‘Disgraceful’ Cladding Situation Demands Federal Response 3

By
Friday, February 19th, 2016
liked this article
Embed
Lovegrove Solicitors – 300 x 250
advertisement
Lacrosse
FavoriteLoadingsave article

A leader within the strata community in Australia has hit out at growing revelations about the problem of combustible cladding in large scale apartment complexes, describing the situation as ‘disgraceful’ and calling for a federal response to the problem.

Speaking amid reports that up to 2,500 high-rise buildings in Sydney and half of Melbourne’s high rise towers could contain flammable and non-compliant cladding mostly imported from China, Strata Community Australia Chief Executive Officer Ken Henshaw says it is almost certain that the problem exists on a nationwide basis and that only a federal response will therefore suffice.

“I think if we are talking about half the buildings that have been audited in Melbourne that have non-compliant cladding and up to two and a half thousand in Sydney, how big is this problem?” Henshaw told Sourceable in an interview.

“Is the rest of the country affected? I think it is inconceivable that if it is happening in Sydney and Melbourne that it hasn’t happened everywhere. I think this demands a federal response.”

Henshaw’s comments follow News Ltd reports that up to 2,500 buildings in Sydney could contain flammable cladding similar to what has caused fatalities overseas.

According a report in The Australian, a briefing note from the NSW Department of Planning and the Environment suggests that various methodologies indicate that around 1,800 buildings in Sydney are likely to be affected, and that the number could indeed be as high as 2,500.

That report came after the Victorian Building Authority said its audit into external wall claddings at 170 high rise residential and public buildings throughout the Melbourne CBD and inner suburbs had found that cladding in 51 percent of cases did not comply with standards set out under the Building Code of Australia.

In one case – the Harvest Apartments in Clarendon Street, South Melbourne, – immediate emergency action was required.

The comments also come amid ongoing disputes about who should pay for damage at the Lacrosse apartment complex in Melbourne at which combustible cladding was found during a Metropolitan Fire Brigade investigation following a terrifying fire at the complex that ripped up the side of the building in November 2014.

Whilst Melbourne City Council issued orders for the 400 apartment owners to replace the cladding on their apartments last year, owners say responsibility and cost should instead be borne by the project’s builder, LU Simon.

Henshaw says owners should not be left to pay the cost associated with non-compliant products.

“My heart goes out to these people,” he said.

“Our investment in real-estate is one of the major investments we make in our life, and we do this in good faith – particularly when we are buying a new building like with Lacrosse. And to find that somebody along the chain of responsibility has taken the easy, cheap way out and actually degraded the investment I think is disgraceful. The fact that lot owners are the only people that council can point the finger at and say that ‘you have got to fix this’ also indicates a real failure of regulation in my opinion.”

“These buildings are supposed to be guaranteed for a certain piece of time after they are constructed and I’m not sure why the regulations are such that it’s not the responsibility of the builders and /or developers.”

Embed
FavoriteLoadingsave article

Comments

 characters available
*Please refer to our comment policy before submitting
Discussions
3
  1. Peter

    Another by product of the farce that is self regulation

  2. Neal Hall

    I agree with Andrew Heaton, owners should not be responsible for builder and developer blunders and their cheap skate non-compliant works. All builders and developers should be found and held responsible for all building errors related to structural and fire components of a building no matter the classification or number of storeys. Bring back the seven years to claim a defect for any aspect of the structure. The builder or developer should not be allowed to hold majority of executive positions in a strata complex so they over rule rectification works until they sell after a claims period has expired. The builder and developer should be made to have insurance for the works carried out and be required to fix all works not built in a tradesman like manner. The builder and developer should hold a building license and be required to do mandatory training for CDC points annually and be properly registered and audited on a regular bases. Any builder or developer associated with a company that does a phoenix should not be allowed to start anew company for a period of 7 years. This would reduce the problems left for the owner/consumer to rectify and not place financial burden on the owner/consumer. Only then should the consumer feel comfortable and safe in any building they purchase.

  3. Anne Paten

    Perhaps not buying these apartments would send the strongest message. What happened to consumer law, consumer guarantees, consumer protection? Answer: All disappeared 23 years ago.

    This is not a recent phenomenon. It is a well established practice of Government approved building fraud in an Australia where building consumers are conned, this is endorsed and enabled by our collective Governments. It is called the greatest con-Sumer con in our history!