# Forum More Stuff Debate & Technical Discussion  Law controlling common exhaust fans in multistorey buildings? (QLD)

## strangerep

Hi All, 
I live in a complex of several apartment blocks. (Some blocks are 3-storey, others 2). Many of the apartments have completely-enclosed rooms, such as bathroom and laundry. I.e., no windows. These rooms rely on a common ventilation system that operates 24x7 from large exhaust fans in the roof cavity. 
Recently, a majority of members on our Body Corporate committee "decided" that these exhaust fans are unnecessary, and are refusing to repair/replace them when they become faulty or nonfunctional.   :Doh:  
I would have thought this constitutes gross negligence and/or gross misconduct by those BC members. Wouldn't it even be illegal? Don't the exhaust fans qualify as essential elements for the health and safety of residents? 
Are there regulations, or laws, etc, that govern this sort of thing in QLD? What legal remedies exist to compel a BC committee to act properly in the interests of ALL residents (not just those who live in well-ventilated apartment on the top floors)? 
[*Edit:* I just noticed that the NCC 2016 Building Code of Australia, section F4.5 has a clause (b) mandating a mechanical ventilation system complying with AS 1668.2. However, there is an annotation "NSW F4.5(b)". Does this mean that clause F4.5(b) only applies in NSW, or just that a different version of clause F4.5(b) applies in NSW, as shown on p527?] 
Thanks in advance for any advice/suggestions.  :Smilie:

----------


## PhilT2

This complex must be reasonably old. I would have thought that a common extractor system would not be legal as units should have a fire barrier between them but this does not apply to older buildings. The growth of mould would make this a health issue; why does the BC think this is not going to happen? The original designers of the building plainly thought that the fans were necessary; it would be interesting to ask who on the board thinks they have expertise to over ride the original designers. 
Not an expert in this area (or any other) but can I just suggest acting quickly before mould starts to form. Getting rid of it can be a challenge.

----------


## phild01

Sounds like the other units don't get the same or equal benefit from the exhaust fans, and don't care!

----------


## r3nov8or

The movement of air generally and exhausting of moist air is key to healthy living. Do these people actually realise the amount of air that is being moved by the systems that are in place? Smacks of a BC with no knowledge of the subject or risks.

----------


## NZC

Go to the council, they'll type you up a letter saying what is required.

----------


## strangerep

> This complex must be reasonably old.

   It's one of the oldest complexes in the residential zone of Sanctuary Cove. Maybe 25-30 yrs? (I just guessing on that, however.)   

> [...] The growth of mould would make this a health issue; why does the BC think this is not going to happen? The original designers of the building plainly thought that the fans were necessary; it would be interesting to ask who on the board thinks they have expertise to over ride the original designers.

   Indeed -- the same thoughts occurred to me. But our BC committee is in a state of upheaval right now. Our chairman resigned in disgust recently because a majority of other committee members were *preventing* him from getting the fans fixed/replaced! Can you believe that?   

> Not an expert in this area (or any other) but can I just suggest acting quickly before mould starts to form. [...]

   I've only found out about it quite recently (since the fan in my block is ok). But our caretaker tells me that some fans have been faulty for quite a while, and he advised the committee accordingly when he first became aware of it. I'm in the process of obtaining full details and dates from him. 
Tks.

----------


## strangerep

> The movement of air generally and exhausting of moist air is key to healthy living. Do these people actually realise the amount of air that is being moved by the systems that are in place? Smacks of a BC with no knowledge of the subject or risks.

   Indeed. They need to have the force of law brought down on their heads over this, imho.

----------


## strangerep

> Sounds like the other units don't get the same or equal benefit from the exhaust fans, and don't care!

   Exactly. They actually spent significant amounts of money recently upgrading all the exterior lights (and cocking it up), and installing roof solar panels with associated hardware. All this inessential expenditure (apparently) while several building fans remained nonfunctional!

----------


## strangerep

> Go to the council, they'll type you up a letter saying what is required.

   Will do -- thanks.

