one significant defect</a> in their complex.
In 2017 a City of Sydney survey identified defects and maintenance as the <a href="https://www.flat-chat.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/CoS-Short-Term-Letting-Survey-report-2017.pdf" target="_blank">top concern of owner occupiers of apartments</a>, along with short-term letting through organisations such as Airbnb.
Unfortunately for those keen to leap to conclusions about certification, studies showed the same thing back in the early 1990s when certification was largely in the hands of local governments. In fact, studies have found the same thing ever since speculative housing became common in Australia, from the end of World War One.
In fact, ever since speculative housing development and investment has become common (after World War I in Australia), residential construction defects have been a concern both here and overseas.
The market for residential buildings is extremely competitive, and controlling the cost of construction is one of the key factors in making a profit. Sometimes, the urge to maximise profit dominates to the extent that both short and long-term construction failures are inevitable.
It’s the consequence of cost control
There are, of course, reputable developers and builders, but reputation usually finishes last, undercut by less-reputable players who produce buildings that are slightly cheaper.
Defects in single-storey speculative houses with pitched roofs are probably just as common as defects in multi-unit dwellings with flat roofs, but they are much easier to fix because the houses are close to the ground and no strata committee is involved.
They are also much easier to find; a competent building inspection initiated by a purchaser is normally enough to protect the buyer. On the other hand, a building inspection of a single unit in a multi-unit development is highly unlikely to find defects which are located elsewhere in the common property of a building.
There are 653 apartments in the Meriton-developed Regis Towers, for example, which was the subject of a <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/towers-of-trouble-20181228-p50ol6" target="_blank">long-running legal action for defects</a>.
Intervening at certification is too late
The only practical way to make multi-unit dwellings a good investment for the residents and a decent place to live is for government to take a pro-active role in driving quality throughout the design and construction process, not just at the end when the building is certified for occupation, or at the beginning when it gets a development approval.
It is a simple reality that no other actor in the construction process has the capacity to take this role. It is also simpler and cheaper to build in quality than to rectify defects.
Often, a $1 detail realised for fifty cents will cause endless grief and cost thousands of dollars to fix.
Reducing the amount of rectification required will improve sustainability outcomes by containing the amount of embodied carbon incorporated in the building.
If the building performs well, it will have a longer life and that will reduce the need to eventually replace it with a new building; again saving materials and improving the outcome for embodied carbon. It is worth remembering that 20 million tonnes of construction and demolition waste are produced in Australia each year.
Governments have been reluctant to intervene early
Governments have as good as ignored the problem of defects in multi-unit residential construction even though they have been aware of it for years.
This is particularly concerning because the state governments in NSW and Victoria have been busy spruiking this type of accommodation as the solution to the pressures of rising populations in Sydney and Melbourne. Given this, the protections for apartment owners under existing legislation are ludicrously slight.
Unfortunately, compliance with the National Construction Code (NCC) in its current form is no guarantee. There are so many ambiguities and grey areas in the NCC and in the way that it is applied that it is a guarantee of almost nothing, particularly when it comes to waterproofing.
A simple example is the construction of balconies with flat slabs, which is perfectly acceptable under the NCC. The floor slab is constructed as a single plane from the interior to the exterior of the building with the waterproof barrier at the balcony being provided by a masonry wall or a concrete ridge on top of the slab.
This design almost always leaks within a few years. The reliable solution is to cast the slab with a step, but this is more expensive and as a consequence is rare. Cut-price membranes under tiled terraces are also common, causing leaks, mould and misery, despite arguably complying with the provisions of the NCC.
Fortunately, there is plenty that government could do to improve quality of multi-unit construction without affecting prices much.
Five stars. Information could drive standards
One clear way forward is to make the construction quality of a building more transparent to buyers.
This could be achieved by introducing a similar sort of quality assurance scheme to the one government runs to improve safety in cars; a five-star rating.
People are free to buy a two-star car, but for obvious reasons, not many do, even if they are cheap. Similarly, it is unlikely that many people would buy a two-star unit.
It would be perfectly possible to star rate multi-unit housing for construction quality using an independent assessment body against a transparent set of criteria.
It’s been tried before
Such a quality assurance scheme was introduced by the now defunct Building and Construction Council (BACC) in NSW during the 1990s, but unfortunately foundered due to a lack of funding and will from Bob Carr’s government. This was a pity, as the scheme was designed to drive quality through the whole of the building process, from design to completion.
It still provides a perfectly valid model for a policy that would actually do something to improve multi-unit construction quality at a cost which is minimal in relation to the value of the benefits produced. If a building is built correctly in the first place, then owners will not need to rely on shonky fly-by-night builders and developers for rectification works nor need to claim against complex insurance policies.
If the NSW and Victorian governments are serious about having a greater proportion of people live in multi-unit developments, they have a responsibility to do something about their quality before we are left with a overhang of misery, leaks and failures. Just ask the residents and owners of Opal Tower.<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/109428/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
Geoff Hanmer is the Adjunct Lecturer in Architecture, University of NSW, UNSW
This article is republished from <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/there-are-lessons-to-be-drawn-from-the-cracks-that-appeared-in-sydneys-opal-tower-but-they-extend-beyond-building-certification-109428" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

