Building consent authority (BCA) update - October 2008

Latest BCA registrations

Twelve more territorial authorities have been accredited and registered as building consent authorities. They were presented with their certificates of registration by the Department of Building and Housing's Chief Executive, Katrina Bach, at a function in Wellington in August.

 

(Left to right) Back: John Watson (Mackenzie District Council), Jeff Jamieson (Wanganui District Council), Gary Boys (Waipa District Council), Trevor Hook (Tararua District Council), Derrick Thorley (South Wairarapa District Council), Steve Ruru (Thames-Coromandel District Council) and Paul Cook (Far North District Council).

(Left to right) Front: Paul Arnold (Waitaki District Council), Fay Fergus (Kaipara District Council), Katrina Bach (Department of Building and Housing), Jean Hodson (Tasman District Council) and Ree Anderson (Manukau City Council) Absent: Max Pedersen (Upper Hutt City Council).

This edition of BCA Update provides further guidance to territorial and regional authorities including:

• BCA progress with accreditation
• further guidance on regulation 17 - Quality Assurance Requirements
• shared resources - quality assurance coordinator
• regional cluster group meetings
• Building Act and Building Regulations helpline
• building consent authority accreditation 'phase 2' assessment audits
• H1 Energy Efficiency insulation requirements, which come into force in October
• the Local Government New Zealand Conference 2008
• upcoming IQP forums
• an update on a recent successful building prosecution
• pre-lodgment meetings for building consent applications
• producer statement requirements
• territorial authorities' obligations regarding the fencing of swimming pools
• changes to Schedule 1 exemptions
• general information that may be used in developing BCA consumer guidance
• supplying manufacturers' product literature with building consent applications
• building consent statistics 2007/08
• job vacancies - three new positions in the Consent Authority Capability and Performance Group
• a short readership survey to help us improve these updates.

BCA progress with accreditation

As at 30 September 2008, 58 territorial authorities and two regional authorities had been accredited and registered as BCAs. Four private organisations have been accredited against the BCA Standards and Criteria. All territorial and regional authorities are required to be accredited and registered by 31 March 2009, or to have made alternative arrangements for their statutory building control functions. This could include transferring them to an accredited and registered BCA.

Congratulations to the following organisations who have successfully achieved accreditation against the first set of standards.

Territorial authorities

• Ashburton District Council
• Auckland City Council
• Buller District Council
• Carterton District Council
• Central Otago District Council
• Clutha District Council
• Far North District Council
• Franklin District Council
• Gisborne District Council
• Grey District Council
• Hamilton City Council
• Hastings District Council
• Hauraki District Council
• Horowhenua District Council
• Hurunui District Council
• Hutt City Council
• Kaikoura District Council
• Kaipara District Council
• Kapiti Coast District Council
• Kawerau District Council
• Mackenzie District Council
• Manawatu District Council
• Manukau City Council
• Masterton District Council
• Matamata-Piako District Council
• Nelson City Council
• New Plymouth District Council
• North Shore City Council
• Opotiki District Council
• Palmerston North City Council
• Papakura District Council
• Rangitikei District Council
• Rodney District Council
• Rotorua District Council
• Ruapehu District Council
• Selwyn District Council
• South Taranaki District Council
• South Waikato District Council
• South Wairarapa District Council
• Southland District Council
• Stratford District Council
• Tararua District Council
• Tasman District Council
• Taupo District Council
• Tauranga District Council
• Thames-Coromandel District Council
• Upper Hutt City Council
• Waikato District Council
• Waimakariri District Council
• Waimate District Council
• Waipa District Council
• Waitakere City Council
• Waitaki District Council
• Wanganui District Council
• Wellington City Council
• Westland District Council
• Whakatane District Council
• Whangarei District Council

Regional authorities

• Environment Waikato
• Otago Regional Council

Private applicants

• CGAF Limited T/a Bay Inspections
• Compass Building Consultants Limited
• Manukau Building Consultants Limited
• Professional Building Consultants Limited

The Department is still providing support to those few councils who have yet to meet the first accreditation standards. It is important for them to maintain momentum with responding to corrective actions and proactively arranging for follow-up assessment visits with IANZ. Those not accredited by the end of October 2008 will need to consider making alternative arrangements, such as the temporary or permanent transfer of their building control functions to an accredited and registered BCA or contracting out their BCA functions to another accredited and registered BCA.

Early consideration of this is necessary because either option will take some months to arrange. A BCA considering either option may need to undertake the special community consultation required by the Local Government Act, find a willing partner BCA to transfer or contract functions to and negotiate any residual liability issues.

Under the contract option, the BCA still has to become accredited and registered in its own right. To do this, it has to demonstrate it has appropriate systems and processes in place to carry out the functions it retains and have a contractual relationship with another accredited and registered BCA which will carry out some or all technical BCA functions on its behalf.

There are a number of successful models of both the transfer and contract options operating in New Zealand. Feedback to the Department from those involved is not to underestimate the timeit takes to establish either of these options - usually several months. For BCAs considering alternative options, further information and support is available from the Department's Case Advisors.

Further guidance on the interpretation of regulation 17 - Quality Assurance Requirements

Regulation 17 of the Building (Accreditation of Building Consent Authorities) Regulations 2006 sets out the quality assurance requirements which must be implemented by building consent authorities by 1 December 2010.

As well as meeting the requirements of regulation 17, building consent authorities need to demonstrate ongoing compliance with regulations 5-16. The quality assurance system required by regulation 17 should help a building consent authority show ongoing compliance, as it provides the management framework and disciplines required.

The Department is aware that a number of BCA cluster groups and individual BCAs are keen to finalise their quality assurance systems. To assist with this, Department representatives will work with them to ensure they understand the requirements and help develop other resources.

The Department is currently developing a national training programme which will include template examples of quality assurance policies, procedures and systems. National training will be provided at a number of locations by December 2008.

If you would like our Case Advisors to discuss the requirements of regulation 17 with your cluster group, please contact Steve Garner or Andrew Minturn to arrange a suitable time (contact details at the rear of this publication).

The Department has worked closely with IANZ to develop and agree the following interpretation of regulation 17. While the following guidelines have been generally set out as numbered in the regulations, it is important to recognise that a quality assurance system could also be organised by topic. It is also important to consider how the new requirements will integrate with the existing policies and procedures created to meet the first set of standards and criteria (regulations 5-16).

For example, the procedures relating to internal audit required by regulation 17 and the enquiries and complaints system required by regulation 7 may form part of the overall continuous improvement system. As well as demonstrating effective implementation (as required by regulation 6), audit and process review records generated by the internal audit system could also be used as evidence in an individual's competency record (regulation 10), to identify training needs (regulation 11) and to demonstrate the allocation of work system (regulations 7 and 9) is effective.

The organisation of the system by topics or themes also encourages a BCA to think about linkagesto existing parts of the system, and makes the system more accessible and user-friendly to staff and contractors.

Further assistance about how to structure your system can be offered by our Case Advisors.

More detailed interpretation guidance on each of the regulations appears in the tables following.

Building (Accreditation of Building Consent Authorities) Regulations 2006, regulation 17 guidance

Regulation 17(1) A building consent authority must have a system for assuring the quality of its performance of its building control functions.

GUIDANCE IANZ will accept any system that can be demonstrated (by records (ref 17(2)(m)) and documented outcomes) to be capable of delivering all of the requirements of regulations 5-17. IANZ will accept the use of systems currently implemented in councils (eg, ISO 9001, ISO 17020 and ISO 14001 systems), but will still have to assess their effectiveness in meeting building consent authority accreditation regulation requirements. This means your existing system will still be audited for compliance against regulations 5-17. If the system comprises components from existing territorial authority systems, there must be an over-arching reference document describing where each of the requirements of regulation 17 can be found. If the building consent authority does not have overall control of an organisational-wide quality assurance system, there must be arrangements in place for the building consent authority to be consulted before any changes are made to systems that are required for compliance with the building consent authority accreditation regulations.

 

Regulation 17(2) The quality assurance system must cover the following: (a) the policies, procedures, and systems described in regulations 5 to 16;

GUIDANCE Documented systems must cover all requirements of regulations 5-16, and the policies, procedures and systems described in regulation 17. The building consent authority must be able to demonstrate, and provide evidence of, effective implementation (such as records of internal audits, process reviews and quality improvement initiatives, completed continuous improvements, and management review meeting minutes) and that all documented systems work effectively (ie, delivering the required outcomes).

 

Regulation 17(2) The quality assurance system must cover the following: (b) the policy on quality;

GUIDANCE This is a new requirement and most building consent authorities will not have covered this in meeting regulations 5-16. A quality policy is a short statement of intent that demonstrates senior management commitment to the quality assurance system. A quality policy should include high level measurable objectives. These provide a framework for establishing the effectiveness of the quality assurance system. The quality policy should include a commitment such as to providing all necessary resources to support effective implementation of policies, procedures and systems to fulfil all statutory duties under the Building Act 2004 and the Building (Accreditation of Building Consent Authorities) Regulations 2006. The quality policy must be appropriate for the organisation and will be assessed in terms of regulation 5(b) (fitness for purpose). The effectiveness of these policies will be assessed as part of the management review under regulation 17(5).

 

Regulation 17(2) The quality assurance system must cover the following: (c) the procedure for ensuring that the building consent authority operates within its scope of accreditation;

GUIDANCE No documented systems should be needed explicitly to meet 17(2)(c) for either territorial authority or regional authority building consent authorities. This is because for regional authorities and private building consent authorities these requirements should be met by the existing systems covering regulation 8 - Ensuring enough employees and contractors, regulation 9 - Allocation of work to competent employees or contractors, regulation 10 - Establishing and assessing the competence of employees and regulation 12 - Choosing and using contractors. Territorial authority building consent authorities are required to cover the full scope of work. If IANZ finds evidence of staff or contractors performing work outside of their assessed technical competence, CARs will not be raised against regulation 17(2)(c), but are likely to be raised against regulations 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12.

Note: 17(2)(d) the procedure for the BCA's management to review the authority's performance is covered under regulation 17(5) below.

Regulation 17(2) The quality assurance system must cover the following: (e) the procedure for continuous improvement in the performance of the building consent authority's functions;

GUIDANCE This is a new requirement not covered in regulations 5-16. Continuous improvement relates to the improvement of the effectiveness and efficiency of the processes an organisation undertakes. It provides a disciplined mechanism for addressing short-term corrective actions, long-term preventative actions and innovative improvements. Procedures intended to meet this regulation may be separate or be incorporated into procedures intended to meet regulations 5-16. All systems considered to contribute to meeting this regulation (eg, internal audits, process review, enquiries and complaints) should create records. A continuous improvement record should include the following minimum information. - A description of the issue - Outcome of an investigation of the facts and implications of the issue (when appropriate) - Immediate action to be taken (when appropriate) - Action to be taken to prevent recurrence of the issue (when appropriate) - Allocation of responsibility for action - Target date for action to be completed - Monitoring of action against target date - Review of effectiveness of action taken (may be part of systems under regulations 17(2)(5) and/or 17(2)(d) IANZ will assess systems and procedures for regulation 17(2)(e) against regulations 5(a) (written or electronic) and 5(b) (appropriate for their purposes). IANZ will accept any system that meets the requirements detailed above and that can be demonstrated to be effective in generating continuous improvements.

 

Regulation 17(2) The quality assurance system must cover the following: (f) the procedure for managing the provision of human resources;

GUIDANCE If an accreditation assessment concludes that the requirements of regulation 8 - Ensuring enough employees and contractors, regulation 10 - Establishing and assessing competence of employees, regulation 11 - Training employees, regulation 13 - Ensuring technical leadership and regulation 15 - Keeping organisational records have been met, then regulation 17(2)(f) will also be considered to be met without further assessment. No documentation, in addition to that required to meet regulations 8, 10, 11, 13 and 15, will be required to meet regulation 17(2)(f) as long as these systems are working effectively.

 

Regulation 17(2) The quality assurance system must cover the following: (g) the procedure for ensuring that the necessary technical and administrative information, facilities, and equipment - (i) are available; and (ii) are appropriate; and (iii) remain fit for their purposes;
GUIDANCE If an accreditation assessment concludes that the requirements of regulation 14 - Ensuring necessary resources are being met, then regulation 17(2)(g) will also be considered to have been met without further assessment. No documentation, in addition to that required to meet regulation 14, will be required to meet regulation 17(2)(g).

