Browse Forums Building Standards; Getting It Right! 1 Oct 29, 2012 9:35 pm Good Evening We had some standard concrete paths put around our house during the end of our build (same height as existing alfresco), mainly to help the tradies and to minimise clay soil being brought into the house. The house is now complete, and the only thing holding the Occupancy certificate back is the concrete paths!!. Please note the correspondence below, from builder received today. "I have just heard from the Building Surveyor and they won’t accept the weepholes being less than 75mm from the concrete, even with your letter, and hence we are unable to obtain an Occupancy Permit for your property. To obtain the Occupancy Permit, we have been told that we need to obtain an Alternative Solution Report from and independent body which states that the current situation is acceptable. Once the relevant inspection has been conducted and the report undertaken, the Occupancy Permit can be issued. The cost for this report is $700 +gst and is a cost you would need to pay. As soon as you let me know that this is OK, I will arrange for the report to be undertaken and hopefully we will then receive the Occupancy Permit." The weep holes currently are at 40-45mm above the concrete paths. Spoke with the concreter and he said he's never had this issue before. Qn. 1) does anybody know the reasoning for the weep holes being at 75mm? and what the exact bca code is for this requirement is ?(brick vaneer dwelling, Melbourne) 2) any solutions to the above if this is a strictly adhered to code? 3) How does an Alternative Solution Report and further payment fix the problem ( if I get my father in law (who has a building licence) to write a report, would this suffice?). I did write a supporting letter, stating that in the future we would use termite treated wood, etc to minimise termite breach. 4) Additionally, we busted our builder recently, who sent us a non existent provisional invoice- a curious and annoying episode as out build experience to date had been fairly great (gave him face saving chances 3 times to withdraw the invoice, he is still insisting we pay this). Any thoughts and further information would be greatly appreciated. Re: No Occupancy Certificate !!BCA requirement for weep hole 2Oct 30, 2012 5:18 am Hi bijali Your building surveyor is right, here are the requirements: (c) The height of a DPC, or flashing serving as a DPC, (see Figure 3.3.4.1), must be not less than— (i) 150 mm above the adjacent ground level; or (ii) 75 mm above the finished surface level of adjacent paved, concreted or landscaped areas that slope away from the wall (see Figure 3.3.4.1); or Explanatory information: 150 mm clearance between the DPC and adjacent ground level reduces the risk of the effectiveness of the DPC being affected by changes in the surface level. Where changes in surface level are less likely to occur, such as where the adjacent surface is finished with paving, concreting or landscaping, the height of the DPC above that surface may be reduced to 75 mm. When also protected from the weather by a carport, verandah or the like the height of the DPC may be reduced to 50 mm. Further reductions in the height of a DPC are permitted in low rainfall intensity areas. You will need a special report from someone who is an expert.(that is what experts do, keep people out of trouble or get them out of it) For the record, one of the most recurring defects in new home construction is your type of problem , where site levels and or paving levels are wrongly constructed. I have been fighting builders and concrete contractors on this for 8 years. Your options are: 1 protect with a roof 2 Weatherproof masonry by painting 3 Demolish and rebuild (does paving have the required slope away from dwelling?) 4 Get expert report What about termite protection, have you interfered with the chemical barrier?(if you have, your warranty is void) Remember, when you do things "you are the builder" and you can't just rely on trades to do the right thing (often they don't know), you have to know. Do your research beforehand and find out what is required or get expert advice. Foremost Building Expert in Australia,assisting with building problems/disputes, building stage inspections,pre-contract review advice for peace of mind 200 blogs http://www.buildingexpert.net.au/blog Re: No Occupancy Certificate !!BCA requirement for weep hole 3Nov 27, 2022 11:16 am Is the structure rendered and painted? Under those circumstances, in some cases weepholes can be null and void. Hundreds of thousands of houses exist without issue having no weepholes. Do we revoke occupancy certificates for those houses? bijali Good Evening We had some standard concrete paths put around our house during the end of our build (same height as existing alfresco), mainly to help the tradies and to minimise clay soil being brought into the house. The house is now complete, and the only thing holding the Occupancy certificate back is the concrete paths!!. Please note the correspondence below, from builder received today. "I have just heard from the Building Surveyor and they won’t accept the weepholes being less than 75mm from the concrete, even with your letter, and hence we are unable to obtain an Occupancy Permit for your property. To obtain the Occupancy Permit, we have been told that we need to obtain an Alternative Solution Report from and independent body which states that the current situation is acceptable. Once the relevant inspection has been conducted and the report undertaken, the Occupancy Permit can be issued. The cost for this report is $700 +gst and is a cost you would need to pay. As soon as you let me know that this is OK, I will arrange for the report to be undertaken and hopefully we will then receive the Occupancy Permit." The weep holes currently are at 40-45mm above the concrete paths. Spoke with the concreter and he said he's never had this issue before. Qn. 1) does anybody know the reasoning for the weep holes being at 75mm? and what the exact bca code is for this requirement is ?(brick vaneer dwelling, Melbourne) 2) any solutions to the above if this is a strictly adhered to code? 3) How does an Alternative Solution Report and further payment fix the problem ( if I get my father in law (who has a building licence) to write a report, would this suffice?). I did write a supporting letter, stating that in the future we would use termite treated wood, etc to minimise termite breach. 4) Additionally, we busted our builder recently, who sent us a non existent provisional invoice- a curious and annoying episode as out build experience to date had been fairly great (gave him face saving chances 3 times to withdraw the invoice, he is still insisting we pay this). Any thoughts and further information would be greatly appreciated. *All in my opinion only Re: No Occupancy Certificate !!BCA requirement for weep hole 4Jan 11, 2023 9:49 pm The only solution you have to address this problem is to have the home rendered with an acrylic render like dulux acratex. As it is a acrylic system it provides a waterproof coating over the brickwork preventing water ingress through the bricks and the need for the weep holes to allow the water out. You can cement render but them you need to include a waterproofing additive and paint to complete, where the acratex does it in one. my advise, have the base coat tinted the same colour as the finish coat, this gives you better depth of colour, this is pretty much your only solution We are Expert Consultant's, and we are here to help. it depends on the natural ground level, if they excavated their boundary wall needed to be built as a retaining wall. If you filled, which sounds like the case then you… 1 7143 I know foam has been around since the 90's and CSR started manufacturing Hebel in 1989, so it's definitely possible 5 5494 You are correct. Just read through all the ncc rules and 75mm is the minimum requirement for me. 4 11207 |