Browse Forums Building A New House 1 Jul 30, 2008 6:19 pm Here's a little trap for the unwary...
A little while ago I asked a question (here https://forum.homeone.com.au/viewtopic.p ... ts&start=0) about sealing expansion/articulation joints with a mastic sealant. For anyone interested I've since had the chance to check the Australian Building Code and discovered that it is a requirement for these joints to be sealed (Part 3.3.1, page 12/13). Queried the builder -- again -- and was told, yes, it is a BCA requirement but we have an exemption for that and don't do it. The exemption is granted by BSA Queensland. Putting aside my immediate issue of wanting these things neatly sealed (it's not a particularly big deal even if I have to do it myself) I have to say I was astounded that a specific builder can apparently be given an exemption from specific parts of the building code. I thought the BCA was the minimum standard. Apparently not. One wonders just how many more of these 'exemptions' are out there. "Reinforcing in the slab? Oh, no, we're exempt from that." "You want the roof to keep out water? Sorry, we've got an exemption." It's obviously not as bad as that but I don't see anything in the contract that says there can be ANY exemptions, although I haven't yet had the chance to really go through it. Just one more question to ask before you sign on the dotted line. Re: Builders 'exempt' from building code 2Jul 30, 2008 7:24 pm This is crap. there is no such thing as 'exemptions' as the BCA is the minimum requirement. There is however 'alternative solutions' which means an engineer must certify that their alternativepractice will achieve the same result.
Sounds to me like he is trying to pull the wool over your eyes Re: Builders 'exempt' from building code 4Jul 30, 2008 8:02 pm Yep, that was my first reaction too. But the house has been certified, it's ready for handover and all the certifications are in place and there's a certificate of occupancy etc.
At this stage (I'm waiting for a copy of this 'exemption' and some clarification) I can only assume that their procedure, although it's less than the BCA calls for, is in fact okay. I'm not going to accept handover until it's resolved but from what little I've been able to discover today the builder is correct. Don't get me wrong here, the builder has been pretty good all the way through, and very straightforward. I've no reason to think the BS is misleading me -- he's convinced everything is okay. Re: Builders 'exempt' from building code 5Jul 30, 2008 8:48 pm For those interested, been wading through the BCA. It's a confusing set of documents for the layman but basically it seems to be nothing more than a collection of approved methods of construction. There's nothing really that says a builder must use those methods. There's scope for 'approved' and/or 'alternative solutions', as long as that solution falls within the 'Housing Provisions.'
This pretty much sums it up... 1.2.1 Suitability of materials Every part of a building must be constructed in an appropriate manner to achieve the requirements of the Housing Provisions, using materials that are fit for the purpose for which they are intended. 1.2.2 Evidence of suitability (a) Subject to 1.2.3 and 1.2.4, evidence to support that the use of a material, form of construction or design meets a Performance Requirement or a Deemed-to-Satisfy Provision may be in the form of one or a combination of the following: (i) A report issued by a Registered Testing Authority, showing that the material or form of construction has been submitted to the tests listed in the report, and setting out the results of those tests and any other relevant information that demonstrates its suitability for use in the building. (ii) A current Certificate of Conformity or a current Certificate of Accreditation. (iii) A certificate from a professional engineer or other appropriately qualified person which— (A) certifies that a material, design or form of construction complies with the requirements of the Housing Provisions; and (B) sets out the basis on which it is given and the extent to which relevant specifications, rules, codes of practice or other publications have been relied upon. (iv) A current certificate issued by a product certification body that has been accredited by the Joint Accreditation Scheme of Australia and New Zealand (JAS–ANZ). (v) * * * * * (vi) Any other form of documentary evidence that correctly describes the properties and performance of the material or form of construction and adequately demonstrates its suitability for use in the building. (b) Evidence to support that a calculation method complies with an ABCB protocol may be in the form of one or a combination of the following: (i) A certificate from a professional engineer or other appropriately qualifed person which— (A) certifies that the calculation method complies with a relevant ABCB protocol; and (B) sets out the basis on which it is given and the extent to which relevant specifications, rules, codes of practice and other publications have been relied upon. (ii) Any other form of documentary evidence that correctly describes how the calculation method complies with a relevant ABCB protocol. (c) Any copy of documentary evidence submitted, must be a complete copy of the original report or document. So, if a builder wants to use an alternative method he can, as long as it's deemed to comply. In my particular case that seems to mean that the mastic sealant which I believe necessary for weatherproofing and aesthetics etc can be dispensed with. It's not a huge issue in the scheme of things, nor very expensive if I have to pay for it so I'm not that fussed. It just seems to me that most of us assume the basic, unalterable minimum standards are what we see in display homes and the like. That's not the case. I accept that there are many ways to construct something and I understand the need for flexibility to cope with new methods/materials etc. What irritates me is the lack of clarity and clear language in our sets of standards. You'd think we would at least have some plain English definitions of what is and is not acceptable. Re: Builders 'exempt' from building code 6Jul 31, 2008 7:47 pm An update for anyone interested.
I've followed this up and discovered that a builder can in fact get an exemption from a number of elements in the Building Code. And that's not the same as 'alternative solutions' or 'deemed to comply' issues. It's simply -- they don't have to do it. In fact, exemptions are not unusual and it's a relatively simple process to get one. As long as the builder's engineers can convince the local State authority it's okay, an exemption is granted. That can be as simple as a letter from the builder. It's also correct that an exemption can be granted even if the builder's solution does not offer as much as the BC. In other words, the code is NOT the minimum standard. In many respects it seems to be more of a guide than a legal requirement. And it can, apparently, be overridden by the State government. These things may not apply to the basics, and houses must still be constructed to a certain standard but it's not just little things or aesthetics either. After the discussions I've had today I now know that there are many builders who build using methods that neither match nor exceed the code. And it's perfectly legal. Some of the examples given to me included slabs, piers and footings, transoms etc, etc. Go figure. Certifications are garbage 7Aug 21, 2008 10:28 pm Hate to tell you all this but certifications are not worth a dime. I arrive at our brand new home the day after hand over to find the plumber and Brisbane City Council standing outside MY property.
When I asked what was going I was advised that they were there to do the plumbing certification and gas certification The house was fully handed over I told the council inspector. Isn't this a requirement before handover? A legal requirement? Yes, I don't know how the builders get away with it, was her response. This from a BCC inspector. Outstanding!!!!! Just another Perry Homes ******* practice. If you would like a list of the rest of their questionable practices please contact me, happy to share. Michelle Re: Builders 'exempt' from building code 8Aug 22, 2008 12:15 am Hi again Michelle, Ancient Mariner is also building with Perrys like us in QLD. He's about to move into his place so will be offline for a little while. I was just reading through his post and am completely blown away by his revelations
What is the point of having a BC???!!!! Unbelievable........ Very reasurring NOT that they are doing inspections AFTER handover! Please DO share either here or PM any other experiences you've had with Perrys please. Hi All, see above image. The required setback from the rear boundary in my case is 5m, as you can see the shape of the site and location of the boundary is slightly… 0 8451 CDC Housing Code 3 When to apply Floor Area external face of wall vs Gross Floor Area internal face of wall. Reading thru CDC Housing Code 3, lets take a lot 915sqm.… 0 16559 |