Fire Safety !

The aftermath of the Grenfell Tower disaster in London sends a long shadow.  About one thousand five hundred tower blocks in Sydney are fitted with a similar flammable exterior cladding and pose an unacceptable risk to residents.   The city will receive a safety audit and where this danger exists compulsory removal will be ordered.

This is shaping up to be a financial disaster for many families struggling to repay a crippling mortgage to secure a foothold in the Sydney housing price bubble.  Many abandoned the dream of a nice home on a block of land with a backyard and settled for a city apartment and bought on the understanding that the new building met all aspects of the building code.  By law, it must be inspected and approved by the responsible council before residents are allowed to move in.

This cladding adds no structural benefit to the building.  It is purely for cosmetic purposes and if removed and not replaced the building will present a rather ugly concrete shell.  As was evident in the London fire, if left in place it could allow a unit fire to escape and climb the outer walls of the building until the entire structure becomes a flaming torch.

Putting this right is going to involve costs that will in some cases top well over a million dollars.  What is painfully unclear, is just who will have to foot that bill ?  Unfortunately, it seems likely to fall on the shoulders of individual unit owners - and yet they are the least responsible party.

The building code requires the material used in a building to meet specified standards and it is the responsibility of the architects, the council that approves the plans and the builder to adhere to those guidelines.  When the building is finished, it is the relevant council that signs off and testifies that those conditions have been met.

Expect to see a lot of building companies, investment firms that finance new buildings and importers either go into voluntary liquidation or move their operation overseas as this debacle moves to the legal stage.  All concerned make their money as the new building is constructed and units are sold to future owners.  The only " sitting duck " is the council responsible for approving the plans and supervising the job and it is probably that imported building materials were deliberately described with falsified accreditation.

With everybody else ducking for cover, it is the individual unit owners who are left to cleanup this mess.  If the legal system throws the weight of rectification back on the councils that approved the buildings it may make some of them insolvent.  In many cases, this cladding has been used to renovate older buildings to give them a more modern look - further complicating the search for responsibility.

If nothing else, it highlights the need for a complete revision of all aspects of the relevant building code.