There are lessons to be drawn from the cracks that appeared in Sydney’s Opal Tower, but they extend beyond building certification: Geoff Hanmer

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
The saga of <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-01-15/opal-tower-needs-significant-rectifiaction-work-report-finds/10713054" target="_blank">Opal Tower</a>, the 36-storey Sydney apartment building evacuated on Christmas Eve after frightening cracking, has helped to expose the deep cracks in Australia’s approach to building apartments.
An <a href="https://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/-/media/Files/DPE/Reports/Opal-Tower-Investigation-Draft-Interim-Report-2019-01-15.pdf" target="_blank">interim engineering assessment</a> <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-01-15/opal-tower-needs-significant-rectifiaction-work-report-finds/10713054" target="_blank">released yesterday</a> indicates concrete panels cracked due to their manufacture and assembly deviating from the original design. Though the building is structurally sound and in no danger of collapse, repairing the faults will be costly, slow and disruptive to residents.
The tower’s size, age (it is less than six months old) and the timing of its cracks might have made it particularly newsworthy, but badly built apartment blocks are far from unusual. Right now across Australia’s cities many buildings have significant leaks, cracks and fire safety failings.
So we can’t just address faults in individual developments. We need to identify the systemic flaws in how “compact city” policies have been planned and implemented.
Cracks in the compact city
The consequences of these flaws increasingly affect us all.
As the population of Australia’s capital cities grows, <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/by%20Subject/2071.0%7E2016%7EMain%20Features%7EApartment%20Living%7E20" target="_blank">more of us are living in apartments</a>. Governments have been promoting greater housing density as an alternative to sprawl <a href="https://theconversation.com/density-sprawl-growth-how-australian-cities-have-changed-in-the-last-30-years-65870" target="_blank">for decades</a>. But they haven’t always ensured this density has been done well, including in terms of building quality.
In the aftermath of the Opal Tower saga, experts have pointed to <a href="https://theconversation.com/there-are-lessons-to-be-drawn-from-the-cracks-that-appeared-in-sydneys-opal-tower-but-they-extend-beyond-building-certification-109428" target="_blank">many reasons</a> why building defects can occur.
These include the fact that developers owe buyers few legal obligations once the apartments are sold, which limits their risk if they get things wrong. There are also significant market pressures, particularly in boom times, to build quickly and cheaply. And there are gaps in how the construction process is overseen, meaning errors go unnoticed.
These are not new observations, but getting regulations in place to address them has proven challenging. A case in point is NSW’s new defects bond, requiring developers to put aside 2% of the building value to fix defects down the track. The bond’s introduction was <a href="https://www.domain.com.au/news/nsw-government-delays-introduction-of-defect-bond-system-to-rectify-building-faults-20170611-gwo6hb/" target="_blank">delayed for years</a>, and it will be a few more years yet before we know if it works.
Scoping the problem
So just how severe is the situation? Right now, we don’t know for sure.
In 2012 a City Futures Research Centre <a href="https://cityfutures.be.unsw.edu.au/research/projects/governing-the-compact-city-the-role-and-effectiveness-of-strata-management-in-higher-density-residential-developments/" target="_blank">project</a> surveyed apartment owners in NSW. Out of more than 1,000 respondents, 72% knew of defects in their strata-title complex. Among those whose apartments had been built since 2000, the percentage was 85%.
