In pulling out the contract of sale, I was reminded that the Building Permit (issued 25Aug03) and the Certificate of Final Inspection (4Feb04) were both done by someone with the same surname as the owner-builder who did the reno. Which might go some way to explaining how on earth the blatantly illegal attic conversion got through. (Unless the rules are pretty new, which I doubt.)
Pretty much everything I've read is consistent with this quote: "In order to meet roof height standards, a “habitable” attic room has to be a minimum head height of 2.4 metres in at least 60 per cent of the floor area." Or, I don't know, from the Building Code of Australia: “Ceiling heights must be not less than 2.4 metres in a habitable room.”* For this reno, precisely 0% of the floor area meets that standard - the maximum head height is 2.37m, and that's for around the 20cm centred under the roof ridge line.
* This is the Deemed-to-Satisfy Provision. If you don't meet this standard, you must demonstrate that the design complies with the relevant Performance Requirement, viz: “A room or space must be of a height that does not unduly interfere with its intended function.” Yep. Pretty sure it fails that one too.
There's the handrail for the stair, which I'm pretty sure isn't up to code (as in, you couldn't grab onto it to stop a fall):
Need a closer view of it's jaunty angle?
I mentioned having to sidle into the main bathroom, didn't I?
Oh, and the walls of the upstairs bedrooms were uninsulated, as was most of the ceiling (except the bit that you could readily see from the access point). (We've already fixed that, including by stuffing halved pool noodles into the air gap.)
The workmanship is distinctly second-rate:
And the finish is, well, unfinished:
There are doors with no tongues
and ones with tongues but no strike plates
Most of the shelving is supported with unpainted offcuts
And I've already mentioned the corrugated iron that's under the deck to catch the rain and make sure it doesn't dry out or breathe properly, haven't I?
And yes, all these faults were pre-existing. But you don't normally feel the need to check whether it's up to code before you bid, you trust that the building approvals process ensures that it is.
Pretty much everything I've read is consistent with this quote: "In order to meet roof height standards, a “habitable” attic room has to be a minimum head height of 2.4 metres in at least 60 per cent of the floor area." Or, I don't know, from the Building Code of Australia: “Ceiling heights must be not less than 2.4 metres in a habitable room.”* For this reno, precisely 0% of the floor area meets that standard - the maximum head height is 2.37m, and that's for around the 20cm centred under the roof ridge line.
* This is the Deemed-to-Satisfy Provision. If you don't meet this standard, you must demonstrate that the design complies with the relevant Performance Requirement, viz: “A room or space must be of a height that does not unduly interfere with its intended function.” Yep. Pretty sure it fails that one too.
There's the handrail for the stair, which I'm pretty sure isn't up to code (as in, you couldn't grab onto it to stop a fall):
Need a closer view of it's jaunty angle?
I mentioned having to sidle into the main bathroom, didn't I?
 |
| With the door fully open, the gap is less than 48cm/19" |
 |
| That's how far you can open the fusebox lid |
The workmanship is distinctly second-rate:
 |
| Under the benchtop |
 |
| Unfinished edges, unsealed chipboard above the dishwasher |
 |
| That's the downpipe for the upstairs bathroom |
and ones with tongues but no strike plates
Most of the shelving is supported with unpainted offcuts
And I've already mentioned the corrugated iron that's under the deck to catch the rain and make sure it doesn't dry out or breathe properly, haven't I?
And yes, all these faults were pre-existing. But you don't normally feel the need to check whether it's up to code before you bid, you trust that the building approvals process ensures that it is.
No comments:
Post a Comment