A rise in building approvals for apartments and townhouses has driven a 0.4 per cent increase in the total number of dwellings approved in Australia in February 2019, in trend terms, according to data released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) today.
“Building approvals for private dwellings excluding houses rose 2.6 per cent in February.” said Justin Lokhorst, Director of Construction Statistics at the ABS. “Meanwhile, private houses fell a further 0.8 per cent”.
Among the states and territories, total dwelling approvals rose in February in New South Wales (3.1 per cent) and Western Australia (2.0 per cent), in trend terms. Falls were recorded in the Northern Territory (6.5 per cent), the Australian Capital Territory (6.3 per cent), Queensland (2.0 per cent), South Australia (1.1 per cent) and Victoria (0.8 per cent). Tasmania was flat.
Declines in approvals for private houses were recorded in New South Wales (2.0 per cent), Victoria (1.1 per cent) and Queensland (0.8 per cent), while increases were recorded in South Australia (2.0 per cent) and Western Australia (0.5 per cent).
In seasonally adjusted terms, total dwellings rose by 19.1 per cent in February, largely driven by rises in Victoria (37.3 per cent) and New South Wales (25.2 per cent). Private dwellings excluding houses rose 64.6 per cent, while private houses decreased by 3.6 per cent.
The value of total building approved rose 1.3 per cent in February, in trend terms. The value of non-residential building rose 1.9 per cent, while residential building increased 0.8 per cent.
On the last day of summer for 2019, the Victorian Civil and
Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) delivered a burst of sunshine to
apartment owners at the high-rise Lacrosse building in the Melbourne
Docklands precinct. Lacrosse suffered a serious cladding fire on
November 24 2014, started by a single cigarette on a balcony. Last
Thursday, Judge Ted Woodward ordered the owners be immediately paid A$5.7 million in damages.
The judge also indicated that the owners would receive most of the
balance of their A$12.7 million claim – including nearly A$6 million in
calculated costs of compliance with building codes.
However, in our adversarial legal system, there are losers as well as
winners. The losers in this case are the fire engineer, the certifier
and the architects.
The builder, LU Simon, was ordered to pay more than A$5.7 million to
apartment owners. However, the architect, fire engineer and building
certifier who worked on the project would pay most of that to LU Simon
after Judge Woodward found they had breached contractual obligations.
Fire engineer Thomas Nicholas was ordered to pay 39% of the damages,
certifier Gardner Group 35% and architects Elenberg Fraser 25%.
Incredibly, the builder, LU Simon, is a winner, assessed to pay only 3%
of the damages.
So shocking is the VCAT decision
to architects that the national president of the Australian Institute
of Architects suggested in an email to members last Friday that they
might need to seek counselling.
The decision reminds architects and other consultants that abiding by
common practice is no defence if that practice is inadequate. Even
though an architect may work for the builder and be employed on a
limited commission during construction, they still bear primary
responsibility for the safety of the building as the “lead consultant”.
According to the decision, architects and consultants are required to
exercise high standards of professional judgement and skill even if
their commissioning arrangements and fees militate this.
So is this a win for all owners?
It looks like a cause for celebration by the owners. But is it?
Well, for a start, this decision has taken over four years to emerge.
It may yet be the subject of an appeal. In the meantime, owners and
residents have had to live in a building that is not safe, although work
to replace the cladding should be complete by May.
Judge Woodward said the decision applies to the specific
circumstances of Lacrosse only, so the owners of other buildings,
including Neo200, which was evacuated on February 4 after a similar fire, might not also be in the winner’s circle.
The Lacrosse case ran for 22 days, involved five QCs, five juniors
and an army of instructing solicitors, paralegals and expert witnesses.
There were 91 volumes of documents tendered as evidence. Legal costs
almost certainly exceeded A$2 million, or more than 15% of the damages
sought.
Around the country, based on state audits, I estimate around 1,000
buildings have combustible aluminium composite panels on their facades.
If they all generate a court case half as complex as Lacrosse, the legal
bills alone could total over A$1 billion.
Government must also answer for deregulation
Those who eased the regulatory framework in place in Australia since
the late 1980s share culpability with the consultants for the fires at
Lacrosse and Neo200. Until the early 1990s, Australian building codes
prohibited the use of combustible elements on the facades of tall
buildings. Throughout the 1990s, the then Building Code of Australia
(now the National Construction Code
or NCC) was relaxed to a “performance standard”, which allowed builders
and consultants to believe aluminium composite panels and timber were
permissible.
By 2000, despite plenty of evidence that these panels were
combustible and therefore not suitable as facade material on tall
buildings, the market for them continued to grow. The Australian
Building Codes Board did nothing about this, encouraging a potentially
fatal error.