That project only looked at building defects as one of a number of issues facing apartment owners, however, so it didn’t document the issue in detail.
Our new <a href="https://cityfutures.be.unsw.edu.au/research/defects-strata" target="_blank">research project</a> will examine just how prevalent building defects are, the reasons they occur, and how strata-titled housing can be improved.
While the research will focus on Sydney, we hope it is a step towards changing planning and development policies to ensure better quality apartment buildings nation-wide.
Increasing inequality
A system allowing defective apartment buildings not only creates huge financial and emotional stress for residents but much wider economic and social risks.
Poor building practices undermine confidence in the <a href="https://cdn.aigroup.com.au/Economic_Indicators/Construction_Survey/2018/construction_outlook_Nov2018.pdf" target="_blank">multibillion-dollar construction industry</a>, the <a href="https://cityfutures.be.unsw.edu.au/research/projects/national-strata-data-analysis/" target="_blank">strata management industry</a> and in the planning system.
They also contribute to <a href="https://theconversation.com/this-is-why-apartment-living-is-different-for-the-poor-82069" target="_blank">inequality</a>. This is because apartment residents are <a href="https://cityfutures.be.unsw.edu.au/research/projects/national-strata-data-analysis/" target="_blank">more likely</a> to be younger, renting, on lower incomes, and from non-English speaking backgrounds.
Amid growing concerns about the widening gap between housing “haves” and “have nots”, there is <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/labor-promises-a-6-6-billion-housing-boom-to-bring-down-rents-20181215-p50mi9" target="_blank">renewed political interest</a> in housing policy. Certainly this is a crucial issue for governments to tackle, but it goes beyond a focus on housing supply and prices. Addressing quality must also be a priority.
At the same time, we also need to step back and reconsider how we do compact-city planning <a href="https://cityfutures.be.unsw.edu.au/research/projects/planning-in-a-market-economy/" target="_blank">more broadly</a> - including the roles governments and the private market play. With <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/lookup/Media%20Release10" target="_blank">two-thirds</a> of us now calling our biggest cities home, we need to have a serious public conversation about what we want our cities to be and how we can best achieve those goals.
We can’t afford to ignore the growing evidence that our cities are cracking under the strain. Because like the Opal Tower owners, we’re all going to bear the cost when things go wrong, and we’ll all have to live amid the wreckage.<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/109722/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
Authors: <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/laura-crommelin-15376">Laura Crommelin</a>, Research Lecturer, City Futures Research Centre, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/unsw-1414" target="_blank">UNSW</a>; Bill Randolph, Director, City Futures Research Centre, Faculty of the Built Environment, UNSW; Hazel Easthope, Associate Professor, City Futures Research Centre, UNSW, and Martin Loosemore, Professor, Construction Management Program, Built Environment, UNSW
This article is republished from <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-big-lesson-from-opal-tower-is-that-badly-built-apartments-arent-only-an-issue-for-residents-109722" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

