*The information set out in the VBA’s resources is for general information purposes and guidance only. It is a reader’s responsibility to obtain independent advice in respect of the application of legislation, a technical instruction or industry standard relevant to their circumstances. A person’s use of the VBA’s resources is not a substitute for obtaining independent advice.
While we have made every attempt to ensure our resources contain correct information at the date of publication, the VBA makes no warranty or representation that its resources are error free. To the extent permitted by applicable laws, the VBA, its employees, agents and consultants exclude any and all liability whatsoever for any direct, indirect, incidental, special or consequential loss or damage a person may suffer arising out of or in connection with the access and use of the VBA’s resources ‘(including any third-party material included in these resources).
Some points: The work by Dam Buster proves beyond any shadow of a doubt most of this waffle is totally unnecessary. There is simply no good reason box gutter design cannot be standardised. That is - to be sized for the maximum ARI of any given state and a maximum area draining to it. Quite simply a minimum depth of 200mm and width of 300mm at a fall of 1:100 nationally, and a maximum area (by state) draining to it. (a minimum fall of 1:200 should never be used - ponding occurs too frequently where dust/dirt is not removed - all reference to that fall should be removed from the standard). ONLY any gutter outside of that should require calculation/performance solution. The whole 'no change of direction' thing stems from a misinterpretation of the much earlier "Box gutters must be laid straight" (as in not having ~dips and bumps, NOT that it may not change direction). It needs to be rectified. Yes, water does indeed 'bank up' at a change in direction, but not appreciably at velocities seen in box gutters having a fall of 1:100.... A slotted overflow being permissible for a sump but not for a rainhead (which since it is required to be sealed to the box gutter is identical in function to a sump) is ludicrous. If - as in the earlier editions of the roofing code of practice - the rainhead was not sealed to the gutter (to provide for box gutter expansion), having an overflow open to atmosphere would make sense, but that is not the case we deal with today. Apart from that, a roofer is not typically consulted during the design phase - they normally only see a job after it is framed - usually according to drawings done by someone who puts a little qualifier on the plan "*roof to be laid to AS3500" but does not allow for it themselves.... And then if the roofer objects, the builder simply finds another roofer who will stick it on and run away.... That's to say - no amount of 'practitioner education' will solve the underlying problem of poor design. To fix it you need to make the standard easier for the average draftsman to understand - consider adopting my suggestions above. Feel free to reply here if you need anything clarified.
Work is on the way -----INDEED --but work ""ON GOING ON HAND"" by Victorian small business construction industry trades and family projects ---NEED --immediate decisions or decision to be assessed and finalized within the legislated instruction of order ---order of a maximum of 45 days to be finalised of decision by the VBA
ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-eoN8S6wxfe4.htmlsi=71g1JRg9bjjgDmUq What a load of BS . This authority group needs a royal commission and every person sent to prison for their crimes that have affected the safety of victorians. I can’t believe that victorians voted for the criminal that was in office twice . Wtf is wrong with you
Informative presentation for the owners of new constructions. Inspectors should already know how to identify these defects as part of a mandatory inspection. If they don't then I'm not sure how they got registered. Maybe an overhaul of the registration process for all RBP's should be considered.
The typical response from the Victorian Government. Pretending to take action through reviews while allowing VBA-registered criminal businesses to continue harming the public (the customers). The VBA would have the power the prosecute building practitioners (including building surveyors), but they rather protect these businesses and leave it up to customers to fight over many years in courts for their rights. The VBA usually only issues minuscule fines of a few hundred dollars if they decide to take any action. That is not a deterrent. A complete failure of the VBA and the Victorian Government. The media will report on matters in detail and many heads at the VBA (and the Government) will roll as a consequence.
As a mature age male (46) I'm considering changing career and studying an advanced diploma building surveyor. What sparked my interest was the demand for more surveyors, however from what I've researched I haven't seen many cadet/traineeship advertised which is a major concern. And from the 2 comments this has confirmed what I'm researching. How can this be in demand when there's basically no one offering any cadet roles??
David, thank you for your question in relation to studying the Advanced Diploma of Building Surveying. The 2021 Expert Panel into Building Reform recommends our industry establish arrangements to provide work experience and ongoing professional development for new building surveyors. One of the VBA’s priorities, as part of our corporate strategy, is to become an effective connector by partnering with local government and private building surveyors to strengthen the building surveying profession. In line with this, we have employed dedicated resources to look at developing career pathways for graduate building surveyors to better support our industry. Local Councils and private sector Building Surveyors undertake their own cadetship programs, and we recommend that you contact Local Councils and/or private sector Building Surveyors within your vicinity in the first instance.
This is not quite correct anymore, particularly the areas where engineers perform mandatory inspections. Engineers are now registered professional engineers in Victoria and there is a category of structural engineer as well as civil, fire, mechanical, and electrical. To inspect in the building industry one must also be an endorsed building engineer in the relevant engineering discipline, only being registered as an engineer is insufficient.
I've been teaching this for ten years plus and guys never have I made it so boring and read from a script like this video, the building industry is exciting, act like it !
It is extremely difficult to find cadet building surveyor positions from local councils in VIC. Some positions are only available for female. I have to move to intestate in order to find a job
very helpfull video but as from a site manager point of view, where can we get installation guides apart from material suppliers? Also what happens in the situation where the building is not seismic compliant but the new fit out calls for seismic?
The sole purpose of the Victorian government (and Australian federal government) is to extract every possible dollar, from every possible situation, and still have no accountability, and no way to hold anyone in government responsible for anything, nothing but passing blame to other departments. That’s life down under!
the football match analogy is stupid, it's adverserial, and it need not to be. if you like analogy, how about rbs as a teacher helping builder/owner to build better.
To all Owners building a new dream house, get an independent consultant as more often than not, the Building Surveyor and Building Inspector are in the Builder's pockets and your best interests are not in their best interests. 14.33 & 20.11 great, mandatories need an RBP, yet in reality photos are commonly accepted. 19.19 - why would anyone hold a registration? Cheers DELWP & VBA for precluding RBP's from carrying out certain inspection/investigation works as they are held to a higher level of accountability for the same job likely earning the same fees, therefore having that registration only increases liability not viability.
Looking at this makes me realize how poorly most builders are becoming at keeping frontline staff (site managers in particular) up to date. These days we are just worked to the max and set aside when someone cheaper pops up. I'm doing my own research here.
