Thread: Damn the damn dams or be dammed!

Or there's the obvious doggie solution to the problem....

Mmmm... poo

Originally Posted by AlexS

Boban and others, I believe unit blocks now have to have storage capacity for storm runoff - is this so? Is this water later used or is it pumped into the sewerage system?

Yes Alex they are called on-site detention pits and are the biggest waste of money I can think of. All they do is hold the water during a storm and let it out slowly over an extended period.

You are not allowed to store the water in there even they would make perfect storage tanks. My parents had on on their house in West Pennant Hills. It suddenly became blocked and thereafter used it as a water tank. It was perfect for the garden, cars etc. They never completely ran out of water.

Theirs was constructed like a swimming pool although you could have open areas hold the water and comply. As to how effective they are, the council engineers have told me that they "wish the money spent was consolidated and a public storage tank was constructed in a number of areas. Thats just common sense and the idea wouldn't stand a chance."

I agree completely with Boban regarding on-site detention pits. There are a whole heap of Local Authorities introducing all sorts of pathetic and expensive regulations without any thought for how it all works. One local authority I deal with even requires storage tanks to be topped up from the town mains :confused: :confused: :confused: !!

Urban councils in particular are simply burdening projects with non-sensical costs because they have a view that " the developer can afford it". They fail to realise time and time again, that the developer isn't paying, the end user is!

All of these things can be included if the market price is sufficient to cover the costs. My current project is geographically in the middle of nowhere (or actually it's on the edge of nowhere I guess) and fortunately commands a fairly hefty price premium, so we have been able to incorporate all manner of devices which actually work.

Strangely our customers couldn't give a square root that we've spent tens of thousands of dollars extra per unit to save them a few bob down the track, as well as minimise use of water and electricity. If the decision to buy had been based on two identical units one with the stuff for and extra $25k or one without, they all would have taken the one without.

I suppose I just want to reinforce the fact that some developers are actually taking action off their own bat, and paying out of their own pockets, and that's basically why I choose to work with them. Make no mistake though, no one is Santa Claus, if the product was not able to be sold, it couldn't be done.

This project contains 80 units with two or three bathrooms each, and some of the things we have incorporated include:

~around 500,000 litres (that's half a million) of water storage on site (rainwater captured from roofs)
~Toilets, washing machines and laundry tubs plumbed separately to rainwater tanks (Yes, we've actually duplicated the plumbing to allow this to happen).
~3 litre flush toilets - at a cost of a mere $900.00 per suite
~Triple and in some cases quadruple A rated taps and fittings
~Front loading washing machines
~Landscape plants derived fromt the local gene pool, already adapted to the conditions, so that sprinkling will be virtually eliminated.

We have incorporated similar smart stuff in the electrical gear as well, but that's for another thread!

At the end of the day, it gives us a warm fuzzy feeling to do it, probably more so because our customers will never know, but we could not afford to do any of it if we were in the first home market, or probably even in the median bracket.

By the way,(SPAM ALERT!!!) we still have a three or four absolute beachfront units left at around $1.2m, or poolside with courtyards for $700k if anyone is interested. http://www.pavillions-on1770.com.au/

Cheers,

P (Oops, I must have just had a dose of rant juice!)

Originally Posted by boban

Yes Alex they are called on-site detention pits and are the biggest waste of money I can think of. All they do is hold the water during a storm and let it out slowly over an extended period.

I feared that was the case.

Why not just do what the tassie govt is doing with the meander dam

Just start building before the approval

Originally Posted by dazzler

Why not just do what the tassie govt is doing with the meander dam

Just start building before the approval

The only group which doesn't approve is the stupid greens. Kim (Shifty) Booth has suddenly become a feather-brained bird expert in an effort to stop the dam. Here's a GREEN member of parliament who owns a bloody sawmill and gets resource for that mill from old growth forests. The same goose who once reckoned eucalypt plantations were the go. Now they (the greens) reckon eaucalypt plantations are a blight becuase they are grown on rural land. Well excuse me. What is more useful, economically and environmentally, thousands of hectares of grass or thousands of hectares of trees. Fools, fools. Ignore all greens. They lie. :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

The Tasmanian Government was relected. Its the majority which counts. Not a bunch of vegan, pot smokin, jobless hippies.
Rant Rant Rant blah blah. Gotta take my pill.

Hmm, a moderator seems to have deleted Midge's interesting post about water- and energy-saving devices in the units that he is building. I was notified of the post by e-mail, but it is no longer there in the thread. I can only imagine that this was because he mentioned the price of the units - up to $1.2 million. It seems to me that, if the post was deleted for being spam, this was a bit harsh. The post was not primarily spruiking his units.

Rocker

Originally Posted by Rocker

Hmm, a moderator seems to have deleted Midge's interesting post about water- and energy-saving devices in the units that he is building. I was notified of the post by e-mail, but it is no longer there in the thread. I can only imagine that this was because he mentioned the price of the units - up to $1.2 million. It seems to me that, if the post was deleted for being spam, this was a bit harsh. The post was not primarily spruiking his units.

Rocker

No, I deleted it because I re-read it and thought I was being a bit of a egocentric wanker! :eek: Maybe it was just a bit late at night! (Do we want it back?)

P

You are not allowed to store the water in there even [though] they would make perfect storage tanks.

I was under the impression that when BASIX came in, you pretty much HAD to put in a rainwater tank to get the points on water conservation?

Do we want it back?

Yes, bring it back. We wont think you're an egocentric wanker, honest

Yeh bring it back, we all know your a a bit of a egocentric wanker anyway.

Al

Originally Posted by ozwinner

Yeh bring it back, we all know your a a bit of a egocentric wanker anyway.

I can't

Can you??? It was post #65 I think?

HE CAN!! Hurrah for OZ!


Now I look like an egocentric wanker again! :eek:

P

Yeah bring it back, its all grist for the mill!
There was some 'environmentally friendly' development in Brisbane recently, a set of units designed for minumum heating/cooling costs, and all the roofs were plumbed to a common underground tank, which seemed fairly large, ie. not a token gesture. The reticulation and maybe toilet flushing was acheived by on-site collection. That seems like a worthy development, I would have thought.

Cheers,