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

<html><body>
One apartment of the 390 in the notorious Opal Tower has been bravely offered for sale.
But there's been no offers since it was listed 10 days ago.
Sy Realty Sydney agent Joe Wang told The Telegraph "our clients asked us to test the market".
<div>Wang, who has been selling at Sydney Olympic Park for three years said their timing was "challenging."</div>
<div> </div>
<div>He declined to suggest a likely selling price, although he hoped the final report of the State Government on the building's cracking, may trigger a more positive sentiment. </div>
<div>
The 81 sqm unit (below and bottom) with an enclosed balcony and study cost $757,000 in 2014.
<img src="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/c_scale,w_580,q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/po.images/2019/2/25/Opal1.jpg" alt="">
The listing was taken down from listing websites after just a few days as the agency decided it was better to take prospective buyers from their database through the two bedroom, level 15 offering.
</div>
<div>
There were nine apartments for sale before the cracks started to appear and residents were evacuated on Christmas Eve. 
</div>
<div>"We expect more apartments will come up for lease than for sale," he said.</div>
<div>
Sy Realty agents Du Yang and Nick Ling are seeking a $500 a week tenant for a one bedroom apartment on level 22 of the cracked building.
Agents have indicated their expectation that owners will take a big hit on sale prices.
The last settled apartment in the block, a month before the cracking, was when a one bedroom apartment fetched $640,000.
It was just up on its $637,000, 2014 off the plan price.
The Opal Tower developer, developed by Ecove, was designed to be the tallest in the Sydney Olympic Park precinct, boasting 360 degree views across Sydney.
<img src="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/c_scale,w_580,q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/po.images/2019/2/25/Opal2.jpg" alt="">
The development was completed in last August, with off the plan sales ranging from $505,000 up to $2.498 million, which ranks as the record price for the precinct.
Even before the cracking, Sydney Olympic Park Authority noted in its recent annual report that demand for new apartments in the precinct had "dropped significantly."
"Whilst previously strong demand for new stock saw excellent take-up of apartments in new residential projects, market reporting and pricing corrections across the residential property market saw this demand drop significantly."
"As a result enquiries have slowed significantly compared to previous years, and may well continue to do so over the next few years."
Opal Tower at 1 Brushbox Street was built in the shape of an equilateral triangle with curved corners.
The 117 metre high trophy building was very popular with buyers of Chinese origin, many of whom bought off the plan in 2014 and 2015.
This article was first published in the Daily Telegraph.
 