 

Regulation 17(2) The quality assurance system must cover the following: (h) the procedure for ensuring that an internal audit of every building control function occurs within 12 months of the completion of the last internal audit of the function;

GUIDANCE This is a new requirement not fully covered in regulations 5-16. The requirements of this regulation should also be understood in association with regulation 6(b), (c) and (d). Internal audits or process reviews are intended to determine: - whether or not documented systems comply with relevant specifications (regulations etc) - the degree to which a documented system is being implemented as intended - the degree to which a documented system is delivering the desired outcomes. Internal audits and process review records may also be used as evidence of effective implementation of other processes such as competency assessments, training needs assessment, and appropriate allocation of work to staff. Internal audits of technical building control functions (covered by regulation 7 - Performing building control functions) should be carried out at least annually. These audits should include witnessing of work being performed by a representative range of building consent authority staff. Audits should include a technical review of completed consent files. The auditor must be technically competent to perform the task being reviewed. Process reviews are a type of non-technical internal audit and are carried out on supporting management and quality assurance procedures (regulations 8-17). Process reviews can be used to demonstrate that such policies/procedures are being effectively implemented. Persons undertaking such internal audits and process reviews must be: - able to demonstrate effective audit or process review skills - independent (ie, should not audit their own work). Audit and process review records must include at least: - the scope of the audit or review - the date(s) of the audit or review - the name of the auditor(s) or reviewer(s) - details of what was observed (such as building consent file numbers, check sheets and forms, training records, competency assessment reports that were reviewed/checked - the reasons for the decisions - details of conclusions arising from the audit or review - details of any improvement opportunities arising from the audit or review (see regulation 17(2)(e) for details). Internal audits and process reviews form part of the continuous improvement system required by regulation 17(2)(e). Note: An audit or review cannot be considered effective if issues arising are not effectively addressed and recorded as per regulation 6(b), (c) and (d).

 

Regulation 17(2) The quality assurance system must cover the following: (i) the procedure for identifying and managing conflicts of interest;

GUIDANCE This is a new requirement not covered in regulations 5-16. The intent of this regulation is to ensure the reliability and independence of building control processes by identifying, recording and managing any potential or actual conflicts of interest. Conflicts of interest may include having a financial, commercial or personal interest in a piece of work, or being subject to inducements, coercion or threats from within the building consent, territorial or regional authority such as political pressure or from external parties. Procedures are required for the: - identification and disclosure of potential conflicts of interest - management of potential or actual pressure, inducements or threats from within the territorial authority - management of potential or actual external pressure, inducements or threats. Procedures must include a definition of the records to be kept and records must include the outcome of any actual incidents, see regulation 6(b), (c) and (d).

 

Regulation 17(2) The quality assurance system must cover the following: (j) the procedure for communicating with internal and external persons;

GUIDANCE (further clarification) This is a new requirement in part and is unlikely to have been fully covered in existing procedures to meet regulations 5-16. The procedure should incorporate the existing systems required by regulation 7(2)(a), (g) and (h). This procedure must describe what, how and how frequently internal and external communications take place, and who is responsible for them. This could be described in a simple table. Different methods of communicating information are needed as appropriate to the internal/external audience. Some information may need to be communicated in more than one way (for example, not every member of the public has access to the internet and so hard copy front counter material may also be required).

 

Regulation 17(2) The quality assurance system must cover the following: (k) the procedure for document control;

GUIDANCE This is a new requirement not fully covered in regulations 5-16. The intent of this regulation is to develop a more disciplined approach to managing documents the building consent authority creates and uses. This ensures everyone has access to the current versions of documented policies, procedures and forms, and can identify any changes made to these. This regulation should also be read in conjunction with the existing requirements of regulation 14 (management of technical library). Documents include any information in any format or medium that defines how something is managed, performed, recorded or reported. This includes all relevant reference material, statutes, regulations, standards, policies, procedures, systems and forms. It may also include critical software and suppliers' literature. A document control system must include a system for ensuring that every current document is: - appropriately authorised (by the person managing the quality assurance system) - uniquely identified (ie, has a unique and traceable building consent number) - available at all relevant places and to all relevant persons - disseminated to all relevant locations in a timely manner. Changes to documents must all be: - appropriately authorised, and - appropriately identified (what has changed). Superseded documents must be: - clearly marked to indicate superseded status (there is a later version) - if withdrawn from use, archived (at least one copy) for a defined period (eg, two years, to ensure it is available at the subsequent accreditation assessment).

 

Regulation 17(2) The quality assurance system must cover the following: (l) the procedure for contract management;
GUIDANCE If a building consent authority continues to meet the requirements for regulation 12 - Choosing and using contractors, then regulation 17(2)(l) will also be met. This regulation does not require any documentation in addition to that required for regulation 12 as long as the system for regulation 12 is working effectively.

 

Regulation 17(2) The quality assurance system must cover the following: (m) the procedure for record-keeping;

GUIDANCE This is a new requirement in part. Building consent authorities are unlikely to have fully covered this with their work to meet regulations 5-16. These requirements should also be read in conjunction with the existing requirements of regulation 16 - Filing applications for building consents. Records relate to specific events in time and include completed forms, checklists, reports, certificates, photographs, inspection or file notes, sound recordings etc, in any form including written and electronic. A record-keeping system must include all of the following. - Systems required for keeping records under regulation 16 - Identification of records produced by the documented systems for regulations 5-15 - Identification of what is relevant information - Description of how relevant information is to be recorded - Procedures to ensure the security of information - Procedures to ensure the integrity of information - Procedures to ensure information is accessible - Procedures to ensure information is retrievable IANZ will assess the appropriateness and effectiveness of these procedures in line with regulation 5(a) and (b).

Note: Regulation 17(2)(n) the procedure for the BCAs management to review the effectiveness of the authority's quality assurance system is covered under regulation 17(5) below.

Regulation 17(3) A building consent authority must record who is responsible for managing its quality assurance system.

GUIDANCE This is a new requirement. Building consent authorities are unlikely to have fully covered this with their work to meet regulations 5-16. This regulation should be read in conjunction with the existing requirements of regulation 15 - Keeping organisational records. There must be a named person or persons who is/are responsible for the effective operation and maintenance of the quality assurance system (eg, quality assurance coordinator or quality assurance manager). The people filling this role must be accessible whenever reasonably required by building consent authority staff to take responsibility for quality assurance system issues and to exercise authority as appropriate. People filling this role may be employees or contractors and may be full time or part time. They must have the authority to make appropriate changes, and this authority must be recorded along with their roles and responsibilities. They must have access to a level of management which has the ability to effect change (eg, General Manager,CEO or Managing Director). If more than one quality assurance coordinator/manager is named, the system must clearly define each individual's scope of responsibilities and ensure that all responsibilities are allocated. Contractors appointed as quality assurance coordinators or quality assurance managers could work across a number of building consent authorities (the Department encourages this model).

 

Regulation 17(4) A building consent authority must have a system for ensuring that- (a) its employees comply with the authority's quality assurance system; and (b) its contractors comply with- (i) the authority's quality assurance system; or (ii) the contractor's quality assurance system.

GUIDANCE Regulation 17(4)(a) This is a new requirement. Building consent authorities are unlikely to have fully covered this with their work to meet regulations 5-16. Employees The building consent authority must have a system to show that its employees are adhering to the building consent authority's quality assurance system. This could be achieved via a range of mechanisms including, but not limited to: - sound induction processes - internal audits - process reviews - peer reviews - performance reviews - training records. Most of these requirements should be met by existing systems covering regulation 6 - Building consent authority's observance of policies, procedures, and systems, regulation 9 - Allocating work to competent employees or contractors, regulation 10 - Establishing and assessing competence of employees, regulation 11 - Training employees and regulation 13 - Ensuring technical leadership in accredited Building Consent Authorities. Regulation 17(4)(b)Contractors For contractors, building consent authorities must choose between the options represented by clauses 17(4)(b)(i) and 17(4)(b)(ii). If the building consent authority chooses to use clause 17(4)(b)(i) for a contractor, that contractor must be treated as an employee for the purposes of the regulations and is to have similar records to employees. If the building consent authority chooses the clause 17(4)(b)(ii) for a contractor, then the building consent authority must have procedures in place to: - define what quality assurance is required of the contractor. (This could range from some simple quality performance requirements in a contract for small, low-risk pieces of work, through to requiring a certified or accredited quality management system for large, multi-disciplined pieces of work.) - monitor compliance with the quality assurance requirements specified for that contractor - define the actions to be taken if the contractor does not meet defined quality assurance requirements - define the records to be kept to demonstrate that quality assurance requirements have been met or appropriate actions have been taken. Note: these requirements could form part of the existing procedures required for regulation 12 - Contractor evaluation system.

 

Regulation 17(5) A building consent authority must have a system for periodically- (a) reviewing its quality assurance system; and (b) making appropriate changes in the quality assurance system.

GUIDANCE This is a new requirement not covered in regulations 5-16. This regulation needs to be read in conjunction with regulation 17(2)(d) and (n). For a building consent authority to meet this regulation, IANZ will expect to see documentation that defines the system for reviewing the building consent authority's quality assurance system and making appropriate changes to the quality assurance system. Elements of the system should include procedures for: - continuous improvements 17(2)(e) - operational management reviews (eg, monthly) 17(2)(d) - internal audits 17(2)(h) - annual strategic management reviews 17(2)(n). The two types of management reviews, operational review 17(2)(d) and annual strategic review 17(2)(n), are intended to take place at differing frequencies. The review procedures should include: - the frequency of each type of review of the quality assurance management system - the purpose and methodology of each review - the records to be kept of each review, including records of the actions required as outcomes of these reviews - how actions are to be monitored. Additional detail on the requirements for each type of review is included under regulation 17(2)(d) and (n) below.

 

Regulation 17(2) The quality assurance system must cover the following: (d) the procedure for the building consent authority's management to review the authority's performance;

GUIDANCE This is a new requirement. Regulation 17(2)(d) is understood to be part of the review system required by regulation 17(5). Regulation 17(2)(d) is intended to cover relatively short-term, operational review activities (eg, monthly). Procedures are required to define what operational review activities are to be carried out in the short term to ensure outputs are appropriate, reliable and timely. Procedures must define the frequency of these activities, the records to be kept and the actions to be taken if unsatisfactory performance is identified. Items to consider in the operational management reviews include, but are not limited to the: - effectiveness of actions arising from previous management reviews - review actions from internal audit and external assessment findings - building consent authorities' progress against statutory timeframes and performance (key performance indicators (KPIs)) - analysis of appeals/compliments/complaints to determine common causes or trends - other changes related to scope or volume of building control work, industry practices, system controls, legislation, or training requirements.

 

Regulation 17(2) The quality assurance system must cover the following: (n) the procedure for the building consent authority's management to review the effectiveness of the authority's quality assurance system.

GUIDANCE This is a new requirement. Building consent authorities are unlikely to have fully covered this with their work to meet regulations 5-16. Regulation 17(2)(n) is understood to be part of the review system required by regulation 17(5). To meet regulation 17(2)(n) - The annual strategic management review, a building consent authority must have documented processes that define: - the frequency of scheduled strategic reviews of the quality assurance management system - circumstances that could trigger an unscheduled strategic review. - the types of data that will be reviewed - records to be kept of strategic reviews, including decisions and conclusions - the procedure for recording action plans, if required - the procedure for monitoring the implementation of agreed action plans. Items to consider at the annual strategic review could include: - achievement of quality objectives and whether these need to be reviewed or updated - review internal and external audit trends and identify changes to system - review changes in organisational structure, responsibilites and authorities in response to changes in building volumes, scope or legislative change. IANZ will assess the appropriateness and effectiveness of these procedures in line with regulations 5 and 6.

Building categories and competency assessment

A number of different approaches have been taken by BCAs when defining categories of buildings.1 The Department has begun work to review some of the existing building categorisation systems, including the North Shore City Council system, which was presented at the recent Senior Building Officials meeting in Wellington.

1 A definition of building categories is needed for the systems required by regulation 9 - Allocating work to competent employees and contractors and regulation 10 - Competency assessments.

From the initial work completed, it is apparent that there is already significant overlap between a number of systems developed. Less clear from the information reviewed are the technical criteria that underpin the building categories, the subcategories and the boundaries between the categories.

The Department is reviewing the technical criteria that underpin building categories. These may include the intended use of the building, occupancy levels, the risk matrix score, and the purpose group of the building among others. The criteria need to be suitable for both residential and commercial buildings.

The Department believes that by undertaking this review, it may be possible to come up with a more consistent and national approach to building categories and subcategories. We believe it is desirable to standardise categories nationally to:

• improve consistency between BCAs
• improve consistency between competency assessment systems and their outcomes
• reduce the transaction costs of having to repeat assessments on staff who relocate to another BCA and contractors who work across more than one BCA
• reduce the costs relating to undertaking competency assessments.

