The National Construction Code not fit for purpose

Liliana · Dec 07, 2019 7:25 am

Article in The Conversation this week by Geoff Hanmer, adjunct lecturer in Architecture at UNSW:

To restore public confidence in apartments, rewrite Australia’s building codes

https://theconversation.com/to-restore- ... ng%20codes

In brief he points out that the National Construction Code was never intended to provide effective control over all the aspects of building work that make houses or apartments liveable and durable.....

In attempting to consider “competitive effects”, avoid being “restrictive” and by encouraging “non-regulatory alternatives”, including self-certification and self-regulation, the code has opened the door to an “anything goes” mentality on many fronts.

He takes particular aim at the waterproofing requirements for houses and apartments. He maintains that the relevant Australia Standards AS 4654.1 and AS 4654.2 which were written with a lot of input from the building materials supply industry permit the use of unsuitable waterproofing membranes which rarely last longer than four of five years.

He also talks about the necessity of incorporating a step in the slab at the junction between walls and floors as a necessary preventive to leaking in apartments. I had never heard of this practice but it sounds like a no-brainer.

He puts forward a number of suggestions for improving the NCC including setting a mandatory minimum statutory warranty of seven to ten years (for class 1 and class 2 buildings), backed by government. That would put the wind up all State governments and their turn a blind eye flunkeys.

Well worth a read.

Berek · Dec 07, 2019 9:40 pm

It would also help if the standards were free too.

StructuralBIMGuy · Dec 08, 2019 8:49 am

Architects have been pushed out of the certifying process
and that article is a cry out to survive. IMO Too little too late...
It's now left up to Building Surveyors (NCC) and Engineers (Australian Standards)
to tighten controls

Opal towers was the tipping point, where overseas punters purchased $1million +
apartments based on Architect vertical gardens renderings ..come in spinner

Liliana · Dec 08, 2019 9:21 am

Hi StructuralBIMGuy

You have an unusual take on the article. I didn't get the impression he was agitating on behalf of architects. IM humble O he was pointing out real issues with the NCC.

StructuralBIMGuy · Dec 08, 2019 10:18 am

Durability ( ie, as in various Australian Standards) is dealt by engineers in structural calculations/details
Dumbing it down to be in the NCC to suit Architects and Building surveyors isn't a wise move there are too many variables

Liliana · Dec 08, 2019 10:53 am

But he is an architect and he is arguing against "dumbing down" the NCC. This isn't a partisan issue. I don't think it's useful to turn it into an ''engineers versus architects'' battle. Do you at least agree that his suggested reforms would improve matters?

StructuralBIMGuy · Dec 08, 2019 11:28 am

What's the sense in dumbing the NCC down it can't be dumbed down any further?
The NCC is just fine, Free and accessible to everyone
I am against dumbing down the Australian standards
The bottom line is that architects and Building Surveyors are unable to do and certify the calculations mandated within the Australian Standards.
Case in point
Calculating the FRLs for Masonry Walls with AS3700

Liliana · Dec 08, 2019 11:33 am

StructuralBIMGuy

What's the sense in dumbing the NCC down it can't be dumbed down any further?

Who is arguing to dumb it down further?

StructuralBIMGuy · Dec 08, 2019 11:44 am

Chat to compliance officers within the local Councils
They will give you their point of view..

Liliana · Dec 08, 2019 12:04 pm

I'm sorry BIM Guy but I'm too left brained to follow your "line" of argument:-?.

StructuralBIMGuy · Dec 08, 2019 12:11 pm

LOL, The NCC is designed for the Right side for the brain,ie, architects
leave the the AS, math and proofs to the engineers

Berek · Dec 08, 2019 8:21 pm

The NCC is the overarching guide that refers you to standards. Imagine if they’re freely available. No more “that’s how it’s always been done” no more “it’s to standard” when it clearly isn’t. Give the power back to people who are paying a fortune to get a house built properly.

building-expert · Dec 09, 2019 5:22 pm

Structural Bimbo writes

"The bottom line is that architects and Building Surveyors are unable to do and certify the calculations mandated within the Australian Standards."

You don't get it and never have, it goes beyond ignorance. I suggest you get your electronics checked out, my diagnosis is there is a faulty neuron.

