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

Report on the Review of the Building Code: 12 Appendix 2 - Response to 2007 discussion document

12.1 Summary of submissions

12.1.1 Structure of the Building Code

Submissions on the 2007 discussion document expressed both support for and opposition to the structure presented in that document. Many found the structure logical and easy to follow while others questioned the rationale for change.

Many of those opposed to a new structure commented that the sector was only now adjusting to the Building Code introduced in 1992, and that the changes the sector was undergoing (such as licensing of building practitioners and the accreditation of building consent authorities) would adversely affect the sector's ability to cope with a change to the Building Code structure.

12.1.2 Type 1 changes

Structural performance

  • The majority of submissions supported the proposed changes for structural performance.
  • Some submitters commented that that this would duplicate an existing loadings code AS/NZS 1170 Structural Design Actions. Some noted that practitioners already use this Standard and that two similar documents in the sector could result in confusion. Others objected because they did not want additional safety factors introduced.
  • Some submitters suggested refinements (eg, clarifying terms such as 'Established Engineering Limits') and commented on the difficulty and cost of designing for disproportionate collapse (and suggested the scope be limited); and potential liability issues about designing for impact on neighbouring properties.
  • Some commented that the requirements could result in increased engineering fees.

Variability and uncertainty in the design process

  • Submitters generally supported this section of the discussion document. Some commented on:
  • Some submitters thought this section was duplicating AS/NZS 1170 Structural Design Actions, and could lead to increased building cost due to additional design work and buildings requiring stronger structural elements (as a consequence of a greater factor of safety).

Safety in use

  • Submissions for this section supported the proposed requirements and comments generally related to issues of clarity and rationale.
  • Some submitters questioned the height and strength requirements for barriers. Others suggested that the proposed requirements were too prescriptive and should be included at an Acceptable Solution level.
  • Submitters generally agreed with the intent of the slip resistance proposal, but some queried the rationale for the suggested minimum mean coefficients of friction for public and private access routes.
  • While there was no specific question about the fencing of swimming pools, a number of submitters requested that the Code (and Building Act 2004) requirements be aligned with the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987, and that NZS 8500: 2006 be referenced in the Building Code.

Indoor climate

  • Submitters noted that the external moisture requirements from the current Code were now included in this section. It was acknowledged that moisture entering buildings was a significant issue in New Zealand.
  • Some submitters recommended that weathertightness and external moisture issues should be kept as a separate requirement, as they considered that the impact and importance could become less significant and lessen the focus on a key issue for the building sector.
  • Other submitters were supportive of the proposed changes and inclusion of external moisture within the indoor climate section

Sanitation

This area generated a large number of submissions. Many were concerned that the proposed requirement that wastewater must be connected to a sewer where this is available would prevent the use of greywater and composting toilet systems in urban areas.

This was strongly supported.

No significant issues were raised in relation to this area.

Submitters supported the intent of the changes in this section, but raised some issues of definition and scope. These included comments that requiring:

  • showers in places of active recreation would be too stringent if there was a place to shower in close proximity instead
  • showers in places where people may get dirty (eg, building sites) would be too stringent
  • toilets and hand washing facilities in any building where people live, work or consume food would be too stringent if there was access to them nearby.

There were a number of comments regarding the rationale for providing a laundry in household units with three or more people. Some submitters questioned this requirement as they felt owners/tenants of properties with fewer than three people would be disadvantaged because they may not have a laundry within their house (although this is an existing requirement). They were concerned that people may use their sinks for laundering.

No significant issues were raised about food preparation areas.

No significant issues were raised about protection of water quality.

No significant issues were raised about distinguishing between drinking and non-drinking water systems. Some submitters commented that signage should be appropriate for people with disabilities.

No significant issues were raised about preventing the growth of harmful organisms in stored heated water. One submission noted that water did not need to be stored above 60°C at all times to prevent the growth of harmful organisms.

