Sydney is a city built on a sandstone base and this is the ideal medium through which to build the tunnels needed for a modern rail and road system. Once these tunnels would have been constructed by the pick and shovel method but today we have giant mechanical boring machines working away quietly as far as forty metres below the surface.
It quickly became obvious that existing homes above these tunnels were experiencing significant wall cracking and foundation movements. Owners were assured that they would be compensated but so far claims for damages are being flatly rejected. The tunnel builder claims that monitoring equipment in place to detect movement caused by tunnelling is finding no evidence of damage caused and the wall cracking must be a result of unusual weather patterns.
We have just experienced both a record drought and the hottest year since recording temperatures began. It is evident that the legal profession is gearing up for a litigation fight and it can be argued that the lack of moisture in the soil will have an effect on the building materials used in older homes. Many of the affected structures are over a hundred years old.
What home owners are experiencing here is the classic legal defence. Deny liability and put the onus of proof back on the claimant. The stage seems set for a battle between various experts who will claim expertise in land movement and the monitoring equipment which will be vital in deciding on how movement outcomes will be judged. Like the outcome of all cases decided in the law courts, the final decision handed down is not predictable.
Many affected home owners complain that the system is rigged against them. Legislation intended to decide compensation for damage caused by the tunnelling requires a post construction report from engineers engaged by the tunnelling company. This report then goes to Roads and Maritime Services for an independent review of the claim.
Owners would be well advised to form an association to fight as a united body rather than proceed as individual owners. The legal costs will be daunting for both sides and many individual homes have repair quotes that run to more than a hundred thousand dollars. The charm of these older homes is often their high ceilings and graceful architecture and they were constructed of materials not used in the building trade today. If the builder loses the case, the financial outcome will be massive.
The fact that this damage seems restricted to older houses will probably raise the issue of the life expectancy of structures. While these old homes have charm, they are difficult to heat in winter and have poor sound proofing in this noisy age. The value to the owner is usually exceeded by the value of the land they are sitting on. We are fast entering the age where demolition and rebuilding is a better option than repair.
What is very obvious is that this issue will not be settled easily - or quickly. The people involved can expect a long fight in the courts and probably a continuation in the appeals courts, irrespective of which way the decision goes. Pig headed people on both sides are unlikely to agree to any form of a negotiated settlement.
No comments:
Post a Comment