Cost-effective quality: next generation building control in New Zealand — Building Act Review discussion document February 2010
On this page
Part 2: Moving to a more balanced approach to building control
The overall proposal is to strike a better balance between regulation and risk, so that building consent authority oversight and control of building work is in proportion to the risks and consequences of failure, and the skills and capability of the people involved.
Buildings would still have to comply with the Building Code – that is, they would have to meet requirements for health, safety and other essential matters. However, different buildings and building work have different challenges for building professionals and tradespeople, and present different risks for owners and users, and we see sense in reflecting those differences in the building control system.
With the Licensed Building Practitioner Scheme being rolled out, it should be possible to place more reliance on licensed building professionals and tradespeople having the skills and capability to deliver dependable quality. We propose that for lower-risk work there would be more reliance on licensed building practitioners taking responsibility for confirming Building Code compliance, with the licensing regime holding them to account.
It is important to note that we propose retaining the current building consent system for more complex and less conventional residential buildings, as well as some commercial buildings, because of the higher risk and higher consequences of failure.
However, for more complex commercial buildings, we recognise there are qualified, experienced professionals using sophisticated risk management and quality assurance processes, and on that basis we propose moving to a more streamlined process.
There is a strong link between these proposals and the proposals to strengthen consumer protection (Part 3). Effective contracts and mandatory warranties are expected to motivate building professionals and tradespeople to take more responsibility for getting it ‘right first time’ and accepting liability for fixing problems when they occur. Such contracts and warranties will also better equip consumers to enforce their rights.
Overview of a balanced, risk-related building control system.
Back to top
2.1 Lowest-risk building work exempt from consent requirements
Building professionals, tradespeople and owner– builders would be able to undertake more of the lowest-risk work without needing building consents.
The current situation
Some low-risk building work is currently exempt from the need for a building consent (under section 41 and Schedule 1 of the Building Act), such as installing or replacing doors or windows. Schedule 14 also contains a general principle that allows territorial authorities to exempt other low-risk building work on a case-by-case basis where they consider the completed work is unlikely to be non-compliant, or to endanger people if it is non-compliant.
What is being considered
We propose expanding the range of work exempt from consent requirements to include building work that is unlikely to fail or where the consequences of failure (especially for health and safety) are minimal.
As a starting point for discussion, a list of building work proposed for exemption is set out in Attachment 1. This includes building work such as simple sheds, low decks, signs, adding a basic room to a house, replacing a hot water heater or internal linings, or installing a heat pump.
This list has been developed on the principle that the work is low risk; that is, the building is unlikely to fail or, if it does, the failure will have little consequence for people’s health, safety or finances. Some of the proposed exemptions are conditional on licensed building practitioners designing, doing or overseeing the work, to reduce the likelihood of it failing. Some may still require detail of the work to be lodged with local authorities for land information and other reasons.
The following questions may help you formulate your feedback. Use our online submission process to answer these questions and give us your comments:
| Questions on exemptions from consent requirements |
| Q15 Do you agree the items or areas of work listed in Attachment 1 are low risk? |
| Q16 Are there any items or areas of work listed in Attachment 1 that should not be exempt from building consent requirements? If so, which ones (please use identification number/letter when commenting) and why should they be subject to building consent requirements? Are there any limitations or conditions that would address your concerns? |
Q17 What other items or areas of work do you think should be added to Schedule 1 of the Act?
Why are these low risk? |
| Q18 Is there any essential or useful information that is currently gathered through building consent applications that would be unavailable under this proposal? |
| Q19 Do you have any other comments on exemptions for lowest-risk building work? |
Back to top
2.2 A more streamlined process for low-risk residential building work
Licensed building practitioners would take responsibility for confirming that buildings they design and construct comply with the Building Code, for a specified range of low-risk building work. Building consent authorities would continue to check on critical construction points (foundations, framing and insulation, plumbing, drainage, claddings and flashings) through inspection.
The current situation
At present, most building projects have to go through a standard process of obtaining a building consent, undergoing inspection by building consent authorities at key stages during construction, and getting a code compliance certificate on completion of the work. The Building Act requires building consent authorities to make judgements about what's required at each stage of the process on 'reasonable grounds',5 but provides little direction on how to do this.
