# Forum Home Renovation Stairs, Steps and Ramps  Please Help - Im in a pickle over one stair just a bit too steep.

## Kirsty B

Hi, 
We have a step down through a doorway that is just a little too high for one step but too short to turn it into two steps as I understand by referring to the Australian Standards (AS1657).    
 Ie: 130mm minimum
       225mm max *
 Firstly, is this correct?* 
 We will be tiling the floor where you step down, however, that will only raise the floor level just 10mm, meaning when we finish tiling, we would still be 15mm too steep.    
Some friends have told me not to worry, "it's not by that much", but I disagree,  :No:  what if someone were to be injured.  That would make me liable.  It is being done up as a rental and I simply can't warn every guest to be careful!!  *So what are my solutions if I can't just build another step?*  *I am guessing some sort of landing?  However, I can not find Aust Standards for such landings?  Can anybody post me a link?* 
I also need to take into account the fact that if the landing has to be rather large, it may impede the  thoroughfare between the bedroom (where I took the photo) to the bathroom (room at far end).  The black mat on the floor is where the step is or landing may need to be. Having a large landing there is an obvious toe stubber for people going from the bedroom to the bathroom and I recognise that I may need to consider ramps that wrap around it.    *If this is the only solution:  
where can I get ramps that include the corner edge?   
I'm guessing Id need to find ramps on the market before I build the landing so I know what thickness to build it?*    
I could be wrong and there may be other solutions. 
Any help with this problem will be very much appreciated.

----------


## METRIX

NCC 3.9.1.1 states stair risers are Min 115mm max 190mm. 
I also cannot see the tiles will be 10mm, you need to allow for glue, tile thickness and any discrepancies, will probably be around 15mm

----------


## pharmaboy2

Australian stds obsess about stairs, not so much for a landing - no idea why.   This is where the application of common sense makes some difference, perhaps ignoring the Australian regulation sites and look for solutions from the US, Uk etc.  my gut reaction is a nice wide platform breaking it into 2,  220 is a really uncomfortable height.  Try some options out maybe as to what will feel best

----------


## Kirsty B

Thank You very much Metrix, 
We were looking at the following website:  Australian standard AS1657 : Stairs 
We may have made a mistake by taking the first measurement for stairs being the AS1657 one (ie min 130, max 225)........forgive us for being amateurs,* but is it possible to tell us the difference between the AS1657 and whatever BCA means?*  
 I have no doubt you must be correct and am beginning to become confident we can finish the job with the measurements you refer to. I mean half of 250 is 125 (just over your 115 minimum) and this not only works for us but it absolutely MAKES OUR DAY!!   :2thumbsup:  *
Is there a better website for us to refer to? 
I guess now we need to look at the 'going' and would love any input. 
Many, many thanks, Kirsty*

----------


## UseByDate

Just a guess, but I think AS1657 applies to non-habitable spaces and BCA applies to habitable spaces. Crudely, AS1657 for certain industries (usually where the general public have no access) and BCA for homes.

----------


## Sir Stinkalot

> NCC 3.9.1.1 states stair risers are Min 115mm max 190mm.

  Sorry I cant seem to open the photo to read the ruler to see what the dimension in floor difference is - I am guessing it is 250mm. 
NCC 3.9.1.2 states that: _A stairway must be designed to take loading forces in accordance with AS/NZS 1170.1 and must have— not more than 18 and not less than 2 risers in each flight. _ A little further on on page 356 there is this additional Explanatory information: _
3.9.1.2(a)(i) states that a stairway must have not more than 18 and not less than 2 risers in each flight. Where there are less than 2 risers in a flight, it does not comprise a stairway for the purpose of the BCA. More than 1 riser is considered necessary for a person to observe and adjust to a change in level. _ At the moment you have a step (or perhaps a threshold), not a stairway. A little further down NCC talks about thresholds.  _3.9.1.6 Thresholds_ _Where the threshold of a doorway is more than 230 mm above the adjoining surface it must incorporate steps having riser (R) and going (G) dimensions in accordance with 3.9.1.2. _ This seems to contradict their earlier statement: "_More than 1 riser is considered necessary for a person to observe and adjust to a change in level."_ But then again it is the BCA. 
As Metrix has mentioned your 10mm tile will need glue which will further increase the height.  
If you have 250mm - 10mm tile - 5mm glue = 235mm (still slightly over the threshold).  
Why not grade (feather) your tiled floor up ever so slightly to pick up the additional 5mm needed. It wouldn't be too difficult to feather out the 5mm in the hallway without it being noticeable. 
All that being said - you seem to have sufficient room to put a tread in to break the rise into two. It would be more comfortable than the 230mm rise. 
Rise (R) Min = 115mm Max = 190mm.
Going (G) Min = 240mm Max = 355mm.
The relationship is (2R+G) Min = 550mm Max = 700mm.

