Discussion: View Thread

  • 1.  Consultation on proposed building reforms in NSW

    Posted 07-08-2024 02:29 PM

    As part of the Minns government's election promise, BCNSW has released the draft Building Bill for comment. This includes the Professional Engineering Registration scheme and its transfer from the Design and Building Practitioners Act 2020 into the proposed Building Bill framework. This bill will dictate how professional engineering work is done in NSW.

    In line with our continuing work in buildings we will be attending a Q&A session and making a submission to BCNSW. If you would like to contribute, please do so via this forum before the 28th of August 2024 and we will consider your responses in our submission. 

    Attached to this post are the documents provided by BCNSW.



    ------------------------------
    Adam Lee
    ------------------------------


  • 2.  RE: Consultation on proposed building reforms in NSW

    Posted 15-08-2024 05:54 PM

    From an initial quick review, i have concerns that performance solutions for buidlings deemed 'lower risk' can be done by any person within the Fire safety regulatory framework. This may increase market flexibiity, but will decrease safety as a non-fire engineer with no experience at all in fire issues could prepare solutions. A 1,999 m2 building with non-compliant travel, non-compliant materials and omission of fire safety systems would by the engineering community be deemed high risk, yet the regs consider this low risk and the solution could be done by anyone with no fire engineering qualification. This goes against the push for holistic fire engineering and raising the bar. By allowing anyone without any sort of qualification to prepare a report will substantially reduce fire safety. It is expected that the intent is to allow for very minor solutions, but who determines this doesn't have a holistic impact. papers on cladding issues state that lack of holistic awareness by fire engineers may be to blame, so now there is even less holistic fire safety. In reality it is unlikely that certifiers would accept solutions by non-fire engineers, hence where is the benefit?

    In relation to the draft buidling (licensing) regulation items 44-45, how can we comment on fire safety licences when there is no draft legislation?



    ------------------------------
    Sarnia Rusbridge
    ------------------------------

    Original Message


  • 3.  RE: Consultation on proposed building reforms in NSW

    Posted 27-08-2024 10:11 PM

    Another Fire Engineer's opinion here, based on my review of the Fire Safety Regulation Framework Position Paper - I also share the same concern as Sarnia; the ability for non-qualified, non-vetted persons to prepare fire engineering performance solutions of any kind is a step in the wrong direction (refer to Section 7.3 on page 50). The way in which low risk buildings are defined (refer to page 49) is too broad and always will be. The current proposal would allow for a three storey Class 6 shopping centre with a floor area of 5,997 m2 (i.e. each storey with a floor area of 1,999 m2) to be designed from fully exposed mass timber with a Performance Solution (addressing C1P1 and C1P2) from a non-qualified person. Governments at all levels must balance market flexibility with competency of those responsible for delivering fire safety to the community (e.g. fire engineers) and in this instance the NSW government wants to tip the scale too far towards flexibility by throwing competency entirely out the window. Meanwhile ABCB, through publishing the NCC and the Australian Fire Engineering Guidelines (AFEG) are trying to solidify the competency requirements / expectations of the fire engineering industry. Section 1.4.2 of the AFEG states: "Accreditation is a necessary step to ensure the competence and integrity of fire engineering practitioners"

    The statement from page 50: "Building Commission NSW is satisfied that the project certifier will have a broad knowledge of the BCA sufficient to assess fire safety PSRs in lower risk buildings, and their assessment will be informed by detailed design documents and detailed staged building schedules (where applicable) to give a holistic view of the work intended to be carried out as part of the CC or CDC" is over-optimistic. One need only look at the knowledge and competency of Building Surveyors in Victoria from 10-15 years ago that approved hundreds of buildings with combustible cladding (some with poorly justified Performance Solutions others with no Performance Solution at all) to see that certifiers can faulter if the legislative framework allows for it.

    Secondly - in relation to proposed Reform 19: Require licenced fire assessors to carry out independent assessments of all fire safety systems prior to issue of a fire safety certificate (refer to Section 19.1 starting on page 80) I believe that the Step 1 portion of this proposed reform (an independent person or several independent people (other than the installers) will verify the performance of all the fire safety systems listed on the fire safety schedule - prior to an occupation certificate (OC)) introduces unnecessary cost to the construction industry and will yield little positive gain. I would anticipate that the Step 2 (integrated interface testing by an independent 3rd party) would identify any shortfalls in the self-certification (i.e. certification provided by the installer of a particular system) of the fire safety systems in the building. Furthermore, it is quite common for the first maintenance contractor (following the defects liability period) to audit fire safety systems and identify deficiencies / non-compliances with the installation. These maintenance contractors are incentivized to do this, since the maintenance contractor is then well placed to win work associated with rectifying said defects. Although this occurs after the OC has been issued (which is not ideal) it would generally occur within the first 24 months after OC and owners generally have good recourse to reclaim expenses from the party that installed the fire safety system. Based on this, installers of fire safety systems would be naturally incentivized to provide compliant systems and hence the self-certification process, plus the Step 2 independent interface testing process would be expected to deliver compliant works and suitable baseline data for the building.  

    Proposed Reform 20 (refer to Section 20.1 on page 87) is strongly supported.



    ------------------------------
    Mathew Freeman
    ------------------------------

    Original Message


  • 4.  RE: Consultation on proposed building reforms in NSW

    Posted 02-09-2024 11:49 AM

    Hi all

    We have been granted an extension on this submission to allow industry to fully contemplate the changes that are being introduced by these documents. If you could please post up any concerns you may have with this proposed legislation by 4 Oct 2024, we will voice your concerns through our submission..



    ------------------------------
    Adam Lee
    ------------------------------

    Original Message


  • 5.  RE: Consultation on proposed building reforms in NSW

    Posted 12 days ago

    Hi Adam,

    Our business operates as professional engineers in the subdivision design and construction sphere.  The major issue with the draft Building Bill as it stands now is that it encompasses "subdivision works" without any apparent thought to the necessary distinctions and processes involved in the design, approval or construction of a subdivision, including roads, stormwater systems, fields, major bulk earthworks, and necessary water, electrical, telecommunications and sewerage systems necessary for those subdivisions.  For us slightly older engineers who have been around for a while, this is a "back to the future" moment.  

    Prior to 1993 (but after 1979), the requirements for development involved firstly an approval under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act and then an appropriate approval under the Local Government Act, either for Building or Subdivision.  The 1993 legislative changes brought in a streamlining with all the functions now moved into the EP&A Act, with appropriate allowance for private certification of some approval functions. These changes maintained appropriate differences between the subdivision works and building works.

    The issue with the current draft is that there is now no distinction for, nor appropriate provision for, subdivision works.  It treats all subdivision works as if they are "buildings" but then does not make any provisions for the particular skills, licences or processes required for that type of work.  

    There is no clarity about which licences would be required for design, or construction of subdivision works.  The certification aspects of subdivision works may well have some clarity as the current Building and Development Certifiers Act provides appropriate distinctions - provided those aspects are carried forward somehow.

    Importantly the National Construction Code provides the basis for all designs and approvals within the proposed Bill.  Subdivision works cannot easily fall into any of the various building classes within the NCC. The only possible twisting of the definition might be as a "Class 10" but this would be a very very long bow.   This is not to be understood as a desire to bring subdivision (road, earthworks and the like) into the NCC, but merely to point out that it isn't!

    Without this clarity, subdivision works should be left out of the proposed legislation until as such time that there is appropriate definition and clarity around what in fact it is.  

    Happy to discuss further,

    David



    ------------------------------
    David Johnson
    ------------------------------

    Original Message