The bottom line is that structural engineers do certify their calculations which then are peer reviewed and certified by another independent engineer. It is not the function of Building Surveyors to certify engineering calculations but in their interpretation and administration of building control they must be satisfied that the proposed building will satisfy building act, building regulations, NCC and the mandated Australian standards. BS may accept certificates as proof of compliance without having to be able to do the calculations themselves.
That is how it works

building-expert · Dec 09, 2019 5:26 pm

Liliana

I'm sorry BIM Guy but I'm too left brained to follow your "line" of argument:-?.

Don't worry Liliana, there is nothing wrong with your neurons, left or right. The faulty neurons are elsewhere.

StructuralBIMGuy · Dec 09, 2019 5:57 pm

building-expert

BS may accept certificates as proof of compliance without having to be able to do the calculations themselves.

And that is why Victoria has all the problems with non compliance
If you have a structural problem go see an Engineer
It's an absolute joke that BSs charge $600 to sight the engineers Certificate...you'd think they would understand what they are certifying Obviously not...LOL it requires an Engineer Peer review in Victoria :lol:

building-expert · Dec 09, 2019 7:22 pm

StructuralBIMGuy

building-expert

BS may accept certificates as proof of compliance without having to be able to do the calculations themselves.

And that is why Victoria has all the problems with non compliance
If you have a structural problem go see an Engineer
It's an absolute joke that BSs charge $600 to sight the engineers Certificate...you'd think they would understand what they are certifying Obviously not...LOL it requires an Engineer Peer review in Victoria :lol:

Again you are wrong and putting forward misleading information:

The problems with non compliance in Victoria are not of engineering nature and engineers cannot fix them. It's to do with inadequate building control regulation and lack of enforcement driven by entrenched corruption.

Regardless of the above there are 20k plus builders In Victoria building 20 K plus dwelling every year and only a small proportion of dwellings have serious defect. Even a small proportion is unacceptable but there has to be the balance in the perspective.

BS will quote a fee for their services that include assessment, issuing of permit, administration and mandatory inspections.
I don't believe it can be said that they charge $600 to sight engineers certificate but if you have the proof please post it, otherwise you are just hot air.

StructuralBIMGuy · Dec 11, 2019 9:48 am

building-expert

BS will quote a fee for their services that include assessment, issuing of permit, administration and mandatory inspections.
I don't believe it can be said that they charge $600 to sight engineers certificate but if you have the proof please post it, otherwise you are just hot air.

In WA there is a 2 tier system
1. Council BSs employees earn $60k a year, issue building permits, lack resources, charge fixed council fee, don't do inspections and answer indirectly to rate payers

2. Independent BSs earn over $100k fast track checking, do mandatory inspections, Quote $600 for engineer stamp (they organise) + $600 for BS stamp = $1200 plus GST and answers to nobody.
lol some charge whatever they want for stamping structural inspections, knowing the Council BSs are threatening non compliance or worse demolition

Both tiers can not certify structural non compliance, for that you need an engineer
OT Architects stamps have become worthless

Harts · Jan 12, 2020 10:07 am

So as a consumer who has a house with structural issues and non-compliance, I hire a Structural Engineer (SE) who assesses and provides a report.
That report then goes to the original builder who goes to his insurer, who sends out a SE. Writes a deceptive and misleading report.

The original SE who engineered my home (also at fault), contacts his lawyer and they send out yet another SE. More finger pointing but the report deflects the blame away from the original SE (of course).

My home insurer now becomes involved as I sought a plumbing inspection (as no other SE had suggested this), and I have a broken sanitary pipe (BTW, no flexible joints were used according to Standards/Code. Guess what, my insurer sends out a SE and a Geotechnical Engineer. Still waiting on outcome but I after what I have been through the past 7 years, I have a feeling what the outcome will be.

It is glaringly obvious that short cuts were taken for cost cutting when building my home. But how does one find an honest and reliable Structural Engineer and who assesses based on the facts?

As Building expert pointed out, there is 'inadequate building control regulation and lack of enforcement driven by entrenched corruption'.
Unfortunately it is the consumer who loses out no matter what Act, Standard or Code is or is not being used.

Liliana · Jan 12, 2020 12:12 pm

You are oh so right Harts. It's like a game of "pass the parcel" except we all know where the parcel is going to stop - the consumer. And to paraphrase Amy Winehouse - in too many cases at the moment, "building" is a losing game.

Liliana · Jan 12, 2020 12:19 pm

So just to be clear...every structural engineer came up with a different report? Or did they all find the same defects and just put the blame somewhere more convenient to their client?