----------


## toooldforthis

I don't like this answer much muself but you could cut  some of that timber floor and have a step in each room?

----------


## METRIX

> Thank You very much Metrix, 
> We were looking at the following website:  Australian standard AS1657 : Stairs 
> We may have made a mistake by taking the first measurement for stairs being the AS1657 one (ie min 130, max 225)........forgive us for being amateurs,* but is it possible to tell us the difference between the AS1657 and whatever BCA means?*  
>  I have no doubt you must be correct and am beginning to become confident we can finish the job with the measurements you refer to. I mean half of 250 is 125 (just over your 115 minimum) and this not only works for us but it absolutely MAKES OUR DAY!!   *
> Is there a better website for us to refer to? 
> I guess now we need to look at the 'going' and would love any input. 
> Many, many thanks, Kirsty*

  BCA is the Building code of Australia, *all building work must abide by the BCA*, the BCA is now called the NCC National Construction Code. 
The BCA or NCC is an addition to the AS requirements, generally speaking AS refers to nitty gritty stuff like glass thickness, overlap distances and other finer details that goods must be made to abide by and is why each area of manufacturing has its own AS requirements. 
The BCA or NCC is more to do with day to day stuff, such as the height of balustrading, maximum gaps between treads etc, one of the main areas the NCC is referred to on a daily basis is exactly what you are asking for. 
If your height is 250, simply divide by two from the finished floor level of the timber floor to the FFL of the tiled floor, if the figure comes between 115 and 190, simply build a step dividing the height in half taking into account the finished height of the step, it only gets critical when you are calculating for something like 10 risers or more. 
No need for complicated this or that, cutting / ramping etc a simple step is all you need, try to keep the step height pretty much dead on between the two FFL, there is a tolerance of 5mm and in your case it's only one step so it's very easy. 
Make the going of the step between 240 and 355, I find around 280 is the best, 240mm is too small and anything 300 and more should be only used outside off a deck or similar.  
See below for answers to your questions..

----------


## UseByDate

> BCA is the Building code of Australia, *all building work must abide by the BCA*, the BCA is now called the NCC National Construction Code. 
> The BCA or NCC is an addition to the AS requirements, generally speaking AS refers to nitty gritty stuff like glass thickness, overlap distances and other finer details that goods must be made to abide by and is why each area of manufacturing has its own AS requirements. 
> The BCA or NCC is more to do with day to day stuff, such as the height of balustrading, maximum gaps between treads etc, one of the main areas the NCC is referred to on a daily basis is exactly what you are asking for. 
> If your height is 250, simply divide by two from the finished floor level of the timber floor to the FFL of the tiled floor, if the figure comes between 115 and 190, simply build a step dividing the height in half taking into account the finished height of the step, it only gets critical when you are calculating for something like 10 risers or more. 
> No need for complicated this or that, cutting / ramping etc a simple step is all you need, try to keep the step height pretty much dead on between the two FFL, there is a tolerance of 5mm and in your case it's only one step so it's very easy. 
> Make the going of the step between 240 and 355, I find around 280 is the best, 240mm is too small and anything 300 and more should be only used outside off a deck or similar.  
> See below for answers to your questions..

  Technically, “*all work on buildings must abide by BCA*”. Other building work, for example oil refineries, would use other Australian or foreign Standards.

