A View on the Australian Building Industry 2012 – Part 3
A View on the Australian Building Industry 2012 – Part 3
After 37 years in the building industry, I suggest building standards have now fallen to a standard below that existing prior to my graduation. In the interest of reducing bureaucracy and facilitating development, we have eliminated well established safeguards on the quality of the end product as well as the quality of the workplace. I believe it is time for an urgent review. Part three is the third of four reports presenting my view of different aspects of the building industry.
When I started my own consultancy business in 1984, clients still generally used the traditional consultancy agreement with a full tender process involving full architectural and engineering design and a bill of quantities, prepared by a quantity surveyor. That system was criticised over a long period of time because the client considered that too often he was paying for variations generated due to error and dispute between the builder and the various consultants. In consequence, the market generally moved towards ‘Design and Construct’ contracts. I suggest that we have substantially eliminated that problem. However after 20 years since its introduction, I suggest urgent readjustments are now required. The industry may have solved one problem but in my view have created other far more serious ones in the process. I consider some of those problems (Part 3) to be as follows:
The Land and Environment Court I believe that my view that the Land and Environment Court is unnecessarily excessively involved in project approvals is shared by many. I also suggest that the current system is far too complex due to the excessive number of Development Control Plans in NSW. As such, I suggest that this is a major cause of excessive legal litigation. I recommend that in order to simplify the system, a NSW state-wide limit of 12 Development Control Plans should be introduced. This work should be organised through the body of the local authorities. Thereafter, to ease approvals, particularly for individual households, I advocate electing a committee of senior architects and engineers to a ‘Building Application Review Board’ (BARB). This board would function to review DA approvals for projects in dispute. This would occur in a mediatory manner avoiding the often lengthy and costly formal mediation. However, failing any agreement, the court would be still be used, utilising the work done in this intermediate stage.
Costs to society We pride ourselves on thinking we build quicker than anyone in the world. Please refer to the enclosed extract from page 3 of the Sydney Morning Herald article, dated 21st May 2012, entitled “Most New Strata-Title Properties have Defects”. In that article, it states that up to 85% of new apartments built in NSW are plagued by defects. From my own experience, I always advise my clients that in Sydney 2012, any purchase of a unit in a block of units which is less than 5 years old is almost certainly involved in litigation of some sort in order to have the original building works appropriately completed. Therefore, it is not surprising that we consider ourselves the quickest in the world when we only do half the job properly. The cost to the taxpayer and home-owner to fix up all the errors in buildings after completion means we are actually slower and more expensive in the long run. It is well established that many contractors stopped building residential units in the early 2000’s because the system meant they had more company staff on the job after completion dealing with problems from the owners than on the job building them in the first place. The cause of the problem is that there is insufficient supervision of the works on all levels during construction. The system is not advantageous to any individual party. The system has degraded to a point where no seems able to reverse the process. After the GFC, companies were forced back into residential development through the Government’s ‘Building Education Revolution’ and ‘Low Cost Housing’ programs. I have firsthand experience the same problems plaguing the industry in 2000, remain in 2012.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you wish to discuss these matters.
Yours sincerely
Charles Rickard
FIEAust, FIStructE, MICE, CEng, MIPENZ, NPR-3
RH Consulting Engineers
Specialist Structural, Civil, Façade and Diagnostic Engineer
Suite 5, 121 Military Road, Neutral Bay NSW 2089
Ph:+61 2 9904 5610
Fax:+61 2 9904 5642
Mobile:+61 418 238 247
Email: charles@charlesrickard.com.au
A View on the Australian Building Industry 2012 – Part 3
After 37 years in the building industry, I suggest building standards have now fallen to a standard below that existing prior to my graduation. In the interest of reducing bureaucracy and facilitating development, we have eliminated well established safeguards on the quality of the end product as well as the quality of the workplace. I believe it is time for an urgent review. Part three is the third of four reports presenting my view of different aspects of the building industry.
When I started my own consultancy business in 1984, clients still generally used the traditional consultancy agreement with a full tender process involving full architectural and engineering design and a bill of quantities, prepared by a quantity surveyor. That system was criticised over a long period of time because the client considered that too often he was paying for variations generated due to error and dispute between the builder and the various consultants. In consequence, the market generally moved towards ‘Design and Construct’ contracts. I suggest that we have substantially eliminated that problem. However after 20 years since its introduction, I suggest urgent readjustments are now required. The industry may have solved one problem but in my view have created other far more serious ones in the process. I consider some of those problems (Part 3) to be as follows:
The Land and Environment Court I believe that my view that the Land and Environment Court is unnecessarily excessively involved in project approvals is shared by many. I also suggest that the current system is far too complex due to the excessive number of Development Control Plans in NSW. As such, I suggest that this is a major cause of excessive legal litigation. I recommend that in order to simplify the system, a NSW state-wide limit of 12 Development Control Plans should be introduced. This work should be organised through the body of the local authorities. Thereafter, to ease approvals, particularly for individual households, I advocate electing a committee of senior architects and engineers to a ‘Building Application Review Board’ (BARB). This board would function to review DA approvals for projects in dispute. This would occur in a mediatory manner avoiding the often lengthy and costly formal mediation. However, failing any agreement, the court would be still be used, utilising the work done in this intermediate stage.
Costs to society We pride ourselves on thinking we build quicker than anyone in the world. Please refer to the enclosed extract from page 3 of the Sydney Morning Herald article, dated 21st May 2012, entitled “Most New Strata-Title Properties have Defects”. In that article, it states that up to 85% of new apartments built in NSW are plagued by defects. From my own experience, I always advise my clients that in Sydney 2012, any purchase of a unit in a block of units which is less than 5 years old is almost certainly involved in litigation of some sort in order to have the original building works appropriately completed. Therefore, it is not surprising that we consider ourselves the quickest in the world when we only do half the job properly. The cost to the taxpayer and home-owner to fix up all the errors in buildings after completion means we are actually slower and more expensive in the long run. It is well established that many contractors stopped building residential units in the early 2000’s because the system meant they had more company staff on the job after completion dealing with problems from the owners than on the job building them in the first place. The cause of the problem is that there is insufficient supervision of the works on all levels during construction. The system is not advantageous to any individual party. The system has degraded to a point where no seems able to reverse the process. After the GFC, companies were forced back into residential development through the Government’s ‘Building Education Revolution’ and ‘Low Cost Housing’ programs. I have firsthand experience the same problems plaguing the industry in 2000, remain in 2012.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you wish to discuss these matters.
Yours sincerely
Charles Rickard
FIEAust, FIStructE, MICE, CEng, MIPENZ, NPR-3
RH Consulting Engineers
Specialist Structural, Civil, Façade and Diagnostic Engineer
Suite 5, 121 Military Road, Neutral Bay NSW 2089
Ph:+61 2 9904 5610
Fax:+61 2 9904 5642
Mobile:+61 418 238 247