Potential for shared resources - quality assurance coordination and management

We are aware that the Waikato Building Consent Group (the Waikato cluster) shares a Quality Assurance Manager across five BCAs. The manager's position is paid for by each BCA on a population pro rata basis. The role is strategic, with the objectives of achieving regional consistency, excellence in customer services, reducing duplication of effort by sharing resources and ideas, providing support and encouragement to each BCA, and facilitating regional training.

The Quality Assurance Manager meets with each BCA team on a weekly basis, and meets monthly with the BCA managers where common issues can be addressed and consistency decisions made. A strategic plan has been created for the cluster covering customer services and marketing, learning and growth, human resources and quality assurance.

A large number of staff from the contributing BCAs have been trained in internal auditing through the NZ Quality College as part of the quality assurance programme. Staff from each BCA can now audit each other's systems. As well as providing evidence of effective implementation, this internal auditing system also provides learning opportunities for both the BCA being audited and the auditor team. The lessons learnt are taken back to each auditor's organisation, increasing the pace of quality improvement and consistency of practices across the five BCAs.

Contributing BCAs have their own quality team, consisting of building control and administration staff, that looks after the individual BCA quality assurance system. This is important as each system, while containing significant elements of the regional system, is tailored to the individual BCA. This ensures that each BCA 'owns' their own system. The Quality Assurance Manager works closely with each team and supports their internal activities, assisting with problem-solving and ensuring a consistent approach between BCAs.

The Department considers there are significant benefits of this shared-resource approach, including:

• achieving economies of scale for small BCAs
• development of shared training resources and programmes
• rapidly sharing 'lessons learnt' and continuous improvement initiatives
• improving the quality of internal audits
• achieving regional consistency.

The Department also recommends that BCAs consider sharing the cost of managing their quality assurance systems and processes. For example four, five or more small BCAs could collectively employ one person to manage and coordinate each of their quality assurance systems or work towards developing a common quality assurance system across all of these organisations. Shared costs, economies of scale, increasing the ease of standardisation and consistency, better sharing of best practice and helping to establish centres of excellence are some of the benefits of this approach.

Regional cluster group meetings

The Department is keen to continue supporting regional cluster group meetings. We see clustering as a way of:

• improving the consistency of interpretation and application between BCAs
• sharing experience and knowledge between BCAs
• sharing scarce resources such as quality assurance coordinators
• providing collective feedback to the Department's initiatives and providing input to the development of further national guidance material
• disseminating important information from the Department to BCAs and providing ongoing guidance and advice.

The Department's Case Advisors are happy to facilitate cluster group meetings and have already presented quality assurance information at five clusters. For further information, contact the Department's Case Advisors (details at the end of this publication).

Building Act and Building Regulations helpline

The Department's Consent Authority Capability and Performance Group offers a helpline for building officials' enquiries about the Building Act and Building Regulations. If you have a general question about a particular section of the Building Act or regulations, you can email us on info@dbh.govt.nz

Please address your enquiry to the Consent Authority Capability and Performance Group, provide all of your contact details, and be as comprehensive as possible in explaining your question. Like you, staff in the group are very busy and it can take a day or two to respond to an individual enquiry, as these are fitted in between other core tasks and activities.

Please note, if your enquiry is about a specific issue surrounding a specific building consent application, such as a technical Building Code compliance matter or issue of doubt or dispute between the BCA and the consent applicant, then a determination may be the most appropriate solution.

This Building Act helpline does not provide building consent-specific code compliance advice or independent legal advice. It provides guidance and advice on interpreting and understanding the Building Act and Regulations.

Building Consent Authority Accreditation 'Phase 2' Assessment Audits

During August 2008, International Accreditation New Zealand (IANZ) wrote to all territorial and regional authorities (councils) about the forthcoming round of 'phase 2' BCA accreditation assessments.

As with phase 1, the Department will continue to work closely with IANZ and councils to help ensure the process is well-understood, supported and is completed as smoothly as possible. Accordingly we provide here information about matters that have already arisen in the course of recent communications, with IANZ and councils, about the phase 2 assessment audits.

Confirmation of assessment audit dates

The Department emphasises the need for councils, and accredited private organisations associated with councils, to respond promptly to the recent IANZ letter and confirm assessment dates. The Department notes that in developing the phase 2 assessment programme, IANZ has attempted to achieve a balance between matters such as:

• the need to allocate resources to completing the remaining phase 1 accreditations before the end of this year
• experiences gained to date with phase 1 assessments and the variable performance of councils in meeting accreditation criteria and standards and statutory timelines
• statutory requirements around the timing of full technical reassessments (at least once every 24 months) and the prescribed fees that must be paid for each accreditation assessment
• giving councils as much advance warning as possible of the likely timing of assessment visits
• giving councils enough time to address their corrective actions.

IANZ is developing an 18-month assessment programme that will run from December 2008 to May 2010. This is a sensible approach as it allows for a combined assessment of the existing standards and criteria (the biennial assessment) and the new quality assurance standards and criteria required by regulation 17. It also leaves a few months for councils that are assessed towards the end of that period to address any corrective actions relating to the quality assurance standards before the November 2010 deadline.

If you have any concerns about the dates proposed by IANZ, please contact IANZ directly. IANZ will be happy to discuss the detail of your particular council's circumstances and any suggestions you may have about how best to resolve your concerns.

The Department strongly encourages councils to respond to IANZ as soon as possible to help ensure an early and suitable assessment date is obtained.

Combining the phase 1 reassessment with the phase 2 assessment

Combining the required full technical reassessment with the phase 2 assessment is more efficient and cost-effective. This approach means that most councils should only have to pay for one assessment rather than two.

The combined assessment visits will therefore cover regulations 5-16 as well as regulation 17 of the Building (Accreditation of Building Consent Authorities) Regulations 2006. It is important that continuous compliance with regulations 5-16 is demonstrated, as any slippage since the initial accreditation may put accreditation at risk.

Meeting accreditation deadlines

Given the logistics and objectives of the accreditation scheme, there will be deadlines that must be met by councils. For example, satisfactory responses to corrective action requests (CARs) will need to be submitted by a specified date. In phase 2, CARs may relate to regulations 5-16 as well as regulation 17 matters.

Missing any deadline for a CAR relating to regulations 5-16 could result in withdrawal of accreditation. Missing a deadline for a regulation 17 CAR may also put your council at risk of not achieving or maintaining accreditation before the statutory deadline of November 2010. This is because IANZ will need to give priority to pre-arranged assessments and CAR responses that have been made on time.

Special assessment audit

Special assessment audits are undertaken at IANZ's discretion and are separate from the assessments and reassessments referred to above. Different fees are prescribed in regulations for special assessment audits. A special assessment would most likely be triggered by a 'critical change' that may affect accreditation. The terms 'special assessment audit' and 'critical change' are defined in the Building (Consent Authority Accreditation Fees) Regulations 2007.

It is important to notify IANZ of any 'critical change'. A key phrase to note in the definition of 'critical change' is the reference to 'a crucial indicator as to whether the BCA is able to perform its building control functions so as to continue to comply with the prescribed criteria and standards for accreditation'. While there will always be a need to exercise a degree of judgement, to help BCAs understand what changes need to be notified, we have developed the following guidance on what may constitute a critical change.

Changes that should be notified include:

• any significant loss of building control capability or capacity that contingency arrangements cannot adequately address
• new or amended building control management or staffing structures, contracting arrangements, or building control systems that differ substantially from what existed at the time of the previous accreditation assessment.

In most instances, good planning and timely liaison with IANZ should reduce the need for special assessments, for example, by:

• informing IANZ promptly of any unexpected changes and how the impacts of change will be addressed
• timing any major operational changes so the changes can be considered as part of a routine full technical reassessment audit.

New H1 Energy Efficiency Requirements for Houses - questions and answers

Questions and answers

In October 2007, Clause H1 of the New Zealand Building Code was changed to require improved thermal performance in all new houses in the South Island and the North Island Central Plateau.

These tougher requirements will be phased in throughout the rest of New Zealand, and became effective for the whole country on 30 September 2008.

Late last year, the Department of Building and Housing and BRANZ ran a seminar series to discuss the changes with designers and building officials. These seminars prompted many questions about H1. Some of the questions were about the recent changes, while others highlighted the need for better understanding of the Building Code requirements for energy efficiency generally. This section is intended to answer some of the most common questions.

How do I prove compliance with the new H1 rules?

The thermal performance measure in Building Code Clause H1 (Energy Efficiency) is the building performance index (BPI). The BPI is calculated using the computer programme ALF3 (Annual Loss Factor method). If the ALF3 calculation for your house is less than the limits given in the Code, then you will have demonstrated compliance.

A simpler way to demonstrate compliance is by using the Acceptable Solution H1/AS1.

This entails using the insulation values for walls, ceilings and floors prescribed in NZS 4218 (the 'schedule method' or the 'calculation method'), as modified by the Acceptable Solution.

Another way to demonstrate compliance is to use the 'modelling method' prescribed in NZS 4218. This is cited as the Verification Method H1/VM1.

Should you wish to put forward an alternative solution proposal, you will need to satisfy the building consent authority that your design will meet the Building Code performance requirements.

What are the changes to the Building Code?

The Building Code Clauses A2 and H1 3.2 have been changed to refine the definition of the building performance index (BPI), and to improve the thermal performance of houses. This effectively requires houses to use about 30 percent less heating energy than before and, in practice, means that most new houses will need better insulation.

The changes come into effect in stages as follows.

• 31 October 2007 - Zone 3:
• South Island and North Island Central Plateau
• 30 June 2008 - Zone 2:
• North Island districts south of Franklin and Thames-Coromandel Districts
• (excluding Central Plateau)
• 30 September 2008 - Zone 1:
• Districts north of Franklin and Thames-Coromandel Districts inclusive

Below: map of climate zones

What are the main changes to the Acceptable Solution H1/AS1?

Because of the recent changes to Building Code Clause H1, the Department has also changed Acceptable Solution H1/AS1. The changes to H1/AS1 include referencing the 2004 version of NZS 4218 (previously the 1996 version was referenced). The insulation R-values in the Standard have also been increased.

In H1/AS1, the higher R-values come into effect in a staged way throughout New Zealand. However, the new Standard (NZS 4218: 2004) became effective for the whole country on 31 October 2007.

30 percent glazing limit

Another key change designers need to be aware of with the new 2004 Standard is that the schedule method can only be used when the glazing ratio is no greater than 30 percent, and the glazing ratio of the east, south and west faces is no greater than 30 percent.

The 2004 Standard now requires the use of the calculation or modelling method for glazing ratios over 30 percent (this was only recommended in the 1996 version).

Skylights

Another significant change in H1/AS1 is that the schedule method can only be used if the total area of skylights is less than 1.2 m2. If the area is larger than this, the calculation or modelling methods must be used.

Is double-glazing mandatory?

Double-glazing is not mandatory.

While double-glazing is not specifically mentioned in either the Building Code or the Acceptable Solution, we expect that it will be used extensively to meet the new H1 requirements.

For some designs in some locations, the building performance index will not exceed 1.55 for a house with single-glazing, making double-glazing an optional choice for the owner.

How do the new H1 rules apply to garages and conservatories?

The requirements of H1 only apply to conditioned spaces.

New attached garages or conservatories that sit within the building thermal envelope, and so are part of the conditioned space, must comply with the new H1 rules. For example, this includes conservatories that are openly connected to the interior of the house and are actively heated or cooled.

Attached garages or conservatories that are unconditioned and are outside the building thermal envelope do not need to comply with H1.

In these circumstances, any walls, windows or doors that sit between the garage or conservatory and the interior of the house will need to be appropriately insulated, as these will form part of the building thermal envelope.

See Part 2.3 of the NZS 4218: 2004 for more information.

Why are the solid construction R-values different in the Acceptable Solution H1/AS1?

It is important to realise that the lower wall R-values for solid wall construction account for:

• the performance benefits of thermal mass; however, thermal mass must be used in conjunction with good passive solar design to increase comfort and to reduce energy use (refer to the notes in the tables for solid construction in the Compliance Document)
• higher roof R-values; this is a trade-off to reduce the wall insulation by increasing the roof insulation
• higher floor R-values for some options; this is a trade-off to reduce the wall insulation by increasing the floor insulation.

How do I analyse a mixture of solid and non-solid construction for H1?

The most robust way to analyse a combination of different construction types in the same building is to use the computer programme ALF3 to calculate the building performance index (BPI), and to ensure that it does not exceed the limit in Clause H1.

However, most people would argue the best, and certainly the easiest, way to analyse mixed construction is to use the calculation method in the Acceptable Solution (refer to NZS 4218: 2004, Part 3.2).

The Acceptable Solution for H1 has three different R-value tables that correspond to three distinct types of external wall construction: non-solid (typically timber-framed), solid timber and other solid wall construction (typically masonry and rammed earth).

