Builders plan different to house built

[Buddybee]

We are currently looking at a house that has just been built. The agent tells us that the certificate of occupancy has just been granted, and the builder is just waiting on a purchasor to chose carpets and finish landscaping.

We've got a copy of the section 32 and a copy of the building contract for the plans and list of inclusions etc.

The plans detail a door in the laundry leading outside. The actual building doesn't have a door, it's been replaced with a window. I've spoken with the agent regarding getting hold of the ammended plans to which I got the response of "The building envelope didn't change, the size of the house didn't change the builder just replaced a door for a window so no changes were needed to the plans or building permit....."

Being a bit green, does this sound plausable? or should the plans and permits be ammended?

Cheers
Buddybee

 

[Aaron Sice]

the builder is absolutely correct. no re-sub is required if that's the only change - and it doesn't affect any rules in any way - which it doesn't.

a door being $1000 odd, including frame and furniture, and a window being the same price as the brickwork it replaces, you can see why there may have been a last minute substitution if costs were blowing out etc - from the initial construction point of view.

ethically though, i do understand your quandry as well.

i guess if the plan, signed, shows one thing, and the built house is something else, then you have a case against the builder. but the shire don't have to be notified in this case.

 

[LynnH]

That's interesting, BC.

I would have thought that reducing the number of exits from a house without council approval could have been seen as a possible safety issue??? (I'm thinking 'fire' here).

Cheers
LynnH

 

[Buddybee]

Thank you very much for your response Blue Card.

It doesn't worry us one way or the other, and to be honest a window is better given the layout and position of the house.

I didn't want to get part way through the contract validation with our solicitor to find out there was some sort of problem and subsequent delay caused by the variation.

Cheers
Buddybee

 

[Aaron Sice]

That's interesting, BC.

I would have thought that reducing the number of exits from a house without council approval could have been seen as a possible safety issue??? (I'm thinking 'fire' here).

Cheers
LynnH

nope - only 1 entry and exit point required - but then, that's just logic.

while it's definitely convenient to have more than one, and you would have a hard time selling a house with only 1, there's no law against it.

the only rule i can think of in regards to fire safety is in commercial design, with one point being no more than 20m away from an exit, with no more than 40m to an alternative exit should the 20m rule be unable to be met.

cheers.

 

[LynnH]

Thanks for that info, BC.

One learns something new every day!

Cheers,
LynnH

 

[Dazz]

the only rule i can think of in regards to fire safety is in commercial design, with one point being no more than 20m away from an exit, with no more than 40m to an alternative exit should the 20m rule be unable to be met.

Hey !! What's the go with this ??

You charged me huge bucks for this last week, and now you are doling it out to all and sundry for free !!

What's the scoop ??