What is being considered
The proposed streamlined process for simple timber, brick or stone houses (Category 1)6 and other low-risk buildings would see licensed building practitioners taking responsibility for confirming that plans and construction comply with the Building Code. Building consent authorities would continue to inspect critical construction points (foundations, framing and insulation, plumbing, drainage, claddings and flashings).
This proposal is based on the principle that skilled and capable building practitioners can design and construct simple buildings that meet Building Code requirements without the level of third-party oversight currently applied. It is also based on ensuring Code requirements are clear and unambiguous (see Part 1.2)
This proposal is also aligned with the scope of restricted building work (that is, work that from March 2012 can only be carried out or supervised by licensed building practitioners). Restricted building work for Category 1 houses will be the design and construction of:
- the primary structure (foundations and framing)
- external moisture management systems (such as roofing and cladding).
We propose, for the purposes of discussion, that this streamlined process would apply to buildings that meet all of the following criteria:
- simple, low-risk buildings, including Category 1 buildings
- designed and certified as Code compliant by a design-licensed building practitioner, registered architect or chartered professional engineer
- construction is overseen by a site-licensed building practitioner who certifies that the work is Code compliant
- constructed by licensed building practitioners where relevant licensing classes apply
- subject to a warranty that meets minimum prescribed criteria (see Part 3.3 for warranty proposals).
It is possible that this process may also apply to buildings covered by a MultiProof approval.7
Table 1 below indicates one option for the proposed streamlined process, as a starting point for discussion.
Notes to table:
Step 2: The BCA would:
- accept the design memorandum as establishing Code compliance, without doing its own checks of the plans and specifications
- have a limited time to respond to an applicant; for example, a refusal to accept an application or a request for more information must be given within a short time, such as a maximum of five days
- keep a public record of the documentation.
The territorial authority would issue resource consents as it currently does.
Step 3:
- BCA inspections would be limited to critical parts of the building.
- Inspections would be made within a time limit, for example within two days of request.
- Variations to the design would follow the same process, with the BCA accepting designers’ memoranda.
- Follow-up inspections would be made as needed to confirm remedy of defects in critical parts of the building.
The following questions may help you formulate your feedback. Use our online submission process to answer these questions and give us your comments:
| Questions about a streamlined process for low-risk residential building work |
| Q20 Do you agree that building consent authority oversight and control of a building or building work should be in proportion to the risk and consequences of failure? If not, why not? |
| Q21 Do you agree that licensed building practitioners should be able to be relied on to design and construct simple buildings that meet Building Code requirements without the level of third-party oversight currently applied? If not, why not? |
| Q22 Do you agree that the proposed streamlined process is adequate to ensure simple buildings are Code compliant? If not, why not? |
| Q23 Do you have any comment on the indicative steps in Table 1, including the notes to the table? |
| Q24 Are there any other steps that should be part of a streamlined process for simple, low-risk residential building work? |
| Q25 Do you agree that the foundations, framing and insulation, plumbing, drainage, claddings and flashings are critical elements that would still need to be inspected by building consent authorities in a streamlined process? If not, what elements do you think would still need to be inspected? |
Q26 Do you agree with the criteria for buildings to be covered by the proposed streamlined process for simple, low-risk
residential building work? If not, which criteria would you change and why? |
| Q27 Should the proposed streamlined process apply to buildings covered by a MultiProof approval? |
Q28 Should the proposed streamlined process apply to any other low-risk buildings or building work?
If so, how would you define which buildings or building work? |
| Q29 Does the proposed process align appropriately with the rules on restricted building work? If not, why not? |
| Q30 Do you have any other comments on the proposed streamlined process for simple, low-risk residential building work? |
Back to top
2.3 A more streamlined process for complex commerical building work
The people commissioning complex commercial building work and qualified and licensed/registered building professionals would take responsibility for confirming that buildings they commission, design and construct comply with the Building Code. They would use commercial quality assurance and risk management systems to achieve this.
The current situation
Complex commercial or public buildings and building work (such as Category 38 buildings) are subject to the same building consent requirements as residential homes. They go through a standard process of obtaining a building consent, undergoing inspection at key stages during construction, and getting a code compliance certificate on completion of the work.
