Skip to content.
Return to Department of Building and Housing home page.

Report on the Review of the Building Code: 11 Appendix 1 - Synopsis of submissions on 2006 discussion document

This appendix summarises submissions received in response to the public discussion document Building for the 21st Century: Review of the Building Code (the 2006 discussion document), which the Department of Building and Housing (the Department) published in late May 2006.

The full report Building for the 21st Century: Review of the Building Code Synopsis of Submissions is available from: www.dbh.govt.nz

11.1 General comments

  • Submitters wanted alignment of the Building Code with other legislation, particularly the Resource Management Act.
  • There was support for balancing any new provisions with affordability and cost.
  • A significant number of submissions appeared to confuse the Compliance Documents (Acceptable Solutions and Verification Methods) with the Building Code.
  • The style of the Objective Statements was described as being too complex and better framed in language that is more positive.

11.1.1 Performance criteria and Building Code structure

  • Most segments of the sector offered mixed support for the Building Code to be organised by outcome. However, design professionals showed significant opposition, preferring the status quo (organised by building component).
  • There was strong support for a performance-based Code, but different interpretations of what this meant and the level in the hierarchy at which the performance should be stated.
  • There was general support for expressing performance requirements as 'what', 'how much' and 'where', but strongly expressed views from those not in favour. Some submitters thought this would be too prescriptive.
  • There was a range of views about 'best practice' and 'minimum acceptable practice'.
  • 'Acceptable Solutions' for particular types of building were generally supported, and suggestions were made that the requirements within the Acceptable Solutions should be arranged by building component or trade.

11.1.2 Safety

  • Submitters noted the possible effects of climate change and commented that its impact on buildings needed considering in the Building Code, particularly for disaster events such as flooding.
  • Most submitters agreed that buildings should be designed for the hazards identified in the discussion document, but many questioned whether the Building Code should address less frequent hazards such as tsunami, volcanic eruption and wildfire. Most submitters commented that adequate warning systems were a better method for addressing these less frequent hazard events. Few practical engineering solutions are available to ensure structural integrity against these hazards, and they are unlikely to reduce risk without high financial and/or environmental costs.
  • Some submitters would like importance levels introduced that categorise different levels of acceptable risk for different types of building. It was suggested that these importance levels could be based on those in AS/NZS 1170 Structural Design Actions.
  • The Building Code requires buildings to be designed for a 1-in-50-year storm event, but some regional councils use the higher level of a 1-in-100-year storm event or an alternative based on a flood-risk assessment. Submitters would like this inconsistency dealt with.
  • Nearly all submitters supported the proposed objectives for fire safety.
  • Submitters held differing views about whether escape routes accessible for people with disabilities should be required in the Building Code. Some thought it an essential requirement, while others thought this would create an unreasonable financial burden on building owners.
  • Generally, submitters supported the proposed objectives and features for safety in use, but a mixed response was received on the proposals to protect building occupants against fire alarm noise and from hot and cold surfaces.

11.1.3 Health

  • The proposed objectives and features were not new and were generally supported.
  • There was support for including sustainable development concepts for disposing of waste and water; for example, space for waste and recyclables in multi-unit dwellings and commercial/industrial buildings.
  • Submitters noted the need to align water requirements with health legislation and new drinking water legislation in preparation, as it is the Building Code's responsibility to ensure the water that comes out of the tap is not contaminated.
  • There was support for the Building Code providing for storage space for waste and cleaning equipment in multi-unit dwellings, and commercial or industrial buildings. These provisions are not in the Building Code, but were in the earlier regulations.
  • Some submitters suggested that laundering and cleaning facilities requirements should vary depending on the building type; in other words, there could be a communal laundry in an apartment building.
  • In terms of the 'Contact with hazardous materials, substances and processes' feature, submitters said there was a need to raise awareness of materials that caused health problems. Some submitters questioned the role of the Building Code in reducing the use of toxic products.
  • Submitters linked health outcomes to thermal performance and energy-efficient design, and stated that the Building Code should set a level of building thermal performance that required conscious consideration of energy-efficient design.
  • Submitters supported the use of star rating schemes, such as the Home Energy Rating System, to focus homeowners on energy usage and design.
  • Some submitters commented that the need to circulate air outweighed any benefits of preventing draughts, and they did not want requirements that led to sealed houses.
  • Limiting the minimum and maximum indoor temperature was not widely supported. Many submitters thought the Building Code was attempting to regulate the temperature at which people maintained their homes. They thought that temperature was a personal preference and this was a matter for the occupier to decide.

