Update on the Building Classification Debate
It has been more than two years now since the Queensland government created confusion and uncertainty in the management rights and tourism industries in issuing a policy statement regarding the classification of buildings, in particular the use of Class 2 buildings for holiday and short term accommodation.
Although not proceeding with the proposed legislative changes, the government still refuses to retract its published view that apartment buildings throughout Queensland that are Class 2 buildings under the Building Code of Australia can not lawfully be used for short term or holiday accommodation.
As I have reported previously, that view is in conflict with the position that it and councils throughout Queensland have adopted for 30 or more years; it is in conflict with a decision of South Australian Planning Court; and is in conflict with various decisions of the Office of the Commissioner for Body Corporate and Community Management in Queensland.
Recently, after much lobbying from other interest groups, the Australian Building Codes Board has sought submissions from the management rights industry and others about the issue. It is possible that following the review of submissions there will be a national approach taken to changes in the Building Code of Australia.
The request for submissions includes a background paper that contains many comments from interest groups wanting serviced apartment buildings to have to comply with the much stricter Class 3 classification. Almost all of the comments in that paper refer to the financial advantage serviced apartment operators have over traditional hotel operators whose buildings have to be Class 3 and as such, with stricter fire safety systems and other requirements, are more expensive to build and maintain.
Curiously none of the comments claim that there are safety reasons why serviced apartment buildings should have to meet Class 3 standards. That is odd in one sense given that the differences between Class 2 and Class 3 requirements are safety related and it would only be for safety reasons that serviced apartment buildings should be made comply with Class 3 standards. In another sense it is not so odd given that the management rights industry is not aware of any claim or evidence of death or injury due to serviced apartment buildings not being built to Class 3 standards, so it would be hard for opponents to argue a safety issue.
The reality seems to be that Class 2 safety requirements are, and have proven to be, more than adequate in catering for short term and holiday guests in serviced apartment buildings.
The overwhelming popularity of serviced apartments as an alternative to the traditionally small and expensive hotel room demonstrates that a large proportion of tourists and travellers prefer serviced apartment accommodation. Typically hotels provide many ancillary services such as concièrge services, room service, 24-hour reception, valet parking and so on. All of those services come at a huge cost which, quite apart from any extra costs associated with Class 3 compliance, necessitate that hotels charge a much higher room rate than that for a serviced apartment. There will always be a proportion of consumers who want and are prepared to pay for those services but it would be wrong to change the long held and judicially supported views about Class 2 buildings in order to force all consumers into hotel accommodation and the higher expense that goes with that.
It is hoped that the Australian Building Codes Board will see through the flawed arguments raised against the existing regime in Queensland. If it does not then it will be up to the Queensland government, in order to protect the management rights and tourism industries which have already been hit hard by economic conditions, to ignore any national approach that goes against the status quo.
John Mahoney
Mahoney Lawyers
AccomNews is not affiliated with any government agency, body or political party. We are an independently owned, family-operated magazine.