However, the review of the Building Act found that in practice, many of these projects are commissioned by well-informed consumers and are designed, built, supervised and peer-reviewed by experienced, contractually accountable professionals. The review heard questions about whether building consent authority inspections add value in these circumstances.
What is being considered
This proposal provides for a more streamlined process for complex commercial buildings. It relies on the skills and experience of qualified professionals and the sophisticated quality assurance and risk management systems that are used to ensure contractual obligations are met when large, complex buildings are designed and constructed.
The review heard that strong commercial contracting arrangements underpin a clear allocation of responsibilities amongst those involved. Qualified, experienced experts oversee the design and construction process, including peer review of critical design elements. The review heard that most building consent authorities do not have the capability (qualifications and/or competencies) needed to review such developments. This suggests that building consent authorities’ involvement could reduce substantially without any loss of building quality, provided that design and construction quality assurance and risk management systems can be verified as ‘fit for purpose’ and are consistently being followed.
Under the proposed consent system for complex commercial developments, appropriately qualified people within the project team would certify compliance of the design and construction. Building consent authorities would verify that appropriate quality assurance and risk management systems were operating and that certificates were correct, and would hold public records of the work.
This more streamlined process would only relate to building consents, and those commissioning buildings would still have to meet other requirements such as those set by the Resource Management Act, District Plans and local bylaws.
For the purposes of discussion, we propose that this streamlined process would apply to buildings that meet the following criteria.
- The building is designed and certified as Code compliant by professional designers (registered architects, chartered professional engineers, and design-licensed building practitioners). The professional designer would have to meet prescribed minimum requirements such as compliance with a code of ethics and the use of appropriate quality assurance measures including peer review.
- Construction is overseen by a site-licensed building practitioner, who certifies that the work is Code compliant
- The building is constructed (where relevant licensing classes apply) by suitably licensed building practitioners.
Table 2 below indicates one option for the proposed streamlined process as a starting point for discussion.
Notes to table
Step 2: Note that the BCA would:
- accept the design memorandum as establishing Code compliance, without doing its own checks of the plans and specifications
- have a limited time to respond to an applicant; for example, a refusal to accept an application or a request for more information must be given within a short time, such as a maximum of five days
- keep a public record of the documentation.
The territorial authority would issue resource consents as it currently does.
Step 3: Minor variations to the design would not require the BCA to amend the consent. In such cases, construction documentation is updated appropriately, and quality assurance systems ensure changes are Code compliant.
The following questions may help you formulate your feedback. Use our online submission process to answer these questions and give us your comments:
| Questions about a streamlined process for complex commercial building work |
| Q31 Do you agree that people commissioning complex commercial buildings and building work are generally better informed and better equipped to hold contractors to account than consumers of residential building work? If not, why not? |
| Q32 Do you agree that chartered professional engineers, registered architects and other licensed or certified professionals should be able to be relied on to design and supervise complex building projects that comply with the Building Code, without the current level of building consent authority review? If not, why not? |
| Q33 Do you agree that the proposed streamlined process for complex building work is adequate to ensure buildings are Code compliant? If not, why not? |
| Q34 Do you have any comment on the indicative steps in Table 2, including the notes to the table? |
| Q35 Are there other building projects with the necessary quality assurance systems in place that could also be subject to the proposed streamlined process for complex commercial buildings? |
| Q36 Do you have any other comments on the proposed streamlined process for complex commercial building work? |
Back to top
2.4 Public infrastructure works
Public infrastructure works such as bridges and tunnels would be subject to the most appropriate oversight to ensure safety and quality.
The current situation
The Building Act covers ‘ancillary buildings’, which are not for human habitation but which are still required to comply with structural and safety-related aspects of the Building Code, such as bridges and tunnels.
What is being considered
We propose to further explore how best to provide appropriate oversight of public infrastructure works, including bridges and tunnels connected to the land transport network.
