Comments on: New national bushfire building standard

By: Michael thompson

Michael thompson — Wed, 08 Sep 2010 01:59:50 +0000

We have added nearly $100,000 added to the cost of our house due to trying to comply to the BAL40 standards. Now you can’t use PVC for widows. Its pretty much Aluminium and to get to a standard where shutters ($100 a sq meter plus) aren’t required you will need a very fat checque book indeed. Adding to your woes is the appalling thermal qualities of aluminium. Thus even with double glazing how could your make your home energy efficient. The window manufacturers will tell you that no home is fire proof and that in a heavy fire you will only buy some time and maybe a false sense of security. Is the next step for the RTA to insist we all drive late model volvos because of there safety rating. This is just an ill conceived knee jerk reaction from the fire authorities.

By: Michael Byrne

Michael Byrne — Fri, 23 Jul 2010 19:20:50 +0000

We have finnaly got town planning approval after over 6 months of dealing CFA & council. The BAL rating by a so called expert told us BAL 19 the CFA say FZ. So we now have to try and build to FZ. WE have had to move the home 30m from our boundry away from the state forest 70m away. Then a condition on our town planing is that we plant 20 more trees on our land? The FZ windows are nearly imposible.I dont know how the CFA became the building experts over night? An why bother with a BAL system if the CFA dont use the same system. Has anyone tried VCAT to try and lower a BAL assesment?

By: fred

fred — Thu, 15 Jul 2010 00:30:28 +0000

All for bush fire protection for houses, but to have an urban house in a subdivision that has forest vegetation on one side with only 2 trees within 25m having to be built to the same level of protection as a house surrounded by walls of trees 20m from the house is just ridiculous.

“When the flames are coming over the ridge and smoke is stinging you eyes”…We will jump in our car, drive the 1500m to the lake and sit on the wharf. If the fire burns through the 1500m or so of urban subdivision, we’ll just have to swim for it.

As for jumping out of a plane with a holey parachute, it’s a bit hard to jump in the car after you get in the plane….and if you live in a area surround by bush and all evacuation roads are likely to be fire effected….you should have a fire bunker, preferably without holes!

By: sam

sam — Tue, 13 Jul 2010 19:52:59 +0000

we have battled away to save enough to buy our block and now we need more money to satisfy a knee jerk reaction from our people in leadership. These leaders need to understand that this ridiculous leglislation will attract a groundswell of negative opinions in its pathetic attempt to control the people. This is ment to be a free country ! from where i’m sitting its a battle to save enough, a battle to satisfy desk sitters, a battle for ordinary people to build our own home. We are not young and free - we are older,and in debt, and no home ! are you there julia?

By: Kate

Kate — Tue, 06 Jul 2010 07:49:41 +0000

We are building in Pacific Pines and of course were not advised by the developer that the block requires a bushfire management plan. Anyhow from what I am reading above it appears windows, doors and screens apply. We are being asked by the builder to use hardwood timber frames, metal vent pipes, ember guards, kwila timber posts, nylon weather seal to bottom of sectional overhead garage doors which is more than 16 metres away from the trees etc etc etc. Is this correct or do we only need the windows & screens covered? This adds $27600 onto the price of our home.

By: Christine

Christine — Mon, 28 Jun 2010 00:13:43 +0000

we are building a house in Mt Victoria in the blue Mts on a steep block which faces north-east. Fires have never come from this direction up the ridge; the local fire chief confirms this! Yet we are required to put firescreens on ALL windows and doors (of which there are lots to capture the winter sun)facing this direction. I agree with oter comments about councils being implicit in the financial ruin of those seeking to build!
We have fire-proof materials everywhere in the house + have supplied (as required) a 10000L tank for use for fire services, not ourselves. After this, it should be just our insurance policy and common sense which takes over. This it fear of litagation gone mad!

By: AndrewM

AndrewM — Thu, 10 Jun 2010 05:24:26 +0000

The window requirements for BAL–FZ above include “protected by a bushfire shutter”. Does AS3959 (or some other standard) define what is meant by “bushfire shutter”?
For example, as an alternative to standard roller shutters can I have metal screens that I manually fix to the windows when a fire threatens? Would these screens need to be certified in some way? I recognise that the more manual a system is the more likely it won’t get used but will it meet the Building Code requirements?
Thanks

By: Carlos

Carlos — Mon, 31 May 2010 03:19:22 +0000

I am inclined to the belief that such regulations should be recommendations only. Then, when building, one could decide; or, if purchasing a house, one could enquire as to its rating. Of course, many politicians feel they have kudos to gain by pushing such legislation and, whilst happy to dwell on the benefits, are unwilling to acknowledge the negative aspects (see previous posting).

Another interesting point, as I see it, is that this is a “taking” of “property” in the constitutional sense, i.e. a limitation of one’s enjoyment of one’s property, and thus is compensable. If the legislation makes no mention of compensation for this “taking”, then it cannot comply with the national Constitution, and all legislation, State and Federal, must comply in order to be legal. This point, it seems to me, also applies to almost all planning and building legislation passed since Federation.

By: Nat

Nat — Sun, 23 May 2010 02:40:36 +0000

We have been on our acreage at Glenorie since 2004 and have been told that we are BAL-FZ. Unless we want to live in a concrete bunker where we can’t see the outdoors we moved here to be amongst, the cost of meeting these ridiculous requirements means we can’t build. We also could not sell the property if we tried. Right now we live in an old fibro shack on the property with broken windows covered by cardboard, holes through the walls you can pass a football through, lifting roof, large exposed spaces under the house etc. But the government would rather we lived in that with our 18 month old than something infinitely better but still realistic. (Right now I am thinking of an elaborate set up of lovely safari tents for my new house, as this movable accomodation would be quite legal!)

This is all politics and nanny state gone mad. People should have the right to choose to be responsible for themselves. Tell the fire fighters not to risk their lives to save houses that can always be re-built, and get out early if you choose the ‘risk’ of living in the bush.

By: Steve Rand

Steve Rand — Fri, 21 May 2010 08:41:04 +0000

By Steve
I am trying to build in Brisbane under BAL 40, where we dont have the same bush fire problems due to high humidity, These restrictions have been implemented in QLD with no consultation with industry as no body up here can offer solutions to the Windows and door problems. Unless you use shutters or install screens on the openable and fixed portion on your window. Surely this would lead to other problems such as fire started internally.As for the cost blowout it is ridculous, Certainly if fire is coming we will be leaving our home well before the fire gets close.