Alford v Walter Elliot Holdings Pty Ltd as trustee for The W E Van park Trust t/as Palm Lake Resort [2014] QCAT 298

CITATION: Alford v Walter Elliot Holdings Pty Ltd as trustee for The W E Van park Trust t/as Palm Lake Resort [2014] QCAT 298 PARTIES: Ronald James Alford (Applicant) v Walter Elliot Holdings Pty Ltd as trustee for The W E Van park Trust t/as Palm Lake Resort (Respondent) APPLICATION NUMBER: BDL007-14 MATTER TYPE: Building matters HEARING DATE: 26 March 2014 HEARD AT: Brisbane DECISION OF: Member Allen DELIVERED ON: 30 June 2014 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane ORDERS MADE: 1. Walter Elliot Holdings Pty Ltd have the work set out in photographs 1 and 2 and the site instruction report attached to Mr Reid’s report dated 9 December 2013 performed by suitably licensed tradespeople within 28 days of the date of this order. 2. Mr Alford to give access to site 79, Palm Lake Resort on 3 days notice in writing for the purpose of having this work carried out. CATCHWORDS: BUILDING DISPUTE – ponding of water on patio slab – expert evidence as to fall of slab and soil profile. APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any): APPLICANT: Mr Alford represented himself at the hearing RESPONDENT: Mr Garrie Love represented Walter Elliot Holdings Pty Ltd at the hearing. -- 1 of 4 -- 2 REASONS FOR DECISION [1] Mr Alford is the owner of a manufactured home located at site 79, Palm Lake Resort and Walter Elliot Holdings is the owner of the Resort. There was building work performed on the site at the time Mr Alford took up residence on 15 May 2012 including the laying of a slab for a patio and drainage works. Mr Alford alleges that water ponds on the patio slab and that Walter Elliot Holdings is required to rectify the work performed and to stop water run-off from site 80 next door. Mr Alford described the problem at the hearing as an area of 11/2 m by 1m being covered with half an inch of water which took 24 hours to dissipate. [2] Walter Elliot Holdings acknowledges that the work was performed by an associated entity with a building licence as part of the preparation of Mr Alford’s site and is prepared to accept responsibility if any order is made by the Tribunal for work to be performed. [3] Following a series of complaints by Mr Alford and inspections by representatives of Walter Elliot Holdings an offer was made on 18 July 2013 for the concreters to do a saw cut through the concrete to assist drainage. With the issue to be monitored. [4] Mr Alford was not happy with this proposed solution and made an application to the Tribunal. He arranged for Mr Lindsay Reid, a structural and geotechnical engineer to inspect the slab and provide a report in regard to the water ponding issue. Mr Reid stated in his report dated 9 December 2013 that minor ponding occurs in the rear slab which he stated had almost certainly developed due to soil moisture related soil heave beneath the outside edge of the slab. In his opinion the initial surface gradient would almost certainly have been provided to ensure that water ran off the slab surface but this gradient was not sufficient to compensate for the subsequent ground heave beneath the outside edge. [5] Mr Reid considered that the ground movements which have occurred have been greater than those which would normally have been expected, due to poor site drainage and maintenance conditions which retain water, cause soil soakage and consequently promote soil heave. The poor conditions referred to were that the ground surfaces at the rear of Mr Alford’s site and the adjoining building had been covered with a layer of gravel, which traps free water, causes soil soakage and promotes soil swell. The tops of the stormwater pits in Mr Alford’s and the adjoining site are too high to allow water to drain freely which further promotes soil moisture build-ups and ground movement. The site drainage conditions were in Mr Reid’s opinion contrary to good practice and may if allowed to continue give rise to greater than desirable movement in the building, though this was not possible to predict without undertaking soil testing. [6] Mr Reid documented in his report remedial works to provide free drainage from the slab which required the cutting and relaying of a portion of the patio slab to provide 40 mm of fall across the patio from the fence with the -- 2 of 4 -- 3 adjoining lot. He also stated that the effects of continuing poor site drainage could give rise to the need for further work in the future. [7] Mr Reid provided a further report dated 20 March 2014 following additional work he performed. That is a limited geotechnical investigation which involved augering one test hole, a level survey of the surface of the external concrete paving slabs and ground surfaces and a series of measurements to enable the general layout of the external areas to be quantified. [8] The geotechnical testing was said to confirm the assessments previously documented in the report dated 9 December 2013, the soils are highly reactive and capable of significant vertical movement due to variation in soil moisture content, the potential ground