The following questions may help you formulate your feedback. Use our online submission process to answer these questions and give us your comments:
| Questions about ensuring quality of public infrastructure works |
| Q37 Do you agree that the building control system provides an appropriate means of ensuring the safety and quality of all public infrastructure works? If not, why not? |
| Q38 Are there some categories of public infrastructure work where other arrangements may more efficiently and effectively ensure safety and quality? If so, what types of works and what sort of arrangements? |
Back to top
2.5 Streamlined process for reviewing fire safety of building plans
Buildings would be designed with appropriate input from the New Zealand Fire Service Commission.
The current situation
It is important that buildings are designed for fire safety, including easy escape routes for occupants and access for fire fighters.
Building consent authorities must refer building consent applications for some public and commercial buildings,9 such as warehouses, supermarkets and apartment blocks, to the New Zealand Fire Service Commission for its advice on:
- providing means of escape from fire
- meeting the needs of authorised fire fighters entering the building to undertake fire fighting.
The building consent authority must in turn consider the Fire Service Commission advice before making its decision on whether or not to grant a building consent.
The Fire Service Commission must not give advice that would result in the building exceeding the requirements of the Building Code.
These provisions were included in the Building Act to provide a practical means for the Fire Service Commission to give ‘front end’ advice on any issues it may have with a proposed design.
This was intended to create better links between Building Act and Fire Service requirements, to increase ‘front end’ certainty, solve the problem of buildings being constructed without adequate Fire Service Commission comment and advice on fire safety, and to minimise disputes and delays in completing these buildings.
In practice, however, the process is proving frustrating and inefficient and has only provided a limited solution, due to:
- differences in interpretation of Building Code requirements between building consent applicants and the Fire Service Commission
- those applying for consents having no direct interaction with the Fire Service Commission
- some building consent authorities being reluctant to make decisions on consent applications where there is a difference of opinion between the applicant and the Fire Service Commission.
The proposal to streamline the process for complex commercial buildings set out in Part 2.3 also requires us to reconsider how best to provide for Fire Service Commission involvement.
What is being considered
We propose to amend the Building Act to require applicants for building consents for certain specified buildings to seek advice directly from the Fire Service Commission before submitting their application. Their application would state that advice had been sought and the weight they had given to the advice received.
It would be up to the applicant to decide how to act on the advice provided, bearing in mind the consequences of their decision. Those consequences may include the building consent authority declining to give consent if it is not convinced the application meets Code requirements; or the Fire Service Commission formally challenging whether the building is Code compliant by seeking a determination.10
We are also working on improving the clarity of fire safety design requirements in the Building Code, as noted in Part 1.2.
The following questions may help you formulate your feedback. Use our online submission process to answer these questions and give us your comments:
| Questions about reviewing fire safety of building plans |
| Q39 At what point in building design and construction is Fire Service Commission involvement most useful? Please explain why. |
| Q40 What weight should be given to Fire Service Commission’s advice – for example, should it be treated as consultative input, should following the advice be mandatory, or should the weight given depend on the circumstances? Please explain why. |
| Q41 Do you have any other comments on fire safety review of building plans? |
Back to top
2.6 Improved process for building warrants of fitness
Fundamental systems such as sprinklers, fire alarms and lifts would be inspected and maintained in a nationally consistent, effective and efficient manner.
The current situation
Some systems in buildings are so fundamental to the ongoing safe use of the building that they must be regularly inspected, tested and maintained, and records of these activities kept. These specified systems11 include sprinklers, fire alarms and lifts.
The building warrant of fitness is a statement from a building owner that the systems have been maintained and checked for the previous 12 months (in accordance with a compliance schedule), and that the systems will continue to perform as required. An independent qualified person12 must certify this maintenance and inspection for each specified system.
The review heard some suggestions that a lack of clarity exists about exactly which systems are covered. This means it is possible some building owners are paying to inspect systems that are not essential, while in other cases essential systems may not be maintained or inspected.
The review also heard there may be inconsistency in the way the requirements are interpreted and applied by different building consent authorities, which in some cases may be leading to unnecessary complexity and compliance costs.
What is being considered
We propose that, subject to feedback, we will clarify the regulations to ensure the focus is only on systems that are critical to safety and the system is administered consistently and efficiently.
