Cladding

<html><body>
The release of a new f<s></s>ibre cement product<s></s>, designed and manufactured in Australia, has been announced by building product manufacturer James Hardie.
According to the company, the product<s></s> (known as ExoTec <s></s>Vero) has<s></s> been created with the intention of addressing the cladding issues that have plagued the Australian property industry in recent years.
While the issue of combustible cladding may be top of mind for apartment owners and high-rise developers, water penetration issues are also widespread and very concerning, according to a new report that addresses building defects.<a href="#_edn1" title=""></a> 
The report’s authors, Deakin University's Nicole Johnston and Griffith University's Sacha Reid, suggest that nearly every building in NSW, and about three-quarters of all buildings in Victoria and Queensland, had defects that could lead to further costs for owners in future.
Dr Johnston was quoted as saying that whilst she didn’t want to downplay the combustible cladding issue, she thought that the issue of water penetration in buildings was a far bigger and more widespread problem that is verging on a crisis in Australia. 
“The beauty of ExoTec Vero and its in-built CoreShield™ penetrating sealer technology is that it addresses both durability and water tightness issues – with the added bonus of a highly desirable aesthetic,” according to James Hardie Product Manager, Timothy Elliot.
“What’s more, ExoTec Vero allows building specifiers to have peace of mind in recommending a safe and locally-manufactured product.”
</body></html>

