AIBS Australian Building Surveyor Spring 2016 by arkmedia4217

AUSTRALIAN

www.aibs.com.au

SPRING 2016

COVER STORY

TECHNICAL CODES

MEET THE MEMBERS

The birth of building surveying

Opinion: Is the NCC providing fit for purpose Buildings?

Russell Grove From cadet to director

THE MAGAZINE OF THE AUSTRALIAN INSTITUTE OF BUILDING SURVEYORS

Need More Alternatives?

MGAC is expert in accessibility of the built environment. We prepare performance (alternative) solution reports for building code access and DDA compliance. We have prepared reports for a comprehensive and diverse range of projects over all classes of building. Our ability to look at AS1428 compliance problems in a variety of ways stems from our deep functional knowledge of Codes and Standards, as well as the broad range of talent and skills in our team that includes construction managers, builders, architects, civil engineers and interior designers, all experts in access and DDA matters. Morris Goding Access Consulting (MGAC) gives you solutions not problems.

Phone: 1300 873 834 info@mgac.com.au

www.mgac.com.au

CONTENTS

FOREWORD PRESIDENTâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;S REPORT

REPORTS AIBS REPORT: USE OF EXTERNAL WALL CLADDING SYSTEMS ISSUES REPORT

FEATURES AND UPDATES

NATIONAL TECHNICAL COMMITTEE SPRING UPDATE

THE BIRTH OF BUILDING SURVEYING

BUYING PROPERTY INSIDE SUPER

EXPERTISE WITH EXPERT EASE, APPEARING AS AN EXPERT WITNESS

IS THE NCC PROVIDING FIT FOR PURPOSE BUILDINGS?

BUILDING CONSTRUCTION OWNERS UNDER THE ATO MICROSCOPE

THE THREE-YEAR AMENDMENT CYCLE

PASSIVE FIRE PROTECTION

AIBS ONLINE - TIPS YOU SHOULD KNOW

THE FUTURE OF PRIVATE CERTIFICATION IN SA - CHANGES ARE COMING

MEET THE MEMBERS

CONFERENCE CALENDAR

AIBS CHAPTER EXECUTIVE COMMITTEES

ON THE BUILDING SITE

ADVERTISING SALES: Paul Baird, Trish Riley, Vivianne Reiss, Scott Sharples, Lyndon Smith EDITOR: Jessica McCabe GRAPHIC DESIGN TEAM: Andrew Crabb, Danny McGirr, Michelle Triana

CONTACT DETAILS PO Box 824 Surfers Paradise QLD 4217 TEL: 1800 222 757 FAX: 1800 063 151 EMAIL: publications@crowtherblayne.com.au WEB: www.crowtherblayne.com.au

PRODUCTION: Lynda Keys PRINT & DISTRIBUTION: Newstyle

AUSTRALIAN INSTITUTE OF BUILDING SURVEYORS

FOR MORE INFORMATION OR ARTICLE SUBMISSION PLEASE CONTACT US

15 Bridge Street Pymble NSW 2073 Phone 1300 312 427

Phone 1300 312 427 nat.editor@aibs.com.au

ADVERTISING Crowther Blayne Media Specialists Phone (07) 5553 2800

Australian Building Surveyor magazine is produced by Crowther Blayne Media Specialists on behalf of The Australian Institute of Building Surveyors. Australian Building Surveyor is the official magazine of The Australian Institute of Building Surveyors.

DISCLAIMER: No person should rely on the contents of this publication without first obtaining advice from qualified professional persons. The publisher and the authors, consultants and editors, expressly disclaim all and any liability and responsibility to any person, whether a purchaser or reader of this publication or not, in respect of anything, and of the consequences of anything, done or omitted to be done by any such person in reliance, whether wholly or partially, upon the whole or any part of the contents of this publication. The publisher is not responsible for claims made by advertisers or opinions expressed. No part of this publication may be reproduced, copied or duplicated without the written consent of Crowther Blayne Media Specialists and The Australian Institute of Building Surveyors.

SPRING 2016 | AUSTRALIAN BUILDING SURVEYOR

PRESIDENT’S REPORT

From the AIBS President

JEFFREY BROOKS JEFFREY BROOKS, FAIBS National President & QLD/NT Director

AIBS NATIONAL PRESIDENT JEFFREY BROOKS PROVIDES A SUMMARY OF THE BOARD LED GOVERNANCE REVIEW UNDERTAKEN THIS YEAR, WHICH REINFORCES AND SUPPORTS THE ADMINISTRATIVE AND STRUCTURAL CHANGES THE AIBS HAVE UNDERTAKEN OVER THE PAST THREE YEARS. Jeff also provides a snapshot of the role of Director and the key role they play in shaping the organisation, and how this all comes together for the Board to ensure that AIBS remains a viable, relevant and respected Organisation. INTRODUCTION The AIBS has recently finalised a review of our governance structures with a number of changes to the AIBS Constitution being approved by the members, and an update of the AIBS By-laws approved by the Board. Further, the Board have also approved the introduction of a number of policies that will provide a high level of governance throughout the Organisation to ensure that AIBS continues to effectively represent its members and the profession of building surveying into the future. The governance review process culminated in a General Meeting of AIBS members in Melbourne on 22nd August 2016 where a number of significant changes to the Constitution were put to the members for approval. In total, 18 special resolutions were put to members for approval and I take this opportunity to thank our members for their valued support in approving these resolutions. At the Board Meeting on 27th August 2016 in Sydney, the Board then adopted the updated Constitution with the approved changes and have subsequently approved the update of the AIBS By-Laws. Other documents since approved by the Board include: • The AIBS Governance Policy • The AIBS Membership Policy

• The AIBS Conduct of Elections Policy • The AIBS Conference Management Policy • The AIBS Training Operations Policy

while managing risk (including legal and regulatory compliance) • To guide, motivate and monitor management

All these documents are available at: www.aibs.com.au

Directors operate in a complex and rapidly evolving environment. They are exhorted to uphold high standards of ethical behaviour and to ensure high levels of business performance.

The Organisational structure of AIBS has changed over the past number of years in order for AIBS to implement a more modern governance structure based on best practice to become a more dynamic and effective Organisation. ABOUT AIBS Just as a brief summary, the AIBS is a Limited by Guarantee Company. Directors are appointed by members to act on their behalf in being responsible for the Organisation’s overall business performance and compliance in the best interests of the Organisation and as such, have legal obligations under the Corporations Act. The AIBS is a single entity organisation, not a federated structure and is governed by the Corporations Act, AIBS Constitution and By-laws. ABOUT THE ROLE OF DIRECTOR Why does a Company such as AIBS have Directors? • To make up the board which is charged with representing members who are too numerous to manage effectively • To bring skills, independent perspective and judgement to improve decisionmaking of the board • To ensure the organisation meets member expectations by promoting performance

AUSTRALIAN BUILDING SURVEYOR | SPRING 2016

Directors are held accountable for the ‘tone at the top’ of the organisation. By establishing appropriate systems of corporate governance in the organisation, they can signal to management what issues are important and what behaviours are acceptable. AIBS Directors and the Institute are governed predominantly by the Corporations Act, AIBS Constitution & By-laws and AIBS Governance Policy. These are briefly outlined below. 1. Corporations Act The Corporations Act 2001 is an act of the Commonwealth of Australia that sets out the laws dealing with business entities in Australia at federal and interstate level. As previously advised, the AIBS being a Limited by Guarantee Company falls under the jurisdiction of this Act & ASIC. The Australian Securities & Investments Commission (ASIC) is an independent Australian government body that acts as Australia's corporate regulator. ASIC's role is to enforce and regulate company and financial services laws to protect Australian consumers, investors and creditors.

Further details can be found on the ASIC website. 2. AIBS Constitution & By-Laws The Board is responsible for governing the affairs of the Australian Institute of Building Surveyors to deliver the objectives of the AIBS, in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution and the By-Laws. The Board is governed by the Constitution. The By-Laws are made pursuant to the Constitution and provide guidance and direction for the orderly conduct of the affairs of the Institute, including its Board Committees and Chapters. 3. AIBS Governance Policy Governance refers to the processes, activities and relationships in the Organisation that make sure the Organisation is effectively and properly run. Good governance helps make sure that the day-to-day work of the Organisation aligns with, and contributes to achieving the Organisations’ objective. The AIBS Governance Policy has been developed to provide an operational structure for the Board and Chapters Committee on a day to day basis. This policy has been developed in accordance with the provisions contained in the AIBS Constitution and By-Laws. This policy will also provide more specific information as to how the Board operates and interacts with the Chapter Committees along with key management staff such as the CEO. INDEPENDENT DIRECTORS ON THE AIBS BOARD Recent changes to the AIBS Constitution now allow for the appointment of Independent Directors on the AIBS Board. The AIBS Constitution outlines the requirements of the eligibility and appointment of Independent Directors. Why have Independent Directors? As a member-based Organisation, Directors elected to the Board must be a full member, elected from each of the AIBS chapters. This means that members of the Board are qualified as building surveyors. Currently, the board has both members from both the private and government sector and they bring with them an extensive knowledge of the construction industry.

The most successful and effective Boards are those that have a diversity of skills and while it is expected that elected Board members will have an extensive knowledge of the construction industry, the AIBS could benefit from having ‘outside’ expertise on the Board that could contribute to the overall direction, management and success of the AIBS in the future. Some areas of expertise that an Independent Director may bring to AIBS could include strategic planning, accounting and finance, legal issues, risk management, human resources and fundraising. This type of expertise could effectively support and complement the industry knowledge and experience of the elected Board members. CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE AIBS BOARD Throughout its operation the board will have choices to make about the kind of organisation they govern, and those choices will have a profound impact on the organisation’s culture. The Board set the standard and culture for the Organisation, in this case AIBS. Ethics is dependent upon a system of values accepted by all members of the organisation. The board must adopt and, in its own behaviour and the behaviour of individual directors, display actions that support those values and value creation. There should be no trade-off between values and value creation. The AIBS delegate some of their responsibilities to the CEO or to Chapter Committees. However, there are some duties that the board undertake such as appointing the chief executive officer, developing (and approving) a strategic plan and considering how organisational risks should be managed. The AIBS Board primarily have the following responsibilities: • accountability – making sure AIBS meets its obligations, manages its finances and operates transparently • strategy – setting the AIBS long-term goals and making sure it pursues its objectives as outlined in the Constitution • resourcing – ensure that funding and other resources is sufficient to support the work of AIBS • advocacy – representing the profession to legislators, regulators and the community and to its members

• monitoring – making sure the Organisation is run as required under its governing documents and the law. On a final note, the term of the current Board comes to an end at the AGM in Melbourne on 11th November 2016. As you can see, there is great deal of commitment and responsibility required in being the Director (and President) of an Organisation such as AIBS. However, I am grateful for the support and commitment of my fellow Directors, Wayne Liddy, Terry Bush, Tim Tuxford, Duncan Wilson & Gabriel Barnes, all of whom give freely and generously of their time in the interests of Building Surveying. In supporting the Board, the staff in the AIBS Office have been exceptional in the interaction and delivery of services to members, along with their day to day management of the Organisation. Much of what has been achieved as an Organisation is due to their commitment and professionalism and the Board are indeed grateful for the support and achievements of such a great team. To wrap up, as a Board we are very proud of our achievements over the period of our term and whatever the makeup of the next Board, we believe the AIBS is in a very strong position to continue leading and representing the profession of building surveying well into the future.

On behalf of the Directors and our team, we thank you again for your ongoing support.

JEFFREY BROOKS, FAIBS AIBS National President

SPRING 2016 | AUSTRALIAN BUILDING SURVEYOR

TECHNICAL

NATIONAL TECHNICAL COMMITTEE SPRING UPDATE “TO BE, OR NOT TO BE – THAT IS THE QUESTION” IS A FAMOUS QUOTE FROM SHAKESPEARE’S HAMLET THAT WE ARE ALL, NO DOUBT AWARE OF AND THIS QUOTE OR MORE IN THE LINES OF “TO COMPLY, OR NOT TO COMPLY – THAT IS THE QUESTION”, KEPT RESONATING WITH ME AS WE DELIBERATED SOME OF THE ISSUES PRESENTED TO THE TECHNICAL COMMITTEE. CAR STACKERS Car stackers vary in range, complexity and size. They can be associated with a single dwelling, a multi-residential building, or a large commercial parking arrangement where motor vehicles are stored in horizontal spaces one atop the other. In the latter tiered scenario nothing prevents those spaces from being occupied by parking staff or vehicle owners. Some stackers are clearly items of plant. Others may be possibly more.

In the latter parts of May the Technical Committee discussed a question from the NSW Chapter in relation to car stackers and how they comply with Section C, D and E of the BCA. Of particular concern was: a. The meaning of floor in the context of Section C & D; b. whether the resultant spaces are storeys or mezzanines; c. hose reel and hydrant coverage; and d. where travel distance is measured from.

The NCC includes standards for certain mechanical installations in buildings however, nothing specific for car stackers.

The consensus was that car stackers are plant similar to loading platforms and as such not subject for assessment per se. It is the space that the stacker/plant is contained within that represents concern to building surveyors, similar to say lifts and lift shafts.

Car stackers can result in a building containing a significant fire load and present special problems for the effective operation of fire protection systems such as fire sprinkler systems; fire fighters; and for building occupants. They may also present issues for the stability of the structure should a fire eventuate.

However, what was noted that while the cars are stacked vertically the BCA provisions for sprinklers in fire compartments where more than 40 cars are accommodated applies, (Table E1.5 requirement for sprinklers).