In the Acceptable Solution, it is acceptable to combine the different construction types using the Calculation Method provided you follow these rules.

• Do not mix and match the R-values (ie, for walls, roofs, floors, windows and skylights) from the different tables. For example, the non-solid construction roof R-value must not be used in place of the solid construction roof R-value.
• The R-values for each component (ie, wall, roof, floor, window and skylight) should be used in the same proportions and should correspond to the different construction types used in the design. For example, if the design has half timber-framed walls and half masonry walls, then the R-values for Table 1 can be used for half the area and the R-values from Table 2(a) can be used for the other half of the area.
• Alternatively, the highest R-value can be selected from the different construction types and used for each component (ie, the highest wall R-value, the highest roof R-value, etc). This approach is inherently conservative and will result in better thermal performance than the Building Code requires.

Are there any insulation requirements for doors in the Acceptable Solution H1/AS1?

There are no insulation requirements for the opaque parts of a door or door set if the schedule method contained in the Acceptable Solution H1/AS1 is used (refer to NZS 4218: 2004). If the calculation method is used, the total area of doors that exceed 3 m2 must be treated as a wall.

Glazing in doors is part of the total area of glazing. Hence, glazing in doors must be considered when calculating the glazing ratio. The exemption of opaque doors from insulation requirements in the schedule method has been included to ensure the schedule method is easy to apply and not too restrictive.

However, the door exemption is not intended to allow large areas of a house to be un-insulated; nor does it indicate that doors are typically well insulated.

What are the insulation requirements for opaque joinery, such as wooden or aluminium louvres?

If the Acceptable Solution is used to show compliance with Clause H1, then opaque joinery, other than doors, should be treated as either a window or a wall.

The reason for this is that all parts of the house's thermal envelope must limit heat loss consistently with the criteria specified in the Building Code or in the Acceptable Solution (see the R-value tables in H1/AS1 and NZS 4218: 2004). Any reduction in the R-values specified for the walls, floors, roofs and windows will result in additional heat loss, and the house will not comply with the Acceptable Solution.

Note that insulation (ie, R-values) can be traded off between different parts of the building using the calculation method, the modelling method or the BPI (building performance index). These methods allow louvres to be used in houses when a louvre does not meet the R-values specified for walls or windows in the schedule method.

Where can I get more information on the new H1 rules?

These changes have been publicised through media releases and the Department's BC Update 69, which is available from the Department's website, www.dbh.govt.nz

More information can be found in:

• Your Guide to Smarter Insulation - a booklet available on our website
• H1 Compliance Document - www.dbh.govt.nz/compliance-docs-get-copies
• free information from the Department - ph 0800 242 243.

Local Government New Zealand Conference 2008

Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) held their annual national conference in Rotorua in late July. The theme of the conference was Sustainable communities. The programme included speeches from keynote speakers, and technical sessions and workshops on a number of sustainability-related topics relevant to local government.

Representatives from the Department of Building and Housing included Katrina Bach, Chief Executive, Nigel Bickle, Deputy Chief Executive, Sector Capability Branch, and Malcolm MacMillan, Manager of the Consent Authority Capability and Performance Group.

The conference covered a range of topics from environmental protection to social services. Of particular interest to the Department was the technical session on housing affordability. This session looked at case studies where local authorities have become involved in affordable housing, and also considered other initiatives such as community housing.

Community housing

Community Housing Aotearoa introduced the concept of community housing, which involves housing for a social purpose not based on the state of the market. Community housing, known internationally as 'third sector' housing, aims to deliver housing opportunities and services to the poor and disadvantaged through specific communities.

Providers, such as Habitat for Humanity, Presbyterian Support, and the Wellington Housing Trust typically partner with private businesses, churches, local/central government agencies and other organisations in local areas. In particular, community housing attempts to work in partnership with Housing New Zealand by giving greater choice to tenants and providing them with more opportunities to participate in management. It also provides a more flexible response to local needs as well as more options for funding.

Proposed affordable housing legislation

Housing New Zealand's Rob Graham spoke on the potential role of local government in providing affordable housing through a proposed new Bill. His presentation noted the declining rates of home ownership in New Zealand and outlined the current roles of local and central government in providing affordable housing. Rob summarised the intent of the 'Affordable Housing: Enabling Territorial Authorities Bill', which is to:

• require an affordable housing contribution from new developments
• require a variety of house sizes, tenures and costs in a community to be considered
• make restrictive covenants against social and affordable housing invalid.

The proposed legislation aims to provide greater flexibility for territorial authorities (city and district councils) to provide for affordable housing. Under the legislation they would have to do a housing needs assessment and develop an affordable housing policy. Policies would have to contain guidelines and incentives for developers to make affordable housing easier, as well as eligibility criteria for allocating houses. Council decisions on affordable housing would be subject to the right of appeal in the Environment Court. Restrictive covenants made before the passing of the Bill would remain in force, and further guidance material would be made available to councils.

The Queenstown experience

The Queenstown Lakes District's Coucil's (QLDC) affordable housing strategy, launched in 2005, featured as a case study. The need for the strategy came from the 30 percent growth in Queenstown's permanent population in the five years up to 2005, the increase in numbers of second homes and apartments, and massive increases in average house prices. A 2004 study found that a high number of new residents entering the district would be unable to afford homes in the district.

The Council says the strategy aims to 'increase access to quality, affordable housing that is integrated into the community so as to support the community's outcomes related to the sustainable economic, social and environmental development of the QLDC area'.

Key council roles in the strategy included:

• setting overall policy through district plans and long-term community plans
• setting up a Housing Trust to manage and develop affordable housing, foster partnerships with developers, provide for affordable financing and develop a sound business plan
• increasing land supply
• providing incentives for affordable housing such as rates remission, and easier consenting routes
• finding/providing funding
• managing relations with central government.

Upcoming 2008 Independent Qualified Persons Forums

Rosemary Hazlewood (Trainer and IQP Network Facilitator) will be running a number of forums for Independent Qualified Persons and council BWOF compliance staff to share insights and strategies.

This forum is for:

• staff working in compliance companies and IQP firms, and IQPs
• council staff working in BWOF compliance, and compliance schedule writing
• managers of IQP registers.

When and where

• Christchurch - 28 October 2008 (Copthorne Hotel, cnr Durham and Kilmore Sts)
• Hamilton - 4 November 2008 (Kingsgate Hotel, 100 Garnett Ave, Te Rapa)

Cost:

IQP Network members - $270.00 incl GST per person

Non-members - $295.00 incl GST per person

Want to join the IQP Network - $117.00 incl GST per person

How to register

Please contact Rosemary Hazlewood at Building Networks for a registration form:

Building Networks NZ Ltd, PO Box 57031, Mana, Porirua 5247

Email: office@bnets.co.nz

Successful Building Prosecution

Manukau City Council v City Link Properties Limited Judgement

Deviating from a building plan has seen an experienced property developer fined $30,000.

Manukau City Council granted City Link Properties a building consent, based on plans, to extend an existing house. When the company made changes to the building that were not included in the plans, Manukau City Council took the company and its director to court for breaches of the Building Act.

The judge ruled that the director accepted alterations for which he was responsible - the ground floor garage had been divided into two separate areas. This included the formation of a two car garage so as to create a separate living area with French doors leading to the garden area in place of the original window and an internal access door; a stairway on the ground floor giving access to the first floor; access into the existing dwelling which had been altered to create a larger intermediate landing; and on the first floor a number of dividing walls erected effectively creating four separate bedrooms.

The company and director were found guilty in Manukau District Court of undertaking unconsented building work and failing to comply with a notice to fix and fined $30,000. Sentencing Judge Lisa Tremewan said it was important the penalty sent a message to the industry and the public that building without proper consents would be taken seriously.

Manukau City Council compliance and enforcement manager Kevin Jackson said it was important to keep to plans on building consents. 'Building consents are there for a reason; to ensure building works meet a minimum standard of safety and design for the public, future tenants or owners,' he said.

Pre-lodgment meetings for building consent applications

Many building consent authorities now offer building consent applicants (or their agents or designers) the option of meeting to discuss their building project before they actually lodge their building consent application.

The Department fully supports and encourages building consent authorities providing this option to their customers - provided they are used in the right circumstances and add value to the consenting process. Such meetings will not always be needed to help process every building consent application, but many applicants and building officials have found them to be a big help in ensuring consent applications entered into the system have sufficient information, are of adequate quality, and are processed efficiently, but also comprehensively, in terms checking compliance with the Building Code.

Benefits of pre-lodgment meetings

Pre-lodgment meetings can benefit all parties - including applicants, designers and building officials. Some of the main benefits are noted below.

• They enable building consent authorities to clearly explain their information requirements for assessing building consent applications, the process by which they assess applications, and how they make decisions on whether to grant and issue a building consent or reject the application. Applicants can then do a quick status check to ensure they are on the right track and have covered off all material issues.
• They can help smooth the consenting process - especially for building consent applications containing more complex building designs or designs that are new or different from those designs typically submitted to the building consent authority (eg, large complex commercial projects).
• They can identify potential compliance issues early in the process and consider ways of resolving them before applications are ever submitted. In many cases, such meetings can significantly reduce the potential for the building consent authority to have to suspend the consent process while it requests further information from the applicant.
• All parties are able to operate on a 'no-surprises' basis and foster a collaborative approach to ensuring the building design and subsequent building work is compliant with the Building Code and is appropriate for the end users of the building.

When will such meetings be appropriate?

Pre-lodgment meetings may not always be appropriate or actually needed and they are a voluntary step in the overall consenting process. The important point is that the option to have the meeting is made available - whether customers choose to take the opportunity to have a meeting and get the benefits it will provide is up to them. Pre-lodgment meetings should not be mandatory.

Each consent application is different and whether a pre-lodgment meeting adds value will depend on the circumstances of each case. There may be less of a need to hold such meetings where designs are simple, and designers/applicants have a very well-established relationship with the council concerned, and everyone has very clear expectations about the information that needs to be supplied for the building consent authority to make an informed compliance decision. Sometimes it will also be impractical to meet face to face - although phone conferences are a good option in such situations.

However, even in relatively simple building projects there may be a point of uncertainty or a misunder-standing that can be quickly resolved in a way that saves future time, effort or costs. Before consents are lodged, there is usually a little more time and scope to make changes than when the clock starts ticking after lodgment, as often many applicants have arranged professionals and tradespeople to begin work based their expected timing for the building consent to be issued.

The Department has seen many examples of building consent files that would have benefited immensely from the relevant parties meeting to discuss the proposed building project before the consent application was lodged. In most cases, common sense would suggest that the potential benefits described above justify spending an hour or so meeting with the local building consent authority before lodging a building consent application.

The Building Act 2004

There is arguably even more benefit now to having pre-lodgment meetings than there was under previous building legislation. This is because the Building Act 2004 places considerable emphasis on ensuring Code compliance is comprehensively assessed before building consents are granted and issued. Once the actual building work is completed and a code compliance certificate is sought, the Act provides that building consent authorities must issue a code compliance certificate if they are satisfied on reasonable grounds that the building work complies with the original approved building consent.

Under the former Building Act 1991, councils were required to issue a code compliance certificate if the building work complied with the Building Code. Building consent authorities are, therefore, very conscious of ensuring they get their decision-making right around whether to issue the building consent correctly in the first place.

Summary of key messages Pre-lodgment meetings can add value and help ensure the consenting process goes smoothly and the right compliance decisions are made more quickly. The benefits are for all parties - applicants, designers and councils. Meetings are voluntary and will be of more value in some cases than others - it all depends on the circumstances. More often than not, the potential benefits of such meetings far exceed the small amount of time and effort.

Producer statement requirements

This article has been prepared to provide more guidance to building consent authorities when considering producer statements.

Producer statements remain in wide use for helping establish compliance with the Building Act and Building Code, despite having no specific status under the Building Act 2004. So it is important for anyone placing weight on these statements to be confident of their reliability and have robust decision- making processes around them.

Under the Building Act 1991, producer statements were a defined means of helping provide evidence of compliance with the Building Code. However, over-reliance on these statements without sufficient scrutiny of the author or accuracy of the contents by councils meant that many decisions based on them were not robust. The Hunn Report on the Weathertightness of Buildings, and technical reviews and determinations conducted by the Department, have been critical of this over-reliance on producer statements without robust systems around them.

Producer statements are not specifically referred to in the Building Act 2004 and carry no legal status. However, they can still be considered as part of the building consent and inspection process, and can help give a building consent authority reasonable grounds to be satisfied that the specified building work complies with the Building Code.

How producer statements should be used

Producer statements may give building consent authorities part of the information they need to assess building consent and code compliance certificate applications. In the case of code compliance certification, the consented plans also form part of this information and decision.