wdavis-8cCN98p7xp

New ‘concrete look’ cladding product launched by James Hardie

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
<a href="https://www.afr.com/news/politics/national/the-apartment-building-crisis-explained-20190716-p527k0">News</a> of evacuations from cracked apartment buildings in Sydney and the <a href="https://theconversation.com/cladding-fire-risks-have-been-known-for-years-lives-depend-on-acting-now-with-no-more-delays-111186" target="_blank">need to replace combustible cladding across Australia</a> illustrate how uncertainty compounds problems for those affected. Who is responsible for the remedy? Residents have had to leave their homes indefinitely, <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/looking-for-answers-mascot-towers-owners-want-to-return-home-20190627-p521wl" target="_blank">not knowing when their buildings can be repaired and made safe</a>. Others remain in at-risk buildings with the constant <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-07-17/apartment-owner-welcomes-victorian-combustible-cladding-fix/11315278" target="_blank">worry about what might happen if fire breaks out</a>.
Some may also wonder whether the remedies really are “safe”. And how much they will be out of pocket? Some <a href="https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/i-couldnt-believe-it-was-happening-how-a-single-mother-with-a-baby-boy-is-left-owing-dollar13000-and-living-in-temporary-housing-after-being-kicked-out-of-her-mascot-towers-apartment/ar-AAEtQZ3" target="_blank">express concern about whether they will ever be able to sell their unit</a> and what their financial fate will be given that their home is their largest investment.
The <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-07-18/building-industry-meeting-agrees-to-create-national-body/11320444" target="_blank">outcome of last Thursday’s Building Ministers’ Forum</a> did little to end the uncertainty plaguing residents. More broadly, the uncertainty is hitting the construction industry, with <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/berejiklian-calls-for-national-solution-amid-building-crisis-20190715-p527gj" target="_blank">insurance costs rising and some insurance being withdrawn altogether</a>.
Uncertainty gnaws away at us
How uncertainty plays a central role here can be seen in a little known but classic piece written 50 years ago by a cultural anthropologist. Professor Elizabeth Colson drafted “Tranquility for the Decision-maker” for a volume, <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.worldcat.org/title/cultural-illness-and-health-essays-in-human-adaptation/oclc/741222" target="_blank">Cultural Illness and Health</a>.
Colson had studied the Gwemba Tonga of east-central Africa, in what is now Zambia. Villages of the Gwembe Tonga were faced with displacement due to the building of a dam on the Zambezi River. They were given a choice of where to settle.
However, the construction zone barred the villagers’ access to the ritual grounds where they traditionally made such decisions. An inability to arrive at a decision resulted in prolonged uncertainty. Colson witnessed behaviour that suggested the harm that uncertainty had on individual and community mental health.
Colson also told of how the group dealt with drought. Farmers had seed they could plant and then tend, but if they planted it too soon before the rains, the seed would be lost. If they planted it too late or failed to tend it, then the plants would not reach maturity, and they would have no crops for food and no seed for the next year.
Villagers figured that they could find a way to cope with having no crops; they had a “plan B”. However, each day they dithered about whether to plant, going out to the fields but then returning again. The uncertainty had harmful effects on the villagers, Colson explained. They lacked a way to determine whether to adopt “plan B” or stick with “plan A”.
Such an analysis suggests that we can deal with good fortune and bad fortune. What really drives us up the wall is uncertainty.
This uncertainty can be generated by the unpredictability of nature or the volatility of international markets. It’s made worse in situations where clear and unambiguous information is missing.
More problematic are complex and costly situations where delay results from blaming and <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/systemic-crisis-states-responsible-for-fixing-cladding-problems-20190718-p528c5" target="_blank">manoeuvring to avoid paying the financial or political cost</a> of a decision. These two elements can occur in unison: a lack of knowledge and potentially responsible parties evacuating the “blame avenue”.
Situations where uncertainty is playing a role include farmers facing drought, as in Colson’s case, and potential climate change impacts – such as severe weather events for coastal communities.
There are also effects on rural communities of changes in international prices for mining and agricultural exports. Similar dynamics around uncertainty and blame apply to interned <a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-is-resignation-syndrome-and-why-is-it-affecting-refugee-children-101670" target="_blank">asylum seekers awaiting a government decision</a>, the <a href="https://theconversation.com/getting-to-the-heart-of-coal-seam-gas-protests-its-not-just-the-technical-risks-107086" target="_blank">debate about coal seam gas development in Narrabri</a>, and <a href="https://theconversation.com/getting-clean-drinking-water-into-remote-indigenous-communities-means-overcoming-city-thinking-106701" target="_blank">communities with groundwater contaminated by chemicals like PFAS</a>.
In these examples, costs to individuals and families are potentially great relative to their resources. Resolution often requires a central role for large institutions, whether government agencies or multinational corporations.
Uncertainty due to a lack of information is being addressed in certain arenas. For instance, mathematical <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-predicting-the-weather-and-climate-is-even-harder-for-australias-rainy-northern-neighbours-106939" target="_blank">models to predict the weather are improving</a>. The same can be said for models to predict shifts in international commodity prices.
Institutional responses make uncertainty worse
Also needing attention are institutional decision-making processes. Decision-making is often fragmented, as it involves disparate organisations or silos in organisations. Add to that a propensity to avoid taking the blame and shouldering the financial or political cost or the potential impact to one’s career.
This domain falls under the banner of “allocation of responsibility”, an area addressed historically by social and cultural anthropologists looking at law and moral codes. Attempting to avoid blame can contribute to delay in decision-making, which prolongs and potentially deepens uncertainty.
Collaborative efforts can reduce such delays and uncertainty. Collaboration requires the building of trusting working relationships among agencies and organisations – a form of what is called “collective impact”. One also needs openness with affected individuals, families and communities – an element in <a href="https://www.alrc.gov.au/publications/procedural-fairness-duty-and-its-content" target="_blank">procedural fairness</a>.
These aspects are relatively easy to identify but challenging to implement and even more challenging to sustain for a prolonged period.
The point here is that the true impact on residents of cracks in their apartment block, flammable cladding, an uncertain migration status, or PFAS in the groundwater is not merely the inconvenience or out-of-pocket expense. The impact includes prolonged uncertainty about very significant elements of their well-being. That has an impact on individual and community mental health, with potential flow-on effects to physical health.
The remedy involves a greater willingness by organisations and agencies to take on responsibility without delay and improved institutional relationships to arrive at suitable resolutions for the long term. So, our concern should not only be about the cracks in the buildings but about the fissures separating those who together could implement remedies.<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/120662/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;">
Will Rifkin, Chair in Applied Regional Economics and Director, Hunter Research Foundation Centre, University of Newcastle
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/its-not-just-the-building-cracks-or-cladding-sometimes-uncertainty-does-even-more-harm-120662" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