</div>
</body></html>

One apartment in the notorious Opal Tower bravely for sale

<html><body>
The interim report on the issues affecting Sydney’s Opal Tower was released today.
It concluded the building is “structurally sound” but “significant rectification works are needed" to repair and strengthen damaged hob beams and panels. But the residents did not get the news they wanted about moving back in.
The investigators will continue to look at design and construction issues.
Minister for Planning and Housing, Anthony Roberts, thanked owners and residents for their support during the government’s independent investigation. “I want upfront to thank the owners and residents for their patience throughout the last few weeks,” Mr Roberts said.  “I can’t begin to comprehend the disruption this has caused to their lives, particularly at this time of year, and I thank them all sincerely for allowing the government’s investigation team and other teams to get on with their work”. Mr Roberts pointed out that today’s document was an interim report which ruled out extreme weather, poor quality materials and issues with the foundations. “We can confirm that, while the building is structurally sound, significant rectification works are required to repair and strengthen damaged hob beams and in some cases the panels that rest on them. “However, while we have isolated the probable cause to localised structural design and construction issues, we need more information to make definitive conclusions about the cause or causes of the damage to this structure and the proposed rectification. “We agree that the structural principles behind the rectification works are sound, but recommend independent oversight and review by qualified structural engineers before any major works begin.
“We also believe more work needs to be done to check the structural design of the hob beams and associated structural members with consideration given to strengthening them wherever they are in the building. “We recommend that independent and qualified structural engineers be engaged to check final proposals in detail, before major rectification works begin. “Re-occupation of Opal Tower extends beyond the scope of this investigation and was a matter for residents and the builder, subject to appropriate engineering and design oversight and guarantees." Robert said more work is also needed before the government "can provide recommendations on what needs to happen to avoid incidents like this in future.”
“I have been impressed with the efforts of all parties to work together to get to the heart of the issues and to help owners and residents get access to their properties as quickly as possible. “I trust that this independent interim report will be an important input to the discussions between the builders, the owners’ corporation and residents about moving people back into the building,” he said. A full copy of the interim report is <a href="https://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/interimopalreport" target="_blank">available here</a>. 
<div>It arises that residents face more uncertainty about whether they should move back in.</div>
There are another three ongoing investigations into what caused the cracking of concrete panels that sparked the evacuation of the owner occupier and rental occupants living in the Sydney Olympic Park building.
The NSW Government appointed two engineers to investigate: University of NSW dean of engineering Mark Hoffman and emeritus professor at the University of Newcastle’s School of Engineering John Carter.
Their interim report was handed to the government last week with Planning Minister Anthony Roberts issuing the report today.
The apartment’s body corporate has also hired an engineering firm Cardno to look into the problems and builder Icon Co has engaged Rincovitch Partners.
WSP, the original structural engineer involved in the project, is also investigating.
A previous statement issued by professors Hoffman and Carter updating progress on their investigation said initial assessments found no evidence of any issues with the foundations of the building, though “we believe that there are a number of design and construction issues that require further investigation”.
<div>Sydney Olympic Park entered into an agreement with Ecove in March 2014 to undertake the residential development.</div>
<div>
SOPA revealed to The Daily Telegraph this month that the total value of the transaction was $47.9 million.
The Daily Telegraph reported last month the purchasers bought their apartment from the government’s Sydney Olympic Park Authority (SOPA)
<div>A SOPA spokesman denied any potential ongoing liability for the government body.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>"It would appear on paper people are buying apartments directly from SOPA but they're not.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>"SOPA's obligations are limited to transferring title because SOPA are the original owner of the land," he said.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The Australian reported Sydney Olympic Park Authority, and not Ecove — the company that developed the land into Opal Tower — could be sued by apartment owners because of changes in building warranty laws designed to close a loophole in the NSW Home Building Act</div>
<div>Homeowners have two years to bring a claim if there are minor defects and six years for major defects. 
Changes to the act in 2010 meant that the owner of the property on which a building is built is considered the developer under the warranties, even if they did not engage the builder. 
“Ecove has been described in the media as the developer but without having seen the agreement in place between it and SOPA (the Sydney Olympic Park Authority) to develop the site, in my view given the current state of the law it would appear to have no liability under the statutory warranties to the owners,” said Paul Jurdeczka, a strata lawyer with 20 years’ experience from Chambers Russell Lawyers. 
“Presumably SOPA could sue Ecove if sued, and Ecove would sue Icon in turn, but these are all issues for the lawyers. However, one of the three major players in the project has no direct liability to the owners if they had to sue under the statutory warranties, because of a loophole in the legislation and the law.”
Banjo Stanton, a lawyer who specialises in residential defect litigation, confirmed that under the Home Building Act, the owner of the land during construction was considered the “developer”.
“If Sydney Olympic Park Authority owned the land during construction, then the government — via SOPA — is definitely on the hook,” he said. 
“If the position is that Ecove was not the landowner or the builder, it’s clear on the current state of the law that Ecove will not have any liability under the Home Building Act.”
The site has been owned by the crown and was transferred in 1992 to the Homebush Bay Development Corporation. 
It was then passed to Sydney Olympic Park Authority when it was established in 2001.
A Sydney Olympic Park Authority spokesman said it entered into a Project Delivery Agreement with Australia Avenue Development on its land. 
“The PDA requires the developer to assume all risks in relation to those works,” he said.
“SOPA’s obligations under those contracts are limited to transferring title.”
The chairman of the Sydney Olympic Park Authority is former NSW premier John Fahey who had a pivotal role in securing the 2000 Olympic Games for Sydney.
He is famously remembered for leaping from his seat in 1993 at the Monaco ceremony where Sydney won the right to host the Games.
In addition to being the SOPA boss, Mr Fahey is also the chair of the Australian Building Codes Board — a role he assumed in November 2017.
The ABCB is a Council of Australian Government (COAG) standards writing body that is responsible for the development of the National Construction Code.
The ABCB is currently undertaking an administrative review of building construction standards across the country for the state and federal governments.
 