11.1.4 Wellbeing

  • There was support for universal design/lifetime design principles (wide doorways, lever door handles, lever handles on taps), but as guidelines rather than Building Code requirements. Some felt that this was an education issue and that designers were already incorporating these principles in their work. Some submitters felt that the disability needs of the future could not be predicted and that, therefore, provisions should not be made in the Building Code for adaptability.
  • Submitters supported providing for people with visual and intellectual disabilities and there were many suggestions on ways to do this. It was also noted that the Building Code needed to avoid conflicting requirements for the various disabilities.
  • Submitters questioned the practicality of providing accessible routes to all occupied buildings, particularly in areas with challenging topography, and linked this to possible increases in the cost of compliance.
  • Some submitters pointed out that section 118(1) of the Building Act 2004 had particular requirements about reasonable and adequate access being provided to ensure people with disabilities could visit or work and carry out normal activities and processes in buildings.
  • Submitters also suggested that factories and industrial buildings where fewer than 10 people were employed should not be exempt from section 118(1), as they are at present.
  • Views differed on whether accessibility provisions should be in one section or throughout the Building Code.
  • Submitters supported the Building Code covering the indoor noise environment. Some submitters noted that it was the responsibility of other agencies (such as territorial and regional authorities) to control the outside noise environment, and that the Building Code could not prevent excessive external noise.
  • Submitters suggested that the Building Code should cover the problem of buildings obscuring natural light and views. Connection to the outdoors is an issue for apartment development and views being built out.
  • There was support for some regulation of unwanted entry (a new feature) by the Building Code, for example, with strengthened doors and windows.
  • There was support for the Building Code requiring workplaces that contain personal hygiene facilities to provide hot water. Submitters noted that providing hot showers would promote walking and cycling as modes of transport to work, which is linked to sustainable development through reducing transport energy consumption.
  • Views were divided on minimum space requirements in residential buildings.