The following questions may help you formulate your feedback. Use our online submission process to answer these questions and give us your comments:
| Questions about improved process for building warrants of fitness |
| Q42 Do you agree that the administration of the building warrant of fitness and compliance schedule requirements is more complex or costly than necessary? If so, what issues does this cause for you? |
| Q43 Do you agree that there is a lack of clarity about building warrants of fitness and compliance schedules? If so, what is unclear and what issues does this cause for you? |
| Q44 What changes should be made to the requirements to simplify administration while still ensuring critical systems are maintained and inspected? You may want to comment on the description of specified systems in the regulation, the definition of ‘independent qualified person’, or any other issues. |
| Q45 Do you have any other comments on the building warrant of fitness and compliance schedule requirements? |
Back to top
2.7 More efficient building control administration
Building consent authorities across the country would administer the building control system consistently and cost-effectively.
The current situation
The building control system is a national system administered locally by 75 building consent authorities (mostly territorial local authorities). Together these building consent authorities process around 70,000 building consents a year.
There is significant variation in the volume of building consents across districts, with several territorial authorities dealing with relatively small consenting volumes. In 2008/09, 17 territorial authorities granted fewer than 500 consents each.
The review heard that the large number of building consent authorities has contributed to:
- duplication of management, systems and overhead costs across the country
- inconsistency in decision-making by building consent authorities, so that the same or similar building work can be approved smoothly in some areas but face obstacles in other areas.
The small size of some building consent authorities also poses challenges, as some small territorial authorities report they find it difficult to attract and retain suitably qualified and experienced staff and to invest in necessary technology, systems and processes. Significantly, opportunities may be being missed to achieve improved service quality and cost-effectiveness through use of technology (for example, online consenting).
The review heard that the current arrangements add costs to doing business nationally. Questions were also raised about the economies of scale and other efficiency gains that may be possible under alternative arrangements (for example, if there was more consolidation of building control functions).
The review also heard that the fact that local authorities are accountable to their local ratepayers rather than the central regulator in respect of the building control system can lead to national benefit considerations being outweighed by local costs.
The proposals to move to a more balanced approach to building control outlined in this document are expected to result in a significant reduction in the overall volume of consenting and inspection work.
The Building Act does provide for building consent authorities to share functions and cooperate in providing services, but there have been few examples of significant cooperation or clustering.
In Auckland, broader changes to local authority structure are driving work on a streamlined, business-focused, single building consent authority.
In the Wellington region, the eight territorial local authorities are working with the Department of Building and Housing on assessing the optimal arrangements for the provision of building control functions in the region.
The Building Act also provides for private provision of building regulatory services but there are few examples, and no private provider has registered as a building consent authority.
What is being considered
We propose to develop options to improve administration of the building control system to:
- reduce costs
- improve consistency of practice
- improve efficiency of consent processing
- ensure critical mass of capability, especially for key technical skills.
This work will consider a wide range of alternative arrangements, including clustering options that could, for example, see building consent authorities operating on a regional rather than district basis, providing building control functions across several territorial authority districts. It will also explore the costs and benefits of greater consolidation of building consent functions nationally and the scope for private provision of building regulatory services.
This work to evaluate the costs, benefits and risks of alternative arrangements will be led by the Department of Building and Housing in consultation with the local government sector, Department of Internal Affairs and other interested stakeholders.
The Government will then consider the options and make a decision on the way forward.
The following questions may help you formulate your feedback. Use our online submission process to answer these questions and give us your comments:
| Questions about building consent administration |
| Q46 Do you agree that the number of building consent authorities and the variation in size is causing issues as outlined in Part 2.7? If not, why not? |
| Q47 Are there any other issues or problems resulting from the current administrative arrangements that have not been identified in this document? |
| Q48 Do you see benefits in greater cooperation between building consent authorities, or clustering or consolidation of building control functions? What would be the main benefits? |
| Q49 Do you see costs and risks associated with greater cooperation between building consent authorities, or clustering or consolidation of building control functions? What would be the main costs and risks? |
| Q50 What, if any, role should the private sector have in the administration of building controls? |
| Q51 Which elements of building control require local input and why? |
| Q52 Which elements of building control would most benefit from a national approach? |
| Q53 Do you have any other comments on options for more efficient building control administration? |
Back to top