j.ballantyne1990-6AQqhLzZaK

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

<html><body>
A group of large Australian industry groups have banded together to denounce the lack of action on issues surrounding combustible cladding. 
Australia’s fragmented approach to regulatory enforcement and compliance with building regulations requires a renewed commitment to national action to maintain public confidence in our built environment, the group said. 
The concerns of the groups are characterised by the following:
<ol>
<li>Australian and international insurers are introducing strict cladding-related exclusions in mandatory professional indemnity insurance products for building practitioners in the building supply chain.</li>
<li>The discovery of major defects in buildings has significantly reduced the ability of those building owners to find an insurer willing to accept the risk.</li>
<li>State and territory governments have not taken a consistent and comprehensive approach to undertaking and completing audits of existing high-rise buildings with combustible cladding, nor developed a remediation strategy.</li>
<li>Governments are taking an inconsistent and fragmented approach to implementing reforms described in the Shergold-Weir report, which was released 18 months ago. </li>
</ol>
They acknowledged that though some action has been taken to amend the National Construction Code (NCC) and effectively eliminate the use of many types of combustible cladding on new building facades, they believe the response of state and territory governments to dealing with cladding on existing buildings has been patchy and inconsistent.
In a statement released this week the groups stated:
"We urge the Commonwealth, State and Territory governments to work together in providing certainty through a uniform national approach to dealing with these matters.
"As organisations representing the building, construction, property and insurance industries, we urge the Federal Government to play a leadership role and bring together all state and territory governments to:
<ol>
<li>"Develop and implement a consistent and best practice Australia-wide response for risk assessment and a rectification strategy for existing buildings with combustible cladding with an agreed timetable that reflects the urgency of the issue. This will reduce confusion, clarify the scale of the challenge and support a viable professional indemnity insurance market that provides the coverage needed by industry participants and building owners.</li>
<li>"Establish a joint government-industry taskforce to oversee urgent and consistent implementation of all Shergold-Weir report recommendations across all jurisdictions."</li>
</ol>
Signatories to the statement were Property Council of Australia, Insurance Council of Australia, Ai Group, Australian Construction Industry Forum, and Master Builders Australia. 
</body></html>

Industry groups call for building regulation reform on combustible cladding

<html><body>
EXPERT OBSERVER
The extent to which builders have used inflammable cladding on buildings in Australia and the UK has shocked us all since its discovery in the wake of a number of serious fires, including the tragedy at Grenfell Tower in London in June 2017.
The people with the highest level of concern are those who are living in these buildings - quite rightly they want the problem fixed, and fast.
But who should pay for the remediation work? It feels wrong for those who live there to be asked to fund a problem caused by someone else.
Even if Government pays doesn't that mean those who cut the corners in the first place get let off the hook rather than being held to account? Of course it does.
But waiting for those who are truly responsible to own up and do the right thing won't work either - some might, but many will at the very least prevaricate and instigate lengthy legal proceedings to argue the case. That leaves residents living in buildings they are deeply concerned about indefinitely. It's a real "Catch 22" - or is it?
The UK Government and now the Government of Victoria have recognised that public safety and restoration of public confidence must come first and have taken the decision to fund removal of cladding and remediation out of the public purse. But the battle to hold those to account must go on - through the courts if necessary to recoup as much as possible of that money.
It can't stop there either. In the last few years we have learned a great deal about the state of our buildings - particularly high rise high occupancy residential properties and what we've learned isn't pretty.
- Complex prescriptive regulations and guidance are not helpful - they lead to confusion, accidental and deliberate misinterpretation of the what is written down;
- Roles and responsibilities are also confused, and the system allows people to pass on problems to others in the system;
- The competency of large parts of the workforce is lacking which means they don't understand the importance of critical safety features they may be installing in a building and how they need to be installed to be effective;
- Even when enforcement action is taken against those who break the rules, the sanctions are so weak as to make it unlikely that lessons will be learned, and practices changed;
- Record keeping is poor which means that after a building is complete no one really knows whether it was built to design and if it is fit for purpose - why has this industry not engaged with what digital technology can do to change this so easily?
I repeat what I've been saying for more than two years now - this is about much more than cladding! We need to drive a massive culture change in the whole construction and built environment sectors that holds people accountable for designing, building, maintaining and managing buildings which are safe for people to live in throughout the full life cycle,
People - residents - must come first, they must have a voice to raise their concerns, they need to be listened to and the whole industry needs to be held to account for its responsibilities for their safety.
That will require substantive regulatory change in Australia just as it does here in the UK. A new regulatory system needs to drive the right behaviours, make responsibilities crystal clear, create significant penalties for those who flout the law and incentives for those who do the right thing.
We also need leaders within the construction industry to stand up and be counted. Those who do build with users in mind, those who understand that quality matters and have already implemented good practices should be recognised and become preferred suppliers.
The market needs to find a way to recognise the importance of quality which means changing procurement practices away from simply awarding the contract to the guy who bids the lowest cost.
The cost of building a high-rise block is a small part of the life cycle cost of the building - getting it right in the first place will lead to lower costs for the rest of the building's life and happier, safer residents. But above all such a culture change to accompany the much-needed regulatory changes is the only way to ensure that more lives are not lost in tragic fires or other catastrophes in our high-rise buildings.
Removing dangerous cladding is a very important first step on a long journey; let us not fall into the short termism trap of thinking we've fixed the problem when we've fixed the cladding.
Dame Judith Hackitt is a decorated British engineer who visited Australia in February as a guest of RMIT's School of Property, Construction and Project Management with support from the Victorian Building Association, the Institute of Chemical Engineers and the Future Fuels CRC. She presented to industry, government and community representatives about her Building a Safer Future final report. She is currently the Chair of the Independent Review of Building Regulations and Fire Safety, which was commissioned by the British Government following the Grenfell Tower fire
</body></html>