So far, on the regulatory side, no one has actually owned up to a
mistake. However, the Building Ministers’ Forum is considering the 24
recommendations of a report it commissioned from Peter Shergold and Bronwyn Weir. New South Wales’ minister for innovation and better regulation, Matt Kean, has promised to crack down on dodgy certifiers.
In the light of the cladding panel fiasco, he probably should be
reviewing his own remit, which is based on the premise that less
regulation is better.
The NCC has a goal to encourage innovation in building by allowing
alternative solutions to “deemed to satisfy” provisions. Unfortunately,
in the case of the cladding panels and other “innovations”, the cost
savings may be only a tiny proportion of the costs of rectifying the
problems.
Penitent governments should ensure flammable cladding is replaced
now, not next year and certainly not in five or six years’ time when
another round of court cases are finally decided after appeal. Unless
governments act to fix this mistake, one that they are substantially
responsible for, someone is going to be killed in a cladding fire in
Australia.
The number of dwellings approved in Australia fell by 3.2 per cent in January 2019, in trend terms, according to data released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) today.
“The trend for the total dwelling approvals series has steadily declined over the past year,” said Justin Lokhorst, Director of Construction Statistics at the ABS. “The series is now at its lowest level since May 2013.”
The decrease in January was driven by private sector dwellings excluding houses (e.g. townhouses and apartments), which fell 8.1 per cent in trend terms.
Private sector houses also declined, by 0.4 per cent.
Among the states and territories, total dwelling approvals fell in January in the Australian Capital Territory (19.8 per cent), the Northern Territory (8.0 per cent), Victoria (4.5 per cent), Queensland (3.9 per cent), New South Wales (2.3 per cent) and South Australia (0.8 per cent) in trend terms. Western Australia (2.2 per cent) and Tasmania (1.4 per cent) recorded increases.
Approvals for private sector houses fell 0.4 per cent in January in trend terms. Queensland (1.4 per cent), New South Wales (0.6 per cent) and Victoria (0.3 per cent) declined, while increases were recorded in South Australia (2.3 per cent) and Western Australia (0.2 per cent).
In seasonally adjusted terms, total dwellings rose by 2.5 per cent in January, driven by rises in Western Australia (28.8 per cent), Tasmania (15.4 per cent) and New South Wales (12.0 per cent). Private dwellings excluding houses rose 2.7 per cent, while private houses also increased (by 2.1 per cent).
But as Westpac put it ” As a rule, January housing data should be taken with a large grain of salt – the low flows through the holiday period mean any month to month noise is amplified by seasonal adjustment”.
The value of total building approved fell 1.5 per cent in January, in trend terms, and has fallen for 14 months. The value of residential building fell 2.7 per cent, while non-residential building rose 0.4 per cent.
The fire at the Neo200 building on Spencer Street in the Melbourne CBD last week has eerie similarities to the Grenfell Tower disaster. Fortunately, instead of 72 people dead as at Grenfell, only one person was hospitalised for smoke inhalation.
Nevertheless, the building industry has responded straight from the
Grenfell song sheet. Rydon, the main contractor for the Grenfell Tower
cladding, said the work:
… met all required building regulations – as well as fire regulation
and Health & Safety standards – and handover took place when the
completion notice was issued by Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea
building control.
Neo 200 achieved certification and approval from the building
certifier and relevant authorities at the time. We welcome the
opportunity to support any investigation into the incident by
authorities.
This appears to be the property sector’s version of “thoughts and prayers”. We’re very sorry, but there’s nothing we can do.
Sadly, this is far from the truth. We have known of the risk for years and the problem can be rectified.
Governments must act to ensure the cladding identified as a fire risk
on hundreds of buildings is replaced. Further delay in fixing an
identified threat to life is unacceptable.
Before the Grenfell and Neo200 fires, Melbourne had a cladding fire at the Lacrosse building in 2014. This led to an audit of external wall cladding on buildings by the Victorian Building Authority.
Our investigations found dangerous materials are widely used on
buildings throughout Victoria, a finding that is consistent with
inquiries carried out interstate and internationally.
We now know that hundreds of residential buildings are rated as
either a moderate or high risk by the New South Wales and Victorian
governments. Over 350 buildings in Melbourne alone are rated “high
risk”. Neo200 was regarded as only a “moderate risk”.
Residential buildings are particularly vulnerable to the effects of a
cladding fire because people can be asleep and windows are often left
open. The amount of smoke generated by the recent Neo200 fire is
frightening.