The question for building surveyors and certifiers approving buildings containing car stackers is what responsibility if any do they have in relation to addressing the issues car stackers present. For example, does the stacker form a part of the building and must it comply with the NCC?

Similarly the separating walls would need to comply with Part C and dependent on the floor area of the whole space, as per the diagram, above hose reels and hydrants. The provision for escape would also only need to cover the area of the floor not the vertical height of the car stacker as only cars are on the lift and not people.

Should the approval/certification deal with the stacker system and the issues it presents? NB if it must comply with the NCC and there is no explicit and specific DTS Solution, then should the stacker be dealt with as a performance solution?

It is suggested that practitioners contact their respective building control administrations since it is the laws that they administer that determine what forms a part of a ‘building’ and whether or not a car stacker system must comply with the NCC.

AUSTRALIAN BUILDING SURVEYOR | SPRING 2016

Figure 1: Example of a vertical drop in the handrail at a landing of a switch-back fire-isolated stairway. Photo provided by MGAC – Morris Goding Accessibility Consulting

Those laws also specify the capacity of the approval or certification to deal with the issues. An interesting discussion and while not a common sight in many jurisdictions, with increased land values and the advent of a greater demand for rentable space, stackers will no doubt become more popular. HANDRAILS IN FIRE ISOLATED EXITS In June an issue was raised for the Committee’s consideration on handrails in fire isolated stairs and the current confusion that appears to be expressed by access consultants and building surveyors with respect to compliance with the BCA. It would appear that this issue has also been an active discussion item since May 2013 on the Association of Consultants in Access Australia, (ACAA) Forum with wide ranging interpretations and opinions. The issue identified is where you have a quarter turn landing or switchback type flights of stairs with minimum width landings and no distance to comply with BCA Clause D2.17 and Clause 11.2 Handrails, of AS1428.1-2009. (See Figure 1)

Mr David Goding, of MGAC stated in response to the above photo that this system of handrails clearly doesn’t comply with Clause 12(e) of AS 1428.1, as this example does not achieve a consistent height through the stairs and any landing. In his view a handrail that either drops vertically or has a steeper rake when it makes a turn at a landing, clearly is not achieving a consistent handrail height. If the issue of non-compliance is identified late in the design process or post construction, some certifying building surveyors are requiring that the inner handrails be extended, as close as practically by one tread width, into the landing width, so as to achieve a consistent handrail height throughout the change in direction. A Performance Solution from a fire engineer is often also sought in relation to the resultant reduced effective width of the landing with respect to egress path widths. Mr Goding also stated that confusion is also being caused as there is an inconsistency between AS 1926.1 and the BCA in that the Standard requires handrails on both sides of the flight [Clause 11.2(b)] and the

BCA on one side [D2.17(a)(i)] unless the stair width is 2m or wider then on both sides [D2.17(a)(ii)]. However, there is a contradictory view in that “D3.3 - Ïn Part of a building to be accessible” (a)(iii) states: “In a building required to be accessible— (iii)for a fire-isolated stairway, clause 11.1(f ) and (g) of AS 1428.1;” These provisions would appear to explicitly exempt fire isolated stairs from compliance with handrail requirements in AS1426.1. Clearly there is an inconsistency between the two documents that exacerbates the debate and one that the ABCB hopefully will address in the near future. From time to time the Technical Committee is asked to review documents for endorsement by AIBS. One of these recently received dealt with the matter of non-compliant building products and the problems faced by industry in identifying such products. This issue is being investigated by the Building Products Innovation Council who presented an Industry Position Paper they had prepared and titled, ”Toward a Quantitative Analysis Framework to Identify Non-Conforming

Building Products”. Members reviewing the proposal considered that AIBS should support the Position Paper subject to some minor amendments, as the paper’s recommendations generally align with that of AIBS. Scheduled for release post 24 August, the ABCB will be posting on their website a handbook relating to Upgrading Existing Buildings. In drafting this document the ABCB sought input from the State and Territory regulators. The outcome was adopting a Performance based approach to upgrading existing buildings. The document should not be seen as a panacea for all issues that you may face and independent advice should also be sought from the relevant State or Territory regulators with respect to your particular circumstance. “To comply or not to comply – that is the question”.

DUNCAN WILSON, FAIBS

Duncan Wilson is the Principal building Surveyor at the Shire of Kalamunda in WA and a Director on the National Board. Duncan currently chairs the National Technical Committee.

SPRING 2016 | AUSTRALIAN BUILDING SURVEYOR

COVER STORY

THE BIRTH OF

BUILDING SURVEYING REMEMBERING THE 350TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE GREAT FIRE OF LONDON The building surveying profession as we know it today can be said to have been born from the devastating effects of the Great Fire of London on September 2nd 1666, marking 350 years this year. The unprecedented destruction caused by the fire was a result of a lack of planning and regulation in the construction industry during this period.

Following this disaster the Act for the Rebuilding of the City of London established that houses had to be built out of fire resistant materials that the width of streets must be adequate to act as fire breaks, and that buildings in certain locations had to obey specific rules regarding wall thickness and storey height. Furthermore, the Act called for: “…one or more discreet and intelligent

person or persons knowledgeable in the art of building to see the said rules well and truly observed.” (18-19 Chas II, 8) Although generally thought of as a recent innovation, building regulation has a long history. Whilst it was generally thought that the London Rebuilding Act of 1667 contained the first mention of building surveying, the profession actually has a much longer history.

Below: A plan of the city and liberties of London after the Dreadful Conflagration in the year 1666 (1756), by Wenceslaus Hollar. The added coloured overlay indicates the progression of the fire over the duration of the disaster, beginning in a bakery on Pudding Lane.

AUSTRALIAN BUILDING SURVEYOR | SPRING 2016

The first recorded building code can be traced back nearly 4000 years to the code of Hammurabi, a Babylonian ruler, while the first mention of building control officers can be found in Plato’s laws, from 360 B.C.E. in ancient Greece. These officers were known as Wardens of the City and one of their identified duties was to ensure that buildings were constructed in accordance with the law.

Building Act of 1837 and also that of the Melbourne Building Act of 1849. Using language similar to the London Rebuilding Act of 1667, these Building Acts required that surveyors be skilled in the art of building to see that the said rules and regulations throughout the town of Sydney and Melbourne were observed.

Unfortunately, this lesson of history was forgotten, contributing to the devastating Great Fire of London. Fortunately, the lesson that building laws required skilled and knowledgeable people to enforce them was learnt following the Great Fire, and the profession of building surveying has existed since in the interest of community safety.

While it has been 350 years since the Great Fire of London, there is no doubt that fire continues to be a challenge for Governments who develop regulations, and building surveyors who work to protect the community’s safety and property. Free global trade has also brought the challenge of non-conforming building products to the profession, and vary technological and natural features pose their own sets of challenges for building surveyors. AIBS continues to represent the building surveyor of today as they face theses key challenges in pursuing their core goal of ensuring community health and safety.

In Australia, the formalisation of building surveying can be traced to the Sydney

The full AIBS Special Feature can be read online at www.aibs.com.au.

What Plato’s law was perhaps the first to realise was there was no point having building codes and laws to provide for community safety if there was nobody to enforce those laws.

There is no doubt that ﬁre continues to be a challenge for Governments who develop regulations.

SPRING 2016 | AUSTRALIAN BUILDING SURVEYOR

FINANCE

BUYING PROPERTY INSIDE SUPER MOST PEOPLE HAVE NOW HEARD THAT SELF MANAGED SUPERANNUATION FUNDS (SMSF’S) HAVE BECOME MORE POPULAR FOR RETIREMENT SAVINGS, PROPERTY INVESTMENT VEHICLES AND FOR STRUCTURING BORROWING INSIDE SUPER TO BUY PROPERTY. Before going into this in detail, it is important to advise that you should seek specialist financial and legal advice before acting on the below material. This article is written as general in nature and doesn’t take into consideration your personal circumstances. As at September 2015, SMSF assets held under a borrowing arrangement were estimated by the Australia Taxation Office (ATO) to be $18 billion, representing approximately 3% of total SMSF assets of $576 billion. Why has this boomed over the past 10 or so years? In 2007, the ATO relaxed the borrowing rules within SMSF’s, this can now be done through a limited recourse borrowing arrangement (LRBA).

WHAT IS A LRBA? Basically, it requires a SMSF trustee to take out a loan from a third party lender to buy a single asset. This asset is held separately to the SMSF (in a separate Trust). WHY IS THIS THE REQUIREMENT? If the loan defaults, the third party lender can only recover the debt against the single property, i.e. the rest of the SMSF’s assets are protected. I can talk you through how this works but let’s face it, if you are going to do this you will engage a solicitor and accountant to help you out. So I won’t bore you with the detail in terms of setting up a SMSF, corporate trustee of the SMSF, bare trust, corporate trustee of the bare trust, etc. Let me outline the most important things you need to know about this type of arrangement: 1. A property inside super is meant to provide for your retirement. That is and has to be the sole purpose of

your SMSF. You can never live in the property, or stay in the property. If you are buying an investment property/ holiday home, don’t buy it in your SMSF. Save yourself some money now and buy it outside of super as you will eventually need to change it and you will need to pay double stamp duty! You cannot transfer a residential property that you own yourself into the SMSF. Residential property purchases need to be off a third party. Commercial properties are ok. Commercial properties that your business occupies are ok. These are the one of the best types of arrangements you can do because you will be the world's best tenant. If you are thinking of transferring your commercial property into your SMSF, you could potentially be up for capital gains tax (CGT) but there are ways around minimising stamp duty on the transfer. Make sure you consult an expert on this to avoid paying unnecessary costs where they could be avoidable. Buying property inside a SMSF obviously has its tax concessions. Rental income is taxed at 15% or 0% if you are in pension. Capital gains are taxed at 10% or 0% if you are in pension phase. Further to point five, if you are negatively gearing your investment property, the tax benefits of doing this inside your SMSF aren’t as good as what you would get outside of super. We live in a very litigious world. There is no shortage of legal cases going on at the moment. Having assets held inside super gives you great protection from creditors in the event you are sued. Lending criteria varies from bank to bank however generally, banks will lend you 70% of the price of the property.

AUSTRALIAN BUILDING SURVEYOR | SPRING 2016

It is also common to need an extra 10% of net assets, in your SMSF post settlement. A mortgage broker can help provide solutions for both of these limitations. As an estimate, if you are establishing a new SMSF with just enough cash available, you could say they will lend you 60% of the property price. Additionally, you cannot use your existing property/s as security for the purchase of a new property inside your SMSF. Further to point 6 above, an often underutilised strategy that can enable you to buy a higher value property inside super is by using a structure called a non-geared unit trust (NGUT). Basically, you can setup a new NGUT, buy the property under this trust, use as much cash as you can to purchase a percentage of the trust inside your SMSF and the remaining portion is purchased through personal funds, either through savings or via borrowing against an existing home or an investment property. Then over

time when either funds build up inside the SMSF or you contribute extra funds into your SMSF, your SMSF can purchase units off yourself to transfer a percentage of the ownership of the property over to your SMSF. 10. Borrowing criteria differs lender by lender. It is important to consult a mortgage broker to ensure the bank you are going through suits your needs. For example: • Lender A – confirms loan servicing criteria with just your super fund contributions and rental income on your property, applies a standard variable mortgage interest rate, doesn’t need personal assets and liabilities and requires a personal guarantee from the SMSF members; • Lender B – includes your personal income streams and your personal liabilities and commitment, applies a commercial interest rate, requires all personal assets and liabilities to be notes and doesn’t require any personal guarantees.

11. When you sign your Contact of Sale on the purchase of the property, the name that goes on the contact is the Bare Trustee for the Bare Trust. Not the SMSF. 12. It is important to get advice from your solicitor to make sure you do not pay double stamp duty, i.e stamp duty on the purchase of the property and stamp duty on the subsequent transfer of the property from your Bare Trustee for the Bare Trust to your Trustee of your SMSF. 13. Properties that are purchased using an LRBA cannot be significant changed, i.e. you cannot do major renovations to the property. 14. An estimation of the costs involved to undertake this type of arrangement is between $5,000$10,000. This includes accounting fees, legal fees, ASIC fees and the like. This does not include stamp duty. "Therefore, it is hard to justify doing this for a property around the $200k-$300k mark.

In summary, as you can see, there are many benefits of buying property inside super and doing this through a borrowing arrangement. In saying this, it doesn’t suit everyone. It can be very costly if you go by this the incorrect way. Due to this and the fact that it is a very complex issue, you need to talk to your financial advisors before taking action.

MICHAEL ATKINSON

Michael, a partner at Peer Wealth, is a Chartered Accountant that helps high income earners maximise their ﬁnancial health today and in the future. ph: (02) 8014 7608 | e: michael@peerwealth.com.au w: peerwealth.com.au

SPRING 2016 | AUSTRALIAN BUILDING SURVEYOR

LEGAL

EXPERTISE WITH EXPERT EASE APPEARING AS AN EXPERT WITNESS FROM QUESTIONS OF CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS, TO REMEDIAL SOLUTIONS AND VALUATION EVALUATIONS, THE COURTS OFTEN RELY ON THE EXPERTISE OF EXPERIENCED BUILDING SURVEYORS TO RESOLVE KEY, BUT COMPLEX, ISSUES IN DISPUTE. WHAT ARE EXPERT WITNESSES? The evidence given by typical witnesses of fact is sensory in nature; for example, based on something they recall having seen or heard. These witnesses are not asked for their opinion, as it is not for them, but for the court, to draw such conclusions. Expert witnesses are different. Qualified by learning and experience, these witnesses are called to enlighten the court about important technical matters. While some of their evidence may pertain to facts, it is their opinion on those specialist issues which is vital to the court’s understanding. RETAINING YOUR INDEPENDENCE The opinion you give as an expert witness must, by definition, require specialised knowledge. And you will be called as an expert because you are esteemed in your field. As such, you are entitled to be well paid for the work this entails. But, equally, you will also be performing a public service and are accountable for the evidence you give. You may think that because an expert has mastered a particular body of knowledge through training and experience, his or her evidence will already be objective and conclusive. In the real world, however, matters are not so clear cut. Despite the old adage, great minds frequently think unalike. So that even two surveyors with similar experience and seniority can reach different conclusions on an issue. Hence the reason why opposing parties in a court case tend to engage their own expert witnesses.

