![]() So, there’s going to be a lot more time and money spent on scoping cladding remediation work for strata buildings under Project Remediate by all the people and organisations I’ve identified in item 5 below. ‘owners corporations thus far have generally spent around half of one percent of the remediation value in upfront scoping, the Office of Project Remediate intends to allow around two and a half percent for projects which are remediated under the program’ ‘this can lead to the scope increasing as work progresses and owners being exposed to nasty surprises regarding the final cost.’ Speaking further on the scope of cladding remediation works David Chandler OAM is reported as saying that: Solutions need to be more complex and expensive Whilst, it’s true that many strata buildings make poor decisions, the answer is information and education, not paternalism.ģ. Rather, they evince a paternalistic attitude to strata buildings, strata committees, strata managers, and strata owners that other people know what’s best for them and will ‘help’ them get to the ‘right’ outcomes. Whilst, many strata owners I know would disagree with those characterisations about them, that’s not the key thing I hear from those quotes. ‘Amongst owners corporations who have undertaken remediation thus far, there have been tendencies to spend insufficient money up-front and to seek the cheapest possible solutions to identify the scope of the works.’ ‘Unlike commercial property funds who own commercial real-estate, typical owners corporations of residential apartment buildings tend to be less sophisticated regarding construction and less able to make sophisticated decisions about their buildings or to adopt a nuanced approach toward risk management.’ Strata buildings are unsophisticated cheapskatesĭavid Chandler OAM is reported as saying the following things: Īnd, despite this new information, we still don’t have public visibility of the affected buildings as no list of the 214 strata buildings is available.Ģ. Plus, it also means that more than half of the affected strata buildings are medium-sized so will have to share the cladding remediation work costs over a proportionately smaller number of strata lots. It’s good to know more details about the affected buildings but with those details come some sobering realisations.Īlmost all of the affected strata buildings are more than 3 storeys which means they don’t have Home Building Insurance protection. On average, there are about 76 apartments per affected building. ![]() ![]() Of these 214 multi-storey residential buildings:ħ9 buildings are high-rise (nine storeys or greater),ġ29 are mid-rise (four to eight storeys), and ![]() Of these 372 buildings, 214 are multi-storey residential buildings (Class 2 buildings). There’s up to date and more detailed strata building numbersĪfter the NSW government’s audit and work so far on Project Remediate here are the latest reported numbers.ģ72 buildings remain under review, assessment, or in remediation. Plus, I’ll give you a cynic’s view at the end.ġ. So, let me highlight, interpret and comment on 8 concerns I have about the statements and missing information. Some of the things they’re reported as saying are very instructive about how Project Remediate will operate. Well, it didn’t take long as Andrew Heaton at Sourceable interviewed the NSW Building Commissioner, David Chandler OAM, and the Project Remediate Executive Officer, Matt Beattie, about their thoughts and ideas regarding the combustible cladding project and reported what they said in the article ‘ Fixing Cladding on 214 NSW Apartment Towers’. I also promised to provide updates on Project Remediate as I learned more. Last week in ‘ DEFECTIVE: Cladding Matters: What’s Project Remediate in NSW all About?’, I explained the structure and approach to the NSW Government’s program to assist high-rise strata buildings with high-risk combustible cladding.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |