Apartment Fire - Flammable Cladding (VIC)

bobbified on 04/02/2019 - 10:34
Last edited 04/02/2019 - 10:36

The residents in the Neo200 building seem to have had a lucky escape this morning after fire spread up the side of the building.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-02-04/spencer-street-apartm…

Firefighters believed the building was covered in the same material as London's Grenfell Tower, in which 72 people died in 2017.

It is something that crossed my mind when looking at apartments recently, but I searched and could not find the audit report that lists the impacted buildings. I've heard from a few sources that the report still hasn't been publicly released.

The estimate is $40-60k to fix each apartment and I guess releasing this report will impact the prices of those apartments significantly - however, money aside, it would still be good to know which buildings are at-risk from a safety point of view.

It's now been two years since the report and I think it's absolute bullsh.t that the report hasn't been released.

I'm keen to know if anyone has got their hands on that particular report or knows where I can see it?

Home & Garden

Comments

  • Donaldhump on 04/02/2019 - 10:58
    +2

    i think your best off staying away from highrises for a while in general

    • bobbified on 04/02/2019 - 11:05

      Too late, it was a gamble that I willingly took. There's no other real option for CBD living (other than renting which I did for more than 5 years).

      I'm still curious as to whether the one I'm living in is impacted.

  • swapsey on 04/02/2019 - 10:59

    Interim report and updates can be found on the taskforce site.

    • bobbified on 04/02/2019 - 11:06

      Thanks - Is there a list there that I've been missing?

      I've been going to that site regularly but haven't found anything the information is quite generic and doesn't identify the actual buildings that are impacted.

      • swapsey on 04/02/2019 - 11:15

        Not that I am aware of - they probably don’t want to scare people off, costs a lot of money if people lose confidence in high rise. Probably send us into recession pretty quick.

        • bobbified on 04/02/2019 - 11:44

          they probably don’t want to scare people of

          That's true - having it out there will help people make more informed choices.

        • HighAndDry on 04/02/2019 - 12:08
          +1

          they probably don’t want to scare people off

          Scare people off buying into high rises which might go up in an inferno? I'd have thought that'd be a in the public interest.

          • Diji1 on 04/02/2019 - 15:05
            +1

            @HighAndDry:

            I'd have thought that'd be a in the public interest.

            HighAndDry thinks the Government works for the public interest.

            Cute.

            • HighAndDry on 04/02/2019 - 15:13
              +2

              @Diji1: No, I'm actually agreeing with you here that they should work in the public interest and so the report should be released.

              • try2bhelpful on 04/02/2019 - 17:07
                +1

                @HighAndDry: They probably won't release anything until the legal issues have been thrashed out. My understanding is the cladding has been going on for some time and affects a large number of building so this is a big messy timebomb. Personally, I would be interested in two lists - the ones that have been identified and the ones that have been cleared. Just because a building is not on the list it doesn't mean it has been cleared - it may not have been inspected yet. This is what happens when you cut corners - they learnt nothing from the "Towering Inferno". One of the interesting things I read today is they think they can cut down the risk by only removing panels at alternate storeys so the chimney effect is reduced.

                • HighAndDry on 04/02/2019 - 17:23

                  @try2bhelpful: Seconded. While I understand there may be legal consequences, I don't see any legal issues in what is really a factual issue, being: "Does this building contain cladding of the type which has been identified as being dangerously flammable." That, to me at least, is a simple Yes/No question.

                  One of the interesting things I read today is they think they can cut down the risk by only removing panels at alternate storeys so the chimney effect is reduced.

                  While this is good - and can lower rectification costs for the owners of buildings with the issue, I still think buyers should really have the opportunity to make up their own minds on whether this reduced risk is acceptable to them. I'm generally a caveat emptor kind of person, but where 1. the information has already been gathered, and 2. it was gathered by the government using taxpayer money, I see no reason the information shouldn't be publicly available.

                  • try2bhelpful on 05/02/2019 - 07:30

                    @HighAndDry: Completely agree with you, someone needs to be spanked for letting this happen in the first place. I would be getting, in writing, what cladding was used on a building before I bought any apartment, nowdays. I also think all cladding should be replaced, however, this would be a good way to reduce the issue quicker.

                    • Chandler on 05/02/2019 - 10:24

                      @try2bhelpful:

                      I would be getting, in writing, what cladding was used on a building before I bought any apartment, nowdays.

                      And here it is. Simple solution.

                      Whilst I agree that the list should be publicised and the government shouldn't be protecting builders/developers who cut corners and used cheaper cladding, a simple question when looking to purchase of what cladding is used gives the buyer peace of mind and a legal footing if they were misled/outright lied to.

                      Just make sure you get your answer in writing!