Partiality has traditionally been the courts’ biggest bugbear with expert witnesses. Essentially, an expert should be independent of the case and help the court by giving an opinion on an issue or a set of issues. This remains the case whether he or she is paid by the court itself or by one of the parties. “Advocate” is not something for you, as an expert witness, to aspire to and being described this way by a Judge is never a good thing. Yet, how do you remain dispassionate when you are engaged (and being paid) by one of the parties? It is a perennial challenge. One way of retaining your objectivity can be through peer review or joining an expert witness network. And initiating free and frank discussions with the parties and lawyers who engage you can also help you tread this fine line. WRITING A COURT-COMPLIANT REPORT Thanks to years of TV court dramas, it can be tempting to think of a witness as primarily that person who gives oral evidence in a witness box. But, while there will be times when you front up to court, you should never underestimate the power and significance of written evidence. As an expert, the first thing that you will be asked to do is prepare a report. All courts have strict rules what should be included in these reports and you must follow them for your evidence to be accepted.

AUSTRALIAN BUILDING SURVEYOR | SPRING 2016

Effective writing skills are also essential, particularly as a large number of technical issues are settled once expert reports have been exchanged. For example, in a case involving defective building work, you may be asked to assess the likely scope and cost of remedial work. On the strength of your report, the parties could then condense the issues in dispute to ones of liability and causation. In which case, your report would become your first and only involvement in the case. Your opinion, and the reasons for it, should therefore be expressed as comprehensively and comprehensibly as possible. When preparing your report, do not hesitate to request access to material that you need in order to evaluate or replicate another expert’s conclusions. And identify any material upon which your opinion is based, including any literature, methodology or facts that you have yourself determined, also ensuing that any test results, data and other resources can be readily sourced by another expert. It is particularly important to clarify whenever your opinion is based on an assumption that may need to be proved by another means. The case of Dasreef Pty Ltd v Hawchar involved an expert who gave evidence about health and safety practices for stone masons working with silica dust. In its findings the Dust Disease Tribunal treated his evidence as having established that the worker concerned (Mr Hawchar) had been exposed to a certain quantity of silica dust, in fact, the expert had merely assumed this level of exposure for the purpose of his opinion (and nor was he

qualified to scientifically measure the likely exposure in any event). That case went all the way to the High Court before this misunderstanding was resolved.

Meadows, who was called as a prosecution witness in the murder trial of Sally Clark. Mrs Clark, a UK lawyer and mother, had two separate children die within weeks of their birth. Professor Meadows’ relevant expertise was in the condition known as Munchausen Disease but during the trial he proceeded to give evidence about the odds of an affluent family, like Mrs Clark’s, losing two children to cot deaths (1 in 73 million, according to Professor Meadows). Mrs Clark was found guilty but her convictions were later overturned. As it turned out, Dr Meadows was not qualified as a statistician and his calculations were so misconceived that they invited a public appeal from the Royal Statistical Society about the “misuse of statistics in court”.

to leaky building litigation and with not a towel in sight, the more conservative term for this process is “concurrent expert evidence”. While the specific procedure can vary from court-to-court, it generally involves all the expert witnesses sitting together and being examined in the same session. Between exchanging their reports and getting to court, the experts should also have had a meeting (usually without lawyers or clients present) to crystallise the points in dispute. The biggest challenge here is being able to hold your own in a conclave of your peers. While this becomes easier with experience, knowing and understanding the points of difference (and the competing rationales) will help you convey your own opinion persuasively.

The secret to dealing with a tough crossexamination - and they will be tough - is always the same: be professional, calm and remember that you are there to be of service to the Court.

How do you avoid this type of pitfall? Usually the nub of your evidence will have been determined in advance, most likely by a court direction. These preliminary steps help to ensure your evidence will be relevant to one of more of the issues in dispute and that you are in fact qualified to give evidence on such matters. However, these precautions will not stop the cross-examining lawyer asking you about other matters in the hope of diverting you into an area in which you are not specialised - and then tripping you up. Don’t be drawn. Stick to what you know about and don’t pretend to know about things that you don’t know about.

HONING YOUR SKILLS The expert witness arena is fascinating, well-paid and adds a major new dimension to a career. It is also a way of contributing something important to society. But it’s no place for amateurs. You do need a basis understanding of your role and the rules that govern expert evidence. There are also some key skills worth developing if you are thinking of venturing into this line of work.

A common trap for expert witnesses is straying outside their area of expertise. Perhaps the most dramatic example of that was the UK paediatrician, Professor Roy

THE EXPERT HOT TUB Increasingly, oral expert evidence is examined in court using the curiously named “hot tub” method. Not confined

EFFECTIVE ORAL COMMUNICATION On the occasions when you are called as an expert witness at an oral hearing, communicate confidently and methodically. Aim to be deceptively-simple – aka the Keep it Simple Stupid (KISS) principle- so that even someone who is not an expert in your field can understand (ie the judge or jury). Taking a complex subject and explaining it in simple, digestible, terms is how you display your mastery. HANDLING CROSS EXAMINATION Court proceedings in Australia are run using an adversarial principle, which means that parties, through their lawyers, have to test evidence presented to court. Crossexamination of witnesses by the lawyer for the opposing side is one of the fundamental dynamics on which this system is based. If you want to offer yourself as an expert witness, it is something that you need to be prepared for.

NIKKI PENDER

Nikki Pender is a practising litigator who is admitted in Australia and New Zealand. She is also the Managing Director of Legal Empowerment Pty Ltd, which delivers witness familiarisation and expert witness training in Australasia.

SPRING 2016 | AUSTRALIAN BUILDING SURVEYOR

OPINION

IS THE NCC PROVIDING FIT FOR PURPOSE BUILDINGS? RE-EVALUATION OF THE EXISTING CHANGE MANAGEMENT MODELS TO IMPROVE THE RESPONSE OF THE BUILDING CODE OF AUSTRALIA TO ENVIRONMENTAL DOCILITY

The following article is an overview of Darryl O’Brien’s thesis ‘Re-evaluation of the existing change management models to improve the response of the Building Code of Australia to environmental docility.’ This thesis explored the effectiveness of mandatory building codes to provide a fit for purpose built environments for all building occupants. Emerging demographic cohorts, such as the infirm aged and shiftworkers working irregular hours are creating a need for code managers to recognise and respond to the specific needs associated with these groups. In exploring the potential inability of the BCA to respond to evolving demographic change the thesis first identified and described the existing change management models that underpin all form of legislation. Code content is created or amended by three mechanisms; logical incrementalism, emergent strategy or co-participative change management. Logical incrementalism represents the codification of existing custom and practice with minor amendments occurring periodically. Logical incrementalism is considered to have effective process and goal orientation and as such represents a sound basis for technical codes. Emergent strategy is a discontinuous amendment strategy, generally in response to catastrophic events. The emergent strategy response can involve significant amendments to existing codes or the creation of new codes in response to perceived code deficiencies in the existing logical incrementalist framework. Due to

the reactive nature of this process it risks having poor goal and process orientation. The final change management model identified by the research was described as co-participative change management. Whilst similar to emergent strategy in that this process can create new codes, it differs from emergent strategy in two respects. Firstly, co-participative change management emerges to fill a perceived vacuum in the existing code content. Secondly, co-participative change management emerges from community concerns around code content deficiencies, rather than from the existing technical community. This is only likely to occur where hazards are identified for vulnerable populations and appropriate risk management strategies developed. To date, the three change management models have been generally effective in providing acceptable minimum construction standards for a broad range of buildings, potential hazards and occupant types. To achieve these outcomes, building codes involve a linear process where hazards are identified, codes developed and safety goals met. However, this traditional process assumes occupant types and demographic trends to be static. Furthermore, this process assumes codes have identified all hazard types and quantified appropriate design responses. This approach has been considered an adequate response in relation to life safety matters related to environmental hazards, and to lesser

AUSTRALIAN BUILDING SURVEYOR | SPRING 2016

extent technological hazards. However this approach has been less successful in relation to health hazards as demographic circumstances and cohorts do not remain static but evolve over time. To understand the extent of demographic trends and how they potentially inform code content, the thesis described the related concepts of environmental docility and environmental proactivity (Lawton, 1974). Briefly, the environmental docility

hypothesis holds that where people are not able to adapt to the environment, for example people with Alzheimerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s disease, the environment must be modified to their needs. Alternatively, people who express environmental proactivity need no extrinsic assistance in negotiating the environment. These conditions represent two extremes across a continuum of adaptive behaviour and have particular relevance to the built environment. Importantly, in order to create a code response for

environmental docility these needs must firstly be recognised and quantified. Where specific matters of environmental docility are recognised, appropriate code responses can be developed. However, where these needs are unrecognised, matters related to environmental docility will potentially remain unsatisfied. This lack of proactive design response suggested that the existing change management models may not provide

optimised response to demographic changes associated with environmental docility. To provide an effective design response, the thesis proposed a fourth model that combines three previously unrelated management and performance evaluation models to inform code improvement. This conceptual framework drew on Adaptive Management Theory (McLain & Lee, 1996) and Radical Innovation Management Theory (Tolbert & Zucker, 1996) and an adapted version of the Post-occupancy Review of Buildings and

SPRING 2016 | AUSTRALIAN BUILDING SURVEYOR

OPINION their Engineering (PROBE) post occupancy analysis model based upon the work of Cohen et al., (2001). The combination of these models led to the creation of a fourth change management model described as the Adaptive and Reflexive Governance Pathway (ARGP) for the BCA. The advantages of this framework are that it is evidence based, enables strategies of experimentation and learning and enables active engagement of stakeholders in the policy making and implementation process. As part of the PhD, provide a proof of concept test of the utility of the proposed ARGP enhanced framework for the BCA, two case studies were developed. The goal of the case studies was to determine whether the theoretical ARGP change management model could be operationalised and thus capable of being introduced as a normalised change management model. The ARGP was operationalised in a number of stages, i.e. discovery, design, application, analysis, key findings and sedimentation. The first study employed the ARGP change management model to measure code response to identified elements of environmental docility. To achieve this, the first study used wireless data loggers to record environmental factors shown to affect sleep hygiene in shift workers. The environmental factors measured by the loggers were temperature, relative humidity (RH), dew point, noise and CO2 concentrations. Gathering these data allowed a critical analysis of the relationship between best practice and minimum standard to be explored. The results of this study were consistent with previous research which identified the optimal temperature range to support sleep between 19 0C – 24 0C (Lin & Deng 2006; Lin & Deng, 2008). Surprisingly, noise levels recorded during the study (maximum noise level 82.6 dB, minimum noise level

39.3 dB and average noise level 49.8 dB) were found to exceed those previously shown in other studies to affect sleep quality. Contrary to expectations, this study did not find a significant impact on sleep quality arising from these elevated noise levels. One finding was that the air quality within the sleep environments was generally within accepted levels, remaining within the steady state recommended 700 ppm CO2 differential between indoor and outdoor levels, or an approximate maximum level of 1100 ppm CO2, (ASHRAE, 1999; Herrmann, 2002; Dougan & Damiano, 2004), with a maximum CO2 concentration of 1057 ppm recorded. This finding suggests that minimum standard designs may be capable of providing satisfactory air quality and maintaining the integrity of the sleep hygiene environment. The second study further tested the flexibility of this model by validating building performance in circumstances where the existing code response was assumed to be adequate. A second study goal was whether the identification of quantifiable outputs could validate the extent to which existing Deemed to Satisfy (DtS) solutions, based on logical incrementalism, achieve the goals of the BCA. Indoor air quality was used as a metric to benchmark code effectiveness. CO2 concentrations, expressed in parts per million (ppm) was identified as a suitable proxy of acceptable air quality. Two conditions were considered representative of common DtS building solutions. The first was where acceptable air quality was provided by compliant mechanical ventilation. The second was where natural ventilation was not available, but rather borrowed from an adjoining space. The second case study demonstrated that it is feasible to use the quantitative CO2 ppm metric to measure actual building performance and as such this methodology

has the potential to be used to validate alternative solutions. Secondly, this study was able to verify the efficacy of two of the three existing DtS compliance options. Specifically, using CO2 ppm as a benchmark, the trial studies demonstrated that in the case study building providing either natural ventilation or mechanical ventilation compliant with the AS1668.2 – 2012 (Standards Australia, 2012) methodology DtS provided acceptable air quality. This thesis provided two important contributions to our understanding of how successful building codes generally, and the BCA specifically are in achieving this goal. Firstly, in identifying the mechanisms by which codes are developed, structural limitations in the ability of these codes to provide a fit for purpose environment were identified. These findings are applicable to both DtS and alternative solutions. Secondly, the thesis proposed a reliable and adaptable model that can be used to monitor building performance for a range of environmental docility conditions. Data generated from these studies can be compared to existing code content. This information can then be used to inform continuous improvement.

