On the second point, that the different colours leading Victoria and NSW have delivered similar legislation suggests it is not a partisan issue.
A more direct response would be asking if Developers in Qld are more effective lobbyists? It doesn’t justify the loss incurred by the consumer.
It would be useful to see evidence of the effectiveness of NSW and Victoria responding to contracts that cannot be delivered within the time frames agreed.
Note:
In the Queensland example the purchaser does have an option to independently pursue the developer through the courts. The assumption is the evidence can be found to substantiate a deliberate act by the developer intended to disadvantage the buyer. Unlikely cost or time effective for a single land sale.
In NSW and Vic it’s up to the developer to prepare and argue their case.
Qld is again in the news with Gold Coast Council apparently stonewalling their part. Between developers and governments/councils it seems a pretty special place.
Homes in Spring Farm near Camden are sinking and cracking ……
In this instance there were enough affected owners to commence a class action. It’s worth noting that insurance may not cover failures of a building at the foundation.
Which is why the owners in this instance from NSW, or the prior example from Queensland are seeking remedy directly from the developer. The planning and development departments in councils map land hazards such as flooding, bushfire hazard, acid sulphate soils, landslip etc. They are supposedly assessed as part of the building and development approvals required by Councils. It’s a fair question to ask why approvals were granted.
NT joins the news. The article states the dwellings were not built to standards but there is no reference to prosecution, and much reference to government records having no related records. Caveat emptor once again.
There are many different failures raised since this topic opened.
In the beginning what proceeds relies on a rigorous, and independently reliable planning and approval process.
Right?
One that should assure all outcomes meet community expectations.
Who the community is and which expectations are to be considered is not always clear.
The council agreed with the local community in 2018 on a 3 or 4 storey height restriction. The initial planning approval recommendation for 7 stories, supposedly meets other community needs. The locals are arguing it’s not their needs. It will go to the councillors for further consideration.
There after if not approved, the developer can appeal at State level. Often a very different community that may put state development ahead of other needs. If successful, does this send a message to developers that they are approved/entitled to do all things their way, and another message to the community that speaking up is futile. From the first approval to the last dollar of construction.
Looking ahead some failures are easier to forecast than others. Cost cutting, and promises on the cheap are not unique to high rise. The $17B “Inland Rail Project” is reusing the slightly older Murray River rail bridge, built in 1884 in latticed iron.
Simply as national insurance, a second rail bridge needs to be considered for the project. Ballpark cost? About another $100m. In 200 years, no one will care.
By comparison, the existing bridge cost £32,519 in 1884. In 2020 values that’s about $100,000. That’s about $800 per year, and good value for 140 years of work.
The project overall has numerous examples of cost reduction and taking the cheaper alternative. How well might it work out? The MTM solution to the NBN highlights similar thinking, except for the Inland Rail, it’s a single solution that can only ever be as good as it’s weakest link.
Does it provide for a high speed rail future, electrified and green? There are many ways projects can lack foresight. As The Guardian noted a similar project might budget $40B if to best European practice.
More Infrastructure failures to note, Approx 150mm of rain in a week is apparently record breaking for inland South Australia. It’s been enough to put the rail line connecting WA and the NT to the rest of Australia out of action. In latest updates for up to 3 weeks. No one had yet put an economic cost on the failure.
It’s also seen the Stuart Highway closed and trucking making a detour via Queensland.
There is another sealed road connection across the Barkley Hwy between Queensland and the NT. And a missing rail link of approx 650km, gauge also an issue.
Certainly it would be good to standardise rail gauges across Australia, this would make a national rail network that would make transfer of goods and people much more organised. Trouble being the infrastructure cost to make it a standard gauge including rolling stock widths and changes to already in place lines, this cost would be staggering with perhaps one State being a winner in this…which one? Well that would only be known after the back and forth and biffing had been settled.
Still worth the investigation to see what it would cost and what the benefits, if any, would really be. But this all is a totally different topic to this existing one.
In one way, but a true oversight pre Federation that the 19th century Colonial power in London allowed each State to go different ways. Despite sense prevailing in the UK from 1846.
Topical in a broad sense that failures to regulate and oversee major construction are not a recent legislative challenge. The compromise between expediency, lower costs and lack of legislated oversight might be a fatal flaw in 1879. It’s more difficult to understand similar from todays constructors or legislative leadership.
QBCC is being looked at as not fit for purpose. The sad part is it has not been fit for purpose for a l.o.n.g time and Qld pollies have sat on their shiny bums for fear of alientating the developers/donors. What has changed to wake them up, or is it just ‘time to do’ by their electoral clocks?
Probably a result of the approaching deep look into the ethical standards of the Qld Labor Government. The first part has already been brutal for them and further review is not likely to be an improvement.
While I don’t think any party in Qld has been good, Labor has held the reins long enough to be easily held responsible for what has occurred during their reign. Part of the issue is that we don’t have an upper house of review like most other States, if we did I think there would have been more challenges to Government business and businesses.
Fair comment.
However note the ABC has updated the heading for the report as it often does during the day to read,
Independent review into Queensland Building and Construction Commission recommends overhaul of regulator’s structure and culture
Separately re Mr Kumar’s complaint.
Without further details of what the QBCC has inspected, or an independent building assessor, the extent of the cracking may be acceptable. As odd as that might seam one independent business indicates gaps up to 5mm due to cracking are acceptable, based on national standards. The concern would be if it is a symptom of structural or foundation failures. It would appear the rejection of the claim is not necessarily a symptom of a failing within the QBCC? That it’s acceptable at all is a much broader question for the industry nationally.
While there may be issues with the QBCC the ABC should have (IMO) sought and referenced a suitably qualified professional in support of that portion of their report.
Maybe so, but noting the article is not as complete as would be preferred, it is implied no one excepting the builder had a look, and their word was taken at face value.
Down in Vic when I got my inspection report on ‘this house’ a problem was called out that was a bit worrisome. Being in the warranty period the builder eventually attended, had a look, reported no worries no problem, case closed. I spent a few $thousand’s fixing it.
It might have survived forever or not, but to an inspector as well as a layman it was not done properly, thus my bias siding with the homeowner.
There is every reason to side with the home owner.
The location and type of cracking in the plasterboard (dry wall) is possibly due to more than shrinkage or movement at a cornice or sheet joint which is typical of many older homes. Mr Kumar might need to consider a thorough independent inspection in the near future to be sure.
I was surprised to read what is acceptable after the fact. The reported extent of the defects that have developed would I am about to suggest be unacceptable at handover, purely on meeting good workmanship.
News articles are typically reduced to a form and length likely to be most engaging. This leaves us with less on this one small part of the ABC article to relate to.
Victoria seems at the forefront of FU as relates to holding bad builders responsible. It is embarrassing there is so little real protection from them who can get re-registered, phoenix, and in cases become pedestrian rogues who carry on outside the ‘laws’ and they seemingly are rarely (ever?) held accountable in comparison to the scope of their misdeeds. A recent article…
Some may think he paid the price. Are those ‘some’ out $100,000s to fix their build after a ‘guilty’.
Whether this offers any reassurance, Westpac and who knows how many customers will be left out of pocket, and For some their future homes. Note Toplace has ongoing works ordered to remedy building defects. These will also be affected.
