4 - Procedures for determining compliance with the Building Code
Purpose
To review the key processes and procedures the Council uses when accepting, vetting and processing applications for building consents, and how it establishes whether applications comply with the Building Code. These processes include:
- consent application vetting and lodgement processes
- project information memoranda (PIMs) processing
- building consent processing
- use of notations and endorsements on building consent documents
- amendments to building consent applications and requests for additional information
- restrictions and limitations on building consents.
4.1 Consent application vetting and lodgement processes
Purpose
To assess how well the Council accepts and vets applications for building consents.
Background
Good-quality plans and specifications submitted with building consent applications help ensure efficiencies in processing and improve compliance outcomes. Modern buildings are now considerably more technically complex and designers and consent applicants must ensure they provide building consent authorities with appropriate design information to show how Building Code compliance will be achieved.
Initial review
It was found that approximately 30 to 40 percent of all building consent applications received each month were suspended during processing because additional information was required. By rejecting building consent applications with insufficient information, front counter staff were risking not achieving their customer satisfaction targets.
| Recommendations to the Council |
Action taken by the Council before the follow-up review |
| Redesign processes for receiving and vetting building consent applications to ensure building consent applications with substandard documentation are not accepted. |
The Council developed a building consent application pack containing information on the Council's building consent process. |
| Develop a policy that clearly specifies the Council's minimum information requirements for accepting building consent applications. |
The Council did not implement this recommendation. |
Follow-up review
The Department found that the Council has made some progress to implement the recommendations of the initial review. The Council has developed a building consent application pack containing information on the Council's building consent process. Building consent application checklists have also been upgraded to reflect the requirements of the Building Act 2004.
The Department did not find a policy outlining the minimum level of documentation and information that will be accepted by the Council. The Council proposed conducting stakeholder meetings with design professionals to provide feedback on the level of documentation required.
The Council advised the Department that 60 to 70 percent of the building consent applications received were being suspended. This was creating significant additional work. While suspensions indicated that a better level of process checking was occurring, the high percentage of suspensions indicated that too many applications with inadequate information were being accepted at lodgement stage. A more robust vetting system was considered a priority by the Department.
| Recommendations to the Council |
Response from the Council |
| Enhance its building consent vetting and lodgement system to ensure all applications for building consents are accompanied by the requisite supporting documentation and that any applications with incomplete or incorrect documentation are consistently rejected when lodged. |
The Council advised that it is enforcing closer adherence to checklists at the front counter. In addition, a policy for rejection of incomplete applications has been implemented. |
| Ensure its minimum information requirements are clearly defined for staff and communicated to the public (including assessing whether its current application pack and checklist does this sufficiently). |
The Council acknowledged that the current checklist and application pack does not provide sufficient information to both internal staff and applicants. A review of front counter check lists has been commissioned and will be presented in a format suitable for internal and public communication. |
| Implement mechanisms to ensure all staff fully understand and comply with consent processing and lodgement procedures (eg, peer review and internal audits of completed work). |
The Council advised that training has been undertaken to ensure staff are conversant with processing and lodgement procedures.
They also noted that peer review is undertaken by staff who provide technical assistance at the front counter. Internal audit methodology is yet to be developed and applied.
|
Conclusion
The Council has made progress across most of the Department's recommendations. We encourage the Council to further strengthen its vetting and lodgement processes (especially the information provision and auditing aspects of our recommendations) to help ensure substandard building consent applications are not accepted and applicants are provided with suitable guidance on the Council's information requirements.
4.2 Project information memoranda (PIMs) processing
Purpose
To examine how the Council uses project information memoranda (PIMs) as part of its building control operations.
Background
Sections 31-39 of the Building Act 20047 cover applications for PIMs. These sections specify the minimum information that a PIM must include. Information not apparent in the district plan must be included, as well as details of other authorisations, stormwater and utility systems, and other features or characteristics likely to be relevant to the design and construction of the building on that site.
Initial review
The initial review identified that the level of PIM information provided by the Council varied considerably. It was found that the PIMs contained:
- limited information about infrastructure and utility systems
- inconsistent levels of information relevant to the building design, such as the wind zone or corrosion zone classification
- unclear information in relation to health, dangerous goods and drainage engineering (the PIMs had yes/no answers, but these were generally ignored).
| Recommendations to the Council |
Action taken by the Council before the follow-up review |
| Review guidelines and processes used to develop PIM information to ensure it consistently includes all the information required by the Building Act and any additional information the Council considers warranted. |
The Council reviewed its PIM processes as part of its implementation of its new Pathways computer system. |
Follow-up review
While the Council undertook some review work of its PIM processes, the Department found that guidelines and processes have not been reviewed to ensure all the information required by the Building Act 2004 was being included in its PIMs.