DARRYL O'BRIEN

Darryl commenced his PhD at CQUniversity in late 2011 and submitted it for examination in early 2016. The PhD was approved with minor changes, and following these changes being made ﬁnal conferral of the award was made on July 12 2016. Darryl graduated from the Sydney CQUniversity campus ceremony 15 September. Readers interested in obtaining a full copy of the thesis can contact Darryl by email at: d.obrien@cqu.edu.au

REFERENCES ASHRAE. (1999). ASHRAE Standard 62-1999, Ventilation for acceptable indoor air quality. American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air Conditioning Engineers, Atlanta. Cohen, R., Standeven, M., Bordass, B., & Leaman, A. (2001). Assessing building performance in use 1: the Probe process. Building Research & Information, 29(2), 85-102. Dougan, D. S., & Damiano, L. (2004). CO2-Based Demand Control Ventilation: Do Risks Outweigh Potential Rewards? ASHRAE Journal, 46(10), 47. Herrmann, D. C. (2002). Understanding CO2 and ASHRAE 62: A technical note. Energy Engineering, 99(1), 50-53. Lawton, M. P. (1974). Research in Environmental Design for Deprived User Groups. Journal of Architectural Research, 3(2), 51-54.

AUSTRALIAN BUILDING SURVEYOR | SPRING 2016

Lin, Z., & Deng, S. (2006). A questionnaire survey on sleeping thermal environment and bedroom air conditioning in high rise residences in Hong Kong. Energy and Buildings, 38 (11), 1302-1307. Lin, Z., & Deng, S. (2008). A study on the thermal comfort in sleeping environments in the subtropics-Developing a thermal comfort model for sleeping environments. Building and Environment, 43 (1), 70-81. McLain, R. J., & Lee, R. G. (1996). Adaptive management: promises and pitfalls. Environmental Management, 20(4), 437-448. Standards Australia. (2012). AS 1668.2 – 2012: The use of ventilation and air-conditioning in buildings – Part 2: Mechanical ventilation in buildings. Sydney, NSW: SAI Global Ltd.

ATO INSIGHT

BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION OWNERS UNDER THE AUSTRALIAN TAXATION OFFICE MICROSCOPE THE ATO HAS IDENTIFIED THE BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY AS ONE OF THE THREE INDUSTRIES ON WHICH IT WILL FOCUS ITS ATTENTION. WHAT IS ATTRACTING THE ATO’S ATTENTION? Kevin Cranfield, Director, Bentleys NSW, a leading mid-tier advisory, accounting and audit firm said, “the Building and Construction Industry may feel it is being targeted unfairly by the ATO. However, the ATO is justifying its focus because it claims 23% of building and construction industry business owners were a higher risk of not meeting their tax obligations. On average, more than 23% of these businesses fail to lodge their activity statements on time, and the industry has the highest level of community concerns about potential tax evasion. These are significant issues that have attracted the attention of the ATO”. “There are number of key triggers which will prompt a closer look from the ATO” he added. “These include businesses with an annual turnover of less than $2million; businesses hiding income – cash or electronic payments; and a failure to register, keep records or lodge accurately”, Mr Cranfield said. “Of particular concern to the ATO is the incorrect classification of workers as independent contractors” he said. “The resulting PAYG withholding and superannuation guarantee liabilities and penalties could be crippling to a small business if this is uncovered in an ATO audit”, Mr Cranfield added. In March 2015 the ATO launched its publication “Building Confidence” which outlines their compliance program. By better understanding the ATO’s approach to compliance activities you may reduce your tax risk.

Mr Cranfield said, “as a small business owner you should talk to your accountant to assess where you sit on the ATO’s risk matrix. Your company’s risk profile could be impacted by various historical factors such as untimely lodgement of tax returns and statements and late payment of tax liabilities”.

AUSTRALIAN BUILDING SURVEYOR | SPRING 2016

KEVIN CRANFIELD

Kevin Cranﬁeld is managing director of the Sydney practice and is one of the ﬁrm’s four founding directors; he leads his business advisory services team and is also involved as a second director of the audit and assurance practice. Kevin is also the Sydney member on the Bentleys Australia Board.

VICTORY IS TRAINING IN STATE-OF-THE-ART RESEARCH FACILITIES

Victoria University is one of only three educational institutions in Australia to offer postgraduate studies in performance-based building and fire codes, and building fire safety and risk engineering. Students gain practical skills in state-of-the-art facilities including two fire research furnaces and an experimental building-fire facility, where experiments are conducted in realistic prototype buildings. The Graduate Certificate in Performance-Based Building and Fire Codes is specifically designed for building surveyors and other regulators, and provides a stepping stone for further education in fire safety and risk engineering.The Graduate Certificate also serves as the first year of the Graduate Diploma in Building Fire Safety and Risk Engineering, which leads to the Masters degree.

COURSE DATES FOR 2017 ARE: 6-10 February 10-14 July

24-28 April (ANZAC Day holiday inclusive) 2-6 October

Applications close 16 December 2016

FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT:

cesare@vu.edu.au or phone 03 9919 8035

vu.edu.au/cesare Victoria University, CRICOS Provider No. 00124K (Melbourne) 02475D (Sydney), RTO Code: 3113

C O M P L I A N C E

COMPLIANCE

isn’t rocket SCIENCE.

It’s ENGINEERING! It doesn’t take a genius to use compliant, Engineered Building Products (EBPs) – it’s simply common sense. Builders and certifiers alike can trust each and every one of MiTek’s EBPs...because they all comply with the National Construction Code Series and Australian Standards. Plus, MiTek provides data sheets for each and every EBP and support media via the MiTek GUIDE and the EasyCat App.

Quality ISO 9001

VIC (03) 8795 8888

MGB0747

For more information about MiTek’s ‘compliant’ Engineered Building Products, call your local state office or visit: mitek.com.au HOME OF GANG-NAIL BUILDING SYSTEMS

NSW (02) 8525 8000

QLD (07) 3861 2100

SA (08) 8234 1326

WA (08) 9412 3534

New Zealand (09) 274 7109

NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CODE

THE THREE-YEAR AMENDMENT CYCLE WHAT THIS MEANS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND INCLUSION OF REFERENCED DOCUMENTS What happens when there is a change to an NCC referenced document, such as Australian Standards, where they have been found to be suitable for referencing in the NCC but missed the cut off period for NCC 2016? 2016 saw the introduction of a new edition of the National Construction Code (NCC). With it came a move from an annual to a three-yearly amendment cycle, with the next edition of the Code due in 2019. In the past the NCC was amended every six months, and later annually. Mainstream industry considered this too frequent. It gave insufficient time to prepare for the impending changes and the instability brought about by constant change. In 2014 the nine Governments agreed to extend the amendment cycle to every three years. This would give industry appropriate lead time to find out about and prepare for the new NCC, prior to it being introduced. In considering this matter, the ABCB resolved that, where a revised or amended document is accepted as being suitable for referencing in the NCC but is unable to be referenced for a long period of time, its availability for consideration for use as part of a Performance Solution should be promoted until NCC referencing occurs. This would apply only where referencing of the document does not require consequential changes to the NCC to facilitate its use. SO HOW DOES IT WORK? The majority of NCC referenced documents, such as Australian Standards, form part of the Deemed-to-Satisfy Provisions. Therefore, use of a version of a document other than the one recognised in the Deemed-to-Satisfy Provisions requires the use of a Performance Solution. Remember, practitioners have choices about which path they wish to follow

Practitioners have choices about which path they wish to follow but are responsible for demonstrating compliance.

but are responsible for demonstrating compliance through adequate documentation of the Assessment Methods used. The ABCBâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Building Codes Committee and/or Plumbing Code Committee have already agreed to a number of documents as being suitable for referencing in the Deemed-to-Satisfy Provisions of the 2019 edition of the NCC. However, until referenced in the NCC, consideration may be given to the appropriateness of the document

AUSTRALIAN BUILDING SURVEYOR | SPRING 2016

for its use as part of a Performance Solution to meet the relevant NCC Performance Requirements. A list of documents available for consideration as part of a Performance Solution will be kept and maintained on the ABCB website. Please visit our website at www.abcb.gov.au to register for free online access to the NCC. AUSTRALIAN BUILDING CODES BOARD

PROFESSIONAL INDEMNITY INSURANCE Bovill Risk and Insurance Consultants (BRIC) has more than 18 years experience in arranging professional indemnity insurance for Building Surveyors and Certifiers. Our Service Guarantee is to: •

Organise a policy that will satisfy your regulatory obligations;

•

Identify with you those risks peculiar to your business;

•

Negotiate a policy with the best possible cover for you;

•

Generate the most competitive premiums available;

•

Keep you informed in a timely manner; and

•

Fight for the best possible claim result for you.

BRIC

Bovill Risk & Insurance Consultants

P: 1800 077 933 E: pi@bric.com.au W: www.bric.com.au

Proudly Recommended By:

COMPLIANCE ISSUES

PASSIVE FIRE PROTECTION MEETING DTS COMPLIANCE WITH THE BCA (NCC) ISN’T A DIFFICULT CONCEPT/TASK FOR PASSIVE FIRE PROTECTION ONCE YOU TAKE AWAY THE SMOKE AND MIRRORS When a catastrophe occurs the general kneejerk reaction is to look for someone to blame. Building Certifiers, Builders and Building Product suppliers have all come under the spotlight following on from the Lacrosse fire in Melbourne’s Docklands. In addition, Non-compliance is currently costing millions of dollars in rectification works throughout Australia. Therefore obtaining fully compliant documentation to adequately cover yourself, is paramount when installing or signing off on Passive Fire Protection Products and Installations. FRL’S AND PASSIVE FIRE PROTECTION Ensuring that your building is compliant by meeting the DTS Provisions of the BCA (NCC) using Tested Systems is generally a simple task when these steps are followed: • If a new build, identify at planning stage, where fire stopping is likely to be required. For new build and retro-build ensure there are products on the market which can compliantly address the fire stopping requirements. • Contact the relevant manufacturer/ supplier or your preferred Passive Fire Protection Contractor and ask them to provide you with “Evidence of Suitability in the manufacturers/suppliers name in the form of a Regulatory Information Report/Assessment Report from a Registered Test Authority which clearly shows a construction detail for your specific on site application”. Glossy data sheets/Technical Installation Manuals and Letters from Manufacturers/Suppliers are not “Evidence of Suitability” • The Passive Fire Protection Company or anyone carrying out Passive Fire Protection works, must ensure that their installation is carried out in strict accordance with the correct construction details contained in the RIR or Assessment Report.

• Once the installations have been carried out, the “Evidence of Suitability” for products used is given to the Building Certifier for compliance. • If the Building Certifier or their deemed to be competent person (Inspector) wishes to verify the onsite installation is compliant. They simply have to ensure that the installed works mirror the correct construction details contained in the RIR or Assessment Report. • Any deviation from these steps for reasons of perceived cost cutting or a Building Consultants mistaken interpretation of the BCA (NCC) requirements may lead to a noncompliant building in need of costly rectification works and/or in the worst case scenario, some very serious questions to answer in the unfortunate event of a Coroner’s Inquest. If a manufacturer/supplier is either un-willing or unable to provide compliant “Evidence of Suitability” for their products, how do you know whether they are compliant or not? Remember it’s your reputation on the line not theirs. EVIDENCE OF SUITABILITY A Report from a Registered Test Authority may be in the form of either a Test Report, Regulatory Information Report or Assessment Report which clearly contains but not limited to the following: • Which type of Substrate the main fire stopping product can be adhered to with full construction details: • Speedpanel walls, FR Plasterboard Walls, Block Walls, Hebel etc. • Concrete floors, FR Plasterboard Ceilings etc. • Max size of opening in each specific substrate which the main fire stopping product may protect • Orientation of main fire stopping product (horizontal/vertical)

AUSTRALIAN BUILDING SURVEYOR | SPRING 2016

Image showing TBA Firefly-Testing Some of Their Products at Exova Warringtonfire in Dandenong.