</div>
</div>
</body></html>

No definitive cause identified but Opal Tower is structurally sound but needs significant rectification 

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
The <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-01-15/opal-tower-needs-significant-rectifiaction-work-report-finds/10713054" target="_blank">failure of the Opal Tower building</a> in Sydney has highlighted the poor quality of speculatively built multi-unit housing in Australia.
The tower’s 392 apartments were evacuated on Christmas Eve when residents heard loud cracks and defects were found.
So far, the only reaction from government has been a knee-jerk <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-12-30/opal-tower-damage-sparks-nsw-government-crackdown/10673968" target="_blank">promise to crack down on shonky building certifiers</a> (that’s you Matt Kean, minister for innovation and better regulation in New South Wales).
Unfortunately, there is no evidence this will make any difference.
Planning policies embraced by the NSW and Victorian governments mean a greater percentage of new housing is being constructed in tall multi-unit developments than ever before, particularly in Sydney and Melbourne.
Between <a href="https://cityfutures.be.unsw.edu.au/research/projects/governing-the-compact-city-the-role-and-effectiveness-of-strata-management-in-higher-density-residential-developments/" target="_blank">50% and 80% of multi-unit buildings</a> have defects serious enough to be the subject of strata committee involvement.
Possibly close to 100% have significant defects at completion.
Most of the problems are waterproofing issues (which may not be evident for years), malfunctioning services or a lack of proper compliance with fire codes and standards.
We can only fix this problem by changing the culture of the residential building industry.
Ten steps governments can take
We don’t need another royal commission. Governments could implement all of the suggestions below using their existing powers.
1) Increase density by permitting more subdivisions on existing housing blocks rather than building tall buildings.
Two <a href="https://www.reisa.com.au/publicinfo/general-tips-and-traps/torrens-title-explained" target="_blank">Torrens title</a> townhouses can be built on a normal single-house quarter-acre block. Low-scale buildings will still suffer from defects, but are less problematic to build, inspect and repair than tall buildings and use simpler technology.
2) In the short term, provide occupation certificates to new residential buildings taller than three storeys only if they comply with an enhanced protocol of regulations and oversight.
State government would implement this, with a focus on waterproofing and fire performance.
A suitable code, standards and protocols could be developed in a few weeks. The necessary people to provide independent oversight could be drawn from qualified architects, builders and engineers who are able to pass a probing exam. They would be independent of the design and construction team. The government would fix their fees.
3) Develop a program to enhance the standards for residential building standards in the <a href="https://www.business.gov.au/planning/templates-and-tools/industry-factsheets/national-construction-code" target="_blank">National Construction Code</a> (NCC).
The current NCC codes for Class 2 buildings (home units) favour innovation and cost reduction over consumer protection. This is the wrong way around for housing. Section F, which covers health and amenity (including waterproofing), is weak and must be strengthened.
4) A voluntary quality scheme to star-rate all apartments, similar to <a href="https://www.ancap.com.au/about-ancap" target="_blank">ANCAP</a> (Australasia New Car Assessment Program), might work with industry support.
The minimum standard permissible would comply with the enhanced standards. The NSW Building and Construction Council promoted a scheme in the 1990s but failed due to lack of government support. It was a good idea then, and it is still a good idea now.
5) If the industry won’t support a voluntary scheme, government should introduce a coercive qualified practitioner (QP) scheme.
This would be a permanent version of the short-term scheme. If a building goes bad, the QP could lose the right to practise as a QP as well as being liable to the owners.
6) Revitalise trade training and certification to ensure all trade workers are properly trained and certified.
Many trades on building sites have no training and are not licensed. The requirement to read directions and document work against procedures means everyone on site must be functionally literate. The goal should be to have 30% of people working on site at Certificate 4 level by 2025. 100% of building workers should be literate by 2025. This should be a national requirement, checked by inspectors.
7) All leading hands for any trade should be educated up to Certificate 4 level.
This should be independently verified to cut out shonky training providers. Leading hands in all trades should be licensed and responsible for the work they do.
8) Enhance licensing of builders and subcontractors to ensure people in charge on site are educated beyond Certificate 4.
All people occupying construction roles with management responsibility should have valid qualifications in architecture, structural engineering or building.
9) Consider additional laws on contract provisions to reduce the economic power disparity between developers, head contractors and subcontractors.
Unfair commercial pressures are at the heart of much bad building. We should do more to cushion the smaller players from the larger ones.
10) And, while we are at it, we should ensure a value-capture process accompanies the development of tall residential buildings so the cost of upgrading social infrastructure is recovered.
High-density, high-rise buildings massively increase loads on socially owned infrastructure, such as schools, libraries, hospitals, parks and sporting facilities. The developers of tall buildings should be made to contribute adequately to the economic cost of enhancing these provisions, which can involve solutions that are unusually expensive, such as high-rise schools.
 
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/geoff-hanmer-90647" target="_blank">Geoff Hanmer</a>, Adjunct Lecturer in Architecture, Univeristy of NSW, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/unsw-1414" target="_blank">UNSW</a>
This article is republished from <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/beyond-opal-a-10-point-plan-to-fix-the-residential-building-industry-110975" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

Beyond Opal: a 10-point plan to fix the residential building industry: Geoff Hanmer