In the UK, the central government has given local authorities the
power to replace risky cladding. We should do the same here.
Governments should take rectification out of the hands of dithering
strata committees and, if necessary, carry out the necessary work
directly and recover the costs from the responsible parties.
How did we get to this point?
Polyethylene-cored aluminium sandwich panels – often referred to as aluminium composite panels (ACP), PE or PU panels – were developed 50 years ago,
patented in 1971 and marketed as Alucobond. When the patent expired in
1991 other manufacturers entered the market, including products marketed
as Reynobond (originally Reynolds Aluminium) and Alpolic (Mitsubishi
Chemicals). Now, it is estimated over 200 manufacturers around the world
produce ACP panels.
By the 1990s, ACP was gaining a level of acceptance in the
Australasian construction market. This was aided by the introduction of
performance requirements to replace a previous blanket ban on
combustible materials being used on tall building facades. The timing of
the relaxation of the Building Code of Australia and the introduction
of ACP panels to the Australian market by multinational companies could
be a coincidence.
The general and technical press, including architectural magazines
with wide circulation, reported cladding fires in various types of
materials, including ACP.
What can be done to reduce the risk?
Clearly, a facade fire has serious consequences. The bedrock of all
modern fire regulations is that a fire in a tall building must be
confined to a single storey. A fire spreading from one floor to the
next completely undermines all the elements of protection and control
that make egress routes and firefighting viable.
As we saw at Grenfell, a fire that spreads up the facade and involves
nearly every storey in the building can’t be brought under control.
By 2000, there was widespread concern among fire professionals and some regulators that ACP was a bomb waiting to go off. A paper by Dr Gordon Cooke clearly outlined the risks. It makes chilling reading in the light of the Grenfell disaster.
Luckily, most tall residential buildings in Australia with
combustible ACP cladding have internal sprinkler systems – unlike
Grenfell. We might also be able to buy some time by banning barbecues
and smoking on balconies, but it is doubtful this will be 100%
effective. Another possibility is to physically secure balcony doors
shut, but many owners and tenants might strongly resist this draconian
measure.
As the Neo200 fire demonstrates, even a moderate risk is still quite
risky. It is extraordinary that a fire allegedly lit by a single
smouldering cigarette could spread so quickly across seven floors and
generate so much potentially deadly smoke.
An urgent cladding replacement program certainly has its challenges. A
campaign that involves working on several hundred buildings at once in
Melbourne and Sydney might overload the industry.
Nevertheless, the situation has been created by a lack of action by
governments. Only decisive government action can rectify it. No more
“thoughts and prayers”, enquiries or investigations; just replace the
cladding now.
Author: Geoff Hanmer, Adjunct Lecturer in Architecture, UNSW
Total housing starts in the September 2018 quarter increased in Queensland (8.3 per cent), Western Australia (2.9 per cent) and in the Australian Capital Territory (41.5 per cent). Housing starts declined in the remaining states: South Australia (-18.6 per cent), Victoria (-16.0 per cent), Tasmania (-6.0 per cent), New South Wales (-5.5 per cent) and the Northern Territory (-2.9 per cent).
“Strong levels of new home starts early last year underpinned one of the strongest years of residential building activity on record. Results for the second half of the year reflect the softening that have been evident in the broader housing market,” said HIA Senior Economist, Geordan Murray.
“The ABS today released building activity data for the September quarter of 2018. A total of 54,803 dwellings commenced construction which is down by 5.7 per cent in the quarter and down by 2.2 per cent against the same period a year ago.
“Detached house starts were down by 4.5 per cent in the quarter but were comparable with the level of starts during the September quarter a year earlier.
“Starts of ‘other dwellings’, primarily apartments, were down by 7.1 per cent in the quarter and down by 5.3 per cent on the year-ago level.
“This was a material decline but it can’t be considered a poor result. It was still a strong level of starts and there is a large amount of residential building work underway.
“We’ll continue to monitor activity closely as leading indicators suggest that there were fewer new projects entering the pipeline in the latter stages of 2018. This is a warning bell for the trajectory of starts in 2019.
“As projects that are currently under construction reach completion there are likely to be fewer new projects coming in behind them. This applies to both the detached house market and the market for higher density dwellings.”
The Conversation discusses the lessons from the Opal Tower, and it goes way beyond building certification.
The reasons for the cracked concrete
that triggered the evacuation – twice – of residents from Sydney’s Opal
Tower over Christmas and the New Year are unknown and will take time to
properly establish. Many commentators are jumping to the conclusion
(yes that includes you, Senator Carr)
that the problem is the result of the privatisation of building
certification. Instead of being done by government or council
inspectors, certification is now done by private contractors engaged by
the developer.