The Council was also failing to notify applicants of the need to satisfy provisions set by other statutory authorities such as the Ministry of the Environment requirement (smoke emissions from solid fuel heaters) and section 21A of the Fire Services Act 1975 (evacuation of buildings). Case studies of completed buildings undertaken by the Department further revealed that some information was being included in the Council's PIMs that was not necessary or which was ambiguous.
| Recommendations to the Council |
Response from the Council |
| Ensure PIMs include all the information required by the Building Act, including any features or characteristics likely to be relevant to the design and construction of the building on that site. |
The Council advised that a review of PIM processing is being considered as part of its preparatory work for applying to become a building consent authority. |
| Ensure information contained in PIMs is relevant and clear. |
|
Conclusion
The Council has begun to implement the Department's recommendations but this work has yet to be completed.
4.3 Building consent processing
Purpose
To ensure the Council has a sound methodology for processing applications for building consents.
Background
Once territorial authorities or building consent authorities have accepted building consent applications, it is important to have a systematic process in place to assess applications in a thorough, consistent and timely manner and clearly document the technical basis for issuing the building consents and the subsequent compliance certification.
Initial review
The Council had no formal process or procedure for the processing of building consents. Processing officers were found to be assessing building consent applications for compliance with the Building Code according to their own methodology. This caused inconsistency in compliance with the Building Code
| Recommendations to the Council |
Action taken by the Council before the follow-up review |
| Develop and implement a uniform process for processing consent applications to ensure each application receives a rigorous and consistent review. |
The Council has developed a building consent processing checklist. |
Follow-up review
The Department found that the Council's new checklist could be strengthened by:
- having separate checklists for different building types
- ensuring checklists cover compliance with each clause of the Building Code
- including legislative requirements of the Building Act.
Evidence from case studies also revealed that checklists were not being consistently used and more importantly that consent applications were not being allocated in accordance with staff competence.
| Recommendations to the Council |
Response from the Council |
| Enhance consent processing checklists. |
The Council advised that it has reviewed its checklist, including developing separate checklists for different building types. A training programme will be implemented to introduce these. |
| Ensure staff (and applicable contractors) consistently use the checklist and processing methodology (eg, using peer review systems and internal audits of samples of completed work). |
The Council advised that it is a requirement that all staff and applicable contractors use the checklist. A process of peer review and internal audits is to be implemented. |
| Ensure building consent applications are allocated to staff with the requisite technical competence to process them comprehensively. |
The Council advised that distribution of building consent applications is made according to predetermined staff competence levels. A formal system of competency parameters is being introduced to the Council. |
Conclusion
The Council has partially implemented the recommendations made during this review. The Department supports the work to implement the procedural changes made (eg, new checklists) and the proposed training being under- taken. We note that this is one area where the outstanding work to introduce better-quality assurance mechanisms needs to be completed, particularly consistent peer review and internal auditing to check completed work.
4.4 Use of notations and endorsements on building consent documents
Purpose
To examine the Council's use of building consent conditions and plan notations during its processing of building consents.
Background
Consent conditions or notations can be used as educational tools and to highlight aspects of construction that require particular attention, although some building consent authorities apply conditions or notations to cover deficiencies in consent documentation. While this can sometimes avoid the need to request additional information and help to expedite consent processing, it can also mean that territorial authorities or building consent authorities encroach on the designer's role by specifying how Building Code compliance will be achieved (eg, by nominating a specific Standard or method). While the solution its staff may nominate may comply with a particular Acceptable Solution (prescriptive means of achieving Building Code compliance), it is usually only one of a number of ways of achieving compliance. Nominating design solutions may also have cost implications for the consent applicant and should therefore be left to the designer and building consent applicant to determine.
Initial review
The Council was over-reliant on applying conditions or notations to cover deficiencies in consent documentation or to make up for the lack of details that should have been provided by the applicant.
| Recommendations to the Council |
Action taken by the Council before the follow-up review |
| Develop a policy to clarify when the use of consent conditions and notations is appropriate. |
The Council did not implement the recommendation. |
Follow-up review
The Council has not developed a policy clarifying when the use of consent conditions and notations is appropriate. The Council developed a conditions and notations form to include with other consent documentation; however, evidence from case studies revealed that many conditions and notations were still being applied to cover documentation deficiencies.
| Recommendations to the Council |
Response from the Council |
| Implement a policy to clarify when the use of consent conditions and notations is appropriate and ensure staff consistently follow the policy. |
The Council advised that a relevant policy will be documented and implemented. Staff will be monitored against this. |
Conclusion
The Council partially implemented the Department's review recommendation, but has not developed a policy as recommended, although such work is planned.
4.5 Amendments to building consent applications and requests for additional information
Purpose
To consider how amended building consents are processed and how the Council makes requests for further information on consent applications.
Background
Applications to amend a building consent must be made in the same manner as the original application as required under section 45(5)8 of the Building Act 2004. Councils can also require further reasonable information in respect of a building consent application. If the Council lawfully does this, the application is suspended until the Council receives the information required under section 48(2)9 of the Act.