<html><body>
A lucky absentee apartment owner in the Opal Tower at Sydney Olympic Park has been able to escape the building cracking turmoil with a profit.
His damaged 10th floor apartment — possibly the worst affected within the 392 apartment high-rise — has been sold for $950,000.
But it appears to be a one-off sale as it has been bought by the besieged builder of the tower, Icon Co (NSW) Pty Ltd, whose solicitor declined to comment on the reasons behind its purchase.
The bullish $950,000 sale price of apartment 1005 was $158,000 more than the $742,000 off the plan price paid in 2014.
It was located on the 10th floor which saw severe cracking which prompted the evacuation of the entire building last Christmas Eve.
There were images soon after showing the damage outside the 1005 door.
The now sold two bedroom, two bathroom 86 sqm apartment had been a $600 a week rental before the cracks.
The vendor was Quan Zhou whose sales legal paperwork was lodged by China-based, Chengdu-headquartered Tahota Law Firm which has a liaison office in Sydney.
The Telegraph was not able to contact their Sydney solicitor, Yijing Hua.
<img src="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/c_scale,w_580,q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/po.images/2019/8/1/Opal%20Tower.jpg" alt="">
Minter Ellison lawyer Susan Bellamy signed the acquisition paperwork for Icon but declined to comment when asked if further acquisitions are being sought or offered to other owners.
The building’s last sale was a few weeks before the evacuation last December.
By next week just 12 apartments will remain unable to be occupied.
Without confirmation from Icon, it is speculated the purchase was because the builder required ongoing access, and would eventually need to substantially reconfigure the apartment space.
Sydney property consultant Edwin Almeida said it would be mistake if the intention of the sale was to reset valuations.
“Valuers won’t put their names or professional indemnity insurance or certificates on the line,” he said.
Residents and agents contacted by The Daily Telegraph don’t hold out much hope that the profitable sale of 1005 will be replicated should others wish to sell.
<img src="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/c_scale,w_580,q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/po.images/2019/8/1/Opal%20Tower%20apartment%202.jpg" alt="">
“You’d think once other owners have heard of the sale, there’ll be a massive queue to sell to the builder,’ one observer said.
The Sydney Olympic Park development, which was completed in August last year, saw sales range from $505,000 up to $2.498 million for the 35 floor penthouse.
The building was very popular with investor buyers of Asian origin, many of whom bought off the plan in 2014 and 2015.
It was in 2014 when the developer Ecove entered into the Opal project agreement with the Sydney Olympic Park Authority (SOPA).
Last week owners of units lodged a class-action lawsuit in the NSW Supreme Court against SOPA which owned the land on which the complex was built.
The action was filed in the NSW Supreme Court on Friday led by owner Terry Williamson.
Lawyers for the owners have filed documents claiming the building was not designed and constructed with due care and skill, and was not reasonably fit for occupation.
Premier Gladys Berejiklian defended the right of owners to sue her government agency.
“I don’t blame anybody for taking legal action to defend their own rights,” Ms Berejiklian said.
Premier Gladys Berejiklian noted it was “an unfortunate set of circumstances.”
“We inherited the system we have today and we’re aiming to fix it by the end of the year through legislation.”
Ms Berejiklian said the government will be announcing a new building commissioner “imminently” to oversee the problem-plagued construction industry.
Icon has recently agreed to pay $1.7 million of the tower's $2 million insurance premium, saving owners from a potential second evacuation from the defective building.
This article was first published in the Daily Telegraph.
</body></html>