Producer statements can help reduce time and costs for processing consent applications, and the number of inspections the building consent authority may need to undertake during the construction process. If used properly, producer statements may also give authorities more confidence that certain building work will be or has been constructed to meet the requirements of the Building Code and approved building consent.

Regardless of the information provided by a producer statement author, the building consent authority remains solely responsible for deciding it is satisfied on reasonable grounds that any building work complies with the Building Act, the Building Code and approved building consent. A building consent authority may decide to use information in a producer statement from a suitably qualified and experienced person (eg, Chartered Professional Engineer) to help it make this decision.

Types of producer statements

Producer statements can cover an extensive range of building activity. These statements may be written by a wide range of practitioners, from specialist tradespeople (eg, cladding installers) to professional engineers, architects, building surveyors, and from a variety of other building trades and professions, depending on the nature of the work covered. Generally, producer statements fall into three broad categories: design, construction and construction review. A producer statement for design may be issued by a design professional who claims that their design work meets certain specified requirements of the Building Code. A producer statement for construction may be issued by a specialist tradesperson or suitably qualified professional. They will be undertaking the construction and state that the work complies with the building consent and or Code. Another type of statement is made by a practitioner (such as an engineer) who undertakes construction review or monitoring of building work.

Importantly, a producer statement is not a product warranty or guarantee of compliance, it is a professional opinion on compliance.

BCA producer statement policies and procedures

Some building consent authorities have established tight controls to ensure the integrity of decision-making involving producer statements. However, in some cases producer statements have been used beyond their intended purpose and accepted by building consent authorities without enough scrutiny.

With the introduction of the 2004 Act and the Building (Accreditation of Building Consent Authorities) Regulations 2006, building consent authorities are required to implement formal policies, procedures and systems for all their building control functions. Any building consent authorities that use producer statements in their compliance decisions therefore have to document their processes for the assessment, acceptance and management of producer statements.

Each building consent authority's policy for considering producer statements should address three general areas: (1) minimum information requirements; (2) assessing author competence; and (3) making decisions based on these statements.

The Department recommends that building consent authorities' formal policy and procedures for assessing and considering producer statements should include:

• the form and content of each producer statement and requirements for supporting documentation such as engineers' design calculations and drawings
• decision-making on producer statement acceptance - ie, ensuring they contain adequate and specific detail when deciding what weight to give them, and the decision-making audit process
• other matters, if applicable, such as compliance with the Building Code's durability provisions and how any assumptions made in a producer statement will be validated on site (eg, assumed soil conditions)
• how each author's competence, experience and fields of practice are assessed - for example, using statutory and publicly accessible registers such as those of Chartered Professional Engineers, registered architects, electrical workers or licensed building practitioners.

The Department notes that some building consent authorities have also been asking producer statement authors to provide information about professional indemnity insurance cover and may be using insurance details to weight producer statement information and reliance.

Consideration of insurance information

Information about insurance being requested from producer statement authors is not a requirement of the Building Act or accreditation regulations, and has no direct relevance to the statutory decision that a building consent authority must make regarding compliance with the Building Code and/or the building consent.

The Department considers that building consent authorities should adopt reasonable policies that do not require producer statement authors to hold unreasonably high levels of insurance cover, except for complicated projects with a very high value. For the majority of building projects, the Department considers it is reasonable to accept the standard level of professional insurance cover held by practitioners, such as that specified in contract templates maintained by building sector professional organisations such as the Institution of Professional Engineers New Zealand (IPENZ) and the Association of Consulting Engineers New Zealand (ACENZ) (for example: $200,000 PI cover).

Even more important is the way building consent authorities use any insurance information in their decision-making. Building consent authorities must assess applications to determine whether they are satisfied on reasonable grounds that the requirements of the Building Code and Act will be met. Any insurance details of producer statement authors are not directly relevant to this assessment. Relevant details on producer statements, for the purposes of assessing compliance, relate to the building work specifications and information about the skills and experience of the producer statement author. A building consent authority cannot refuse to assess or grant a building consent application simply because it is not satisfied with the insurance cover held by the producer statement author. Put another way, a building consent authority would breach the Act if it refused to assess or grant an application simply because it were accompanied by a producer statement provided by an author who did not hold a specified level of professional indemnity insurance cover.

The Department expects that building consent authorities, when deciding whether to accept producer statements, will assess insurance information as part of their formal policies, which should specify how they will weight producer statement information. Whether or not insurance information is collected or used in this weighting process is for each individual building consent authority to decide. Ultimately, building consent authorities must assess all documents associated with a building consent application and determine whether they are satisfied, on reasonable grounds, that the proposed building work will comply with the Building Code. The level of insurance cover held by a producer statement author is irrelevant to this assessment. If a building consent authority considers it wishes to take insurance into account, as it is entitled to do as part of its business risk management practices, then it should consider accepting the standard levels of cover specified by professional bodies (such as IPENZ and ACENZ) for most normal building projects.

Assessing author competence

The author of a producer statement should be suitably qualified and experienced to make their statement. When a building consent authority is assessing a producer statement author's suitability, consideration could be given, but not limited, to:

• the author's experience, qualifications and work history - these must relate to the type of work that the author is submitting for approval
• references from peers in the author's industry, peer review of their work or an assessment by the building consent authority of their work
• whether the author is a member of a recognised professional body that has ethical as well as ongoing professional development requirements (such as the Institution of Professional Engineers New Zealand (IPENZ), New Zealand Institute of Architects (NZIA) or New Zealand Institute of Building Surveyors (NZIBS)
• whether the author is listed on a statutory register (eg, for Chartered Professional Engineers (CPEng), licensed building practitioners (LBP) or registered architects). These statutory registers are competency-based, involve ethical and conduct obligations, and require continued professional development, including skills maintenance and validation.

When dealing with licensed building practitioners (and registered practitioners deemed LBPs), building consent authorities should use the relevant public registers (the CPEng, Architects, Building Surveyors and LBP registers) to help:

• confirm a current competence and good ethical standing, as determined by the registration authorities
• identify whether registration has been suspended or placed in abeyance
• identify disciplinary actions taken against an author
• provide a way of addressing instances of poor quality work
• provide a procedure for handling complaints.

The Department encourages building consent authorities to use information on these statutory registers to help assess producer statement authors' competence and suitability. While in general BCAs can rely on registered architects and Chartered Professional Engineers to declare their competence and remain within it, any authority can still choose to ask the author to state his or her practice area (specific area of competence). Authorities should consider this situation when setting their policies for producer statements.

When considering and weighting producer statements provided by registered practitioners, building consent authorities should also consider whether the author has had a role in carrying out or actively supervising the work involved.

Chartered Professional Engineers Register (CPEng)

The Chartered Professional Engineers of New Zealand Act 2002 (CPEng Act) requires rigorous competency testing when engineers apply to become registered. By statute, IPENZ, as the registration authority, is required to assess competence in professional engineering (across all fields of engineering) and to operate a complaints and disciplinary system for Chartered Professional Engineers. The government's philosophy on occupational regulation is that quality marks with protected titles (such as CPEng) should be based on 'current competence'. This means even after professional engineers have successfully demonstrated the competence required for registration, they still have to do ongoing assessments of competence to maintain their registration. CPEngs must also agree to be bound by CPEng rules, which include a Code of Ethical Conduct. As part of the Code, CPEngs must not misrepresent their competence, must only undertake engineering activities within their competence, and must not allow engineers whose work they supervise to breach either of these requirements.

Architects register

A search of the architects register will currently allow the building consent authority to determine that a person is registered. Architects must also meet a minimum standard for registration, including demonstrating that they are able to practise competently to the standard of a registered architect. They are also bound by a Code of Minimum Standards of Ethical Conduct for Registered Architects. That Code covers misrepresentation, upholding the law and standards related to the client.

Licensed building practitioner register

The licensed building practitioner register records the names of all licensed building practitioners and their licensing classes and is available online (www.dbh.govt.nz/lbp-register). This scheme was introduced on 1 November 2007. The Department of Building and Housing administers the scheme, including developing licensing standards, licensing those who have meet the relevant standards and administering the public register. To become licensed, applicants must show that they meet the national competency standard(s) for the licensing class(es) they apply for. The scheme also includes an independent Building Practitioners Board that hears complaints about licensed building practitioners' work and appeals about licensing decisions. Building consent authorities can use the online LBP register to confirm whether a producer statement author is licensed, identify the licensing class(es) author holds, and to identify any disciplinary action taken by the Building Practitioners Board against them.

Professional memberships and other information

Many building practitioners are members of trade associations and other professional groups. Membership of a professional or trade group is not, in itself, proof of competence in relation to a specific producer statement or discipline of work. Further checking may be needed for a building consent authority to be satisfied that it is fulfilling its obligations to establish the competence of a producer statement author who presents their trade or professional membership(s) as evidence of competence.

Some professional associations maintain rigorous qualification requirements, competency testing and disciplinary systems that are similar to statutory schemes. One such professional scheme is maintained by the NZ Institute of Building Surveyors (www.buildingsurveyors.co.nz). Minimum requirements for registration as a building surveyor include holding an appropriate tertiary qualification, ongoing continued professional development, demonstrated industry knowledge, a minimum of five years' appropriate experience and substantiated good standing in the community. The Institute of Building Surveyors also maintains standards of professional conduct to ensure their members avoid conflicts of interest and do not misrepresent their competence.

Local authority lists

In practice, most building consent authorities will maintain their own records and details about local producer statement authors who are not registered on statutory registers. These details allow building consent authorities to assess the scope of each author's knowledge, skill and experience. Processes for establishing this position should be documented in building consent authority policies and procedures.

The Department notes that there can be problems created for registered building practitioners when they are asked to apply to several different building consent authorities to be placed on lists of pre-approved producer statement authors. The Department agrees that this process is at times inefficient. As indicated above, building consent authorities should make greater use of statutory registers when dealing with producer statements from Chartered Professional Engineers, architects and licensed building practitioners to help reduce their workloads, and minimise inconsistencies and inefficiencies.

Other Department guidance

Further guidance and information for building consent authorities about the use of producer statements is available in the Building Consent Authority Development Guides and the Building Consent Authority Accreditation Preparation and Self-assessment Guide, which are available online at http://www.dbh.govt.nz/pub-bca-accreditation

Other information on administration of producer statements is also available in the Department's publications:

• BCA Update (August 2008), which provides guidance on appropriate professional indemnity insurance requirements in relation to producer statements: http://www.dbh.govt.nz/UserFiles/File/Publications/Building/BCA/BCA-Update-August-2008.pdf
• BCA Update (October 2007), which provides guidance on the acceptance of producer statements by building consent authorities
• BCA Update (December 2007), which provides guidance on using statutory registers to help assess producer statement authors' competence
• Codewords25 (February 2008), which provides guidance on the use of the CPEng register to help assess the competence of engineers: http://www.dbh.govt.nz/UserFiles/File/Publications/Building/Codewords/pdf/codewords25.pdf  
• Codewords20 (May/June 2007), which outlines producer statement forms issued by IPENZ, ACENZ and NZIA: http://www.dbh.govt.nz/UserFiles/File/Publications/Building/Codewords/pdf/codewords20.pdf  
• Codewords24 (November/December 2007), which outlines requirements for the acceptance of producer statements by building consent authorities: http://www.dbh.govt.nz/UserFiles/File/Publications/Building/Codewords/pdf/codewords24.pdf  

These and other guidance publications are freely available on line at www.dbh.govt.nz

Further work being undertaken by the Department

The Department recently met with a group of sector stakeholders (representatives from building consent authorities, the Department, ADNZ, IPENZ, RMBF, ACENZ and CBANZ) and agreed to collaborate to develop a comprehensive 'Code of Practice' on producer statements for the building sector. A working group to undertake this code of practice development is being independently chaired by Mr Alan Bickers.

The code of practice guide will include how to use producer statements appropriately, how building consent authorities should assess the competence of producer statement authors, and how they should weight the information in producer statements in compliance decisions.

Territorial authorities' obligations regarding the fencing of swimming pools

The recent drowning of a 21-month old child in Levin serves as a timely reminder of the importance of ensuring private swimming pools and spa pools are properly fenced.

Territorial authorities have important statutory responsibilities to help ensure that existing and new swimming pools and spa pools in their districts are properly fenced and stay properly fenced. These responsibilities are contained in two key pieces of legislation: the Fencing of Swimming Pools (FSP) Act 1987 and the Building Act 2004.

Swimming pool drownings

Between 1980 and 2006, 193 children under six years old drowned in swimming and spa pools in New Zealand. Of this total, 162 drownings were in private pools - 74 in the seven years prior to the FSP Act coming into force, and 88 in the 20 years following its introduction.