----------


## r3nov8or

You would have read that any bottom step rise does not need to match the rest of the steps. Add a step of any height you like, just be conscious that neither are small enough to be a trip hazard 
This is the reason it's ok. Use it to advantage..

----------


## METRIX

> Technically, “*all work on buildings must abide by BCA*”. Other building work, for example oil refineries, would use other Australian or foreign Standards.

  Ok, All work on Class 1 to Class 10 buildings must abide by the BCA., I assume Kristy is not renovating an oil refinery so I think she should be ok with the above information  :Smilie: .

----------


## Kirsty B

Thank You All,  
All of your knowledge is priceless and a massive big thanks to Metrix  and Sir Stinkalot for giving such time to help us with our project :Biggrin: .  
Seeing we feel too amateur to try and grade the cement higher, we have  decided to make a step on the cement floor that will, when tiled be 125,  making each rise exactly 125.  And now I don't have a big fat landing  in my mind and just a step, I am confident that the'd be less of an  issue with the thoroughfare between Bedroom 3 and the bathroom.  PHEW!!! 
I will be sure to post photos of the final product on this thread, once we have finished (a few weeks away yet). 
Now for another question.    *Could someone please tell me the best way to make this step which is essentially a small slab on an existing slab?* 
My thoughts were to make a box (is correct word 'form' :Doh: )  to pour cement into it adding some reo, then level it all and set.  I  would likely want to put a few dyna bolts into existing cement slab that  protrude into the 'step' slab as I have heard all about potential  movement of slabs up against each other etc. 
Hubbie thinks this is over kill and all we'd need to do is, make the  step out of old bricks and concrete to get correct height and width,  then tile over. 
Its likely that all you experts may have a different solution? 
I have to say it again, thank you all so much, we are a pretty broke  couple renovating an entire house on our own after the bank gave us only  $10K to turn an inhabitable 3 bedroom house with no kitchen, nor  bathroom into a rental..............I know  :Doh:  that's crazy!!! But after years of having crap neighbours, its either buy and renovate it for a good tenant or sell and go!  
Your help and time is priceless, especially now, we have gone through our $10K and doing the rest on credit card!!!! :Frown:  
Again, thanks again, this forum rocks! :Rolleyes:

----------


## UseByDate

> Ok, All work on Class 1 to Class 10 buildings must abide by the BCA., I assume Kristy is not renovating an oil refinery so I think she should be ok with the above information .

  I don't know about Kristy but I am sure you are right about Kirsty. :2thumbsup:

----------


## METRIX

> I don't know about Kristy but I am sure you are right about Kirsty.

  Kristy is Kirsty's half sister  :Smilie:

----------


## METRIX

> Thank You All,  
> All of your knowledge is priceless and a massive big thanks to Metrix  and Sir Stinkalot for giving such time to help us with our project.  
> Seeing we feel too amateur to try and grade the cement higher, we have  decided to make a step on the cement floor that will, when tiled be 125,  making each rise exactly 125.  And now I don't have a big fat landing  in my mind and just a step, I am confident that the'd be less of an  issue with the thoroughfare between Bedroom 3 and the bathroom.  PHEW!!! 
> I will be sure to post photos of the final product on this thread, once we have finished (a few weeks away yet). 
> Now for another question.    *Could someone please tell me the best way to make this step which is essentially a small slab on an existing slab?* 
> My thoughts were to make a box (is correct word 'form')  to pour cement into it adding some reo, then level it all and set.  I  would likely want to put a few dyna bolts into existing cement slab that  protrude into the 'step' slab as I have heard all about potential  movement of slabs up against each other etc. 
> Hubbie thinks this is over kill and all we'd need to do is, make the  step out of old bricks and concrete to get correct height and width,  then tile over. 
> Its likely that all you experts may have a different solution? 
> I have to say it again, thank you all so much, we are a pretty broke  couple renovating an entire house on our own after the bank gave us only  $10K to turn an inhabitable 3 bedroom house with no kitchen, nor  bathroom into a rental..............I know  that's crazy!!! But after years of having crap neighbours, its either buy and renovate it for a good tenant or sell and go!  
> ...