11.1.5 Sustainable development

  • Several submitters noted that New Zealanders are making durability decisions based on trends and aesthetics, rather than what material was best for the climate it was being built in.
  • Submitters noted that affordability of high-quality durable materials could be a problem, but that the upfront costs were often less than those for the ongoing maintenance of lower quality products.
  • Submitters generally supported the idea of a maintenance plan, but many noted that it would be difficult to enforce. Several suggestions were made about enforcing maintenance plans. Many submitters said that educating homeowners on home maintenance was necessary. Others felt that owners should be responsible for their own maintenance (personal responsibility).
  • Increasing the design life of a building was suggested. The current design life is 50 years. Submitters stated that this would result in an improvement in the material used to build houses and lead to fewer low-quality buildings/houses.
  • Comments about the objectives for materials were wide-ranging. Some felt that the objectives were too vague and needed more detail, while others were supportive, but felt that the objectives would be difficult to implement.
  • Submitters noted that the whole-of-chain environmental impacts areas, while good in theory, would be difficult to implement in a Building Code. They also noted that New Zealand did not have enough information in this area yet.
  • There was a general feeling of wanting more government guidance and intervention in the energy efficiency area. Suggestions included incentives, low-interest loans, tax credits, and so on.
  • Many submitters focused at the solution level (for example, mandatory solar water heating, increasing insulation values, double-glazing). These solutions could be used to achieve the objectives and will be useful for the next stages of the review.
  • A number of submissions commented on the link between energy, and health and wellbeing.
  • A range of views was expressed on water conservation and efficiency, ranging from views that water conservation should apply in all instances, regardless of the location or type of building, to views that the market was the best mechanism to decide the efficient use of water.
  • There was widespread comment that too much water was wasted both residentially and commercially. Submitters noted that water was becoming an increasingly scarce resource and that there was an environmental cost to its use and disposal, which was exacerbated by inefficient use.
  • Reuse and recycling of water was suggested frequently as a solution, but submitters also noted that these suggestions should be balanced with affordability and minimising the health risks.
  • Some submitters called for a broader approach to waste minimisation, beyond the use of waste management plans. Some submitters noted that waste management should be included at the design and specification stages.
  • Enforcement of waste management plans was raised as an issue, and submitters cautioned against additional bureaucracy.
  • Some submitters suggested that education, incentives or using other legislation, such as District Plans or the New Zealand Waste Management Strategy, would minimise waste more effectively.
  • It was also noted that infrastructure would be required for re-use and recycling regulations to be practical.
  • Some submitters questioned whether protection of other property was the role of the Building Code and suggested the Resource Management Act might be more appropriate.
  • Submitters noted that people should have the assurance that their property will not be damaged by surface water, fire, construction and demolition waste, and failed utility networks.
  • Several people commented that they wanted to be protected from neighbouring developments obscuring natural light and views.
  • There was also a call for control of site-works and landscaping to ensure the stability of adjacent property was not compromised.
  • Many submitters agreed that historic, heritage and cultural buildings needed to be treated differently to preserve their value. A distinction was made between heritage/historic buildings and new buildings with a cultural purpose. Generally, submitters felt that new buildings with cultural significance should have no concessions from Building Code requirements.
  • Submitters noted that there should be flexibility to allow these buildings to be assessed on a case-by-case basis, for example, for seismic upgrades, handrails, disabled access, fire egress and insulation. However, there should be no compromise on health and safety, regardless of the building's heritage and cultural value (people first).

11.2 Main points by sector segment

Where the segment of the sector submitters came from was known or could be inferred, submissions were analysed to determine any particular segmentation of responses.

11.2.1 Local government

  • Submitters felt tsunami, volcanic activity and wildfire risk was best dealt with under the Resource Management Act and was not a Building Code issue.
  • There was support for the proposed accessibility features.
  • There were mixed views on requiring the front door of every residential unit to be accessible, as well as on adaptability and universal design provisions, and features helping people with intellectual disabilities.
  • The proposed noise objectives and features generated widespread support from this segment.
  • Provisions for natural ventilation, natural light and connection to the outdoors were strongly supported.
  • However, proposals for minimum indoor temperature and security against unwanted entry were not widely supported.
  • In the facilities area, all features were strongly supported, except provision for storage facilities for personal effects.
  • There was strong support for proposals for durability, energy and water.
  • In areas where there were overlaps with the Resource Management Act (waste management, protection of other property, water efficiency in areas of water shortage and historic/heritage buildings), there was no obvious common view among local authorities and polarised views were presented (but there was still majority support).
  • This segment offered mixed views about how the Building Code should be arranged. Some favoured basing the Building Code structure on the principles and purposes of the Building Act 2004, while others felt it should be a practical tool based on building elements. The model for performance criteria was strongly supported.