                      • HighAndDry on 05/02/2019 - 11:21

                        @Chandler:

                        a simple question when looking to purchase of what cladding is used

                        If the seller/strata/body corp answers. If they just don't answer, or answers with something like "we rely on [document]" where that document doesn't actually tell you, then the buyer is in the same position.

                        • try2bhelpful on 05/02/2019 - 18:38
                          +1

                          @HighAndDry: If you aren't happy with the answer you either don't buy the property or you assume it does have the "bad" cladding and include the price of replacement in your purchase price. Simple.

                          The legal position is the real problem here - they still seem to be thrashing out who is responsible for what. Whatever happens this is going to be very expensive to rectify.

                          I would also like to know how this is affecting people's insurance.

                          People keep whining about the "nanny state' but, obviously, nanny should've kept a closer eye on what was happening here.

  • tsunamisurfer on 04/02/2019 - 11:47

    The accusation by those Grenfell Tower residents is that they were screwed over because of their low socio economic status.

    Thankfully after this episode, we can put that to rest, since high socio economic buildings / residents have had the same treatment.

    • [Deactivated] on 04/02/2019 - 12:01

      Because there's a secret society of all middle and high income groups to screw over the poor.

      I hardly ever see secrets between three people kept secret. Must be one tight-lipped couple of social economic groups.

    • HighAndDry on 04/02/2019 - 12:10

      That was a stupid accusation to begin with - there needs to be no conspiracy for low socioeconomic demographics to be screwed over: Between generally lower levels of education, discipline and life habits, intelligence, access to advice, and ability to just afford higher quality goods and services - it's part and parcel of of being in a low socioeconomic demographic.

    • tranter on 04/02/2019 - 12:37

      It's not simply because of the cladding. There are several factors outlined in a number of reports released since the Grenfell fire.

      The severity and outcome of the two fires can't even be compared.

      • tsunamisurfer on 04/02/2019 - 12:48

        Yes….but those impacted DGAF……they are always the first to scream victim.

        • tranter on 04/02/2019 - 12:51

          It wasn't only them saying it. There are even government reports outlining certain 'policy trends'.

          And yes, they were victims.

          • tsunamisurfer on 04/02/2019 - 12:56

            @tranter: Victims of unfortunate circumstance.

            Not some secretive illuminati chapter packing them into tinderbox homes and lighting it for sh!ts and gigs.

            • tranter on 04/02/2019 - 13:01

              @tsunamisurfer: I agree with your second sentence but not the first.

              They were victims and unfortunate, but not victims of unfortunate circumstance.

      • HighAndDry on 04/02/2019 - 12:48
        +2

        Yeah that's true. The Grenfell Towers had an unfortunate combination of factors in addition to the cladding. I think I read they had a tonne of non-compliant fire-doors, non-working firefighter lifts, sprinklers (or sprinkler pumps?) which didn't work, and apparently a policy of telling people in burning buildings to stay put instead of evacuating…

    • Diji1 on 04/02/2019 - 15:08

      That just seems like confirmation bias using two unrelated events to confirm your own views on … neoliberal economics? Disdain for the poor?

      • HighAndDry on 04/02/2019 - 15:16

        Not really. Fire safety services/hardware are at the cost of each building's owners, if London's strata(-equivalent) works anything like Australia's. It's not really too surprising that owners in a lower socioeconomic building would be more likely to try and cut corners in this respect (and likewise on other long-term and expensive maintenance items).

        The fact that the building was wrapped in basically kindling isn't the owners' fault - but the failure to maintain or have serviceable/usable fire safety devices fitted throughout the building is on the owners as a whole, as unpalatable as that fact may be, seeing as many of them paid very dearly for that oversight.

  • Caped Baldy on 04/02/2019 - 12:13
    +1

    As awful as it was, I feel that the Grenfell disaster will be unlikely to occur here on a similar scale. That building was very old and did not have an isolated set of fire stairs or connected fire alarms.

    • mskeggs on 04/02/2019 - 17:33

      Note the Victorian buildings had disabled smoke alarms.
      A friend did fire inspections as part of a refit project updating fire doors on high rises in Sydney, and he said the majority of apartments had disabled alarms.
      If you want to cook with a wok, and avoid the false alarm call out fee you need to disable the alarms, at least the cheap ones in the buildings he was inspecting.

  • altomic on 04/02/2019 - 12:52
    +2

    was there also a loud cracking sound?

    • bobbified on 04/02/2019 - 13:55

      Glad there wasn't! lol

  • mskeggs on 04/02/2019 - 17:30
    +1

    I understand the complete list is available on the metro fire brigade intranet.
    If you know somebody there, they might be able to check your address. Otherwise, maybe an FOI request.

    Bottom line for me is I would not buy a high rise with any cladding until this is sorted, or I had a reliable inspection that the building is unaffected.