  
If you want to tile it, you could build some formwork and pour a few bags of concrete in there, no need for steel as it's only an internal step, alternatively you could brick it up, put the bricks on their side (they are 110mm) by the time you mortar under them then tile should get what you need, or you could simply build one from timber and cover it in timber to match the flooring, choice is yours, any of them are easily done. 
If I was doing it I would go timber frame, extend it past the opening a little each side, then put some timber floorboards on top, stain to match the existing flooring..
Also are you having a door on this opening, because that may change things.

----------


## Kirsty B

Thanks very much Metrix.   
This is a photo from the wooden floorboard room and looking down on step on RHS.  Yes!! after careful calculations and the right wood heater (can snow here at times), the hearth just fits in!!!  Seeing that the hearth does slightly protrude the doorway entrance, the door is going to be a sliding door  that rolls on the wall from the 'lower' floor and will have a stopper in it to stop door disappearing therefore before hearth's end.  Looks like Hubby was right and we can just build a step up with the use of old bricks and mortar and no need to drill reo rods in between the slabs.  Another point to hubbie, doesn't matter I have a few points racked up anyway. :2thumbsup:  Big big cheers to you Metrix, Many Kind Regards, Kirsty

----------


## r3nov8or

"Another point to hubbie", except that he loses them all at once, whereas you don't  :Smilie:

----------


## METRIX

> Thanks very much Metrix.   
> This is a photo from the wooden floorboard room and looking down on step on RHS.  Yes!! after careful calculations and the right wood heater (can snow here at times), the hearth just fits in!!!  Seeing that the hearth does slightly protrude the doorway entrance, the door is going to be a sliding door  that rolls on the wall from the 'lower' floor and will have a stopper in it to stop door disappearing therefore before hearth's end.  Looks like Hubby was right and we can just build a step up with the use of old bricks and mortar and no need to drill reo rods in between the slabs.  Another point to hubbie, doesn't matter I have a few points racked up anyway. Big big cheers to you Metrix, Many Kind Regards, Kirsty

  Is that a new hearth you have installed for a new slow combustion or the like ?
If so, don't forget the following things. 
There is a minimum clearance to combustible material, ie: the gyprock wall lining and timber frame behind gyprock are considered combustible so these need to be isolated from the fireplace by removing the gyprock, protect the timber frame with FC sheeting then tile the FC sheeting, if this is not done the gyprock and frames will have a good chance of catching fire, probably resulting in the house burning down and causing insurance problems (see next point). 
The slow combustion needs to be installed by a licensed solid fuel installer to ensure it complies with BCA 3.7.3 regulations, and relevant installation compliance documentation is received after this is complete. 
The installation documentation needs to be kept with your house insurance documents in case there is a problem in the future, illegal installations ie: DIY or non-licensed will give the insurance company valid reason to void your policy if the fireplace was deemed to cause a fire which results in the house burning down !! 
Here is bad news Part 1: You also need to submit a DA to your local council in regards to installing the Solid Fuel device "prior" to installing the fireplace, this is part of gov't pollution law regulation but is handled by your local council. 
The council will then notify neighbours to the impending installation in case there are complaints from them about smell / pollution etc, if all is ok then you can have the heater installed. 
Here is bad news Part 2: installation by a licensed Solid Fuel installer will cost you around $600 
Here is bad news Part 3: DA submission will cost you around $600-$700 
Just submitted one last week for a client to Hornsby council, cost of fireplace installed is $3000, council submission cost $768, yes $768 !!!!!!

----------


## phild01

> I. 
> There is a minimum clearance to combustible material, ie: the gyprock wall lining and timber frame behind gyprock are considered combustible so these need to be isolated from the fireplace by removing the gyprock, protect the timber frame with FC sheeting then tile the FC sheeting, if this is not done the gyprock and frames will have a good chance of catching fire, probably resulting in the house burning down and causing insurance problems (see next point).

  Has a house ever caught fire pre these regs.  In the day when I did as I want (maybe still do) I placed my wood heater close to a standard timber framed plasterboard wall.  All I did was abide by the manufacturers clearance criteria.  The heater has a heat shield behind it and then clearance of about 250mm to the wall.  On the odd occasion, the metal would glow cherry red, and in normal use the wall was quite hot to touch.  However the wall was never at risk of catching alight. 
Councils are grubs for any money opportunity too.  Regs these days seem to be concocted by those with vivid imaginations, especially the fire regs.