Obligations under two Acts

Territorial authorities need to be fully aware of their specific obligations and responsibilities under both the FSP Act and the Building Act and also how the interface between the two Acts works.

The FSP Act requires swimming pools and spa pools to be fenced, except where an exemption applies.2 The FSP Act covers what types of pool must be fenced and how they must be fenced. It also places an obligation on territorial authorities to help ensure that pool owners comply with the Act. More specifics about such obligations are outlined below.

2 Certain types of swimming pools are exempted from the FSP Act, such as public swimming pools, pools less than 400 mm deep, indoor residential pools and pools with sides higher than 1.2 m. Territorial authorities may also grant special exemptions.

The FSP Act is closely linked with the Building Act 2004. Under the Building Act, a building consent is required to build or install a pool or to fence an existing pool. To obtain a building consent, the design work in the building consent application must satisfy the performance standards of the Building Code.

One way to do this is to use Compliance Documents published by the Department of Building and Housing, which reference Schedule One of the FSP Act. Schedule One sets out a means of compliance for fences under the FSP Act and covers issues such as the height of the fence, ground clearance, materials to used in the fence, gates and doors used and how they operate. Figure 2, below, describes the relationship between the two Acts and shows that compliance with the FSP Act is partly dependent on compliance with the Building Act.

Someone building a swimming pool must comply with both the FSP Act and the Building Act. This helps ensure territorial authorities are aware of all new pools being built or installed in their area so they can monitor ongoing compliance with fencing requirements.

The Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987

Pool owners

The FSP Act requires owners of existing swimming pools (unless they are exempted) to ensure their pool is fenced to the appropriate standard required by the Act (section 8).

Pool owners are obliged to comply with any reasonable requirement of the territorial authority to advise it of the existence of the pool (section 7(1)). Owners intending to build a new swimming pool must also comply with the FSP Act and notify the territorial authority of their intention to construct or install the pool before the construction or installation commences (section 7(2)). Lodging a building consent application in respect of the proposed construction or installation of the pool is sufficient to meet this requirement.

Pool owners who to fail to comply with the FSP Act's requirements in these sections commit an offence.

Territorial authorities' role and obligations

Territorial authorities have a statutory obligation to take 'all reasonable steps' to ensure that the FSP Act is complied with within their district (section 10). Guidelines are available which give more detail on what 'all reasonable steps' means.3 However, in summary this is likely to include the following sorts of activities.

3 http://www.dbh.govt.nz/UserFiles/File/AboutUs/Legislation/fencing/pool-guide.pdf  

Activity	Options
Informing owners of their responsibilities under the FSP Act	This could be achieved by commonly used awareness-raising activities, such as sending letters or information flyers to owners, having web-based information, publishing newspaper advertisements. Other options could involve including information with rates letters, informing people during the building consenting process under the Building Act 2004, or advising applicants for Land Information Memoranda of the FSP Act's requirements.
Locating existing pools in their area	Territorial authorities should maintain a database of all existing pools in their areas and keep it up to date. If current information on existing pools is inadequate, possible means of working out the number of pools in the district include house-to-house surveys, aerial surveys, or checking with Valuation New Zealand for details of properties.
Conducting inspections	Inspections are a routine compliance tool that all territorial authorities should regularly undertake. Under the FSP Act, territorial authorities can: - inspect for fences on existing pools built prior to the former Building Act 1991 for compliance - inspect new pools during the building process to ensure compliance with both the Building Act 2004 and the FSP Act - make subsequent inspections on all pools to ensure ongoing compliance with the FSP Act and the Building Code. This is important to help ensure fences do not fall into a state of disrepair over time. The FSP Act allows territorial authority officers to enter onto and inspect a property. However, it is important that such monitoring and compliance activity is carried out lawfully. For instance: - the inspection must be done at a reasonable time of day, and - there must be reasonable grounds to believe that there is an unfenced or inadequately fenced pool on the property or that a special exemption under section 6 of the FSP Act is not being properly complied with, and - officers should have proper warrant, identification, know the scope of their actual powers, and always act within them (see section 11).
Taking enforcement action	Under the FSP Act, territorial authorities can prosecute non-complying pool owners who fail to erect a fence (where one does not exist) or fail to maintain a compliant fence around their pool. A court prosecution should be undertaken when other means of obtaining voluntary compliance have failed. NB: enforcement proceedings under the Building Act 2004 may also be an option for territorial authorities to consider in certain cases (see overleaf).

The Building Act 2004

The Building Act 2004 specifies a range of core building control responsibilities on local councils. Some of these link closely with territorial authorities' obligations under the FSP Act 1987. There are two main ways that this is the case.

Compliance checking

Historically, territorial authorities have been responsible for enforcing the Building Act in their districts. A large part of this role has involved building officials undertaking their core compliance checking role, which can involve processing building consent applications and issuing building consents, inspecting building work as it is constructed, and approving completed building work.

The Building Act 2004 introduced a new scheme to help strengthen how local councils undertake such functions. From 31 March 2009, these functions will only be able to be carried out by organisations that have been accredited and registered as building consent authorities. 72 out of 73 territorial authorities across the country applied for accreditation as a building consent authority. Many have since become accredited and are now fully approved to operate as building consent authorities. The others are steadily working towards achieving accreditation and, until 31 March 2009, are deemed to be building consent authorities.

Such organisations are therefore responsible for assessing building consent applications that relate to the building or installing of a pool or the fencing of an existing pool to ensure the application complies with the Building Code. Clause F4 of the Building Code sets out some broad performance standards, which include pool fencing.

As the building project progresses, council building inspectors may also carry out inspections to ensure the building work complies with the building consent and other relevant requirements under the Building Act.

Enforcement of the Building Act 2004

Territorial authorities have a number of enforcement powers under the Building Act, which are directly relevant to the fencing of pools and complement their enforcement powers under the FSP Act 1987.

Building consent authorities or territorial authorities can issue notices to fix under the Building Act if they have reasonable grounds to believe that a person is contravening or failing to comply with the Building Act or regulations made under the Act. Such notices require a person to remedy the breach in question.

Examples where a notice to fix may be issued could include where:

• the owner has failed to obtain a building consent for the pool or pool fence, and building work has been progressed
• building work relating to the pool or pool fence does not comply with the building consent issued by the building consent authority.

Infringement notices

The Building (Infringement Offences, Fees, and Forms) Regulations 2007 give territorial authorities the option of issuing an infringement notice on any person who commits an offence by not complying with certain provisions of the Building Act. These regulations specify the exact offences in the Act that can be dealt with as infringement offences and the fees payable that are associated with each. These fees range from $250 to $2,000 depending on whether the offence is procedural in nature or more serious.

Examples of where an infringement notice could be issued by a territorial authority relating to the fencing of pools include where:

• pool owners fail to comply with of the Building Act's requirement that building work be carried out in accordance with the building consent (see section 40)
• pool owners fail to comply with a notice to fix issued under the Building Act (see section 168).

Prosecution

Territorial authorities can also initiate prosecution proceedings in court if they reasonably believe that an offence under the Building Act has been committed.

Some territorial authorities may choose to take enforcement action under the Building Act rather than the FSP Act 1987, as they believe there is a better enforcement framework in the more modern Building Act. For instance, there is a higher penalty for the offence of failing to comply with a notice to fix under the Building Act than there is for an offence under the FSP Act 1987. This may provide a bigger deterrent for the behaviour in question.

Changes to 1st schedule exemptions guidance

Background

When the Building Act was passed in 2004, it contained a number of exemptions that are applied daily without reference to a building consent authority. Mostly, the original exemptions apply to minor building work (eg, repair and maintenance and small non-habitable structures).

Additional building work exemptions have been added to Schedule 1 of the Building Act, and will come into force on 16 October 2008 (see page 31). Practical implications for building consent authorities are that people not skilled or qualified to make a decision about whether a building consent is necessary will be seeking advice about whether or not their intended building work is exempt.

The Department has developed a basic three-part guide for building consent authorities to apply when asked to provide advice to the public. This guidance is simply a suggested approach for building consent authorities to consider using or further developing to suit their particular circumstances.

Part one: Updating and empowering building control staff and developing information for consumers

Whenever there is a change to building control legislation, it is important to ensure building control staff are among the first to be informed about the detail of the changes so they are ready and able to deal with consumer enquiries. The development of information for staff and consumers is also very important.

Accordingly, the Department has drafted some general information that may be used to inform building control staff and to assist building consent authorities to develop consumer guidance materials (see page 33). The Department envisages building consent authorities incorporating similar guidance information in the consumer information they publish (eg, in pamphlets, on their websites and in newsletters they issue from time to time).

Staff who have the initial contact with consumers or who carry out the first checks on a building consent application will play a key role in assisting consumers to decide whether building work requires a consent or not. We therefore encourage building consent authorities to:

• provide building control counter staff and others involved in consumer services with up-to-date information on the proposed changes to Schedule 1
• provide appropriate technical and legal support, to assist consumers with determining whether or not an exemption applies to their building work.

Part two: Before the new exemptions comeinto force

Before the new exemptions come into force, building consent applications will have been lodged for processing. If those same applications had been lodged after the new exemptions had come into force, the subject of the application might qualify as exempt building work (not requiring a building consent). When those circumstances come to the attention of the building consent authority, the Department suggests that the authority takes the following steps.

• 1. Sends written advice to the affected applicant(s) informing them about the changes to Schedule 1 of the Building Act, giving them the option of withdrawing their application (with minimal or no fees applying) to allow them time to determine whether all or part of the building work in their application will be exempt once the changes come into effect. Once the new exemptions are in force, they can reapply with an amended application (or not apply at all, if all the building work qualifies as exempt).
• 2. Includes in the advice to the applicant(s) a recommendation that they obtain further advice from a suitably qualified person about whether some or all of the work is likely to be exempt (as it may be worth proceeding with the building consent application to avoid delays). Depending on the nature of the building work, suitably qualified people would include a licensed building practitioner (LBP), architect, building surveyor, engineer, or some other person with experience in the building industry.
• 3. Includes in the advice to the applicant(s) notice that a period of five (5) working days (from the date they received the letter) will be allowed for them to withdraw their consent application, other-wise the authority will process the application in the normal manner and the relevant fees will apply.
• 4. Includes in the advice a warning that, even if the applicant(s) believes that an exemption will apply to their project, they cannot proceed with the proposed building work without a building consent until 16 October 2008 when the exemptions come into force (as to do so would be a breach of the Building Act).
• 5. Includes in the advice that all building work must comply with the Building Code, regardless of whether a building consent is required.

Part three: After new exemptions take effect on 16 October 2008

Until the wider building sector and consumers become familiar with the new exemptions, building consent authorities will need to consider how to inform the sector and consumers about the additional exemptions and how to manage enquiries and consent applications that appear to include exempt building work (eg, by allowing the applicant to withdraw and resubmit (if necessary) the application).

After the new exemptions take effect, a building consent authority may be faced with two situations.

• 1. An owner will be intending to carry out building work, and will be seeking advice about whether the building work is exempt, and how they can ensure that they are applying the legislation correctly, or
• 2. A building consent application is already lodged, and the building consent authority (having examined the consent application) discovers that all or part of the work is likely to have become exempt.

In the first case, the Department suggests that the building consent authority should provide the person making the enquiry with a copy of the amended Schedule 1 to the Building Act and the authority's own guidance material on exempt building work. If applicable, the building consent authority may also recommend that they obtain specific technical or legal advice to determine whether or not the intended building work is 'exempt building work'.

In the second case (ie, where the consent application has already been made) and the building consent authority believes the application probably now includes 'exempt building work', the Department suggests that the building consent authority informs the applicant that they may withdraw their application and resubmit it with any exempt building work excluded.

It is important to note that all building work (regardless of the need for a building consent) must comply with the Building Code.

Where a building consent authority receives a request for general advice on building work exemptions, in addition to any consumer information the authority can provide (eg, in the form of pamphlets, web-based information and newsletters), the customer could also be directed to the Department of Building and Housing website www.dbh.govt.nz to view a copy of the Building Act, or to read further information about the Schedule 1 exemptions.

