Columns
10 years on Image

10 years on

Top yachts to compete at Docklands
Read more >>

Away from the desk Image

Away from the desk

The little bent tree
Read more >>

Chamber update Image

Chamber update

Strategic goals for 2020
Read more >>

Docklander Image

Docklander

Dental saving kids in Timor Leste
Read more >>

Docklands Secrets Image

Docklands Secrets

Conflicting speeds
Read more >>

Fashion Image

Fashion

Top five street style trends
Read more >>

Health and Wellbeing Image

Health and Wellbeing

Setting SMART goals for 2020
Read more >>

Business Image

Business

Best noodles close to work
Read more >>

Owners Corporation Law Image

Owners Corporation Law

Embedded electricity networks are ripping off consumers
Read more >>

Pets Corner Image

Pets Corner

On the wild side
Read more >>

Precinct Perspectives

Celebrate at Victoria Harbour
Read more >>

SkyPad Living Image

SkyPad Living

Vertical dwelling is now mainstream
Read more >>

Street Art Image

Street Art

Goodbye from Blender Studios
Read more >>

Sustainability

A sustainable festive season
Read more >>

The District

Supporting Kids Under Cover this Christmas
Read more >>

We Live Here Image

We Live Here

Short-stay violence spurs action
Read more >>

Abby's Angle  Image

Abby's Angle

The symbolism of the arrow
Read more >>

Smoke and mirrors cloud the cladding issue

28 Feb 2019

Editorial Comment, By Shane Scanlan

The Neo200 fire in Spencer St on February 4 reignited public disgust that, five years after Lacrosse, this can still happen. But it will continue to happen until liability is determined.

Until “who’s to blame” is universally accepted and legally binding, no real progress is possible.

Like in the 2014 Lacrosse case, builder LU Simon was singled out and besmirched in the media as the obvious villain. But does the “builder” actually define what materials should be used? Or does the builder merely follow the plans and specifications provided?

Wouldn’t the developer, in collaboration with architects, define these things?

What about the role of the fire engineers?

And (to directly address the elephant in the room), what about the role of the building inspectors? Surely the organisation that signed off the building carries responsibility?

It has been well documented that outsourced building inspections have failed the public, but you won’t hear that from the state government. And that’s because such an admission would invite liability to its door. The role may be technically outsourced, but it’s done on behalf of government.

The Melbourne Municipal Building Surveyor finds himself in a curious position in these cladding fire situations. Issuing building orders to rectify problems caused by “approved” non-compliant materials is not a good look.

The Victorian Building Authority and municipal councils are happy to make demands of owners. A series of notices were dispatched late last year.

Indeed, the government position is to burden apartment owners with the responsibility and cost of rectification works. How is that fair? Wasn’t it incumbent on government to ensure apartments were constructed with compliant materials?

Also last year the state government offered loans to owners to undertake remedial works. A generous gesture? Or a cynical attempt to “normalise” the idea that owners are responsible and the government is not?

The process has started, but it’s hard to say how many years we are still away from having a legally binding understanding of exactly where such liability lies.

After a six-week hearing, the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) retired in October to ponder just this question in a test case centred on the Lacrosse situation. As Docklands News went to press, a finding had not been made.

But it is likely that multiple parties will be saddled with proportional blame. In the firing line are owners, builders, developers, building surveyors and inspectors, architects and fire engineers.

And, with so much at stake, the “losers” are not likely to accept the VCAT decision anyway. The Supreme Court is likely to be the next theatre of combat, followed by the Court of Appeal. How far will this go?

Five years could easily turn into 10 years before this fundamental question is resolved.

In the meantime, taskforces, building authorities and councils continue to assess and direct owners’ corporations (OCs) to take action.

Considering that liability is still to be resolved, you can understand OCs wanting to make their buildings safe, but also not wanting to pay for someone else’s mistakes.

Share on Facebook

Stay in touch with Docklands. Subscribe to FREE monthly e-Newspaper.

You must be registered with Docklands News to be able to post comments.
To register, please click here.