----------


## commodorenut

> Councils are grubs for any money opportunity too.  Regs these days seem to be concocted by those with vivid imaginations, especially the fire regs.

   Not defending councils, but in this world today of ever increasing litigation, for the smallest and most obscure reasons, councils & other bodies that can be helod liable by the smallest thread, need to cover their butts.  This has prompted a wave of "what if" scenario brainstorms, to ensure they are protected from that one in a million potential claim. 
I shake my head when I read the rubbish that people drag others into court to sue them for, and knowing someone who once worked for a local council some 10 years back, residents will try anything on a council - thinking that because they pay rates, they are justified in winning some of them back.  A good example is a grass-cutting crew flicking up a rock, smashing a windscreen - councils get numerous claims for this, and as long as the time/place matches their mowing schedule, they generally don't question it, and simply pay the claim.  But then you have the same guy with 3 different cars, within a few months, making the same claims....  or the one who wanted $20K to repaint his "show quality" paint job on his entire car, because a car in front flicked up a few stones from a pot hole that they "negligently" didn't fix prompty.   
20 years ago a fellow employee used to take a short-cut home from the pub on weekends, scaling a 6ft cyclone fence at each side of a locked council compound, instead of walking a few hundred metres more to get home.  He fell one night, and broke his ankle.  You'd think he'd consider it bad luck due to trespassing (some would say karma....) but he pursued council - suing them for medical costs, and loss of income, on the grounds that the fence didn't have barbed wire on the top, so it wasn't enough of a deterrent to prevent it being climbed.  Everyone who worked with him told him he was a moron, but it didn't stop him chasing it - nor the "no win, no fee" scumbag lawyer who was more than happy to encourage him. 
I do agree that some of the regs are bordering on ludicrous, but they're covering that one-in-a-million chance that something might happen, and you'll get someone wanting to sue them.

----------


## Uncle Bob

Maybe we need to look at the ACC (https://www.acc.co.nz) system in NZ, that could stop the litigation madness. 
I think it goes something like this. 
Everyone pays a levy out of their wages. This covers you against accidents and injuries and pays your wages and medical bills while you're off work and gives lump sum payments for loss.
But it also removes the right to sue.

----------


## METRIX

> Has a house ever caught fire pre these regs.  In the day when I did as I want (maybe still do) I placed my wood heater close to a standard timber framed plasterboard wall.  All I did was abide by the manufacturers clearance criteria.  The heater has a heat shield behind it and then clearance of about 250mm to the wall.  On the odd occasion, the metal would glow cherry red, and in normal use the wall was quite hot to touch.  However the wall was never at risk of catching alight. 
> Councils are grubs for any money opportunity too.  Regs these days seem to be concocted by those with vivid imaginations, especially the fire regs.

  Are you sure, if the walls surface is hot, heat is being transferred through without you knowing about it, a bit like glass splashbacks where the cooktop is, these just transfer heat straight through to the gyprock ,and why it's standard practice to remove the gyprock from directly behind the cooktop and replace with FC sheeting. 
I have had two houses that had fireplaces installed, one was burning log open type thing, one was a slow combustion. 
The burning log was on a brick hearth and straight on chipboard, I removed it during the reno, and to my surprise the chipboard floor was all charcoaled and almost burnt through, house probably would have gone up if it had burnt through so oxygen could have got to the charcoaling. 
The other was a slow combustion, during the reno I also removed it, was talking to the neighbour just after I removed it, he said that the house caught on fire a few years ago from the slow combustion, it was lucky the firebrigarde was only 2 minutes away they saved the house, he said the front wall of the house caught on fire but was extinguished before it got to the rest of the house. 
Only last week a college I work with said her flue caught on fire, they only noticed it luckily when they were outside and saw flames coming out the top of the flue, they quickly ran inside with the hose and put the fire out while the other one sprayed water onto the flue 
Flue fires are caused by build up in the flue and lack or maintenance, quite common I believe, they don't always end up burning the house down, but there is a good chance if it happens 
Yes I agree about the money thing, I can't see the justification for over $700 in fees for a $3000 install, that's just wrong.
Bear in mind it's not the council that forced the regulations is the state Gov't due to tupid pollution laws 
They just wiped their hands of it and palmed it off to the council's, how much the councils charge is up to them some would be ok some would not 
The pollution laws are backwards, think about in the summer how the RFS back burn around Sydney, they blanket the entire city in ash, cause major distress for Asthma sufferers etc, they must dump hundreds of tons of soot up there. 
I'm not saying what they are doing is wrong, but there has to be better ways to manage these resources, then you want to install a Slow combustion which emits around 1.1gram per kg of timber burnt and you are severely regulated !! 
Below are some pics I took of one year in Summer, these pictures were taken at 1.30 in the afternoon, you will notice the street lights are on, this place was in suburbia around 10km from where the backburning was happening, this is what I'm referring to.