Schedule 1 to the Building Act 2004 - Exempt building works (with new additions in force on 16 October 2008)

A building consent is not required for the following building work:

• (a) any lawful repair and maintenance using comparable materials, or replacement with a comparable component or assembly in the same position, of any component or assembly incorporated or associated with a building, including all lawful repair and maintenance of that nature that is carried out in accordance with the Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Act 1976, except-
• (i) complete or substantial replacement of a specified system; or
• (ii) complete or substantial replacement of any component or assembly contributing to the building's structural behaviour or fire-safety properties; or
• (iii) repair or replacement (other than maintenance) of any component or assembly that has failed to satisfy the provisions of the building code for durability, for example, through a failure to comply with the external moisture requirements of the building code; or
• (iv) repair or replacement of any water storage heater connected to a solid-fuel heater or other supplementary heat exchanger, except for the repair, or replacement with a comparable heater, of any open-vented water storage heater using the same pipework:
• (ab) the opening and reinstatement of any purpose-made access point within a drainage system that-
• (i) is not a NUO system or part of a NUO system; and
• (ii) is carried out in accordance with the Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Act 1976:
• (ac) the alteration to drains for a dwelling, if the alteration-
• (i) is of a minor nature (for example, shifting a gully trap); and
• (ii) does not include making any new connection to a service provided by a network utility operator; and
• (iii) is carried out in accordance with the Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Act 1976:
• (ad) the alteration to existing sanitary plumbing (as defined in section 3 of the Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Act 1976) in a dwelling (for example, replacing a bath with a shower or moving a toilet) carried out in accordance with the Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Act 1976:
• (ae) the installation, replacement, or removal in any existing building of a window (including a roof window) or an exterior doorway if-
• (i) compliance with the provisions of the building code relating to structural stability is not reduced; and
• (ii) in the case of replacement, the window or doorway being replaced satisfied the provisions of the building code for durability:
• (af) the alteration to an entrance or an internal doorway of a dwelling to improve access for persons with disabilities, if compliance with the provisions of the building code relating to structural stability is not reduced.
• (ag) the alteration to the interior of any non-residential building (for example, a shop, office, library, factory, warehouse, church, or school), if the alteration does not-
• (i) reduce compliance with the provisions of the building code that relate to means of escape from fire, protection of other property, sanitary facilities, structural stability, fire-rating performance, and access for persons with disabilities; or
• (ii) modify or affect any specified system.
• (b) the construction or alteration of any motorway sign, stopbank, culvert for carrying water under or in association with a road, or other similar structure that is a simple structure and is owned or controlled by a network utility operator or other similar organisation:
• (c) construction or alteration of any retaining wall that retains not more than 1.5 metres depth of ground and that does not support any surcharge or any load additional to the load of that ground (for example, the load of vehicles on a road):
• (ca) the construction, alteration, or removal of an internal wall (including the construction, alteration, or removal of an internal doorway) in any existing building if-
• (i) compliance with the provisions of the building code relating to structural stability is not reduced; and
• (ii) the means of escape from fire provided within the building are not detrimentally affected; and
• (iii) the wall is not made of units of material (such as brick, burnt clay, concrete, or stone) laid to a bond in and joined together with mortar.
• (d) the construction or alteration of any wall (except a retaining wall or internal wall), fence (except a fence as defined in section 2 of the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987), or hoarding, in each case of a height not exceeding 2 metres above the supporting ground:
• (da) the construction or alteration of any dam that is not a large dam:
• (e) the construction of any tank or pool and any structural support of the tank or pool (except a swimming pool as defined in section 2 of the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987), including any tank or pool that is part of any other building for which a building consent is required,-
• (i) not exceeding 35 000 litres capacity and supported directly by the ground; or
• (ii) not exceeding 2 000 litres capacity and supported not more than 2 metres above the supporting ground; or
• (iii) not exceeding 500 litres capacity and supported not more than 4 metres above the supporting ground:
• (f) the construction, alteration or removal of any tent or marquee that has a floor area not exceeding 50 square metres if that tent or marquee is to be, or has been, used for public assembly for a period of not more than 1 month:
• (fa) the construction, alteration or removal or any tent or marquee that has a floor area not exceeding 100 square metres if that tent or marquee is, or has been, for private use for a period of not more than 1 month.
• (g) the construction or alteration of any platform, bridge, or the like from which it is not possible for a person to fall more than 1 metre even if it collapses:
• (h) the construction or alteration of any temporary storage stack of goods or materials:
• (i) building work in connection with any detached building (except a building that is required to be licensed in terms of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 or a building closer than its own height to any residential accommodation or to any legal boundary) that-
• (i) houses fixed plant or machinery, the only normal visits to which are intermittent visits for routine inspection and maintenance of that plant or machinery; or
• (ii) into which, or into the immediate vicinity of which, people cannot or do not normally go; or
• (iii) is used only by people engaged in the construction or maintenance of another building for which a building consent is required; or
• (iv) does not exceed 1 storey, does not exceed 10 square metres in floor area, and does not contain sanitary facilities or facilities for the storage of potable water, but may contain sleeping accommodation (without cooking facilities) if the detached building is used in connection with a dwelling:
• (j) building work in connection with the closing in of an existing veranda, patio, or the like so as to provide an enclosed porch, conservatory, or the like with a floor area not exceeding 5 square metres:
• (ja) the construction, alteration, or removal of any fabric, glass, or metal awning on any building that-
• (i) is on the ground or first storey level; and
• (ii) does not exceed 15 square metres in size:
• (jb) the construction, alteration, or removal of a pergola:
• (jc) the construction, alteration, or removal of a porch or verandah on any building where that porch or verandah-
• (i) is on the ground or first storey level; and
• (ii) Is over a deck or a patio; and
• (ii) does not exceed 15 square metres in size:
• (k) any other building work in respect of which the territorial authority (or, as the case requires, the regional authority) considers that a building consent is not necessary for the purposes of this Act because that building work-
• (i) is unlikely to be carried out otherwise than in accordance with the building code; or
• (ii) if carried out otherwise than in accordance with the building code, is unlikely to endanger people or any building, whether on the same land or on other property.

General information that may be used in developing building consent authority (BCA) consumer guidance

Introduction

This document explains issues related to exempt building work under Schedule 1 of the Building Act 2004 (the Building Act). If you are intending to start a building project, it is recommended that you check whether the building work requires a building consent. If the work, or part of it, does not require a consent you may save time and money.

The Building Act 2004

The Building Act introduced changes to the way the building industry in New Zealand is regulated, with the intent of providing greater assurance to consumers. The Building Act provides a framework to support and promote safe, high-quality building work that will satisfy the expectations of consumers, government and the building industry. Continued successful implementation of the Building Act is critical for development and growth in all regions of New Zealand.

The government's aims in introducing the Building Act are to achieve:

• more clarity on the standards buildings are expected to meet
• more guidance on how those standards can be met
• more certainty that competent and capable people are undertaking the work
• more scrutiny in the building consent and inspection process.

The Building Act helps ensure better decision-making throughout the building process, and provides more assurance to consumers and homeowners that buildings are designed and built right the first time. The Building Act requires territorial and regional authorities (councils) to be accredited as building consent authorities. Building consent authorities issue building consents and undertake enforcement where building work fails to meet the requirements of the Building Act.

Building owners are generally required to obtain a building consent from a building consent authority to carry out building work. In practice a builder, designer or architect acting as the owner's agent may also obtain a consent on behalf of the building owner. The consent is necessary to ensure proposed building work complies with the New Zealand Building Code (eg, building, plumbing, drainage, fire and accessibility requirements) and is therefore safe, sanitary and otherwise suitable for its intended use.

The Building Act does allow a limited range of building work to be carried out without a building consent. Most of this 'exempt building work' is listed in Schedule 1 to the Building Act.

OverviewThe Building Act prescribes the process that building consent authorities and building owners must comply with when undertaking building work. The Act requires people intending to undertake building work to apply for a building consent unless the work is 'exempt'. Schedule 1 of the Act lists the building work that does not require a building consent.

Seeking advice on exempt building work

Obtaining a building consent for building work is the responsibility of the building owner. It is important therefore to obtain good advice before deciding that the building work is covered by the exemption provisions set out in Schedule 1.

If you are experienced in the building industry, and understand the technical requirements of the Building Act and the New Zealand Building Code, you should easily recognise whether exemptions apply to your project. If you are unsure, however, then you should contact your local building consent authority (your local city or district council) for advice. Building consent authorities have a wide range of building control expertise and information about exemptions and the building consent process.

Depending on the nature of the building work, you might also wish to seek advice from a licensed building practitioner (LBP), architect, building surveyor, engineer, or some other person with experience in the building industry. In dealing with LBPs, it is important to note that there are several different categories of LBP, and you should ask the LBP if they are licensed in the relevant class before accepting their advice. An LBP who is licensed in the Carpentry/Site 1 class of building licence should be able to advise you about most kinds of exempt building work contained in the Schedule.

All registered architects or LBPs holding a Design 3 class will also be able to advise you about the building work you intend to carry out, and whether the exemptions in Schedule 1 apply to that work.

How is building work defined and are there exemptions from the requirement to get a building consent?

The Building Act applies to all building work. Building work is defined under section 7 of the Act and the Act generally requires a building owner to obtain a building consent from a building consent authority before undertaking building work. All building work (regardless of the need for a building consent) must comply with the Building Code.

The definition of building work in the Building Act is any work related to or in connection with the construction, alteration, demolition or removal of a building. Because the definition is so broad, it is generally the case that almost all building work is potentially work that requires a building consent. Certain building work is exempt from the building consent requirements of the Act. Some of the exempt building work is listed in Schedule 1 to the Act.

When exemptions apply will depend on the kind of work being undertaken, the scope of the work, and the extent of the proposed building work. For example, a retaining wall may be exempt if the dimensions of the retaining wall are such that the wall is less than 1.5 metres in height and the retaining wall is not supporting surcharge or additional loads such as vehicle access or foundations.

While the Building Act provides for exemptions, there might be other laws that you need to comply with. These include, but are not limited to:

• the Building Code
• the Resource Management Act 1991
• the Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Act 1976
• the Electricity Act 1992
• the Health Act 1956
• any local government bylaws.

Why were the exemptions included in the Building Act?

Because the Building Act covers such a broad range of building work, it was anticipated that some low-risk building work should not be subject to the normal requirements of the building consent approval process. Exempt works are generally works that will not impact on the structural integrity or safety components of the building. For example, repair and maintenance work is exempt provided the work is lawful and comparable materials are used, or the work is a replacement with a comparable component or assembly in the same position. However, even exempt building work must comply with the Building Code.

What building work is listed as exemptbuilding work

Schedule 1 of the Building Act 2004 sets out most of the circumstances where building work is exempt from needing a building consent. Its intent is to apply an appropriate balance between minimising compliance costs (by exempting low-risk and minor building work from the consent process), and requiring some consistent regulatory oversight of building work that could risk health and safety.

Schedule 1 to the Building Act 2004 was recently amended to expand the range of building work that does not require a building consent (a copy of the revised Schedule is attached on page 31). While the amendments have been widely publicised, we wish to raise awareness about the amendments.

The amendments to Schedule 1 provisions for building consent exemptions are intended to:

• clarify the 'in or out' status of some specific types of building work that have created uncertainty
• confirm that, in particular, 'durability' matters such as weathertightness repairs are not appropriate to exempt from building consent requirements
• reflect more clearly the principles and policy intent behind the provision for exemptions for some building work from requiring a building consent (work that is 'low risk and minor').

Further information

If you have any further questions about exempt building work, or are uncertain whether the work you wish to undertake is exempt building work, you should contact your local building consent authority (city or district council).

Even though some work may be exempt under Schedule 1, owners may wish to submit records of the changes to the building consent authority to be placed on the property file.

Supplying manufactures' product literature with building consent applications

An issue commonly faced in the building consenting process is determining just what information should be provided to support a building consent application. A range of different types of information can be supplied, depending upon the nature of the building work in question.

A good example of this issue is the amount of technical manufacturers' product literature that should be provided with building consent applications. Many building consent authorities request detailed information for certain building products specified in design plans for each separate building consent application. This is sometimes causing issues with designers and consent applicants, as they believe that such information is readily obtainable (electronically or in hard copy), may not always be necessary for compliance decisions, or they feel they are being repeatedly asked to provide the same information for each new consent application. This is adding considerable paperwork to consent files across the country and in the long term is not a sustainable approach.

Reasons behind such requests

Building consent authorities will usually advise that requesting detailed manufacturers' product information shows they are being thorough with their compliance decisions, and each consent file will therefore be comprehensive and clearly show the basis for their compliance decision to issue the building consent. In some cases, they will consider that the technical manufacturers' product literature should have also been provided with the consent application drawings in the first place.

Another factor to consider is that the Building Act 2004 introduced a change to the building consenting and inspection process from the former Building Act 1991. The new Act requires a greater emphasis on ensuring Building Code compliance at the design and consent processing stages, before building works commences. Under the former Building Act 1991, councils were required to issue a code compliance certificate if the building work complied with the Building Code. However, under the Building Act 2004, building consent authorities now issue code compliance certificates if the building work complies with the building consent they issued. This of course needs to demonstrate Building Code compliance.