jrobinson-rf4aSBido9

Who should pay for the remediation work? Cladding expert Dame Judith Hackitt

<html><body>
The Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews says the government is on the verge of unveiling a “substantial” package of reforms to tackle the cladding issue.
It will possibly include “quite extraordinary” new laws to try to recoup money from builders who used dangerous materials.
"There will have to be taxpayers' money, there will have to be government allocations."
"There can potentially be some money — some — recovered from those who have done this, have basically committed these errors and have used this dodgy product," he said.
"We've had a situation where a whole range of phoenix companies, they exist for the purposes of building that particular building, and then they're gone at law afterwards," Mr Andrews said.
"We don't rule out making some legislative changes so that we can go out after some of these phoenix companies."
Mr Andrews acknowledged unit owners had been "basically stranded" and unable to sell their properties while investigations were ongoing.
Andrews confirmed the government would set up a <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/news/100264-cladding-safety-victoria-to-be-established-by-andrews-government?fbclid=IwAR2iLeGsZPVA7kLaVaS_kQNpaBvOaHdMwRFTqnsFIMjv4QgLwusFKTGBB1M" target="_blank">new agency called Cladding Safety Victoria</a>, which is billed as a one-stop-shop for advice and assistance.
The government’s reforms will be unveiled in the coming weeks as it waits on the final report from the state’s cladding taskforce.
It is more than four years since flammable cladding ­fuelled a blaze at the Lacrosse building in Docklands.
Meanwhile the Herald Sun reported the rogue developers who illegally demolished the historic Corkman Pub have built at least two apartment complexes with flammable cladding.
The Opposition says the “Corkman cowboys” must be prevented from working in the industry.
The Herald Sun revealed that a 200-apartment development in Lygon St, Brunswick East, has been assessed as a “moderate risk” because of the use of flammable cladding.
It was developed by Makshaq, with company records showing Raman Shaqiri and Stefce Kutlesovski are directors.
The same company is behind another apartment block in Hawthorn that was inspected in April and had emergency rectification orders issued in May.
Australia's peak insurance body says there are no plans to increase property ­premiums on the back of the combustible cladding row.
The Insurance Council Australia has called for a nationwide solution.
After Victoria confirmed its number of affected buildings was 800 plus, and some 450 in NSW as "high risk," the Strata Community Association president Andrew Chambers said the Federal Government had to step up.
The Australian Financial Review reported the dire state of Australia's professional indemnity insurance market for building certifiers and surveyors was revealed in confidential research by PwC showing the sector has been unprofitable since 2011, with nearly $3.43 paid out in claims for every $1 received.
The ABC reported recently the Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews told a Property Council lunch that the state had stepped in as an insurer of last resort in the past for other sectors. 
"I am very much aware of how real this issue is," Mr Andrews said. 
But the problem, he said, was not unique to Victoria.
"The feds should be involved, that would be good, but we won't let anybody be uninsured. There are some steps we can take," Mr Andrews said.
 
