HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, Second Session (54-2)
2022-02-08 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Flammable Building Cladding

In reply to the Hon. F. PANGALLO (2 December 2021).

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer): The Minister for Planning and Local Government has advised:

The state government initiated a thorough and comprehensive statewide cladding audit (the audit) of high-rise residential and assembly buildings to identify the use of aluminium composite cladding (ACP) and assess the risk to life safety.

To assist with evaluating the buildings, the former Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure developed the South Australian Life Safety Assessment tool, to assess and allocate a risk rating to each building from low through to extreme. With low having a minimal safety risk, moderate having provisions sufficient to allow safe egress from the building in a facade fire event, high where occupant life safety is not adequate or extreme where occupant life safety is unsatisfactory. The risk assessment tool was provided to councils to allow for a consistent and uniform assessment of buildings.

The audit examined the use of ACP on publicly and privately owned buildings and focused on residential buildings greater than two storeys in height including motels, hotels, aged-care facilities as well as hospitals, schools and other assembly buildings. The initial review identified 224 buildings of potential interest. Following further investigation, 213 buildings were confirmed as having ACP's attached to their facades.

ACP is regulated under the National Construction Code (NCC) and is safe for use on, and in buildings if it is selected and installed in accordance with the NCC. Buildings that were assessed as low to moderate risk using the assessment tool were seen to have sufficient existing inbuilt safety provisions to allow safe egress in a facade fire event.

The majority of these buildings will most likely not require any remediation work and will remain on the audit register with a low or moderate risk rating. However, a building with an assessment of high or extreme risk requires action by building owners to treat risks to reduce them to a tolerable level.

Initially there were 28 privately owned buildings rated high or extreme which has now reduced to seven and there are currently no publicly owned buildings with a high or extreme risk rating.

It is expected the number of buildings with ACP will continue to reduce as ACP is removed from the high and extreme buildings but this number is expected to plateau as the moderate and low rated buildings remain on the audit register.

The Attorney-General's Department (AGD) is the coordinator of the audit, and responsible for engaging with local councils and government agencies to progress and report on matters regarding ACP.

1. Private buildings:

The council Building Fire Safety Committees in conjunction with fire authorities (the Metropolitan Fire Service or the Country Fire Service) determine what remediation (if any) is required for a building identified as having ACP present and liaise with the building owners accordingly. Many of the buildings have had their original level of risk lowered. This can be due to several reasons, including ACP has been fully or partially replaced with a non-combustible product, building owners have provided further information on the annual maintenance reports, the ACP has been tested to determine the flammability of the cladding product installed or remedial work has been undertaken on the building (installation of additional fire safety features).

It has not been a formal requirement of the local councils to report to AGD on the number of buildings that have had the ACP removed and replaced with a product compliant with the NCC. The only formal requirement by the local council is to inform AGD on the number of buildings within their locality with ACP present, the life safety risk rating applied to the buildings, and if and when it changes.

Public buildings:

Audits were undertaken in collaboration with the fire authorities and considered all NCC building classifications owned by, or the responsibility of the government.

Government agencies have been provided with detailed audit reports which included building risk assessment results and recommendations to remedy the threat to life safety risk in the short, medium and long term. It was expected the agencies would consider the audit results against their own appetite for risk. It is important to note; government agencies are not bound by legislation to carry out any remedial work.

2. Private buildings:

Although it is not a requirement for councils to advise AGD on the number of buildings that have had the ACP removed and replaced (with a NCC compliant product), AGD is actively monitoring the progress of negotiations between the council Building Fire Safety Committees (BFSC) and private owners where buildings were identified with high and extreme risk ratings.

AGD can report that of the three extreme rated buildings, the building owners have committed to removing all of the ACP and are at different stages of completing the works.

Of the four buildings rated high, the building owners are at varying stages of conciliation between the relevant council BFSC. One building body corporate is currently seeking quotes from suitable contractors to remove all of the ACP.

The remaining buildings with moderate and low risk ratings, may not require the ACP to be removed or it may only need to be partially removed. These discussions are ongoing between the building owners and the BFSC.

Public buildings:

The government agencies are at different stages of seeking professional advice on fire engineering reports and independent technical advice to determine what action will be undertaken.

At this time, four publicly owned buildings are scheduled to have the ACP completely removed and one building will have the ACP partially removed.

3. The financial implications of government agencies to remove or remediate ACP is not a reportable requirement to the AGD under the audit.

4. The initial review identified 224 buildings of potential interest. Following further investigations, 213 buildings were confirmed as having ACP's attached to their facades.

Councils, BFSC's and building owners have worked collaboratively to significantly reduce the risk ratings to tolerable levels resulting in 192 buildings currently having ACP on their facades. It is expected this number will continue to reduce as ACP is removed or partially removed from buildings, particularly from the seven high and extreme rated buildings, and as building owners consider their risks; but the number of buildings contained in the audit will plateau due to the low and moderate risk rated buildings remaining on the register.

5. Of the 213 buildings initially confirmed as having potentially flammable cladding, 52 are publicly owned buildings and 161 are privately owned buildings.

6. Under the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016 the authority to assess the safety provisions of buildings rests with the relevant council. It was the responsibility of councils in collaboration with their Building Fire Safety Committee to assess and apply a risk rating to each privately owned building within the scope of the audit. Each council BFSC is required to have a representative from the relevant fire authority on the committee.

For buildings assessed as low or moderate risk, it is likely the existing inbuilt fire safety systems are appropriate to provide the occupants the ability to safely egress the building in the event of a facade fire. However, a building with a high or extreme rating is likely to require action by building owners to treat risks to reduce them to an acceptable level.

At present in South Australia the responsibility for ensuring buildings remain safe resides with the building owner, including ongoing costs such as maintenance and repairs. Council BFSC's continue to engage with building owners to ensure that the fire safety of the building is made adequate.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT