Schedule 1 - work that doesn't require a building consent

Schedule 1 of the Building Act 2004 sets out the types of building work that do not require a building consent. The principle of Schedule 1 is to exempt work that is low risk and minor, where there is little benefit from having it inspected. However, the work must still comply with the Building Code.

New building work

Schedule 1 lists several building projects that do not require a building consent. Some common examples are shown below (this is not the full list).

• A retaining wall, supporting not more than 1.5 m of ground, with no additional load above
• A wall or fence, not more than 2 m high
• A small and temporary tent or marquee
• A low platform (such as a deck), not more than 1 m off the ground
• A temporary storage stack of goods or materials
• A garden shed no closer to the boundary than its own height, and no greater than one storey.

Each of these examples has certain limits and definitions, so DIYers and builders are advised to read Schedule 1 in full and check with their local council before starting work on projects of this kind. Schedule 1 can be found at www.dbh.govt.nz/ba-get-a-copy - click on Building Act 2004 to open the PDF, then scroll down to page 224.

Territorial authorities may grant exemptions if they consider the building work is likely to be carried out according to the Building Code or, if not, is unlikely to endanger people or buildings.

Repair and maintenance

Clause (a) of Schedule 1 also allows an exemption for any 'lawful repair and maintenance using comparable materials, or replacement with a comparable component or assembly in the same position'.

This clause allows people to repair and maintain existing building elements (components or systems), using comparable materials, as long as the work is 'lawful', which means it must comply with the Building Code and other legislation.

When interpreting the clause it is helpful to consider why the repair or maintenance is needed. It could be due to normal wear and tear, accidental damage, or a problem with the original work - a failure of some kind. These factors can affect whether the repair is exempt from a consent, as they impact on whether comparable materials can be used.

The failure/damage distinction is particularly important. Damage can be remedied by repair or replacement, often using comparable materials. Failure implies a problem with the element itself or the way it was installed, so the solution is more complex. Simply redoing the work in the original manner with comparable materials may not comply with the Code and therefore would not be 'lawful'.

See Determination 2006/116 on page 11 for an example of how the repair and maintenance clause can work in practice.

Replacing a failed element

If a product fails to meet its durability requirements - a certain lifespan specified by the Building Code - it cannot be replaced 'like for like'. Accordingly, a building consent is almost always required to carry out the repair. The following example illustrates this point.

Problem: The cladding on a five-year-old house is leaking extensively and the interior framing is rotten. This is the classic 'leaky home' scenario.

The rotten framing, cavity and claddings need to be replaced.

As the cladding failed before time, the job can't be redone in exactly the same way as before, as it would not comply with the Building Code. Getting a building consent would ensure the repair is done in such a way that the finished work will comply with the Building Code.

The Department is working on an amendment to the Building Act 2004 that will address weathertightness repairs.

If amended, the Act will require a building consent for any repair or replacement of a component or assembly that has failed to satisfy the durability provisions of the Building Code.

Repairing damage

A building owner may want to repair or replace components of a structure that has been damaged. As the following example shows, this type of work is not likely to require a building consent, since comparable materials are usually used.

A new pergola attached to a house has been damaged. The supporting post is cracked, nearby spouting on the house is broken, and the bargeboard has been ripped down.

The damaged post needs to be replaced with a comparable post, some of the spouting and clips need to be replaced, and the bargeboard needs reinstating.

Even though this is extensive work, a building consent is not required. This is because the assembly will be restored to its original condition using comparable materials, and the finished work will comply with the Building Code.

It is common for homeowners to replace components that have deteriorated over time through normal wear and tear. When assessing the scope of the project, it's important to consider that the Building Code may have changed since the original installation was carried out. The homeowner should consult their local council or an experienced tradesperson before proceeding. Some examples are given below.

Problem: An old villa built on totara piles has subsided over time.

Several of the piles need to be replaced.

Is a consent required? Yes, because the piles cannot be replaced 'like for like'. Repiling the villa with comparable materials (totara piles) would not meet current Building Code requirements. The original totara pile foundation was only designed to support a vertical load, whereas the Building Code now requires earthquake and wind loadings to be considered.

An old low-pressure hot water cylinder performs poorly and leaks.

A registered plumber is called in to replace the cylinder with a new model.

It depends on the replacement. A building consent is not needed if the new model is a low-pressure cylinder like the original. The work is exempt because the replacement is comparable, and the work will be done by a qualified tradesperson. A building consent should be obtained if the owner chooses a high-pressure system. This is because the new cylinder is substantially different from the original.