----------


## phild01

Have a look at these flashpoints. A timber frame is not going to reach those temperatures with a close proximity wood heater. 
Table 1 Flrepoint temperatures obtained by Janssens (10).Wood SpeciesWestern Red CedarRedwood
Radiata pine
Douglas fir
Victorian ash
Blackbutt
softwood
hardwood
IgnitionTemperature (0C)
354
364
349
350
311
300http://iafss.org/publications/aofst/1/380/view/aofst_1-380.pdf 
I understand the flashpoint for paper is 451 F or 233 degrees C.  I would suspect that the paper faced plasterboard would be even higher.  A wood heater near one of these walls is not going to achieve those temperatures.
Houses that burn down from woodheaters is more to do with incorrectly installed flues;
or operator carelessness letting ambers ignite nearby sources of paper and kindling, this being outside the scope of installation regs. 
What I am basically referring to is the material that can be behind a heater. Standard plasterboard should/may not be an issue at all!

----------


## Kirsty B

Wow,    
 Thank You all for your comments.  
 My parents had a cottage that burnt to the ground 20 years ago.  The fire started in the ceiling around the flue.  I understand now that new fire box's need to have a triple flue and after losing our cottage, I completely understand why.  The fire assessors that came for my parents suspect it was a rats next in the roof cavity butting up against the double flue (legal then).     
 After my experience, I have not cut any corners investigating the legalities with installing this wood heater.    The fire box I bought has minimum     distance from the wall and as long as it is installed taking in the     minimum, I will not need a fire proof wall finish.  Considering my     firebox (Norseman Nevada) is double walled and I have a bought a     specific type of decro-mesh triple flue recommended for installation     with my wood heater.  My wood heater specs are that it if it is     installed on a perfect corner angle, each back corner can be as     little as 175 from the wall.   If it wasn't installed in the corner,     it would need to be 400 from a wall.After much research and phone     calls and emails from the head honcho from the heater distributors     (BBQ Galore),  we built our hearth within the correct specs,     actually we made it a little larger by about 20.  The proximity to     the door was always going to be an issue and how far the hearth     needed to protrude, hence why we chose the heater with double wall     and minimal clearance.We did consider tiling behind the     wall but that would have pushed our hearth out further into the door     passageway and have chosen not to after repeatedly being told that Gyprock is fine as     long as we follow the manufacturers installation instructions.Thank you Metrix for caring and     writing me these warnings.  You've been with us throughout this     whole post and understand we are limited with our legal knowledge of     steps, let alone something so important like wood heating.  I really     appreciate your concerns.  Luckily our Council charge $125 for our     permit and hence why there is no wood heater on that newly built     hearth yet as we're in the process of getting this permit.  Once we     do, we will be contacting a plumber licensed to install wood heaters     to install and sign off on it on the permit form.  Also lucky that     we have one neighbour and that is ourselves, so they'll be no hold     ups from neighbours complaints there  :Biggrin: .   
 Lastly, even though our budget for renovating this house is extremely limited and much of it is being spent on this wood heater, I am safety conscious and don't mind paying $125 for a permit (however, I think $768 is extremely rich for any Council and can only assume, it may be in place to deter applications due to pollution concerns in more built up areas) as well as we don't mind paying for a certified person to install it.  It can snow here on the odd occasion and we want to attract a good tenant.  
 Also, having been through one house fire, I am grateful of new reg's such like the triple flue and that there are safer wood heaters out there that are now double walled.  And before anyone else mentions the next part, I understand that it doesn't matter how much you follow reg's, unless you clean the flue, you are still susceptible to fire due to dirty chimneys and after the hard hours my hubbie and I have put into this house, our lucky tenant will need to accept that their landlord neighbours will be ensuring they give free chimney cleaning services. I guess we'll have to put that in the lease! 
I will be sure to post pictures of the heater installed as well as my brand new step.   :Rolleyes:  Cant wait!!!  Then we're onto laundry and bathroom in which I am sure that the people here on this awesome website will no doubt be extremely valuable, as you already have been.