----------


## Marc

Strange ... you can not underestimate the allure of the solar panels. Furthermore those fans are driven by ELECTRICITY .... aaaaah, anathema! 
I suggest you propose you honorable BC, to attach a bicycle to the fans and take turns in pedal on the roof of your building. 
Fittness and ventilation all in one. Olé ! 
Seriously now. 
I am surprised that the rules don't require a passive ventilation as main and mechanical only as an addition.

----------


## UseByDate

It might be useful to quote the Australian Standards, referenced in this document, to the council if you get no success from your BC.   https://www.airah.org.au/Content_Fil...009-03-F03.pdf

----------


## r3nov8or

> ...
> [*Edit:* I just noticed that the NCC 2016 Building Code of Australia, section F4.5 has a clause (b) mandating a mechanical ventilation system complying with AS 1668.2 and AS/NZS 3666.1. *However, there is an annotation "NSW F4.5(b)".* Does this mean that clause F4.5(b) only applies in NSW, or just that a different version of clause F4.5(b) applies in NSW, as shown on p527?]
> ...

   If you have the PDF version of the latest NCC, that NSW annotation is a link, and clicking it goes to - 
"" _Note.The reference to AS/NZS 3666.1 is deleted from the BCA in NSW, as the need to complywith this standard is regulated in the Public Health Regulation, 2012, under the Public HealthAct, 2010._
""

----------


## PhilT2

> It might be useful to quote the Australian Standards, referenced in this document, to the council if you get no success from your BC.   https://www.airah.org.au/Content_Fil...009-03-F03.pdf

  Does that standard apply to a building of that age?
And how would one go about finding what standards applied at the time of construction?

----------


## strangerep

> If you have the PDF version of the latest NCC, that NSW annotation is a link, and clicking it goes to - 
> "" _Note.The reference to AS/NZS 3666.1 is deleted from the BCA in NSW, as the need to comply with this standard is regulated in the Public Health Regulation, 2012, under the Public HealthAct, 2010._
> ""

   Ah yes. Thank you. 
So,... a requirement for adequate ventilation is _not_ mandated by Public Health acts in all other states??

----------


## strangerep

> I am surprised that the rules don't require a passive ventilation as main and mechanical only as an addition.

   Section F4.5 of NCC 2016 Building Code of Australia says:   

> A habitable room, office, shop, factory, workroom, sanitary compartment, bathroom, shower room, laundry and any other room occupied by a person for any purpose must have 
> (a) natural ventilation complying with F4.6; or 
> (b)  a mechanical ventilation or air-conditioning system complying with AS 1668.2 and AS/NZS 3666.1.

   (Section F4.6 deals with natural ventilation in terms of openings, etc, hence doesn't apply to completely enclosed rooms. Therefore, mechanical ventilation is mandatory in such rooms, afaict.)

----------


## strangerep

> It might be useful to quote the Australian Standards, referenced in this document, to the council if you get no success from your BC. https://www.airah.org.au/Content_Fil...009-03-F03.pdf

   Ah, thanks. I tried to access a copy of AS1668.2 online, but it costs several hundred dollars. However, the document you mentioned helpfully says:   

> Bathroom / Toilet – Private dwellings and attached to bedroom of hotels, motels, private hospital rooms and the like – 25L/s per room. May include bath, shower, WC and hand basin in one compartment. Rate independent of room size.
> [...]
> It is generally acknowledged in the HVAC industry that25L/s air flow may be adequate for toilet ventilation and odour control. However, experience will tell that this air flow rate is often insufficient to adequately ventilate a bathroom when a shower is running, particularly in cool or humid climates. For a bathroom with shower to be free of condensation (and its inconvenient and harmful effects) an exhaust rate of between 50 to 100 L/s is recommended.

----------


## strangerep

> Does that standard apply to a building of that age?
> And how would one go about finding what standards applied at the time of construction?

   It doesn't really matter what applied way back then. 
 The crucial issue here is what ongoing maintenance standards for ventilation systems are mandatory *now*.  :Frown:

----------


## r3nov8or

> Does that standard apply to a building of that age?
> And how would one go about finding what standards applied at the time of construction?

  Given the systems were indeed installed I think it's reasonable to assume they were required at that time

----------

