Key findings of the review

16 - Case studies of completed buildings

Purpose

To undertake case studies of building consents in order to assess the adequacy of the Council's building consent processing and inspection regime. The case study findings often reflect and reinforce the more general review findings outlined under the other terms of reference.

Background

The Department identified a number of buildings recently processed by the Council and progressed to code compliance certificate stage (although sometimes case studies can involve buildings still in the construction phase). These buildings were chosen to be typical of the building type that the Council dealt with and that involved compliance elements that were known to be difficult (such as accessibility, or weathertightness with monolithic claddings). The findings of the case studies were used to support and reinforce the more general review findings outlined throughout the report.

Initial review

Case studies analysed during the initial review revealed that:

inspection checklists were not comprehensive enough and documentation of the inspection process was often inadequate
insufficient information was often being provided to the Council at various stages of the consent processing and inspection process. The Council should be prepared to reject applications immediately if they obviously lack the required detail
the Council's records for the various stages of the consent processing and inspection process were often inadequate
there was no procedure for assessing and making decisions on proposed alternative solutions
only limited follow-up enforcement action was occurring.

Recommendations made to the Council	Action taken by the Council before the follow-up review
Improve procedures for dealing with consent applications with insufficient information.	These recommendations had not been implemented prior to the follow-up review.The Council's decision to out-source its processing and inspection functions also impacted on these recommendations.
Improve processing and inspection methodology to ensure compliance is consistently achieved for all clauses in the Building Code. Particular attention should be given to improving Code compliance regarding accessibility, fire, plumbing and drainage, and weathertightness.	Improve documentation of its decision-making for processing and inspections, including how the Council was satisfied on reasonable grounds that Code compliance was, or would be, achieved for all building construction elements.
Improve processes for documenting Acceptable Solutions and the basis for their acceptance or rejection.	Improve training programmes that lift technical knowledge.
Improve recruitment programmes that meet both short- and long-term staff needs.

Follow-up review

The findings of the 2007 review's case studies provided evidence to support the recommendations contained throughout the follow-up report. The main findings were that:

building consent applications were still being accepted for processing when they lacked sufficient detail and evidence to ensure compliance with the Building Code (see part 4.1 of the review's terms of reference)
there were some inadequacies with the Council's system for producing PIMs, such as a lack of site-specific information being produced and PIMs not informing owners of the requirement to obtain an Evacuation Scheme as required under the Fire Services Act 1975 (see part 4.2 of the review's terms of reference)
greater consistency in processing methodology was needed. There were gaps in the checklists used with limited evidence documented about the processing contractors' assessment of compliance with certain clauses of the Building Code (see part 4.3 of the review's terms of reference)
recurring areas of non-compliance identified included fire and accessibility compliance (see parts 4.3 and 10 of the review's terms of reference)
building consent files often contained inadequate information. Better audit trails were still needed to clearly demonstrate how the Council was satisfied on reasonable grounds that compliance with the Building Code was, or would be, achieved
a number of consent files had very limited (or no) inspection records. Final inspections need to include an on-site assessment against the approved plans and this was not always apparent
some inspections that were specified as required were not applicable for particular consents, or inspections were sometimes missed or omitted when they should have been undertaken.

Recommendation to the Council	Response from the Council
Improve its consent vetting procedures to ensure applications with insufficient supporting information are consistently rejected at the vetting stage.	This issue has been addressed in part 4.1 of the review's terms of reference.
Ensure its processing contractors improve levels of compliance with the Building Code, particularly in relation to accessibility and fire compliance.	This issue has been addressed in parts 7 and 10 of the review's terms of reference.
Ensure its processing contractors continue to improve their processing and inspection methodology to ensure key decisions and their justification are consistently recorded.	This issue has been addressed in parts 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, 4.6, 4.7, 5, 6, 8 and 10 of the review's terms of reference.
Ensure its processing contractors review the current format and schedule of inspections required, as some inspections were being wrongly omitted when needed or undertaken when not required.	All processing contractors use an inspection format which lists all possible inspections and expects the applicants to determine which inspections relate to their project and to call for such inspections.This process will be reviewed with the processing contractors to determine if a change is warranted.The issues raised in the technical review have been brought to the attention of the processing contractors. While the Council has not addressed each specific example, it notes that a finding of a lack of correlation between a building consent and what was built related to the subsequent issue of amending building consents. There is also some possible confusion arising where a building consent may relate to the ‘base building' but work relates to building or tenancy fit-outs under a subsequent consent.This possibly arose from a lack in the review team's specification of documentation requirements and a lack of foresight on the Council's part as to what the practical requirements were.

Conclusion

While some improvements were observed from the 2004 case studies, the non-compliance issues identified in the 2007 case studies revealed similar issues that still need improvement. The Department acknowledges the Council has brought these issues to the attention of its three contractors, but urges the Council to ensure that all the recommendations are fully implemented.

The Council has stated it considers that it has addressed a number of the Department's recommendations made above. However, the Department considers that further work is still required to fully implement these recommendations.