 
</body></html>

Victoria considers laws to recoup money from dangerous cladding builders

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
A fire safety expert is warning of the risk of a catastrophic apartment fire in Australia because of flammable cladding and inadequate safety systems, the same causes as the London Grenfell Towers fire disaster.
In the wake of the fire in the Neo 200 apartment building in Melbourne, Professor Jonathan Barnett warns that a catastrophic fire event in Australia “is a matter of when, not if”.
“It’s scary,” says fire safety expert Barnett, Managing Director of Basic Expert Pty Ltd, who has a specialty in the analytical modelling of fire dynamics, smoke movement and occupant egress.
When the terrible images of the Grenfell Tower fire in London were beamed around the world in 2017, the horrifying loss of life caused shock and outrage.
The images also prompted questions about whether highly-flammable aluminium cladding used for the tower’s exterior was also being used by construction industries in other parts of the world, and kickstarted extensive rectification efforts to remove the cladding in Australia and other countries.
At issue is the use of flammable aluminium composite cladding, which is made from two skins of aluminium with a fibrous polyethylene material in the middle.
The added danger from inadequate fire safety system maintenance has increased the urgency of the need to replace the cladding in as many as 12,000 apartment buildings in Australia.
It’s an issue Westpac would like to see resolved. “We are aware of the issues around cladding and take these very seriously,” says Peter Spiller, National Head of Property Risk at Westpac, who has been working on the cladding problem in the wake of the Grenfell fire and spoke at a recent industry conference on the issue.
“Transparency and clarity will give home owners and residents greater peace of mind, so we are very supportive of the property sector, government, and banks working together to solve this issue as quickly as possible.”
Many safety issues
For Barnett, the extent of the danger in Australia became apparent when Basic Expert inspected the Neo 200 building in the wake of the February fire and discovered a large number of serious safety failings.
The fire in the 41-storey building in Melbourne’s Spencer Street most likely began when a resident threw a cigarette butt and it landed in a cardboard box on a lower balcony and then spread to that apartment’s cladding. Barnett notes that just 1.5 per cent of the Neo building’s upper level external walls are covered in cladding, but in the six minutes it took for the fire brigade to arrive and get upstairs, the fire had spread to five floors.
While Barnett describes that incident as “pretty minor”, the maintenance failings had rendered the building vulnerable to a much bigger fire.
The batteries in the fire indicator panel (FIP), which controls fire alarms through the building, had been flat for about four years and were leaking acid. There were numerous maintenance issues in the sprinkler pump room, which could have led to a compromised sprinkler and internal hydrant system.
Further, each apartment had a smoke detector, which was meant to be connected to the building’s central alarm system. But when the alarms were replaced after 10 years, most of the replacements were not compatible with the alarm system – meaning residents in these apartments wouldn’t receive alerts about a building fire, and a fire in their apartments wouldn’t trigger the central alarm system.
The overpressure switches – which ensure the water pressure passing through a building’s fire sprinklers doesn’t exceed 1000 kilopascals – had also failed and were allowing water pressure of 2000 kilopascals. This is important because the maximum pressure for a sprinkler is about 1500 kilopascals.
“They were lucky that they didn’t have a water hammer problem or something else when the fire brigade hooked up because they could have easily blown a fitting,” says Barnett, a Fellow of Engineers Australia and a Chartered Engineer who has also lectured at Victoria University and Melbourne University. “Because it was a combined hydro sprinkler system that would have meant, that they would have lost all the sprinklers.”
There were other problems.
“The lift and the emergency evacuation mode didn’t work properly at all. It went to the 13th floor and 37th floor instead of shuttling people out from the building,” says Barnett.
Of the 371 apartment doors, roughly 300 needed some sort of adjustment so that they would close and latch automatically in the case of a fire, which is vital for slowing the spread of the flames.
Barnett says it was lucky the building had just 1.5 per cent of cladding.
“If it had been a higher percentage, I think the system would have been asked to do more. Would it have managed? Maybe. A year from now, or two years from now, with that continued maintenance, would it have managed? The answer is no.”
A widespread problem
Victorian-based, Barnett inspects buildings around the country and estimates that around 80 per cent of Australia’s apartment buildings have some sort of problem with their fire safety systems. This is adding to the danger posed by the flammable cladding.
“If you look at Grenfell and you ask why did so many people die, they died because the apartment doors had been replaced over the years and didn’t close or latch and seal properly,” says Barnett. “They died because the doors to the stairs were problematic … basically because the other fire safety systems didn’t work. They didn’t die just because of the cladding.”
Both the NSW and Victorian governments have banned the use of aluminium composite panelling with a polyethylene core above 30 per cent.
However, that leaves a large number of buildings with the material, and the states have appointed taskforces to conduct audits of the number of affected buildings so they can be remediated as quickly as possible.
They have identified between 10,000 and 12,000 buildings around Australia that could have the flammable cladding – although the full extent of the problem isn’t clear because it is unknown how much, if any, of the cladding has been used in many of the buildings.
An indication of the scale of the problem comes from the Victorian Building Authority, which has inspected the 2000 buildings in the state with cladding and identified 275 of them as ‘high’ or ‘highest’ risk.
The authority is taking the lead with Cladding Rectification Agreements – three-way agreements between a funder, a local council and the owners of a building to fund rectification.
This article was first published on <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://westpaciq.westpac.com.au/Article/38795" target="_blank">Westpac IQ</a>.
</body></html>