It might well be a contributing factor, but what went wrong at Opal
Tower is is much more complex than that. Making certification a
government responsibility again won’t solve it.
Opal is unusual. Very few residential buildings in Australia have
ever been evacuated due to construction defects, and fewer still because
of structural cracking. The vast majority of construction defects in
multi-unit residential buildings are waterproofing failures. Rather than
creating short-term alarm, they create long-term misery. Because misery
does not generate headlines, the problem of quality in multi-unit
housing continues to be ignored by governments.
Most strata buildings are defective
Strata title allows each resident to own the space in which they live
as well as a share of the common property including pipes and walls.
It’s the way apartments are usually sold after they are developed.
We don’t have definitive, current data on the extent of defects in
strata title buildings. Researchers from UNSW’s City Futures Research
Centre have begun collecting the information for Sydney. But there are
clear indications that defects are significant and widespread.
A 2012 study by City Futures surveyed 1,020 strata owners across NSW,
and found 72% of all respondents (85% in buildings built since 2000)
knew of at least one significant defect in their complex.
In 2017 a City of Sydney survey identified defects and maintenance as the top concern of owner occupiers of apartments, along with short-term letting through organisations such as Airbnb.
Unfortunately for those keen to leap to conclusions about
certification, studies showed the same thing back in the early 1990s
when certification was largely in the hands of local governments. In
fact, studies have found the same thing ever since speculative housing
became common in Australia, from the end of World War One.
In fact, ever since speculative housing development and investment
has become common (after World War I in Australia), residential
construction defects have been a concern both here and overseas.
The market for residential buildings is extremely competitive, and
controlling the cost of construction is one of the key factors in making
a profit. Sometimes, the urge to maximise profit dominates to the
extent that both short and long-term construction failures are
inevitable.
It’s the consequence of cost control
There are, of course, reputable developers and builders, but
reputation usually finishes last, undercut by less-reputable players who
produce buildings that are slightly cheaper.
Defects in single-storey speculative houses with pitched roofs are
probably just as common as defects in multi-unit dwellings with flat
roofs, but they are much easier to fix because the houses are close to
the ground and no strata committee is involved.
They are also much easier to find; a competent building inspection
initiated by a purchaser is normally enough to protect the buyer. On the
other hand, a building inspection of a single unit in a multi-unit
development is highly unlikely to find defects which are located
elsewhere in the common property of a building.
The only practical way to make multi-unit dwellings a good investment
for the residents and a decent place to live is for government to take a
pro-active role in driving quality throughout the design and
construction process, not just at the end when the building is certified
for occupation, or at the beginning when it gets a development
approval.
It is a simple reality that no other actor in the construction
process has the capacity to take this role. It is also simpler and
cheaper to build in quality than to rectify defects.
Often, a $1 detail realised for fifty cents will cause endless grief and cost thousands of dollars to fix.
Reducing the amount of rectification required will improve
sustainability outcomes by containing the amount of embodied carbon
incorporated in the building.
If the building performs well, it will have a longer life and that
will reduce the need to eventually replace it with a new building; again
saving materials and improving the outcome for embodied carbon. It is
worth remembering that 20 million tonnes of construction and demolition
waste are produced in Australia each year.
Governments have been reluctant to intervene early
Governments have as good as ignored the problem of defects in
multi-unit residential construction even though they have been aware of
it for years.
This is particularly concerning because the state governments in NSW
and Victoria have been busy spruiking this type of accommodation as the
solution to the pressures of rising populations in Sydney and Melbourne.
Given this, the protections for apartment owners under existing
legislation are ludicrously slight.
Unfortunately, compliance with the National Construction Code (NCC)
in its current form is no guarantee. There are so many ambiguities and
grey areas in the NCC and in the way that it is applied that it is a
guarantee of almost nothing, particularly when it comes to
waterproofing.
A simple example is the construction of balconies with flat slabs,
which is perfectly acceptable under the NCC. The floor slab is
constructed as a single plane from the interior to the exterior of the
building with the waterproof barrier at the balcony being provided by a
masonry wall or a concrete ridge on top of the slab.
This design almost always leaks within a few years. The reliable
solution is to cast the slab with a step, but this is more expensive and
as a consequence is rare. Cut-price membranes under tiled terraces are
also common, causing leaks, mould and misery, despite arguably complying
with the provisions of the NCC.
Fortunately, there is plenty that government could do to improve
quality of multi-unit construction without affecting prices much.
Five stars. Information could drive standards
One clear way forward is to make the construction quality of a building more transparent to buyers.