Opal Tower builder Icon buys 10th floor apartment

<html><body>
Building standards in NSW will be investigated by a parliamentary inquiry. It will be conducted by the NSW upper house public accountability committee.
After the Mascot and Opal Towers disasters, the Greens MP David Shoebridge, Labor MP John Graham and Shooters, Fishers and Farmers leader Robert Borsak succeeded in securing an upper house inquiry into the issue.
The state government has been accused of being flat-footed since the first cracks emerged last December at Opal Tower in Sydney’s Olympic Park. 
<a href="https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/committees/inquiries/Pages/inquiry-details.aspx?pk=2540#tab-members" target="_blank">The inquiry, established on 4 July 2019</a>, will inquire into and report on the regulation of building standards, building quality and building disputes.
“We want to see the public’s submissions on this because some politicians think it’s just Mascot and Opal Towers, but there are hundreds of thousands of these across the state,” Shoebridge said. 
“This is a chance for people to speak directly to politicians and set out the scale of the problem.
<div class="page" title="Page 1">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
"Due to widespread public concern this issue needs to be addressed urgently," said Mr Shoebridge.
</div>
</div>
</div>
The committee will look at the role of private certification in protecting building standards, the adequacy of consumer protections for owners of new buildings, limitations on insurance and compensation schemes. 
It will also look at instances of flammable cladding use on NSW buildings.
The inquiry will hold hearings in August with submissions from the public to be made by July 28.
In February, the NSW government promised to appoint a Building Commissioner to protect homeowners after agreeing there were "significant and concerning" industry problems following the Opal matter.
The Mascot Tower cracks, which had been evident in the 2008-built block since 2011, hit the headlines last month.
<div class="page" title="Page 1">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
That the Public Accountability Committee inquire into and report on the regulation of building standards, building quality and building disputes by government agencies in New South Wales, including:
<ol>
<li>
(a)  the role of private certification in protecting building standards, including:
<ol>
<li>
(i)  conflicts of interest
</li>
<li>
(ii)  effectiveness of inspections
</li>
<li>
(iii)  accountability of private certifiers
</li>
<li>
(iv)  alternatives to private certifiers,
</li>
</ol>
</li>
<li>
(b)  the adequacy of consumer protections for owners and purchasers of new apartments/dwellings, and limitations on building insurance and compensation schemes, including:
<ol>
<li>
(i)  the extent of insurance coverage and limitations of existing statutory protections
</li>
<li>
(ii)  the effectiveness and integrity of insurance provisions under the Home Building Act 1989
</li>
<li>
(iii)  liability for defects in apartment buildings,
</li>
</ol>
</li>
<li>
(c)  the role of strata committees in responding to building defects discovered in common property, including the protections offered for all strata owners in disputes that impact on only a minority of strata owners,
</li>
<li>
(d)  case studies related to flammable cladding on NSW buildings and the defects discovered in Mascot Towers and the Opal Tower,
</li>
<li>
(e)  the current status and degree of implementation of recommendations of reports into the building industry including the Lambert report 2016, the Sherwood/Weir report 2018 and the Opal Tower investigation final report 2019, and
</li>
<li>
(f)  any other related matter.
</li>
</ol>
That the committee table an interim report as soon as practical and its final report by 14 February 2020.
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body></html>

NSW parliament launches inquiry into apartment building standards

<html><body>
EXPERT OBSERVER
Property buyers are now well aware of the building defects disasters seen in Opal Tower and Mascot Towers. But the reality is that any building could hide big issues from potential buyers, meaning that people could land in a nightmare scenario, even if they had carried out all possible checks.
While Owners Corporations are obliged by law to keep records, the law doesn’t say that they have to be complete, accurate or true.
Right now, Owners corporations are outsourcing their record keeping to strata mangers, and in many cases the record keeping is poor. There are no consistent standards, and records often disappear when they are transferred from one strata manager to another. The industry should be doing something about it, and laws need to be tougher. 
In recent inspections of strata records, EYEON Property Inspections has seen the following examples of altered and incomplete records:
<ul type="disc">
<li class="x_MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst">Strata committee altering general meeting minutes to change decisions made by a majority of owners</li>
<li class="x_MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">No information provided in records of the status of building rectification works</li>
<li class="x_MsoListParagraphCxSpLast">Recent records of building defects “lost” on transfer from previous strata manager.</li>
</ul>
In the property podcast, The Elephant in The Room, a Sydney Strata Manager said she comes across Strata Committees who don’t want certain information to be included in the minutes because it would negatively affect property values.
She said that if she isn’t comfortable with the minutes or disagrees with the included information, she won’t include her logo on it. She knows the minutes are wrong but is powerless to ensure the correct information goes in the records. She can’t stop the owners creating false records.
Strata records need to be better. Strata managers should have consistent record keeping systems and the transfer of records should be audited. Owners corporations should always have their own copy of all records. There should be severe penalties for non-disclosure of information.
Otherwise, how can property buyers trust the information they are provided?
The bottom line is that if there are gaps in records or the detail about current issues is sparse, buyers need to be cautious. These issues should be red flags and buyers should consider making lower offers or walking away from a property if the strata records are poor.  In some cases, current owners might be trying to get out of the building before major issues become public knowledge.
Michael Ferrier is the managing director at EYEON Property Inspections.
</body></html>

Opal Tower

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Opal Tower

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News