Fire risks in Australian buildings go beyond cladding: Jonathan Barnett

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
Australian building owners face a bill that could run into billions of dollars to replace <a href="http://theconversation.com/cladding-fire-risks-have-been-known-for-years-lives-depend-on-acting-now-with-no-more-delays-111186" target="_blank">combustible cladding</a> of the sort that fuelled the <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-40301289" target="_blank">Greenfell tower fire in the UK</a>, which killed 72 people, as well as fires in Australia and <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">overseas</a>. The cost estimate is based on our calculations for Victoria, which has had apartment building cladding fires in <a href="https://theconversation.com/lacrosse-fire-ruling-sends-shudders-through-building-industry-consultants-and-governments-112777" target="_blank">2014</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/cladding-fire-risks-have-been-known-for-years-lives-depend-on-acting-now-with-no-more-delays-111186" target="_blank">2019</a>.
Nearly <a href="https://theconversation.com/grenfell-tower-criminal-charges-delayed-but-that-doesnt-mean-there-wont-be-justice-113215" target="_blank">two years on from the Grenfell disaster</a>, there is <a href="https://theconversation.com/cladding-fire-risks-have-been-known-for-years-lives-depend-on-acting-now-with-no-more-delays-111186" target="_blank">ongoing tension</a> between policymakers, the building industry and owners about how to resolve the problem of combustible cladding. And little information is available about the scale of the issue for owners across Australia, particularly those living in apartments.
So what could the costs be? We looked at Victoria as a case study. Our modelling produced cost estimates of between A$250 million and A$1.6 billion. The ultimate figure will depend on the cost-efficiency of any rectification program and the risk level and size of the 629 buildings known to be affected – and many more could yet be identified.
<iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/NStPd-v42mY?wmode=transparent&amp;start=0" frameborder="0" width="440" height="260"></iframe>
Combustible cladding allowed fire to spread rapidly up the Neo200 building in central Melbourne in February 2019. 
How were costs estimated?
The 2018 <a href="https://www.planning.vic.gov.au/building-policy/victorian-cladding-taskforce" target="_blank">Victorian Cladding Taskforce</a> identified 354 low/moderate-risk buildings and 275 high/extreme-risk buildings in a statewide <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/property-observer" target="_blank">cladding audit update</a> last October.
There is little data available on dwelling density for Victorian apartment building stock. <a href="https://data.melbourne.vic.gov.au/clue" target="_blank">Melbourne City Council (MCC) records</a> show residential buildings with ten dwellings or more (medium-to-high-density buildings) have an average of 75 dwellings per building in the built-up municipality. Buildings of this density are known to be <a href="https://www.theage.com.au/politics/victoria/government-to-act-on-cladding-crisis-but-only-for-buildings-it-owns-20190527-p51rpr" target="_blank">receiving notices from the Victorian government to act on cladding</a>.
To model costs we have also used real quotes owners have received to rectify their properties, as well as quotes revealed in media reports. These quotes reveal a range of lower costs for low/moderate-risk buildings and higher costs for high/extreme-risk buildings, usually based on the work for varying levels of rectification.
Firstly, we conservatively applied lower rectification cost data, being A$2,500 per dwelling for low/moderate-risk buildings and A$20,000 per dwelling for high/extreme-risk buildings.
Secondly, we applied higher costs found in quotes and media reports. These are $15,000 per dwelling for low/moderate-risk buildings and A$60,000 per dwelling for high/extreme-risk buildings. These figures are still conservative, based on multiple sighted estimates approaching $100,000 per dwelling.
We have calculated costs for two scenarios for all 629 buildings identified by last October: 
<ol>
<li>an average of 75 dwellings per building as per MCC data</li>
<li>an average of 37 dwellings per building, 50% less than MCC data to account for a higher proportion of lower-density developments affected (<a href="https://www.urban.com.au/property-observer" target="_blank">based on averages in municipalities</a> significantly affected by the crisis such as <a href="https://www.vba.vic.gov.au/cladding" target="_blank">Port Phillip, Stonington and Moreland</a>).</li>
</ol>
So how high could the bill be?