This could be achieved by introducing a similar sort of quality
assurance scheme to the one government runs to improve safety in cars; a
five-star rating.
People are free to buy a two-star car, but for obvious reasons, not
many do, even if they are cheap. Similarly, it is unlikely that many
people would buy a two-star unit.
It would be perfectly possible to star rate multi-unit housing for
construction quality using an independent assessment body against a
transparent set of criteria.
It’s been tried before
Such a quality assurance scheme was introduced by the now defunct
Building and Construction Council (BACC) in NSW during the 1990s, but
unfortunately foundered due to a lack of funding and will from Bob
Carr’s government. This was a pity, as the scheme was designed to drive
quality through the whole of the building process, from design to
completion.
It still provides a perfectly valid model for a policy that would
actually do something to improve multi-unit construction quality at a
cost which is minimal in relation to the value of the benefits produced.
If a building is built correctly in the first place, then owners will
not need to rely on shonky fly-by-night builders and developers for
rectification works nor need to claim against complex insurance
policies.
If the NSW and Victorian governments are serious about having a greater proportion of people live in multi-unit developments, they have a responsibility to do something about their quality before we are left with a overhang of misery, leaks and failures. Just ask the residents and owners of Opal Tower.
Author Geoff Hanmer: Adjunct Lecturer in Architecture, Univeristy of NSW, UNSW
The number of dwellings approved in Australia fell by 2.3 per cent in November 2018, in trend terms, according to data released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) today.
“The trend for total dwellings has been steadily declining over the past twelve months,” said Justin Lokhorst, Director of Construction Statistics at the ABS. “The series is now 18.3 per cent lower than at the same time last year.”
NUMBER OF TOTAL DWELLING UNITS
The trend estimate for total dwellings approved fell 2.3% in November.
NUMBER OF PRIVATE SECTOR HOUSES
The trend estimate for private sector houses approved fell 0.3% in November.
NUMBER OF PRIVATE SECTOR DWELLINGS EXCLUDING HOUSES
The decrease in November was driven by private sector dwellings excluding houses (e.g. townhouses and apartments), which fell 5.0 per cent. Private sector houses also declined, by 0.3 per cent.
Among the states and territories, dwelling approvals fell in November in the Australian Capital Territory (9.5 per cent), South Australia (6.2 per cent), Western Australia (4.5 per cent), Queensland (3.4 per cent) and New South Wales (3.1 per cent) in trend terms. Tasmania (3.5 per cent) and Victoria (0.6 per cent) were the only states to record increases, while the Northern Territory was flat.
Approvals for private sector houses fell 0.3 per cent in November in trend terms. Victoria (0.7 per cent) and New South Wales (0.1 per cent) rose, while decreases were recorded in Queensland (1.8 per cent), South Australia (1.0 per cent) and Western Australia (0.7 per cent).
In seasonally adjusted terms, total dwellings fell by 9.1 per cent in November, driven by a 17.9 per cent decrease in private dwellings excluding houses. Private houses fell 2.6 per cent in seasonally adjusted terms.
The value of total building approved fell 0.8 per cent in November, in trend terms, and has fallen for 12 months. The value of residential building fell 1.6 per cent, while non-residential building rose 0.6 per cent.
HIA Blames Credit Supply
The HIA were quick to blame tighter lending, blaming the banks for tightening too far. No, HIA, they are now obeying the law!
“This weak result shows just how much the current credit squeeze is weighing on the home building sector.
“The credit squeeze is happening at the behest of the banks’ own lending practices which have been tightened above and beyond APRA’s requirements.
“HIA research has found that the time taken to gain approval for a loan to build a new home has blown out from around two weeks to more than two months.
“APRA’s decision late last year to lift its 30 per cent cap on banks’ interest-only lending is a welcome development, but more needs to be done to mitigate the growing risks of a hard-landing in the housing market.
“Policy makers and lenders alike need to be cognisant that ordinary home buyers are now facing blow- outs in loan processing times and also much greater rates of flat-out loan rejection. Today’s results show how this is weighing substantially on the new home building sector.
“We’ve long been anticipating the current downturn in new home building, but there is a risk it could develop more quickly and strongly than expected.
“In particular policy makers and lenders will need to respond judiciously to the pending release of the Banking Royal Commission’s recommendations.”
In the light of the Opal Tower, and other problem buildings, property expert Joe Wilkes and I discussed the underlying drivers of these issues, in the light of his recent trip to Auckland and the New Zealand economy.
It seems when short term “value creation” (= Greed?) is king, standards, amenity value and community all go out of the window.
And the main stream “housing shortage” story does not help!