• Which services can pass through the main fire stopping seal and which products/systems are used to locally fire stop them • A Test Report does not expire; however, Formal Opinions, Regulatory Information Reports and Assessment Reports do and will become invalid after a period of 10 years from date of issue, IAW AS4072.1-2005 Section 4.2 sub-section (c) (ix). Therefore any Opinions, RIR’s or Assessment Reports which do not show an expiry date will have automatically expired during 2015 at the very latest, rendering said reports invalid. TEST CERTIFICATES A Certificate from a Registered Test Authority has not been a Route to Compliance since the introduction of AS1530.4-2005 and AS4072.1-2005. • All Certificates must have an expiry date and the maximum duration is 10 years. • All Certificates must contain the following wording or similar: This certificate is provided for general information only and does not comply with the regulatory requirements for evidence of compliance THE INSULATION PART OF AN FRL MAY BE WAIVED ON ALL METAL PIPES (Not quite that simple) Option 1. In accordance with C3.15 (a) Tested Systems (ii). The Insulation may be waived on pipes made entirely of metal which pass through a fire wall/floor if they have been Tested in accordance with AS1530.4 and AS4072.1 and achieved the required Integrity part of the FRL and: • Any combustible building element is not able to be located within 100mm of the service for a distance of 2m from the penetration; and

• Combustible material is not able to be located within 100mm of the service for a distance of 2m from the penetration; and • It is not located within a required exit. Requirements to meet this clause: • A report from a Registered Test Authority which covers the following information: a. The metal pipe has been tested in accordance with AS1530.4 and AS4072.1 b. The fire stopping products used c. The FRL achieved (Integrity) d. Min-Max Pipe sizes e. The specific substrate it may pass through • There are various options to ensure that nothing combustible may be located within the 100mm exclusion zone for a distance of 2m either side of the penetration: a. Box-out from either side of the penetration for a distance of 2m using plasterboard. b. Create a metal cage around the metal pipe for a distance of 2m from either side of the penetration. c. Wrap out 2m using 100mm thick flexible non-combustible material Tested to AS1530.1 • It is not always possible to wrap out 2m to either side of the penetration due to space issues. Option 2. In accordance with C3.15 (c) Compliance with Specification C3.15. To enable the insulation to be waived on metal pipes that are not normally filled with liquid the application must meet ALL of the following criteria: • The pipe must be made entirely of metal • The metal pipe must be in a single core hole that does not contain any other services and the core hole must be a

• •

• • •

minimum of 200mm from any other service penetration. The metal pipe cannot pass through more than 2 fire compartments. The pipe must have an exclusion zone of 100mm around its perimeter for a distance of 2m either side of the fire wall/ floor so that nothing combustible can come into contact with it. The pipe does not contain flammable or combustible liquid or gas In addition all of the requirements of Specification C3.15 part 3 and Clause 7 must be met. The gap between the metal pipe and wall/floor or ceiling must be fire stopped using a fire stopping product which meets Clause 7 of Specification C3.15

• Detailed in a report from a Registered Testing Authority that the fire stopping material has been tested to AS1530.4 and met the required FRL when tested using the Test Criteria contained within Clause 7 (e) Test. It’s quite a complicated, nigh impossible and potentially expensive task to meet either of the 2 options when attempting to waive the Insulation criteria of a metal pipe due to the vast amount of restrictions which both solutions entail. Therefore the easiest and most cost effective way to meet compliance is to simply specify a fire stopping product which meets C3.15 (a) Tested Systems (i) in full.

Image showing the TBA Firefly Intubatt seal in a Speedpanel wall with a steel sprinkler pipe, protected by the new TBA Firefly Insulated Peno-Wrap. The Peno-Wrap is only required to be wrapped out by 300mm to either side of the seal, providing an FRL-/120/120.

Thanks to Brookfield Multiplex for the use of their Construction Training Facility in Sydney. TREVOR KEMPSTER, TBA FIREFLY

SPRING 2016 | AUSTRALIAN BUILDING SURVEYOR

HELP GUIDE

AIBS ONLINE TIPS YOU SHOULD KNOW NOW THAT YOU’RE ACQUAINTED... By now, many of our members will have had a chance to log on to the new AIBS website and online management system. Even if you haven’t,we would like to take this opportunity to show you some handy things you can do online at: www.aibs.com.au

UPDATING YOUR DETAILS By changing address, employment or contact details, you need to update your contact information with AIBS.

A Group Member Administrator can register for event on behalf of other people from their organisation by clicking “Register Someone Else” in an event and choosing from the drop down list of employees.

You no longer have to take time out of your day to contact the office, now you can update your details anytime, anywhere! Once you’ve signed in to aibs.com.au and accessed your account be clicking on your name, anything in the “About Me” page with a grey pencil icon nearby can be updated by you.

This means any number of company registrations can be done at the one time and can all be combined in the one invoice.

Some things, such as Chapter Membership, still have to be updated by us at AIBS, however personal details can now be easily updated by yourself whenever they change!

REGISTER FOR EVENTS The days of downloading a form, filling it out and sending it in are over. Now it’s a simple matter of logging into your account, clicking “Register myself ”, answering a couple of questions and going through the online checkout. Need the invoice to be addressed to your company instead of yourself ? You can change between the two in the “Bill To” dropdown in the checkout.

CHANGED YOUR MIND? DID YOU KNOW:

You can update your profile with a portrait of yourself to display in the Find a Building Surveyor search results!

If you work for an organisation and need to register several people, you can contact the AIBS office to nominate a Group Member Administrator for your company.

AUSTRALIAN BUILDING SURVEYOR | SPRING 2016

When registering for any AIBS event, we often require you to let us know if you have any dietary requirements, and may include a few more questions as well. But what do you do when after proceeding through the checkout, you realise you answered something incorrectly? Changing your responses to an event question is very straightforward. As long as you are logged into your account, you can return to the event page and view your registration and responses.

ADDRESSES MADE EASY You can click on these to change them at any time – you just need to remember to click “Update responses” to save. Similarly, if you have registered for one of the AIBS Conferences and decide you and your partner would like to attend the Dinner, you can log in, go to the event, and add two Dinner tickets to your registration in just a few moments. Whenever you change details that require payment after you have already registered for an event, you will receive an automatic order confirmation noting an ‘Adjustment to invoice’. This is because all of your details for an event are tied together, to keep track of registrations and payments.

FIND A BUILDING SURVEYOR Like all your other contact information, your listing on our Find a Building Surveyor search tool can now be easily edited at your convenience.

WANT TO STOP EMAILS FROM GOING TO YOUR WORK EMAIL BUT STILL WANT YOUR COPY OF AUSTRALIAN BUILDING SURVEYOR POSTED THERE? It’s easy – you can specify different addresses for different purposes. Use the following preferences to get everything going to the right place. • Preferred mailing address is where you want emails to go, • Preferred shipping address is where you want physical mail to go • Preferred billing address is where you want invoices addressed to

The first step to activating your listing is to the tick the checkbox in the section on the “About Me” page of your profile titled “Find A Building Surveyor Consent”. If for any reason you no longer want your details displayed in the search, simply un-check this box. Please note that only currently financial AIBS members will have their details show up in the search. The details shown in the search are the ones you list in your Public Profile, along with the information in the address nominated as your “Preferred Mailing Address”. You can enter as much or a little information here as you choose. Just like your other details, you can update this at any time.

HAVEN’T LOGGED IN YET? If you haven’t had the chance to log into the new AIBS website yet, you will need to use the “lost password” function on the sign-in page to set a password for your account. Your username will already be set as your work email, but if that doesn’t work please try again using your private email address. If you are an AIBS member, or have been involved with AIBS within the last few years, you should have an account on our system ready and waiting for you!

WANT TO KNOW MORE? If you would like to know more about using any features of the AIBS website, we have a number of resources available. You can access our Help page at any time, located in the main menu located at the top right of the homepage. If you can’t find what you need, you can always contact us on helpdesk@aibs.com.au or 1300 312

427. We understand that any new system takes a bit of getting used to, so we’re always happy to help. We’re very excited about the features we have available online right now and some great new features we will be rolling out in the months to come.

SPRING 2016 | AUSTRALIAN BUILDING SURVEYOR

LEGISLATION

THE FUTURE OF PRIVATE CERTIFICATION IN SA CHANGES ARE COMING FROM “PRIVATE CERTIFIERS” TO “ACCREDITED PROFESSIONALS” AND “BUILDING CERTIFIERS”: WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR THE FUTURE OF PRIVATE CERTIFICATION AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROFESSIONALS WITH BUILDING SURVEYING QUALIFICATIONS IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA?

While this article focuses on changes to legislation predominantly impacting Building Surveyors in South Australia, the AIBS believe it is beneficial for all Building Surveyors to not only understand what is happening in other jurisdictions, but may also assist members to observe trends in legislative changes nationally. South Australia is presently in transition to a new development assessment and approval system. The Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016 (as yet uncommenced) received Parliamentary assent on 21 April 2016.1 This new Act is the culmination of a comprehensive, two-year review of the State’s Development Act 19932 and is expected to come into operation in the near future.3 The Development Act contains a private certification scheme; this Act provides the framework for the registration of private certifiers, who may act as a private certifier, the decisions that can be made by a private certifier, the duties of a private certifier and penalty provisions for breaching those duties. 4 When this Act commenced operation on 15 January 1994, private certification was limited to Building Rules consents5 and related matters only. Only Building Surveyors with a minimum number of years of industry experience could be registered as private certifiers. On 11 April 2013, the Development Regulations 2008 were amended to allow private certifiers to grant Development Plan consents to Residential Code developments.6 Development Plan consent (known in other jurisdictions as “planning consent”) is required for most forms of

building work in addition to, and usually prior to the issue of, a Building Rules consent. The Residential Code provides for a codified assessment of new dwellings, dwelling additions, garages, carports and other outbuildings in certain areas.7

Interestingly, the PDI Act distinguishes “building certifiers” as a particular subset of “accredited professional”. Section 92 of this Act provides that a “building certifier” is an accredited professional who is qualified to assess development under the Building Rules.

As a result, planning professionals with particular qualifications including corporate membership of the Planning Institute of Australia could be registered as private certifiers, but (naturally) only for the purposes of granting Development Plan consent.

The term “building certifier” is then used in the PDI Act to clarify that only “building certifiers” can grant building consents and to make other decisions in respect of building consents and building work.13 Further, only building certifiers enjoy exemption from liability for acts or omissions undertaken in good faith after a development has been approved under the PDI Act.

All private certifiers were authorised to grant Development Plan consents to Residential Code developments – this was not limited to planning private certifiers. The new PDI Act contains a framework for a potentially broader private certification scheme and the potential for new opportunities for private certifiers than which presently exists under the Development Act. The PDI Act provides for the creation of an accreditation scheme for “accredited professionals” under the Act. The scheme is to be contained within regulations enacted under the PDI Act by the Minister for Planning8 acting in association with the Commissioner for Consumer Affairs.9 The specific requirements applicable to the scheme are not yet known, but it is reasonable to assume that present requirements will be built into the new scheme. Under the PDI Act, accredited professionals may issue certain consents required under the Act.10 They are also entitled to be appointed as the Assessment Manager for a council11 and are entitled to be appointed to an assessment panel.12

AUSTRALIAN BUILDING SURVEYOR | SPRING 2016

In the absence of regulations which define what the registration requirements are for accredited professionals and the instances in which certain types of accredited professionals can and cannot act, the distinction between “accredited professionals” and “building certifiers” raises a number of questions: 1. will a person registered as a building certifier be able to issue planning consents under the PDI Act, as is the present situation with Development Plan consents for Residential Code developments? 2. will a person registered as a building certifier be able to be appointed to an assessment panel? 3. will a person registered as a building certifier be able to be appointed as a council Assessment Manager? 4. how will the exemption from liability impact insurance premiums for building certifiers and other accredited professionals? The outcome to Question 1 may have a limited impact. Building certifiers who wish to offer their clients full planning

and building certification may enter into arrangements with other accredited professionals who are able to issue planning consents. Many such arrangements presently exist in South Australia between private certifiers with planning qualifications and those with building surveying qualifications. Questions 2 and 3 above are particularly pertinent for local government building surveying professionals, especially those in rural areas. Presently, council staff who do not possess planning qualifications are able to make decisions on Development Plan consents. Where development applications are complex in their nature, the assistance of a contractor may be sought, but is not necessary.

If the accreditation scheme provides that only accredited professionals with planning qualifications, and not building certifiers, can fulfil these roles, this will have a significant, adverse impact on many rural councils in South Australia.

The Act provides the potential for the regulations to create both opportunities and threats to building surveying professionals. As such, AIBS members should take the opportunity, if provided, to make comment on the draft regulations for the PDI Act.

The answer to Question 4 will be provided by the market; it is reasonable to assume that insurance premiums may be higher for those accredited professionals who are not building certifiers. What is clear from the above is that the regulations which will provide the fine detail for the accreditation scheme will have a significant impact on building surveying professionals in South Australia and the future of private certification.

REFERENCES 1. The Act can be found at the South Australian Legislation website; www.legislation.sa.gov.au 2. Details of the reform process can be found at the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure, “Planning Reform in South Australia” website; dpti.sa.gov.au/planning/ planning_reform 3. The Act does not contain any transitional provisions; this will be the subject of a separate transitional Bill which, at the time of writing, has not yet been introduced into Parliament. 4. Development Act 1993, Part 12, sections 89 – 97 and the Development Regulations 2008, Part 15, Division 2, regulations 89 – 93V 5. Under the Development Act, a Building Rules consent is required for most forms of building work as defined under the Act. Building Rules consents require that a development be considered appropriate when assessed against the Building Code of Australia (now the National Construction Code) and any relevant Minister’s Specifications. 6. See Development Regulations 2008, regulation 89(1)(aaa) and regulation 89(1)(aa)

VICTORIA SHUTE

Lawyer, Kelledy Jones Lawyers.