Our estimates show Victorian owners who are known to be affected may conservatively face a rectification bill of A$250-$500 million, if industry and government work with them to cap costs in economies-of-scale solutions. The bill may be as high as A$1.6 billion, if an inefficient approach is used and we have a higher proportion of larger buildings affected.
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/277823/original/file-20190604-69095-1vb6vrk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/277823/original/file-20190604-69095-1vb6vrk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a>
Author provided
Cladding audits are ongoing. The number of identified affected properties is likely to rise. At the 2019 <a href="https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLAWpz7v8cdutmOf_GDwtU3Gcs3CLQ5clb" target="_blank">Building Surveyors’ Conference</a>, the Victorian Building Authority appeared to categorise over 1,200 private Victorian buildings as moderately through to extreme risk for combustible cladding.
If this figure is correct, our cost estimates are conservative and will double.
Our estimates do not factor in the apartments yet to be identified or, more broadly, the issues in <a href="https://www.finance.nsw.gov.au/fire-safety-and-external-wall-cladding" target="_blank">other states</a> that have also been identified.
Government and industry shun responsibility
To date, the response of the Victorian government and industry has been to push financial responsibility back onto home owners. A Victorian low-interest loan scheme was launched in October allowing owners to repay amounts over ten years. It has been <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-02-16/combustible-cladding-risk-affects-thousands-but-few-fix-options/10804014" target="_blank">reported</a>, however, that no loans had been granted as recently as February.
The Victorian government’s <a href="https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/budgetfiles201920.budget.vic.gov.au/2019-20+State+Budget+-+Service+Delivery.pdf" target="_blank">May 27 budget papers</a> stated that A$160 million would be spent on the crisis “on public safety grounds”. This including ongoing assessments of private buildings affected by combustible cladding and 15 evaluation projects to manage and improve rectification outcomes.
As yet no funding has been provided to help owners of private dwellings who bought supposedly compliant properties. While <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.sro.vic.gov.au/node/6514" target="_blank">billions in revenue is recouped from stamp duty</a>, owners are being told to rectify a problem for which they were not responsible – all at their own cost.
Many owners simply will not be able to pay. Some individual bills sighted are as much as a quarter of the owner’s property value. On top of this, some insurance premiums have quadrupled.
At the vast costs we have estimated, and based on <a href="https://theconversation.com/cladding-fire-risks-have-been-known-for-years-lives-depend-on-acting-now-with-no-more-delays-111186" target="_blank">the chain of events leading to the cladding crisis</a> and the <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/business/consumer-affairs/victims-suffer-as-combustible-cladding-crisis-rages-on-20190402-p519yy" target="_blank">lack of support following</a>, is it reasonable that sole responsibility falls on owners to pay? And will such a move not lead to thousands of <a href="http://theconversation.com/lacrosse-fire-ruling-sends-shudders-through-building-industry-consultants-and-governments-112777" target="_blank">costly actions through the courts</a> as owners try to recoup costs?
Government and industry should provide substantial financial support to owners to help them recover from mass <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/business/fear-over-highrise-tower-fire-risk-in-melbourne-20141203-11zgp7" target="_blank">failures of policy, regulatory policing and industry practice</a>. The UK government has <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/britain-to-spend-200-million-fixing-combustible-cladding-20190510-p51m2c" target="_blank">to the tune of £200 million</a> (A$364 million). It is time to support Australian owners in a billion-dollar crisis they were not responsible for creating.
<hr>
Acknowledgments: We would like to thank Phil Dwyer from <a href="http://www.builderscollective.org.au/" target="_blank">Builders Collective of Australia</a> for working with us on the modelling for this article.<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/118121/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;">
Simon Lockrey, Senior Lecturer/ Research Fellow, RMIT University
Trivess Moore, Lecturer, RMIT University
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/flammable-cladding-costs-could-approach-billions-for-building-owners-if-authorities-dither-118121" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