----------


## METRIX

Cool, good to see you investigated the installation requirements and understand the importance of ensuring these things won;t cause any problems in the future.
Yes the $700+ in council fees is highway robbery, I asked them to confirm it was correct, they tried many different scenarios but that's what the computer has come back with. 
Yes you are correct in saying it's probably to deter new installations, perhaps it's partly to do with this particular council was basically broke a few years ago, perhaps with charges like these it's no wonder they have started making a profit !!

----------


## phild01

Yep, Hornsby Council is inept, letting themselves be run roughshod over with the Quarry.  Buying back a hole in the ground and then paying as much again to have it filled in.  Then letting themselves lose their boundaries and be conned into believing that the financial help in filling in the hole is compensation for the boundary change.  Shame it is such a Liberal stronghold, iniquitous government BS.

----------


## METRIX

Not to mention the disaster of the boy losing his life from one of the construction trucks used to fill this hole. 
Ku-ring-gai refused to merge with Hornsby because they knew Hornsby was broke, and wanted the merger so ku-ring-gai could bail them out.

----------


## phild01

I saw one of those trucks speed through our local crossing where someone was waiting to step off.  It wasn't an amber light, it was red for about 3 seconds before he entered. On camera, cops uninterested in footage but sit there waiting for less indiscretion.

----------


## METRIX

Yep, it's a shyte fight over there with the hundreds of tucks a day speeding through that intersection, fill that hole at any cost from the looks of it. 
To say that hole is quite big is an understatement, they will dump 1 million cubic m or spoil from the North Connex tunnel into that hole and it's still not filled !!!

----------


## phild01

And ratepayers have to buy a lot of that fill from northconnex, iniquitous!  With that investment we should get a cut in the tolls collected.

----------


## METRIX

> And ratepayers have to buy a lot of that fill from northconnex, iniquitous!  With that investment we should get a cut in the tolls collected.

   I believe it's being provided for free according to this, which would make sense as North Connex would have to pay to dump it.

----------


## phild01

IIRC ratepayers and the government were going halves in the cost of buying spoil and filling the quarry.  That amounted to $20 million dollars each. Ruddock obviously can't get our boundaries back from Parramatta Council and has done a snide deal with the government stating remediation costs as a sweetener.  I won't hold my breath to the outcome.  Bear in mind we already paid some $25 million dollars to buy a useless hole in the ground created by CSR without a fight.

----------


## phild01

And that video says partially filled.  Seems to get worse.

----------


## commodorenut

The could have put a road through it & made it an industrial estate like the one linking Wetherill Park to Prospect...... imagine the uproar then!

----------


## Moondog55

I would have though t that a hole in the ground filled with water and fish was an asset not a liability but what do I know

----------


## phild01

> I would have though t that a hole in the ground filled with water and fish was an asset not a liability but what do I know

  The amount of water it held was at a low inaccessible level except  for Elvis fighting bushfires.

----------


## Kirsty B

UPDATE:  Step is finished.  Thank You all for your time and guidance.   Very much appreciated.  Final measurements were rise from lower level  130, then 120 (not too bad considering we used bricks on their side to  build step so limited to their size.  And the going is 305.  We are  pretty happy with our handy work. 
Also there is a pic of the wood heater after being legally installed by a plumber and DA certified.

----------