Initial review
Instances were identified where building work was proceeding when requested consent information had not been submitted, or when the consent information received was inadequate. Superseded building consent information was also not being consistently stamped and this was leading to confusion during the inspection process. The Department considered that requests for further information and applications to amend building consents needed to be recorded, tracked and followed through more effectively.
| Recommendations to the Council |
Action taken by the Council before the follow-up review |
| Ensure staff differentiate between changes made to an application before consent is issued and when amendments to building consents were made. |
The Council introduced a new system to identify different types of amendments. |
| Review how it treats requests for additional information. |
The Council did not implement the recommendation. |
| Ensure that all superseded documents are stamped as such. |
The Council did not implement the recommendation. |
| Ensure inspectors check amendments are actually implemented when building work progresses. |
The Council implemented an improved system for tracking and recording amendments. |
Follow-up review
The Council has developed two different coloured forms to identify different types of amendments. The Council produced evidence to confirm that plans were being date stamped on acceptance and old plans were being stamped as superseded. Evidence from case studies found examples where superseded plans were not stamped as such and dates were not apparent.
The Department found the Council was recording minor amendments identified on site on the site copy of the consent documents, with alterations being signed and dated by the inspector. The inspection record sheet was also being updated to record these amendments. If the amendment was significant, a notice to fix was issued and this was recorded on the job history sheet.
The Department found that while the Council has some informal processes in place for amendments to building consent applications and requests for additional information, it would benefit from a more formalised approach. Formalising the process will assist the Council to ensure good decisions are consistently made.
| Recommendations to the Council |
Response from the Council |
| Develop a formal policy and procedures which differentiate between minor and major amendments to building consents, and cover amendments to building consent documentation. |
The Council advised that a relevant policy will be documented and implemented. |
Conclusion
The Council has not implemented the recommendation, although such work is planned.
4.6 Restrictions and limitations on building consents
Purpose
To consider how the Council applies those parts of the Building Act that involve it placing restrictions or limitations on building consents.
Background
The Building Act 2004 contains a number of provisions that require or empower a territorial authority or building consent authority to place restrictions, limitations or advise or seek inputs from other parties on building consent matters. Provisions include:
- section 36 - attaching a development contribution notice to a PIM
- section 37 - attaching a certificate to a PIM advising that building work cannot proceed or may not proceed past a specified stage until a resource management condition is fulfilled
- section 38 - advising a network utility operator or a statutory authority of PIM matters
- section 39 - advising New Zealand Historic Places Trust if the application affects a registered historic place, historic area, wahi tapu, or wahi tapu area
- sections 46 - requiring a building consent authority to provide the New Zealand Fire Service Commission with a copy of the building consent information
- section 54 - advising a building consent applicant of the levy they may be liable to pay
- section 67 - granting a building consent subject to a waiver or modification of the Building Code and any conditions that the territorial authority may consider appropriate
- section 68 - advising the Chief Executive of the Department of Building and Housing of granting of a waiver or modification
- section 71 - refusing to grant building consent for construction or major alteration of a building, if the land on which the building work is to be carried out is subject to, or is likely to be subject to, one or more natural hazards; or the building work is likely to accelerate, worsen, or result in a natural hazard on that land or any other property
- section 73 - notifying parties if a building consent is issued subject to section 72
- section 77 - imposing a condition under section 75 when building work is proposed on two or more allotments that the allotments may not be transferred or leased except under certain conditions
- sections 112 - alterations to existing buildings
- section 113 - buildings with specified intended life
- section 115 - change of use
- section 116 - extension of life and subdivision of building.
Initial review
While the Council had appropriate procedures in place for issuing section 35(1A) certificates (now section 37 of the Building Act 2004), the Department's evidence indicated that staff were not consistently recording the fulfilment of certificate conditions.
It was also noted that the Council had stability-sensitive and flood-prone areas within its region. Where such areas were identified, formal procedures were initiated. Legal advice was obtained to guide staff on the procedural requirements for formalising matters relating to section 36(2) (now section 71 of the Building Act 2004).
Section 38 (now section 112 of the Building Act 2004) assessments were made at the time of processing by the senior processing officers responsible for fire and accessibility and for larger commercial projects. The degree of upgrade to any building was assessed on a case-by-case basis. However, these appeared to be rarely recorded.
| Recommendations to the Council |
Action taken by the Council prior to the follow-up review |
| Develop procedures to ensure compliance with section 35(1A) (now section 37 of the Building Act 2004) and section 38 (now section 112 of the Building Act 2004) conditions are properly recorded and monitored. |
The Council did not implement this recommendation. |
Follow-up review
The Council has not implemented the recommendations of the initial review. The Department noted that the Building Act 2004 contains new requirements (introduced after the 2004 initial review) that the Council has to consider when placing restrictions and limitations on building consents.
It was noted that the Council is currently working through legal issues concerning the new requirements of the Building Act 2004 in relation to limitations and restrictions on building consents (sections 71-74 Construction of buildings on land subject to natural hazards.
| Recommendations to the Council |
Response from the Council |
| Develop procedures and processes which detail how it will deal with restrictions and limitations on building consents and effectively implement these. |
The Council advised that it is waiting for legal advice before it can document and implement this work. |
Conclusion
The Council has not implemented the Department's recommendation first made in 2004. The Department considers that this needs to be completed as soon as possible. While it is waiting for legal advice on provisions covering the construction of buildings on land subject to natural hazards, procedures and processes can be developed for other provisions of the Building Act.