Flammable cladding costs could approach billions for building owners if authorities dither

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
The <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">fire at the Neo200 building</a> on Spencer Street in the Melbourne CBD this week has eerie similarities to the <a href="http://theconversation.com/grenfell-a-year-on-heres-what-we-know-went-wrong-98112" target="_blank">Grenfell Tower disaster</a>. Fortunately, instead of 72 people dead as at Grenfell, only one person was hospitalised for smoke inhalation.
Nevertheless, the building industry has responded straight from the Grenfell song sheet. Rydon, the main contractor for the Grenfell Tower cladding, <a href="https://www.itv.com/news/meridian/update/2017-06-15/statement-from-rydon-after-public-inquiry-announcement/" target="_blank">said</a> the work: "… met all required building regulations – as well as fire regulation and Health &amp; Safety standards – and handover took place when the completion notice was issued by Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea building control."
Rydon chief executive Robert Bond <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/15/experts-warned-government-against-cladding-material-used-on-grenfell" target="_blank">said</a>: "I will do all I can to assist in this investigation in order to establish what caused this tragedy."
The Neo 200 architect, Hayball, <a href="https://architectureau.com/articles/cladding-back-in-the-spotlight-after-melbourne-apartment-tower-blaze/" target="_blank">stated</a>: "Neo 200 achieved certification and approval from the building certifier and relevant authorities at the time. We welcome the opportunity to support any investigation into the incident by authorities."
This appears to be the property sector’s version of “thoughts and prayers”. We’re very sorry, but there’s nothing we can do.
Sadly, this is far from the truth. We have known of the risk for years and the problem can be rectified.
Governments must act to ensure the cladding identified as a fire risk on hundreds of buildings is replaced. Further delay in fixing an identified threat to life is unacceptable.
Before the Grenfell and Neo200 fires, Melbourne had a cladding fire at 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</a> in 2014. This led to an <a href="https://www.vba.vic.gov.au/media/latest-news/article/2016/vba-releases-external-wall-cladding-audit-report" target="_blank">audit of external wall cladding</a> on buildings by the Victorian Building Authority.
Following the Grenfell fire, states conducted further audits. In October 2018, an <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/property-observer" target="_blank">update</a> by the <a href="https://www.vba.vic.gov.au/cladding/victorian-cladding-taskforce" target="_blank">Victorian Cladding Taskforce</a> stated: "Our investigations found dangerous materials are widely used on buildings throughout Victoria, a finding that is consistent with inquiries carried out interstate and internationally."
We now know that hundreds of residential buildings are rated as either a moderate or high risk by the New South Wales and Victorian governments. Over 350 buildings in Melbourne alone are rated “high risk”. Neo200 was regarded as only a “moderate risk”.
Residential buildings are particularly vulnerable to the effects of a cladding fire because people can be asleep and windows are often left open. The amount of smoke generated by the recent Neo200 fire is frightening.
<iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/NStPd-v42mY?wmode=transparent&amp;start=0" frameborder="0" width="440" height="260"></iframe>
Combustible cladding allowed the fire to spread rapidly up the Neo200 building.
In the UK, the central government has given local authorities the power to replace risky cladding. We should do the same here.
Governments should take rectification out of the hands of dithering strata committees and, if necessary, carry out the necessary work directly and recover the costs from the responsible parties.
How did we get to this point?
Polyethylene-cored aluminium sandwich panels – often referred to as aluminium composite panels (ACP), PE or PU panels – were <a href="https://alucobond.com/company#history" target="_blank">developed 50 years ago</a>, patented in 1971 and marketed as Alucobond. When the patent expired in 1991 other manufacturers entered the market, including products marketed as Reynobond (originally Reynolds Aluminium) and Alpolic (Mitsubishi Chemicals). Now, it is estimated over 200 manufacturers around the world produce ACP panels.
By the 1990s, ACP was gaining a level of acceptance in the Australasian construction market. This was aided by the introduction of performance requirements to replace a previous blanket ban on combustible materials being used on tall building facades. The timing of the relaxation of the Building Code of Australia and the introduction of ACP panels to the Australian market by multinational companies could be a coincidence.
By the end of the 1990s, there was growing evidence that the performance-based approach to facade fire protection was not working. Combustible cored sandwich panels were implicated as contributors to serious injuries and death. A notable example was a <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.ife.org.uk/Firefighter-Safety-Incidents/sun-valley-1993/34014" target="_blank">1993 fire in the Sun Valley food-processing factory in Hereford</a> in which two firefighters died. In 1997, the <a href="https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/home/burning-issues/181812.article" target="_blank">Museum of New Zealand (Te Papa) experienced a cladding fire</a> during construction.
The general and technical press, including architectural magazines with wide circulation, reported cladding fires in various types of materials, including ACP.
What can be done to reduce the risk?
Clearly, a facade fire has serious consequences. The bedrock of all modern fire regulations is that a fire in a tall building must be confined to a single storey. A fire spreading from one floor to the next completely undermines all the elements of protection and control that make egress routes and firefighting viable.
As we saw at Grenfell, a fire that spreads up the facade and involves nearly every storey in the building can’t be brought under control.
By 2000, there was widespread concern among fire professionals and some regulators that ACP was a bomb waiting to go off. A <a href="http://www.cookeonfire.com/pdfs/eurisolgreenreport.pdf" target="_blank">paper by Dr Gordon Cooke</a> clearly outlined the risks. It makes chilling reading in the light of the Grenfell disaster.
Luckily, most tall residential buildings in Australia with combustible ACP cladding have internal sprinkler systems – unlike Grenfell. We might also be able to buy some time by banning barbecues and smoking on balconies, but it is doubtful this will be 100% effective. Another possibility is to physically secure balcony doors shut, but many owners and tenants might strongly resist this draconian measure.
These measures still will not eliminate the <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/victorian-government-refuses-to-publicly-identify/10780228" target="_blank">risk of arson highlighted by the Victorian government</a>.
As the Neo200 fire demonstrates, even a moderate risk is still quite risky. It is extraordinary that a fire allegedly lit by a single smouldering cigarette could spread so quickly across seven floors and generate so much potentially deadly smoke.
An urgent cladding replacement program certainly has its challenges. A campaign that involves working on several hundred buildings at once in Melbourne and Sydney might overload the industry.
Nevertheless, the situation has been created by a lack of action by governments. Only decisive government action can rectify it. No more “thoughts and prayers”, enquiries or investigations; just replace the cladding now.<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/111186/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;">
Geoff Hanmer, Adjunct Lecturer in Architecture, 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/cladding-fire-risks-have-been-known-for-years-lives-depend-on-acting-now-with-no-more-delays-111186" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

Cladding

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Cladding

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News