surface movement of this site are considered to have been increased as the result of the poor drainage conditions, the potential ground movements due to normal seasonal variations is assessed to be in the order of 50 mm to 60 mm assuming good site drainage and maintenance is present which is not the case, the soil moisture profile shows that that the soils are reaching or at saturation levels and such levels of moisture are consistent with conditions which would promote the heaving of slabs and buildings. [9] The concrete slab level and ground surface survey confirmed that even though the patio has lost surface fall, the surfaces nevertheless still drain, although this drainage is marginal. Future soil moisture related swelling may lead to ponding because there is no further tolerance available through the current falls on the surface of the pavement to facilitate free drainage. Shallow excavations through the granular fill materials which have been placed at the rear of the unit revealed that free water is being retained and that the free drainage which is required to comply with normally accepted building practices has not been provided in an adequate manner in these locations. [10] Walter Elliot Holdings was not able to obtain its own expert report due to Mr Alford not being prepared to allow entry to his property on the day that their engineer was available. Mr Love did not object to Mr Reid’s evidence being admitted and was given the opportunity to cross examine Mr Reid. In his material Mr Love acknowledged that following inspections by their builders and the concreter that there was an area of the slab about 900 mm in diameter which is slightly uneven with a maximum variation of less than 5 mm and this is within tolerances and less than the maximum variation as set by concreting standards. That the lowering of the tops of the storm water pits would only allow an additional volume of surface run off water to escape, whereas saturated ground water cannot drain into the pits. He stated at the hearing that there is an agricultural drain running next to the site which provides drainage fro water which enters the soil. [11] Mr Love was of the view that Walter Elliott Holdings had previously been prepared to do some work to relieve the issue in regard to the minor ponding but that was on the basis that the matter would not proceed to hearing. Now that it had gone to hearing Walter Elliott Holdings should not -- 3 of 4 -- 4 be expected to correct a minor issue that was within tolerances. Mr Love had provided some standards and guidelines with his material which set out the surface tolerances for various forms of concrete and noted that the tolerance in respect of surface variation for a concrete slab such as this was 12 mm and this slab varied by no more than 5mm. [12] At the hearing Mr Reid confirmed that the fall on the slab was reasonable for the first part from 234 to 216 and then in the second part was flat. That this was due to the soil heave and it was in this section that water was being marginally retained. He confirmed that there was no cracking of the slab. Mr Love asked Mr Reid about the tolerances of the slab and Mr Reid indicated that the slab itself was fine it was the fall of the slab that was in issue. Quite a reasonably constructed slab and that it was constructed in a good and workmanlike manner. That the slab currently drains but marginally hold water. Simple task to fix not quite enough slope minor ponding in one corner which would cost less than $1,000 in terms of the work outlined in first report and that work is still required to correct the issue to ensure free drainage as required under the Building code of Australia. [13] The Tribunal notes that both Mr Reid and Mr Love agree that there is some water being retained on the slab. While Mr Love says that it is as a result of allowable imperfections in the surface of the slab Mr Reid considers that the slab has lifted. Mr Reid has produced a floor level survey which shows that the slab is flat at one end and the Tribunal accepts that this is adversely affecting the ability of the slab to drain. The problem is not so much with the slab itself but the effects that the retention of water by the soil around the slab is having on the slab. [14] The Tribunal also accepts Mr Reid’s investigation of the soil profile which raises the probability that if remedial work is not done in regard to site drainage then the there is likelihood of further worsening of the drainage issue of the slab. While the issue may be minor at the moment under current conditions it will only worsen and to ensure that the slab drains freely as required by the Building Code the work outlined by Mr Reid will need to be performed. [15] The Tribunal orders that Walter Elliot Holdings have the work set out in photographs 1 and 2 and the site instruction report attached to Mr Reid’s report dated 9 December 2013 performed by suitably licensed tradespeople within 28 days of the date of this order. Mr Alford to give access to site 79, Palm Lake Resort on 3 days notice in writing for the purpose of having this work carried out. -- 4 of 4 --