7. See Development Act 1993 section 35(1), Development Regulations 2008, regulation 8A and Schedule 4. Such developments are not subject to a merits assessment against the relevant council Development Plan. Where a development is a “complying” form of development under the provisions of the Residential Code, it must be granted a Development Plan consent. 8. Presently the Hon. John Rau MP; http://dpti.sa.gov.au/ministers 9. The Commissioner is responsible for overseeing business activities, fair-trading legislation and trading guidelines amongst other responsibilities. 10. See Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016 sections 93, 97 and 118 11. The PDI Act requires that each council appoint an Assessment Manager. The Assessment Manager is then responsible for assisting their council’s assessment panel as well as undertaking certain forms of planning assessments under the Act. 12. Assessment panels must be appointed by councils and joint planning boards under the Act. Assessment panels are responsible for undertaking certain forms of planning assessments as well as reviewing certain decisions made by Assessment Managers. 13. PDI Act, sections 99, 118, 154, 233 and 252

Innovative Alternative Solutions. Actual size (152mm)

Strong- Drive SDWC TRUSS Screw substitutes conventional framing anchors that require multiple nails for truss tie downs. ®

• Complies with the Building Code of Australia • Orange colour for easy inspection of 152mm screw • Wide tolerance on install angle makes correct installation easy— includes metal installation guide

Call us today, Sydney 02 9831 7700, Melbourne 03 9544 2140, Perth 08 9248 6002 or visit our website strongtie.com.au

SPRING 2016 | AUSTRALIAN BUILDING SURVEYOR

AIBS REPORT

USE OF EXTERNAL WALL CLADDING SYSTEMS ISSUES REPORT AUSTRALIAN INSTITUTE OF BUILDING SURVEYORS - JUNE 2016 PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT By publishing this report, AIBS seeks to highlight a serious issue that could threaten the foundations of the building industry in Australia. AIBS also presents this report as a catalyst for greater collaboration with government, industry regulators and all other building industry stakeholders with the view to developing a solutions based approach to give greater confidence to theindustry, consumers and practitioners. Specifically, this report aims to: 1. Demonstrate that the National Construction Code (NCC) contains ambiguities with regard to external wall cladding systems; 2. Highlight that by reviewing and comparing the interpretation made by the Victorian Building Authority (VBA) with interpretations made by experienced professional building surveyors and design professionals adhering to good practice, it is possible to arrive at suitable outcomes that differ from the single interpretation on which the Industry Alert issued on 24 February 2016 was based; 3. Contribute to the development of positive solutions that will provide greater clarity in the NCC for the future of the building industry and management of the issues that have led to the current situation of buildings being deemed non-compliant; 4. Seek acknowledgement that there is a shared responsibility by all in the building regulatory system, including design practitioners and builders, not only building surveyors, that has led to the current situation; 5. Acknowledge that the NCC is a performance based code and is intended to encourage creative and innovative

building design and construction techniques, systems and outcomes that will inevitably be many and varied; and 6. Provide constructive contributions to stakeholder discussions around solutions that reduce the risk of divergent or undesirable interpretation and application of the NCC to building design outcomes, particularly in the area of performance based designs. AIBS submits that this report has great importance for AIBS members, all industry stakeholders and the general public. This report is not an attempt to justify previous poor practice, nor is it intended to demonstrate compliance or provide advice to AIBS members and other building surveyors on how the NCC should be interpreted. BACKGROUND In November 2014, a serious fire in the Lacrosse apartments in Melbourne’s Docklands caused significant damage to the building and forced the evacuation of all residents. An investigation into the fire by the Metropolitan Fire Brigade (MFB) determined that Alucobest, used as the building’s external wall cladding and consisting of Aluminium Composite Panels (ACPs), caused the fire to spread rapidly. The MFB also determined that the type of cladding used did not comply with the current requirements of the Building Code of Australia (BCA), which is part of the National Construction Code (NCC). As a result of the fire and the MFB investigation, the VBA undertook an audit of the use of external wall cladding in 170

AUSTRALIAN BUILDING SURVEYOR | SPRING 2016

high rise residential and public buildings in central Melbourne and surrounding inner suburbs. The audit was based on the VBA’s interpretation of sections of the NCC which cover the use of external wall cladding systems on buildings. The results of the VBA’s External Wall Cladding Audit (the Audit) were published in February 2016. Among the main findings of the Audit was the conclusion that there is a high level of non-compliant use of external wall cladding. Following the Audit, the VBA issued an Industry Alert which contained directives on the use of external wall cladding. The Industry Alert focused on the use of combustible material, especially ACPs, when used as external wall cladding in buildings of Type A or B construction. The VBA also stated that based on the findings of its Audit, it would commence a further audit of other buildings and building practitioners connected with the non-compliance which it said was detected in its Audit. WHAT ARE ACPS? Aluminium Composite Panels (ACPs) are a type of material used in external wall cladding systems. ACPs have been used throughout Australia for over 30 years as

a finish, lining or attachment to external walls. They are particularly sought after for their aesthetic appeal when applied to the external faĂ§ade of buildings. In addition to being an architectural element for visual attractiveness, ACPs support weatherproofing requirements, thermal and acoustic properties and are an overall practical construction product. Subject to certain considerations, ACPs are considered compliant with the Building Code of Australia/NCC. The external cladding systems at the Lacrosse apartment building was constructed using ACPs, as are many other buildings throughout Victoria and nationally. THE NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CODE The NCC includes two (2) volumes of the Building Code of Australia. Each volume covers different types of constructions. The NCC regulates the design and construction of buildings throughout all Australian States and Territories. The NCC is overseen by the Australian Building Codes Board (ABCB). The NCC outlines minimum building standards to ensure buildings are safe and occupiable. Buildings must be able to meet Performance Requirements and can do so

through two compliance pathways â&#x20AC;&#x201C; via Deemed to Satisfy (DTS) solutions or via Performance Solutions. DTS provisions are a set recipe for materials, design and construction methods which building practitioners must follow to satisfy minimum community expectations. DTS provisions have been prescribed in the NCC since 1990 including requirements for levels of fire resistance and whether the materials are required to be non-combustible. On the other hand, Performance Based solutions can be unique for individual buildings in order to encourage innovative design and compliance and these can be achieved by using one or more of the assessment methods available in the NCC. Revisions to the NCC have gradually moved towards Performance Based solutions where there is no obligation to adopt any particular material, component, design factor or construction method. The sections of the NCC that are particularly relevant to the issues raised in this report are Clause C1.1 Specification C1.1 Clause 2.4, Clause C1.10 and Clause C1.12. The NCC clearly states that a combustible material may be used as a finish or lining to

a wall or a roof or in a sign, sun-screen or blind, awning or other attachment subject to satisfying certain criteria. Some external wall cladding systems, including ACPs, contain combustible materials. For further details on the above sections of the NCC and the various reasonable interpretations of those sections, please refer to the AIBS Technical Discussion Paper on the Use of External Wall Cladding Systems. Copies are available by contacting: ceo@aibs.com.au WHAT IS THE ISSUE? The sections of the NCC which determine what type of external wall cladding systems can be used, in what situations they can be used and how the material can be attached to the external walls of a building may be interpreted in a variety of ways. These sections of the NCC also cover whether different types of external wall cladding systems are combustible or non-combustible and in what situations combustible and non-combustible material can be used. The Australian Institute of Building Surveyors is aware of widespread concern among building practitioners that these sections of the NCC lack clarity and therefore are open to interpretation by building practitioners and building industry regulators. This is of particular concern

SPRING 2016 | AUSTRALIAN BUILDING SURVEYOR

AIBS REPORT to building surveyors who operate in a commercial and competitive environment in which building designers and developers are commonly motivated to preference design and construction solutions that minimize construction costs.

a perception, real or perceived that all building surveyors who now find themselves associated with buildings that have been declared non-compliant are somehow unprofessional and have not acted in good faith in the past.

In its Audit report, the VBA acknowledged confusion about the relevant sections of the NCC, stating: “There are many types of external cladding material in use throughout the Victorian building industry but whether one is fit for purpose over another is not always properly understood by architects, designers, building surveyors and builders.”

While this causes uncertainty for individual building surveyors, it leads to broader problems for all involved in the industry when a regulator such as the VBA arrives at an interpretation of the NCC that differs from the interpretation of experienced and conscientious practitioners.

The VBA further acknowledged that “practitioners have differing degrees of understanding of the requirements of the BCA and specification for components of an external wall.” There is further recognition that the NCC contains a level of ambiguity, with the Australian Building Codes Board (ABCB) identifying certain sections in the NCC for review through “Actions to be taken on Fire Safety in High Rise Buildings” which stemmed from the Building Minister’s Forum (BMF) held on 19 February 2016. While AIBS supports the work commenced by the ABCB to address this issue to prevent confusion in the future, there is concern that building surveying professionals who may have applied a different, yet valid, interpretation previously, will continue to shoulder the responsibility for what is now deemed non-compliant and the shortfalls in the regulatory system based on the VBA Audit, interpretation and subsequent findings. The VBA Audit is arguably flawed in that it is based only on one single, interpretation of relevant sections of the NCC. However, the overarching issue is that the NCC is able to be interpreted as having different meaning about what is compliant and what is not. It is unfortunate that the VBA Audit was based on assumptions and interpretations of the relevant parts of the NCC which are open to debate. Moreover the VBA did not consult with the key body representing the Permit Authority (the Relevant Building Surveyor - the Authority having Jurisdiction), to consider the interpretation of the code. The reason for this is unclear. AIBS believes that this has given rise to unfair criticism of building surveyors for not being compliant with the VBA interpretation of the NCC when there are other quite sound and reasonable interpretations that could, and have, been made in the past. This has created

In Victoria, the VBA interpretation of the relevant sections of the NCC and its continued inflexibility on this matter now means that – • Many industry practitioners have been unfairly criticised in the public domain for failing to comply with the NCC, as interpreted by the VBA; • Public confidence in the Victorian building industry has been severely eroded due to criticism in the news media by the VBA of builders and building surveyors and VBA statements regarding buildings now deemed by the VBA to be non-compliant; • There is uncertainty in the construction industry on use of materials including concern by product manufacturers on permitted use of materials to satisfy noncombustibility, waterproofing, acoustic and energy efficiency provisions; • Owners and Owners Corporations have concerns regarding risks of re-insurance and/or increased premiums due to alleged non-compliance; and • Developers, builders, owners and property purchasers are questioning compliance prior to settlement due to buildings being publically branded as non-compliant. The VBA Audit has exposed deficiencies in the way in which the building industry in Australia has been operating for many years. It is evident that these issues have existed for some time, but have not been properly addressed or resolved. It is clear that ‘gaps’ have existed in the regulatory system for a long time and this failing is not the responsibility of a single body or agency, but is a shared responsibility of industry regulatory bodies that have not adequately addressed the issues in the past. The problem of alternative and undesirable interpretations of this and other performance based provisions of the (NCC) BCA and the regulations by various building practitioner classes, including building surveyors, has been known and recognised by industry regulators for many years.

AUSTRALIAN BUILDING SURVEYOR | SPRING 2016

A report as far back as 1998 titled “Privatisation and Performance-Based Regulations” by the Building Control Commission, and in the mid 2000’s the publication of a non-DTS cladding fact sheet from the Building Commission both identified issues in the system, yet nothing has apparently been done to amend the regulatory text to remove any ambiguities or risks associated with misunderstanding, misinterpretation or misapplication. Building surveyors alone should not be expected to shoulder the burden of accusations of non-compliance, when most have in good faith, endeavoured to meet the regulatory requirements and best practice. This is a serious issue with implications reaching far outside Victoria into every Australian State and Territory. Its effects will be felt throughout the industry supply chain and in particular, the ongoing viability of the building regulation framework and all those who operate within it. It is also important to recognize that the audit results, if given full credence, highlight a very serious practitioner competency crisis. On the basis of the audit results, if extrapolated as a representative sample, we can determine that up to half of the building designers, architects, engineers, fire safety professionals, building surveyors and builders who practice in this area are

apparently not demonstrating the requisite competencies required to properly interpret and apply the NCC to their practise disciplines. Such a conclusion can be drawn and should raise serious concerns with policy makers. AIBS has been raising concerns about the poor quality of building design documentation with the policy makers and the VBA (formerly Building Commission) for many years. This issue is extremely complex. However, the VBA Audit has added yet another layer of uncertainty and complexity to the situation which is now being monitored closely by practitioners and regulators in other States. AIBS supports the role of the VBA in the auditing of all relevant buildings to ensure the public safety and the requirement for immediate attention of those identified with safety issues. However, those buildings currently deemed non-compliant, but deemed safe to occupy, should be re-audited taking into account alternative appropriate interpretations other than provided in the VBA Industry Alert. Failure to review the compliance of those buildings deemed safe to occupy against the single interpretation of the VBA could lead

to the collapse of the building regulation system in Victoria. As a result of the VBA Audits and any subsequent future audits, the Relevant Building Surveyor would be required to notify their insurer of any of the buildings that are now deemed to be non-compliant. Given the number of buildings already identified, and possibly identified as noncompliant in the future against the single interpretation of the VBA Industry Alert, there is a very real chance that because of the high number of building surveyors possibly affected, PI Insurance for building surveyors could become prohibitively expensive, or unobtainable, leading to the collapse of the private building regulation system. If this was to occur, there is no substitute or viable system that could be implemented in the short term and the building industry in Victoria could come to a stop. This situation would undoubtedly expose the failures and inactions of legislators and industry regulators over many years to refine and develop the private building permit system to ensure it remained viable and meet the requirements of a modern industry. Indeed, there is evidence that the industry in Victoria is heading towards such an outcome unless urgent action is taken.