Many building consent authorities are therefore more conscious about ensuring the documentation forming the basis by which they grant the building consent is comprehensive, as they grant code compliance certificates against this. The Act also requires councils to record and keep on file all information pertaining to consent applications. Having comprehensive consent files to clearly show the basis of compliance checking also helps safeguard councils against potential future allegations that they did not perform their compliance checking role well enough if something goes wrong in the building in question. Often such problems surface years down the track, and having such information on the consent file helps provide an audit trail of the basis for their compliance decision-making at the time they undertook the work. Manufacturers' product literature is regularly updated and replaced/superseded as time goes by, and keeping such information on file minimises the risk of not being able to provide it if the information is required at a later date.

Many building consent authorities and building practitioners also make practical use of the manufacturer's technical information in approved building consent documentation for on-site construction and inspection compliance discussions.

General guidance

Each different building consent really needs to be considered on a case-by-case basis and it can be hard to come up with a definitive list of information requirements that will cover each unique consent The bottom line is that building consent authorities need the right amount of information to help them make informed compliance decisions. The Building Act requires building consent authorities to issue a building consent if they are satisfied on reasonable grounds that the provisions of the Building Code would be met if the building work was properly completed in accordance with the plans and specifications that accompanied the application (section 49).

While there is no immediate and simple 'silver bullet' solution to this situation, improvements can be made by some changes in the practices of both building consent authorities and designers. The Department considers that there are some simple 'rules of thumb' that should be followed.

Information should be material to compliance decisions - if information is material for a building official to make an informed decision about whether proposed building work complies with the Building Code, then they are entitled to ask for it. In many cases the information should have been originally provided with the consent application. Conversely, if the information does not relate to a specific Code compliance decision, building officials should not be asking for it.

Information requests should be as specific as possible - building consent authorities should avoid making very general, wide-sweeping, requests for a lot of detailed information (such as entire manufacturers' technical product information) without good reason. Building officials need to be able to communicate why the information is needed and how it relates to their Code compliance decisions. Requests should be as specific as possible. For example, instead of asking for a copy of an entire product manual, often only partial sections or specific details are needed for a given compliance decision.

Consent applications and design plans need to be comprehensive - many consent applications simply do not contain sufficient project-specific information or are not yet of sufficient quality to enable building consent authorities to make informed and robust compliance decisions. As a rule of thumb, the less project-specific the information provided with a building consent application, the more uncertainty there will be in the building official's mind that the proposed building work will actually comply with the Building Code. Generic information should be kept to a minimum. Specifications should be project-specific.

It is not only the type and amount of information provided, but also how clearly the application demonstrates to the building consent authority how Building Code compliance is to be achieved. The better this is communicated to building officials in the consent application, the more efficiently they can process the application.

Working 'smarter' - some simple changes to administrative procedures could help reduce work for all parties. Building consent authorities could, in some situations, where appropriate, cross-reference technical product information material in their consent files. For instance, instead of adding copies of the 'whole manual' to each separate consent file, they could maintain a small number of hard/electronic copies. Conversely, designers could provide more detail in their architectural plans, or append the relevant sections of the manufacturers' technical literature or specific construction details to their consent documentation, or be more specific in their referencing of parts of manufacturers' literature they are relying on in their designs to help achieve building compliance.

Technology - Building consent authorities could invest in new technology which could help reduce paperwork, such as electronic pads/tablets which could be taken on site, digital scanning systems in the office, and receiving, processing and sending out consent applications in digital form.

Other options

Other potential initiatives being considered by the Department include the following.

• Working with designers and building consent authorities to produce guidance information to clearly set out what is considered best practice in terms of the information requirements relating to manufacturers' technical literature that should be included with consent documentation. There is an already-existing guide to applying for a building consent on the Department's website4
• Establishing the possibility of a central repository or online database containing manufacturers' technical literature (possibly including superseded editions clearly catalogued)
• Creating a national, multiple-use approval scheme by extending the Department's statutory functions under the Building Act so it can issue national, multiple-use approvals. Consent applicants would still need to apply to their local building consent authority for each building that is to be built to ensure site-specific issues are adequately addressed. However, the workload on the building consent authorities concerned would be greatly reduced if much of the building design had been previously assessed by the Department, via the multiple-use approval scheme. This initiative is currently proposed in the Building Amendment Bill 2008
• Enabling building consent applications to be made online. The Department recently scoped the feasibility of an online consenting system and it does appear a viable option. The next phase of work will be to consider issues such how such a system would be governed and managed, cost implications, and ensuring integration with existing (or planned) initiatives at the local government level. These issues continue to be explored by the Department.

4 http://www.dbh.govt.nz/bofficials-building-consents#map1   

Building Consent Statistics 2007/08

All 73 territorial authorities responded to a recent request by the Department of Building and Housing to tell us the number and value of building consents issued in 2006/07. We're grateful for this excellent response rate and pleased to share the figures we received. The information has already proved valuable for our policy work, advice to government and operational planning.

The figures show the scale and value of building activity nationwide. As set out below, territorial authorities reported that during 2007/08 they granted more than 104,557 consents (down approximately 8,000 consents from last year) for building work with a value of almost $13 billion.

territorial authority Building Consent Information 2007/08 (ie, year ending 30 June 2008)
Territorial authority	Total building consents	Total value of consented work ($)	Fees collected for consents ($)	Fees collected as a percentage of value of consented work
Ashburton District	1350	138,972,114	629,591	0.45
Auckland City	6709	1,488,241,951	14,375,000	0.97
Buller District	486	26,925,614.00	340,075.34	1.26
Carterton District	488	33,139,717.00	364,500.00	1.10
Central Hawke's Bay District	524	33,837,465.00	382,134.37	1.13
Central Otago District	944	104,548,065.00	964,688.87	0.92
Chatham Islands District	22	3,356,641.88	12,769.78	0.38
Christchurch City	7333	890,864,454.00	Not provided	-
Clutha District	660	51,490,331.00	436,496.00	0.85
Dunedin City	3611	268,792,523.00	2,788,965.00	1.04
Far North District	1624	251,965,608.00	1,586,493.50	0.63
Franklin District	1940	232,650,253.00	Not provided	-
Gisborne District	1466	83,111,400.00	757,890.00	0.91
Gore District	657	36,136,860.00	400,784.00	1.11
Grey District	655	49,020,000.00	585,230.00	1.19
Hamilton City	2389	386,380,949.00	2,424,032.00	0.63
Hastings District	1882	218,180,000.00	1,930,976.00	0.89
Hauraki District	551	47,122,825.00	509,751.29	1.08
Horowhenua District	976	73,385,956.00	586,370.00	0.80
Hurunui District	524	66,381,649.00	459,977.40	0.69
Invercargill City	2391	113,417,704.00	1,382,694.00	1.22
Kaikoura District	201	17,770,876.00	141,581.00	0.80
Kaipara District	906	71,712,621.00	501,780.93	0.70
Kapiti Coast District	1184	119,941,909.00	1,305,540.00	1.09
Kawerau District	159	14,637,863.44	72,109.77	0.49
Lower Hutt City	1526	122,609,664.00	1,904,270.39	1.55
Territorial authority	Total building consents	Total value of consented work ($)	Fees collected for consents ($)	Fees collected as a percentage of value of consented work
Mackenzie District	255	33,861,626.00	185,533.35	0.55
Manawatu District	1088	78,513,749.00	483,782.00	0.62
Manukau City	3919	992,545,221.00	13,283,200.00	1.34
Marlborough District	2168	205,227,985.00	1,440,907.00	0.70
Masterton District	1011	60,623,665.00	637,048.00	1.05
Matamata-Piako District	1134	117,866,348.00	569,700.00	0.48
Napier City	1330	142,100,000.00	832,800.00	0.59
Nelson City	1491	175,406,467.00	1,232,000.00	0.70
New Plymouth District	2330	224,680,000.00	2,556,250.00	1.14
North Shore City	3892	592,376,580.00	6,935,760.00	1.17
Opotiki District	238	10,685,331.00	181,010.05	1.69
Otorohanga District	434	34,523,244.00	397,251.74	1.15
Palmerston North City	1399	203,781,967.00	3,674,324.00	1.80
Papakura District	642	93,100,000.00	1,149,012.00	1.23
Porirua City	1101	116,912,827.00	795,059.00	0.68
Queenstown-Lakes District	1441	316,337,113.00	1,695,363.00	0.54
Rangitikei District	514	20,805,945.00	48,007.08	0.23
Rodney District	2296	427,050,248.00	5,197,180.00	1.22
Rotorua District	1548	114,667,184.00	1,664,852.85	1.45
Ruapehu District	452	35,775,154.37	425,600.62	1.19
Selwyn District	1967	286,800,607.00	2,216,899.00	0.77
South Taranaki District	1048	61,851,868.00	473,605.50	0.77
South Waikato District	753	38,991,284.00	261,787.00	0.67
South Wairarapa District	592	34,917,014.00	336,000.14	0.96
Southland District	1608	113,891,024.00	766,791.65	0.67
Stratford District	370	26,128,003.00	132,165.53	0.51
Tararua District	680	27,646,659.00	370,246.00	1.34
Tasman District	1514	138,867,216.00	1,582,739.00	1.14
Taupo District	1141	121,898,081.00	1,006,671.00	0.83
Tauranga City	2588	434,472,879.00	3,451,243.92	0.79
Thames-Coromandel District	1508	147,337,235.00	1,813,933.62	1.23
Timaru District	1621	122,554,179.00	954,040.00	0.78
Upper Hutt City	999	116,000,000.00	871,082.00	0.75
Waikato District	1483	162,690,592.92	1,301,455.00	0.80
Waimakariri District	1528	209,385,944.00	2,466,178.00	1.18
Waimate District	379	27,309,201.00	310,864.00	1.14
Waipa District	1524	160,500,879.00	1,236,519.00	0.77
Wairoa District	216	9,178,015.50	231,097.82	2.52
Waitakere City	2169	220,677,967.00	9,920,677.95	4.50
Waitaki District	862	53,553,565.00	559,225.00	1.04
Waitomo District	255	17,766,472.00	110,000.00	0.62
Wanganui District	1584	90,720,823.00	1,043,817.00	1.15
Wellington City	3333	694,748,407.00	5,534,463.00	0.80
Western Bay of Plenty District	1399	120,421,337.00	614,173.50	0.51
Westland District	477	74,799,236.00	376,909.00	0.50
Whakatane District	893	64,257,346.00	1,024,857.00	1.59
Whangarei District	2225	287,387,473.00	2,654,084.00	0.92
Total New Zealand	104,557	12,806,188,975.36

Note: GST is included

To ensure you receive this publication, please subscribe to BCA Update

This publication has been developed to highlight issues relating to the accreditation and registration of building consent authorities as well as other topical BCA issues. The original circulation list was developed from multiple mailing lists within the Department. To ensure you continue to receive this publication, please subscribe through the address or email below.

BCA Update Publication

Consent Authority Capability and Performance Group

Department of Building and Housing

PO Box 10-729

Wellington 6143

Or email your details to

marilyn.fasitua@dbh.govt.nz

Please note, electronic copies of this and back issues of BCA Update are available online at: http://www.dbh.govt.nz/bofficials-bca

Further information

Further information about the Building Consent Authority Accreditation and Registration Scheme is also available on the Department's website at www.dbh.govt.nz/bofficials-bca

Further information about IANZ is available at www.ianz.govt.nz

Information about BCA accreditation, including an accreditation resource kit, is also available atwww.lgnz.co.nz/projects/building-consent/

For general enquiries about the Building Consent Authority Accreditation and Registration Scheme or case advisor support, please contact one of the following people at the Department of Building and Housing.

Building Consent Authority Accreditation

and Registration Project

Consent Authority Capability and Performance Group

Department of Building and Housing

PO Box 10-729, Wellington

Telephone: 0800 242 243

Malcolm MacMillan

Manager Consent Authority Capability and Performance Group

malcolm.macmillan@dbh.govt.nz

Andrew Minturn

Senior Advisor and Case Advisor BCA Accreditation and Registration

andrew.minturn@dbh.govt.nz

Steve Garner

Project Manager and Case Advisor BCA Accreditation and Registration

steve.garner@dbh.govt.nz

Peter Sparrow

Senior Advisor Performance Monitoring and Review

peter.sparrow@dbh.govt.nz

For specific enquiries about applying for accreditation, accreditation assessments, the accreditation assessment process and scheduling, accreditation fees, corrective actions and how to interpret them, or the standards and criteria for accreditation, please contact:

International Accreditation New Zealand (IANZ)

Private Bag 28-908,

Remuera, Auckland

Telephone: (09) 525 6655

Adrienne Woollard

Programme Manager Inspection Body Accreditation

awoollard@ianz.govt.nz

David Sidwell

Accreditation Officer

dsidwell@ianz.govt.nz

Chris Astbury

Accreditation Assessor

castbury@ianz.govt.nz