11.2.2 Architects/designers/engineers

  • Submitters felt tsunamis were best dealt with through warning systems, rather than Building Code regulation. The occurrence of volcanic activity and wildfire was deemed too infrequent to warrant inclusion in the Building Code.
  • Submitters supported the proposed objectives and features for indoor conditions for health. Provisions for minimum and maximum indoor temperatures were not supported by this group, and there was moderate support for the proposed accessibility features.
  • In common with other groups, there was no support for requiring the front door of every residential unit to be accessible and including adaptability and universal design provisions in the Building Code.
  • In the noise area, all proposed features were supported.
  • In the facilities area, all features were supported, except provision for storage facilities for personal effects and provision for habitable spaces for activity, furniture and personal needs, which drew a mixed response.
  • Of the low number of submitters in this area, there was very strong support for the sustainable development objectives and features. There were no areas with significantly polarised views.
  • Architects, designers and engineers felt that the structure of the Building Code should be based on its practical application, for example, by building element. Some felt that the 'what', 'how much' and 'where' model would be too prescriptive.
  • Building designers favoured the proposed Housing Acceptable Solution, but expressed concerns about whether it would become a prescriptive solution.
  • The majority of submitters from this category felt there should be one acceptable level of performance. It was felt that a tiered approach was not appropriate for the Building Code and that it would ultimately confuse users.

11.2.3 Builders

  • Builders were opposed to including tsunami, volcanic activity and wildfire requirements.
  • All submitters from the building industry were in favour of the fire safety proposals, but there was little support for the additional safety-in-use proposals about fire alarms and hot and cold surfaces.
  • While there was mixed support for a minimum indoor temperature, a maximum indoor temperature provision was not supported.
  • There was good support for the proposed objectives and features for accessibility, except requiring the front door of every residential unit to be accessible and including adaptability and universal design provisions in the Building Code.
  • This group supported the proposed noise provisions.
  • Provisions for security against unwanted entry received mixed support.
  • Submitters in this group strongly supported provisions for natural ventilation, natural light and connection to the outdoors.
  • Proposals on the location and number of sockets/light switches were the only items under 'services' that received divided views.
  • In the facilities area, all features were supported, except provision for storage facilities for personal effects.
  • On sustainability, views were divided on minimising water consumption from network utility operators in areas of water shortage, banning non-sustainable materials, and about historic/heritage buildings area.
  • An appropriate education programme was considered an important component of implementing the Building Code.
  • Builders generally supported the performance model, but also expressed concerns that it could lead to de facto prescriptive solutions.
  • Submitters felt that the Building Code should stipulate the acceptable minimum level and that market forces were the best determinant of the level of building quality.

11.2.4 Not categorised

  • Submitters opposed including tsunami, volcanic activity and wildfire under the Code because of the relative infrequency of these events and the financial burden of designing buildings to mitigate these risks.
  • All submitters were in favour of the proposed fire safety objectives and features.
  • Several submitters questioned the need for regulation of noise emitted by fire alarms and protection from hot and cold surfaces.
  • Unlike other groups, requiring the front door of every residential unit to be accessible and including adaptability provisions in the Code did have a majority support.
  • Support for universal design provisions was mixed, with those against slightly in the majority.
  • This group supported the proposed noise provisions.
  • There was less agreement on increasing the protection of other property provisions (from those already included in the Code) and water efficiency in areas of water shortage (although, paradoxically, this group was strongly in favour of minimising consumption of water from network utility operators in areas of water shortage).
  • No clear preference for the arrangement of the Code was able to be determined from this group. The model for performance criteria was not widely supported by this group. It was felt it would be difficult to implement practically.

11.3 Focus groups

In August 2006, the Department held 11 focus groups around New Zealand to invite community feedback on the discussion document. In doing so, the Department sought to:

  • understand what consumers from within the community wanted from their built environment and the Building Code
  • ascertain what priorities people set for the Building Code when balancing conflicting items, such as energy-efficient features against affordability
  • encourage participants to use their networks to promote responses to the discussion document.

The focus groups sought to reflect the diverse cultural, economic and social needs of building occupants. This was achieved by inviting participants from a range of local and national community groups and varying ethnicities, and by holding the focus groups in a mixture of metropolitan, provincial and rural locations.