THE AIBS ANALYSIS In response to the uncertainty created by the VBA Audit and Industry Alert, AIBS undertook its own analysis of the relevant sections of the NCC and the use of various external wall cladding systems. The analysis involved: • Consulting a representative group of the AIBS membership in Victoria (private and local government), the AIBS Board & National Technical Committee; • Reviewing the VBA Industry Alert and Audit Report and relevant reference documentation and reports; • Considering the changes that have been made to the legislation and the NCC over an approximately 20 year period; and • Examining how building practises in Victoria have changed in response to changes to the NCC and how the legislation has been interpreted by industry experts. MAIN FINDINGS As a result of the analysis, we found that: 1. The use of some types of external wall cladding systems can increase the risk of fire or the likelihood of more rapid spread of fire; 2. The sections of the NCC covering the use of external wall cladding systems are open to various different interpretations by building practitioners and state and territory regulators and the use

SPRING 2016 | AUSTRALIAN BUILDING SURVEYOR

AIBS REPORT

4. 5.

of combustible and non-combustible materials in external wall cladding systems requires urgent attention in order to provide greater clarification; The NCC requires external walls to be constructed of non-combustible materials but other sections of the NCC specifically allow for the use of combustible materials depending on the type of material involved and where in the building the material is used, particularly in relation to exits to be used in case of fire; The VBA Audit and subsequent Industry Alert are based on just one possible interpretation of the NCC; The VBA did not consult widely and seek specialist advice, especially from key stakeholders such as building surveyors, before forming the basis and terms of reference for its Industry Alert; There is an urgent need to review the sections of the NCC that deal with the use of different types of external wall cladding systems that are combustible or non-combustible in order to reduce the risk of fires such as one at the Lacrosse apartments; As a result of the VBA Audit and Industry Alert, building surveyors have been unfairly criticised and there is now a serious loss of public confidence in the building industry and the building regulatory framework in Victoria; There is now widespread uncertainty in the building design and construction industry supply chain, particularly in Victoria. This uncertainty will restrict innovative design solutions and limiting certain materials to inorganic material, often not the preferred solution in sustainable building design; and AIBS members report receiving an increase in enquiries from the public based on the reporting of incidents such as the Lacrosse fire in the media. In addition to this, there is a marked increase of self-proclaimed ‘experts’ in the area publically providing their interpretations, resulting in greater confusion amongst the general public.

CONCLUSIONS Approval of the use of combustible, deemed non-combustible and noncombustible materials in the NCC is very complex, unnecessarily so, and requires an extremely detailed and professional understanding of the NCC, its administration and enforcement. No matter how familiar with the relevant sections of the NCC building practitioners may be, the sections can and have, been interpreted in diverse and different ways by practitioners acting professionally and

in good faith, when compared with the interpretation used by the VBA as the basis of its Audit and Industry Alert. At the time of reporting, the VBA has not accepted that there is more than one single valid interpretation of the NCC, nor has the VBA undertaken a review of its Industry Alert to incorporate this fact. Buildings currently deemed non-compliant, but deemed safe to occupy, have not been re-audited. Failure to review the compliance of those buildings deemed safe to occupy against the single interpretation by the VBA could lead to the collapse of the building regulation system in Victoria. As a result of the VBA Audit and any subsequent future audits, the Relevant Building Surveyor (RBS) may be required to notify their insurer if any of the buildings with which they were involved that are now deemed to be non-compliant. Given the number of buildings already identified as non-compliant and those that may be possibly deemed non-compliant in the future based on the VBA Industry Alert, there is a real likelihood that due of the high number of building surveyors affected, PI Insurance for building surveyors could become either prohibitively expensive, or not obtainable. In this instance, as there is no replacement for the current private system that could be implemented in the short term, the building industry in Victoria could come to a stop. While the current situation remains unresolved, building practitioners and especially building surveyors will continue to be unfairly accused of non-compliance with the NCC. Further, the building industry in Victoria will remain in a state of uncertainty with the potential for this malaise to spread to other states. The overarching issue that requires urgent attention is that the wording of the NCC must be reviewed to provide clarification of those sections relating to this issue.

yet to accept that they all have a shared responsibility for the lack of clarity in the system in the past that has led the industry to this current crisis.

THE WAY FORWARD In order to address issues raised in this report, AIBS recommends: 1. That the VBA, all building industry practitioners and the ABCB join AIBS in publically acknowledging there is shared responsibility for the building regulation system that has not clearly addressed the area of external wall cladding systems in the past; 2. That all building practitioners join AIBS in supporting the current work of the ABCB in addressing the issues of external cladding systems to provide greater clarity in the NCC through “Actions to be taken on Fire Safety in High Rise Buildings”; 3. That the VBA works with AIBS to establish a joint taskforce to address the possible impact to the building regulatory system from noncompliant buildings as identified in the VBA Audits and in future audits. This would include reviewing other interpretations as identified in the AIBS Technical Discussion Paper on External Cladding Systems; 4. That the VBA review and reaudit all buildings currently deemed non-compliant but safe to occupy as per the joint taskforce findings; 5. That the VBA collaborates with AIBS, as key stakeholders, to develop and implement a credible and proactive audit regime that feeds into a quality and relevant industry training program; and 6. The ABCB and the VBA collaborate with AIBS to develop a comprehensive training and education program to be delivered nationally in the area of external cladding systems.

There is a demonstrated need for the VBA to collaborate with industry to develop and implement a credible and proactive audit regime that feeds into a quality and relevant industry training program. Currently, changes to the NCC are being considered by the ABCB and are welcomed. However the ABCB, industry regulators and building practitioners have

AUSTRALIAN BUILDING SURVEYOR | SPRING 2016

For further information and correspondence regarding this report, please contact: webenquiries@aibs.com.au

MEET THE MEMBERS

RUSSEL GROVE RUSSEL GROVE, LFAIBS Director Building & Fire Surveying Consultants Pty Ltd

RUSSEL GROVE WAS ELEVATED TO A LIFE FELLOW OF AIBS IN MARCH THIS YEAR, AFTER HAVING BEEN A MEMBER FOR OVER 20 YEARS AND A BUILDING SURVEYOR FOR OVER 40. HE CURRENT WORKS AS THE SOLE DIRECTOR OF HIS OWN LONG-STANDING COMPANY, BUILDING AND FIRE SURVEYING CONSULTANTS PTY LTD, THOUGH HE GOT HIS START IN BUILDING SURVEYING THROUGH A CADETSHIP WITH RANDWICK COUNCIL. FROM CADET TO DIRECTOR I started in Building Surveying when a family member was employed as a municipal engineer and he told me of the various careers in local government of which Health and Building Surveying was an option. I applied for a Cadetship at Randwick council and I was fortunate to be offered the job. I liked the job as it involved outdoor work which seemed interesting and offering constant challenges and offered secure employment. In 1988 I founded a building and fire regulations practise called Building and Fire Surveying Consultants Pty Ltd of which I am the sole director. I have an Associate Diploma in Health and Building Surveying, a Post Graduate Diploma in Applied Science (Building), and a Masters Degree in Applied Science (Fire Safety). CHANGES AND CHALLENGES Building Surveyors which includes accredited certifiers face a number of daily challenges partly due some of the following factors: 1. Poorly constructed legislation which can be interpreted in a numerous ways. 2. (ii) Virtually no government infrastructure to assist building surveyors. 3. A reactive complaints assessment system where the punitive outcomes can be seen as dissuasion to entry of new practitioners. 4. Lack of accountability to allied trades and professions in building disputes including the lack of compulsory accreditation and compulsory insurance for other practitioners.

My 20 years as a member of the NSW chapter has been rewarding and satisfying. I have been in practise 44 years and the challenges in NSW changed significantly with the introduction of private certification. Since then the system of building and development certification has in many aspects become incoherent and unworkable. It is has been a disappointment that a number of successive governments seem incapable of recognising the importance of providing the certification industry with the legislative infrastructure that supports the delivery of safe buildings. I believe that there are suite of regulatory changes that will be put to cabinet in the near future which will hopefully address community and industry concerns. I understand that AIBS is working towards the delivery of Professional Standards Scheme which will provide a pathway for those individuals that seek professional recognition that other professionals such as lawyers, architects and engineers enjoy. I hope government across all jurisdictions supports the AIBS in achieving this goal and recognise the importance of membership as those participating in the Scheme.

AUSTRALIAN BUILDING SURVEYOR | SPRING 2016

AIBS ACHIEVEMENTS My 20 years as a member of the NSW chapter has been rewarding and satisfying. My endeavours during that time include: 1. Being made a fellow and subsequently a life fellow of AIBS. 2. Representing AIBS on numerous committees including the NSW Building Regulation Advisory Council. 3. Accreditation in NSW and Victoria as an A1 Accredited Building Surveyor and as a Fire Safety Engineer. 4. Working on wide range of buildings including the delivery of the new Sydney Show for which Olympic Co- Ordination Authority included me in a nomination for an international award from RICs. 5. Working with a small number of other members of AIBS to develop criteria for the Accreditation of suitably qualified Building Surveyors to be accredited as Fire Safety Engineers firstly through the AIBS owned BSAP scheme and then New South Wales Accreditation. RUSSEL GROVE, LFAIBS

Director of Building & Fire Surveying Consultants Pty Ltd

CERTIFYING ENERGY EFFICIENCY?

KICK OFF 2017 WITH A VISIT TO ADELAIDE OVAL

UNIVERSAL CERTIFICATE

LOOK FOR A

1DWLR

APPROVALS AS EASY AS....

FDWH

I FHUWLÂ¿

'DWH R

543 876

XPEHU

FDWH Q

&HUWLÂ¿

WLÂ¿FD

&HU

6FKH

LQJ

5DW

HUJ\

H (Q

+RXV

H QZLG

tails

or de

ss Asse

78 s om.au itation 123456 liams sessor sors.c Wil Accred ses ng As EHU Fred Buildi ms@cbas QXP pital .willia Ca 1DPH g VDWLRQ frederick buildin 456 2UJDQL 123 of the 0412 igner (PDLO by des yed 3KRQH on 5.11 rati Emplo 5 v5. Decla UHVW stRate Fir QWH RI L UH ABSA 6RIWZD 2 $$

HZ HUYL

ing

Dwell

9/53

Lot/DP EHU QXP

(see

1234

'ULYH

D 0RX ls (GZLQ 2345 ham GH 8QLW 01 Wynd 3RVWFR ODVV West 1&& & RS NSW 14 rban NatHE ]RQH Subu New ng FOLPDWH UH dwelli ([SRVX

Key

1.Review 2.Validate 3.Calculate

cooling ing and ons for heatassumpti y gy load al ener occupanc annu dard icted on stan d base

HQ QWEDWW

detai

V $GGUHV 6XEXUE 6WDWH 7\SH

d on an

tion

insula

wing

follo

(see

tions

netra

g pe

Ceilin

ials

es for

follo

UXFWLRQ

WLRQ

,QVXOD

*OD]LQ

veneer roof Brick ic tile d Ceramon groun tion Slab insula ulation wall ins R1.5 ceiling R3.5 frame clear ber Tim glaze rmal Single al the ce loads Annu an

)

UHD P

RRU D

1HW Ã&#x20AC;

55 23 12 90

WLRQHG G &RQGL GLWLRQH 8QFRQ H *DUDJ 727$/

Plan

rm perfo 2 ) 0- P

ments

docu

I GDWH 3ODQ UH E\ HG 3UHSDU

inable /88 Susta Ref24 ham Wynd

OH GRZ

RS)

ess this to acc Scan DWH RQOLQH LV YDOLG FHUWLÂ¿F QÂ¿UP WKLV DQG FR

DOOR ance to n on 1RWH RQ10% tolervalues show LHYHG a DFK With window V DUH C SHG LQJ UDWLQJ WKH IROORZ GC

Ã¾APPROVED

6.3 6.6 SH V WR -10% SSOLH /< D D\V EH SHGC HV +10% WROHUDQFH 21 H FDQ DOZ YDOX

tHE

RUH

DFW Ã&#x20AC;X

\SH QOLJKW W

â&#x20AC;&#x201C; tion selec s only ow ow Wind lt wind OXHV d Z YD 2, defau ZDEOH ZLQGRthe nominate page

Home

(Na eme Sch v.au Rating rgy athers.go se Enewww.n Hou ide ails see ionw * Nat more det For

G UHTXLUH WH LV for the n LÂ¿FD HZ FHUW insulatio EHHQ g. DQG D Qof ceiling WHG KDV the ratin Loss WLRQV OLVount with SHQHWUDinto acc n VFHQW take

PS &R

3ULQFLS

576 658 1234

J +HDWLQ J &RROLQ 727$/

ils)

18 23

pag wing

deta

pag

6HDOHG OHG 8QVHD ** 727$/

mater

tructi for details)

cons

&RQVW

JOIN US FOR THE AIBS SA CHAPTER CONFERENCE

Pred

initi is an

WKH YDOX 1% 7KLV H 8 KHU WKDQ w & WK W KLJ belo 6+* 2. U EXW QR ve falls ORZH on page WLQJ d d abo e state g liste XLUHG UD toleranc ratin UHT If the V RU WKH with this VWDU windowHFWHG the nts. VHO then 7 EH ernme FDQ 12 y gov territor e and stat tralian, Aus of the ative

Page

5 1 of

HOW?

