Red tape and the art of building

On 1 May 2011, the Australian Building Codes Board (ABCB) published the National Construction Code. Some of these regulations within the code relate to building in bushfire prone areas. So why are we bleating about this now?

Since our last post, the Bushfire Consultant had a change of heart, and has said that we cannot build on top of the cliff as we wish to do.

There are a couple of things that are really making Viktoria and the Android pull frowny faces:

1. When we purchased the land, the Bushfire Regulations weren't in place. However, now that those regulations do exist, we are the ones who have to bear the cost (either financially or lifestyle) because of those changes
2. A flow-on effect of these regulations is to discourage individuals from moving from cleared urban areas due to the cost involved in building in a treed rural area
3. A further effect is that large sections of vegetation are required to be cleared to meet the standards, thus destroying wilderness and native animal habitat

The intergovernmental agreement between the Commonwealth, State and Territory Ministers requires “a rigorously tested rationale for the regulation; the regulation would generate benefits to society greater than the costs (that is, net benefits); [and] there is no regulatory or non-regulatory alternative (whether under the responsibility of the Board or not) that would generate higher net benefits”.

We are not so naive that we cannot understand the necessity for additional considerations for building bushfire prone areas.

The ABCB is directed by the government to ensure that “building requirements are based on minimum, least-cost solutions”. The ABCB concedes that buildings at the lower levels of attack should be less costly to construct when compared to the existing standard, however buildings at the higher levels will be more costly.

The Victorian Building Commission calculates the additional approximate cost would be in the range of $3,000-$3,500 (excluding 10% GST). These costing were done by an independent Quantity Surveyor on behalf of the Building Commission and are based on these base parameters:

• Standard 3 bedroom
• Single garage
• Slab on ground
• Brick veneer external wall construction
• Pitched tiles roof including sarking
• High performance windows as part of energy efficiency requirement

In our situation, those "least-cost solutions" could amount to an additional $35,000 - $40,000 in construction costs.

So if you wish to make a lifestyle choice to live in the countryside, construction requirements increase in stringency and construction costs likewise as a direct relationship to the increase in BAL.

Rather that governments seeing this as an opportunity to invest in new building materials, infrastructure, or other innovations, the new regulations instead curb an individual's choice as to where they can build, and the type of building they can have.

Neal is going to put on a brave face and meet again with the Bushfire Consultant (who is well off our Christmas Card list at this point) to see what it is he would require to be satisfied that we could build on our block.