    • HighAndDry on 04/02/2019 - 17:36
      +1

      Otherwise, maybe an FOI request.

      Unfortunately this has apparently been tried and failed:

      https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/apartment-sales-hi…

      The government and Victorian Building Authority have refused to publicly identify which buildings were involved.

      “I decided that I am not prepared to buy an apartment unless I can be assured that it is not covered in flammable cladding,” Mr Broussard said.

      To find out, he submitted a freedom of information request to the building authority in March asking for the list of the buildings’ names and locations. His application was refused.

      Disclosing the information increased the potential of terrorism or arson offences, would cause speculation and confusion, and might reflect badly on the professionalism of the companies and people involved, the authority stated.

      • Shadowsfury on 04/02/2019 - 19:02
        +2

        I'm actually OK with all the responses except this one - "might reflect badly on the professionalism of the companies and people involved"

        Errr - they effed up - why not name and shame?

        • HighAndDry on 04/02/2019 - 19:05
          +1

          My issue is that I think that's the bulk of the reasoning and "potential of terrorism and arson offences" reads like a blatant smokescreen given the Grenfell Towers fire was years ago and since then there have been zero such incidents.

        • bobbified on 04/02/2019 - 20:40

          Agree.. it's the biggest crock of an excuse.

          I lived in a building for a few years with stacks of defects. I'm so glad I was renting. The OC reps warned me never to buy a building built by LU Simon.

          I'm glad I didn't because the LaCrosse and Neo200 buildings were built by them too.

          There's a couple of other developers as well, but the LU Simon name keeps popping up in the news articles.

          I emailed the OC of my building this morning and they came back to say that the council and VBA did inspections in 2017 and they confirmed compliance. I'm glad for that, at least!

  • x2r9ypbj on 05/02/2019 - 10:45

    Fancy buying cladding from China like all their products just rubbish what do you expect Developers/Builders saving a buck
    don't worry about lives being lost. Also what a weak Victorian Government we have got said they would fix up this problem

  • Hobbo on 05/02/2019 - 11:00

    Why are there so many excuses on who’s fault this problem is. The fact is it’s a FIRE HAZARD ANY FIRE HAZARD ELSE WHERE would be the owners responsibility however where is the building guarantees on faulty building practices. The other question is the building inspector who gave the ok for this cladding. Who issued the occupancy certificates they should all be held accountable. The owners bought in good faith they should not be responsible. If these buildings were cars then they would be recalled to fix the problem. The government & Melbourne city council are in damage control as per usual in circumstances that they are responsible for

  • meumax on 05/02/2019 - 15:58

    Just go outside and look up at your building. It's pretty easy to spot aluminium cladding.

    The building in renting in we received a letter from the NSW cladding task force notifying is the building was flagged for investigation. But I already knew it would be because the facade is aluminium clad.

  • swapsey on 05/02/2019 - 16:01

    I just read that the Victorian Planning Minister Richard Wynne has blamed arsonists for not releasing the list. They don't want people to be tempted to light a match and see a building go up within minutes, like Grenfell. I kid you not. (This is not a parody account.)

    • try2bhelpful on 05/02/2019 - 19:28

      Well, he might have a point given people go out on the worst firehazard days and deliberately light bushfires. You really think there wouldn't be people who would see this as an opportunity for some "fun"?

      This could be addressed for people buying apartments by ensuring selling documentation includes if the building has potentially hazardous cladding. But it won't help people looking for, e.g. Air BnB accomodation to know if there are potential issues.

      • swapsey on 05/02/2019 - 19:36

        So let's keep the list private to protect people and then Neo200 goes up in smokes today. It was a cigarette - that's all it takes!

        Residents of Neo200 did not know they have the same cladding as Grenfell Tower. AirBNB or renter or owner occupier. They are all sitting ducks. 2,000 buildings were assessed and 1200 are at risk. 360 are at the highest risk.

        • try2bhelpful on 05/02/2019 - 19:44

          Absolutely agree that anyone who is in a building that is affected should be told - they should also be given a timeline on how the issue is going to be resolved for their building. I can just understand that putting the list out to the general public might be a red rag to a bull for the crazies.

          Given the issue with the cladding I'm also concerned about what other short cuts might've been done by builders. It will be interesting to see how well these buildings age. They are going to be a nightmare to bring down because a reasonable number of these towers sit very close to each other.

  • try2bhelpful on 05/02/2019 - 19:30

    This might be one of the reasons why they won't release the list

    https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/we-ve-the-worst-…

    They don't want to be liable if the list is incomplete.

  • capslock on 06/02/2019 - 13:38

    I think it should at least be disclosed in the contract of sale. You don't want to be buying into an apartment just to have to pay for a huge cladding replacement bill.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join