Download our

Universal Certificate Certifiers Checklist

Thursday 23 and Friday 24 March

Available on the

Find an

website

Accredited Assessor Today!

www.absa.net.au

CALENDAR

AIBS CONFERENCES NSW/ACT CHAPTER CONFERENCE WRAP-UP The 2016 NSW/ACT conference was held at the stunning Dockside, Darling Harbour across Monday 25 and Tuesday 26 July. Once again, delegates were treated to a stunning view and fantastic food. The Minister for Innovation & Better Regulation, Victor Dominello, opened the conference with insights into future direction, and Senator Nick Xenophon as a keynote speaker outlined recommendations from the Senate Economics Reference Committee on non-conforming building products. There was standing room only to hear what Senator Xenophon had to say. Over the course of the two day conference, a range of speakers presented on a variety of topics: • The NSW Department of Planning and Environment gave presentations from Alison Frame on proposed legislative changes and Lynne Sheridan on the expansion of Complying Development. • Colin Wood, FAIBS, and Grahame Douglas, UWS, gave a keynote presentation on the new AS 3959 Construction of Buildings in Bushfire Prone Areas. It was an informative session on what appears to be a logical document. • Russel Grove, FAIBS, presented a session on Effective Height. • Superintendent Greg Buckley from Fire & Rescue NSW gave a personal update and reflection on the current regulatory system. • John Tansey, Assistant Commissioner Home Building Service – Department Fair Trading (where the Building Professionals Board now resides) gave a presentation on charting the way forward. • James Fan from Pikes & Verkers Lawyers presented on professional practice in regards to the Land & Environment Court. • Rudolph Gouts from Bovill Risk and Insurance Consultants gave an update from the underwriting industry. • Dr Fred Moshiri from the TDA presented on Mid Rise timber buildings. • Allan Harriman, OAM, FAIBS, presented on the care and responsibility that certifiers

must exercise when overnighting and issuing section 4A instruments. • Stephen Kip gave an informative dissection on “Alternate Solutions”. • Dr. Gabrielle Wallace, Manager of the Building Professionals Board, gave an uplifting and positive overview of the functioning of the regulatory regime from the BPB perspective. • James Dustan gave an interesting regional dissertation on NSW and Queensland cross border issues. There was a session on swimming pool barriers given by AIBS member Jeremy Dicello assisted by Bruce Begnell on “Clarification of Pool Barriers”. At that session there were 350 building surveyors, certifiers (both Council employed and in private practice) including Building Professionals Board staff as well as staff from the Department of Planning and Environment. At the conclusion of that session a question was put to the delegates; “hand up those who think that the current system of pool barrier compliance regulation is dysfunctional and needs an overhaul or major rework” and there was a unanimous raising of hands! There was also a forum entitled “Certification Responsibility”. There were representatives from Engineers Australia, Australian Institute of Building, Australian Institute of Architects, Australian Institute of Quantity Surveyors, Master Builders Association, Australian Institute of Project Management, and Australian Constructors Association. The forum generated active participation from the floor. There was a consensus from the representatives of these peak bodies that Regulatory Certification and accountability for the individual components (contractors, material and system suppliers) need to be bought into cohesive alignment. There have been several “wake up calls” recently. A question was left hanging at the end of the forum; is it morally/ethically defensible to wait for a tragedy to occur before we correct the

AUSTRALIAN BUILDING SURVEYOR | SPRING 2016

AIBS continued to fundraise for Camp Quality at the NSW/ ACT Chapter Conference.

current dilapidated regulatory system in the NSW building and construction industry? I would particularly like to thank the NSW Building Professionals Board and the the NSW Department of Planning & Environment for providing personnel that staffed question and answer desks on each of the two days of the conference. It was much appreciated. There was sufficient discussion and feedback indicting areas for future training and seminar topics.

A highlight of the conference was the Conference Dinner on the Monday evening, held at the Star Room of the Imax Theatre. In addition to fabulous entertainment by musical duo Cath & Him and bush poetry by AIBS’s own Neil Smith. During the Conference the NSW/ACT Chapter Awards were presented with Christopher Campbell being awarded Student of the Year and Russel Grove being elevated to Life Fellow. GREG POOLEY, MAIBS Conference convenor

Well over 400 delegates attended the conference across the two days.

SPRING 2016 | AUSTRALIAN BUILDING SURVEYOR

CALENDAR

Senator Nick Xenophonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s keynote speech was very well received.

The Conference Dinner was a memorable evening.

Christopher Campbell was awarded Student of the Year.

Russel Grove was elevated to Life Fellow.

AIBS 2016 WA CHAPTER CONFERENCE EVOLUTION NOT REVOLUTION

20 - 21 October 2016 Astral Conference Room, Crown Perth Last Chance to register!

AIBS 2016 VICTORIAN CHAPTER CONFERENCE

10 - 11 November 2016 Crown Conference Hall, Crown Promenade Hotel, Melbourne

AUSTRALIAN BUILDING SURVEYOR | SPRING 2016

Steel Compliance. If you don’t check for it, you might as well chuck it. A factory production once-off assessment is not enough to assure steel compliance. • As construction professionals using non-compliant steel could be your worst decision. • E ngineers, certifiers or suppliers have the responsibility and power to refuse the use of unidentifiable or non-compliant steel. • You manage the risk to human safety, reputation, livelihood and cost. • Check your steel products’ compliance to AS/NZS Standards and building codes. • Control your risks of non-compliance and reduce your liability through simple web downloads of ACRS Certificates at www.steelcertification.com

Don’t overlook steel compliance, look into ACRS first.

Call ACRS on 02 9965 7216 email info@steelcertification.com or visit www.steelcertification.com ACRS – The Australasian Certification Authority for Reinforcing and Structural Steels Ltd ABN 40 096 692 545

ACRS – Independent Third Party Australasian Standards Certification & Verification of Reinforcing, Prestressing & Structural Steels Compliance.

CEC UPDATES

AIBS CHAPTER EXECUTIVE COMMITTEES THE VOLUNTEERS WHO MAKE UP THE CHAPTER EXECUTIVE COMMITTEES OF AIBS ARE CONSTANTLY REPRESENTING THE PROFESSION AND AIBS MEMBERS IN A VARIETY OF WAYS. BELOW ARE SOME OF THE MEETINGS, WORKING GROUPS AND MORE THAT CEC REPRESENTATIVES HAVE ATTENDED IN RECENT MONTHS: WHICH IS JUST AN EXAMPLE OF THE WORK THE CECS DO, NOT AN EXHAUSTIVE LIST. NSW/ACT June • In June a CEC member attended the Stakeholder Workshop – Design Guidance for Medium Density Housing of the Department of Planning & Environment. • The Department of Planning & Environment held a Complying Development Expert Panel meeting to brief panel members on a number of initiatives which was attended by a representative of the NSW/ACT CEC.

SA July • AIBS was represented by a member of the SA CEC at the UniSA national forum - Facilitating the transition to Low Carbon Housing.

July • A CEC representative attended a Department of Planning & Environment meeting regarding Design Guidance for Medium Density Housing. • A CEC representative took part in a tele-meeting with UTS regarding Creative Spaces.

VIC June • A VIC CEC member attended the AIB excellence awards in June. • A member of the VIC CEC gave a seminar presentation 'Design Documents - the Building Surveyor's point of view' at BDAV. • The VBA Building Industry Forum Update was attended by a CEC representative. • Members of the VIC CEC liaised with the VBA, Department of Justice and Department of Planning on the information sheet proposal. • A CEC representative met with the VBA regarding the VBA Reforms.

August • Members of the NSW/ACT CEC attended UTS’s Creative Spaces workshop. • AIBS was represented on the Standards Australia meeting regarding Swimming Pools – CS034. QLD/NT June • A CEC representative met with the QBCC regarding industry matters. • A meeting with BCQ and DILG&P was held regarding the Gerhardt Judgements and was attended by a CEC member. July • A CEC member attended the BDAQ Design Awards evening on Friday 15 July. • The QBCC Industry Reference Group met in July; this meeting was attending by a CEC representative.

TAS July • The Department of Justice hazardous area controls briefing was attended by a representative of the TAS CEC.

July • Members of the VIC of the CEC met with the VBA on several occasions. • CEC representatives met with the Department of Justice and the Department of Planning. • The BDAV annual dinner was attended by two members of the VIC CEC. August • AIBS was represented at a branch meeting of the Eastern Group of Building Surveyors by a CEC member.

AUSTRALIAN BUILDING SURVEYOR | SPRING 2016

• A CEC member participated in a meeting of Holmesglen’s course establishment committee. • Kidsafe VIC held a ‘closing the gate’ – stakeholder meeting which was attended by a CEC member. • A CEC representative participated in ADHA’s presentation and panel discussion on issues including non-compliant hardware, failure to comply with the NCC and anti-harm hardware. • A CEC member met with the DBDRV regarding the Building Legislation Amendment (Consumer Protection) Act 2016 provides for the establishment of 'Domestic Building Dispute Resolution Victoria' (DBDRV) to administer the new domestic building dispute resolution scheme set out in the Act. WA June • A representative of the WA CEC attended a DFES industry meeting. July • The Chapter President gave an interview for Radio 6PR. August • Members of the CEC attended the Building Commission building Summit. • A CEC representative attended the Building Commission Roof framing and tie downs working group. • The Society of Fire Engineers held a meeting on industry issues which was attended by a WA CEC member.

You dream it, we print it. With more than 40 yearsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; experience in traditionally crafted printing, Newstyle is the printer of choice for companies throughout Australia. Offering quality printing services for magazines, books, catalogues, brochures, posters, stationery and all forms of digital print, Newstyle knows good printing.

sales@newstyleprint.com.au www.newstyleprint.com.au

ON THE BUILDING SITE

EXIT STRATEGY? NEVER HEARD OF IT! SOMETIMES IT APPEARS THAT LITTLE THOUGHT GOES INTO THE IMPORTANCE OF EXITS IN A BUILDING, AS THESE THREE EXAMPLES FROM OUR MEMBERS SHOW.

1. The a-maze-ing exit In case of emergency in this building you may be a bit confused about where you’re meant to go. Bruce Shepard from Incert in Queensland sent us these pictures of an obstacle course style exit. “The first photo shows an exit sign over the sink do they assume the drainage system is a suitable egress path. The next two photos are of the same egress path which passes under the low level roof beams and round air conditioning duct leaving about 1700mm from floor to underside. In the second photo you can just see the bottom of the exit light behind the duct.” 2. Th e pen is mightier than the bolt Bruce Jeffery from the City of Melbourne sent us this tale of tenants who were determined to keep a door locked. “At my first inspection of a class 6/3 building one of the exit doors had this padbolt installed. I removed the bolt to make it compliant, leaving the base plate as it was bolted to the door with burred over bolt threads. On a follow up inspection the tenants had re ‘locked’ it with a pen. As the pen is plastic it actually does not make it much harder to open the door, the pen breaks easily when you push the door. I removed the pen and directed the owner to remove the base plate. I wonder what will be installed next time?” 3. You can run, but you can’t leave the building “Nothing beats a night latch and couple of deadbolts together with a few items against the only exit for the building.” That’s all Carl Barton, from Plus Permits in NSW, said to accompany this image, but nothing more is really necessary.

AUSTRALIAN BUILDING SURVEYOR | SPRING 2016

WHAT SIGHTS HAVE YOU SEEN

ON THE BUILDING SITE? Thanks to our contributors for spotting these problems, taking some pictures and contributing to the magazine. We always welcome contributions to On The Building Site as it is an excellent way to have a laugh and maybe start a discussion around some of the issues that arise and what the solutions to them may be. So if you see something unusual, please take some photos and send it in to nat.editor@aibs.com.au along with a brief write-up of the situation.

REDUCE YOUR RISK.

Specifying and using OneSteel products reduces your risk. OneSteel supplies a comprehensive range of steel sections to the Australian construction industry. These products are available with test certificates and ACRS third party certification. The test certificates demonstrate our products conform to the requirements of Australian Standards and ACRS certification. In simple terms, itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s peace of mind that we only manufacture steel products you can rely on. Why take the risk, insist on OneSteel. To find out more about how OneSteel products reduce your risk, visit www.buildwithstandards.com.au

BUILDING POSSIBILITIES

Know you’re OK with the AWA Don’t get caught with non-compliant products.

COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE

Use AWA & WERS Members.

is a participating member of the AWA Accreditation Program, provides a 6 year Guarantee against faulty workmanship and materials (refer to Manufacturer’s Warranty), is committed to the Industry Code of Conduct and has met the requirements of the annual AWA Compliance Audit. The manufacturer certifies that the windows and doors supplied to: Delivery address:

Delivered on: have been manufactured to comply with the Australian Window Standard AS 2047 and Glass Standard AS 1288 including human impact requirements as specified in the order. The windows and doors have been manufactured to comply with NCC energy efficiency and bushfire requirements as specified by the purchaser.

Look for this certificate & ask for:

The windows have been manufactured to comply with: Housing

NCC Compliance

Energy Rating

WPR Pa

ULS Pa

WPR Pa

SLS

600

150

C1 600

1800

150

ULS

N2 400

900

150

C2 800

2700

200

WPR

N3 600

1400

150

C3 1200

4000

300

N4 800

2000

200

C4 1600

5300

450

N5 1200

3000

300

N6 1600

4000

450

SLS Pa

Australian Standard Compliance (AS 2047 & AS 1288) Independent Third Party Accreditation

Other Construction ULS Pa

N1 400

SLS Pa

AUSTRALIAN WINDOW ASSOCIATION GUIDE SERIES

Note: For corner windows, the next highest rating pressure applies.

A GUIDE TO WINDOW AND DOOR SELECTION

Energy Performance Ratings, AFRC Results: U Value, Uw Solar Heat Gain Co efficient, SHGCw Refer to attached schedule Bushfire Rating:

BAL 12.5 BAL 40

BAL 19 BAL FZ

Methodology:

Tested (AS 1530.8.1)

Tested (AS 1530.8.2)

Signed: Window Company

The inspection services of the AWA are accredited. Inspection Agency Number 13739

Prescriptive (AS 3959) Date:

The builder/installer certifies that the windows and doors supplied have been installed correctly in accordance with the requirements of the National Construction Code and the human impact glass located in the correct openings. Signed: Builder/Installer

Date:

For accreditation details, visit www.awa.org.au Document No. AWA.CC.A2014

Download our Window & Door Selection Guide: Visit www.awa.org.au for information on NCC Requirements.

BAL 29 Not required/specified

AN INDUSTRY GUIDE TO THE SELECTION AND CERTIFICATION OF WINDOWS AND DOORS