Focus group discussion centred on the issues of sustainable development and wellbeing aspects of buildings, which are considerations required under the Building Act 2004, to help the Department appreciate the level of societal expectation in these areas.

Participants were asked to come up with a range of sustainable development and energy efficiency initiatives and to consider whether they were matters that should be regulated under the Code or left up to personal choice. Participants also discussed a comprehensive list of building wellbeing features and were asked to prioritise rankings based on their own views and those of the people they represented.

There was a high standard of dialogue and some of the consistent themes that arose included:

  • government taking a leadership role to encourage the wider use of sustainable development building practices
  • ensuring New Zealand buildings, particularly homes, were healthy for their occupants
  • improving the sustainability of homes through the installation of energy-efficient appliances, more efficient use of water systems and recycling of household and building waste
  • improving use of sustainable energy sources at the domestic level, such as the installation of solar water heating systems
  • using universal design practices where possible to enable the physical independence of users
  • maintaining performance-based standards so that building owners may exercise personal choice to achieve Code requirements
  • considering region-specific climate conditions and avoiding a 'one-size-fits-all' approach
  • considering an increase in the design life of buildings.

The key issues varied across the focus groups, highlighting region-specific considerations. Desire for measures to ensure more sustainable homes and building practices was particularly strong in Nelson and Christchurch. In Westport, the substantial effects of coastal erosion were a major issue, and participants in Gore requested better education and information about sustainable energy practices. Affordability of housing was a primary concern in both Kaikohe and Gisborne, while the Kapiti Coast focused on sustainable water practices. In Auckland, cultural considerations were raised, given the large ethnic population, and accessibility issues were prominent in both Auckland and Tauranga.

11.4 Workshops

As part of the ongoing engagement with stakeholders for the development of the Building Code review, the review team held three stakeholder workshops. Individuals and organisations that made submissions on the discussion document were invited to attend. The workshops were held in late October and early November in Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch and feedback from these has been incorporated into this report.

The key themes to emerge from the workshops were as follows.

11.4.1 Code structure and performance criteria

  • There was general support for a performance-based Building Code.
  • There were mixed views on whether the Code should be structured by outcome or by building element.
  • Attendees would like the Code to be structured in an easy, user-friendly format.
  • People commented that any new provisions would need to be affordable for homeowners.

11.4.2 Sustainable development

  • Attendees noted that sustainable development was a good concept, but hard to include in the Building Code.
  • There was support for including energy and water efficiency, and conservation in the Building Code.
  • Submitters would like the Department to do more work in the area of environmental impacts of materials. They commented that regulations about this would be hard to enforce given the limited detailed knowledge about this at present.
  • There were mixed views on maintenance - some were in favour of regulation, while others wanted a voluntary, information-based system.

11.4.3 Safety

  • A number of comments were made on the cost of regulation compliance versus the possible risk.
  • There were mixed views on whether escape routes should be accessible for people with disabilities.
  • It was noted that most deaths and injuries from fire occur in residential properties and attendees suggested that we need better regulations in this area.
  • It was also noted that consistency was needed between the Building Code, Resource Management Act and the rules governing the New Zealand Fire Service.

11.4.4 Health

  • Submitters felt that consideration should be given to combining health and wellbeing proposals.
  • They stated that the ability to heat and cool homes to a minimum or maximum air temperature is important for good health.
  • Submitters saw a need to ensure homes had access to 'fresh air' because this was good for health, ventilation and preventing moisture build-up.

11.4.5 Wellbeing

  • Views differed on whether wellbeing should be part of the Building Code, with some noting that many of the wellbeing issues overlap with the health provisions.
  • Views were mixed on provisions for universal and adaptable design. Some supported these being mandatory, while others thought they should be guidelines only.
  • There was uncertainty about whether provisions for ensuring natural light (to ensure light is not obscured by neighbouring buildings) should be a Building Code issue or a planning issue under the Resource Management Act.