Features for wellbeing and physical independence

  • There were no major issues about features for wellbeing and physical independence.
  • The comments were generally supportive, although the term 'all abilities' was questioned. Many felt this was too difficult to achieve and that a better term was required.
  • Other comments included suggestions on types of wayfinding guides to use and examples of international best practice. Others were both positive and negative about the requirements not applying to housing or detached dwellings. Two submissions commented that wayfinding requirements should not apply to buildings except to facilitate emergency egress, or access to heath and safety related facilities.

12.1.3 Type 2 changes

General

  • Submitters to this section of the discussion document expressed a mixture of support and opposition.
  • Objections included:
  • Some were supportive, but with qualifications. They:
  • One submitter suggested that the specific effects on buildings (implied by the factors) that designers must consider when designing specific buildings be described in detail.
  • There was a variety of responses to this section.
  • Most supported protecting performance group 4 and 5 buildings, from tsunamis; some thought all buildings should be protected; a few that none should. Some considered that some performance group 3 buildings should be considered for tsunami risk.
  • Some considered land use planning through District Plans under the Resource Management Act (RMA), or insurance as being more appropriate mechanisms for tsunami protection. Others felt mitigation could be through warning systems or educating future owners about the risks.
  • Others argued that the RMA process was inadequate (one submitter commented on the effect of zoning on property values). One submitter commented that it was the role of councils to identify tsunami risk areas, as designers could not do this on a building-by-building basis. Another stated that dealing with tsunami in both the Building Code and the RMA could result in confusion and extra compliance cost.
  • Some noted that design scenarios for tsunami and methods for designing to withstand tsunami would be required.

Requirements for flooding

Most submissions supported the proposals in this area, but some commented that:

  • the proposed change would not adequately deal with the uncertainty of climate change and the fast-changing weather trends that climate change is likely to bring/has brought. The approach is simply more cautionary, but not sufficient
  • the cost associated with remapping flood planes from 2 percent to 1 percent annual event probability would be prohibitive. In some cases 1 percent annual exceedance probability data was not available, and records insufficient to reach an agreed value
  • flooding is not a life safety issue and is dealt with under the RMA, so should not be in the Code. It is an issue for owners and their insurers
  • annual exceedance probabilities should be determined locally and not be the same across New Zealand. They should be in a Compliance Document and not in the Building Code
  • requirements should vary by building performance group (eg, be different for hospitals than for garages).

Tolerable impacts

There was a variety of responses to this section. Submitters who agreed with the proposals in the discussion document also made the following comments/questions.

  • Return periods are geographically specific - so what applies to one part of the county may not apply to another.
  • Tolerable impacts should only apply to effects on buildings, and not people - performance groups should account for non-building factors.
  • An opportunity should be taken to add return periods for some further specified events, such as landslips.
  • Post-disaster failure modes should be looked at and what is required of the building to meet these determined.

Submitters who opposed the proposals:

  • viewed them as either competing with or being too similar to AS/NZS 1170 Structural Design Actions, and hence creating confusion
  • saw an unwieldy combination of factors, performance groups, impact levels, and return periods, resulting in excessive design work and compliance costs
  • felt society's expectations should not erode owners' discretion
  • thought the information was already included in other Code clauses.

Assignment of buildings to performance groups

Most submissions supported this, but some commented that:

  • some performance group (PG) 2 buildings should be reconsidered as PG 3 (eg, aged care facilities); some back-country huts should be PG 2
  • building categorisation could be community-specific (eg, in a small town with one super-market or hospital, these buildings may require a higher performance rating in recognition of their important role in the community, unlike a city, which can have several alternate suppliers)
  • flexibility with performance groups is required (eg, a building being in a particular performance group because it meets one requirement (such as earthquake safety) but not another (eg, flood) introduces unjustifiable cost)
  • buildings of historical and cultural value were not mentioned
  • tunnels and bridges were not mentioned.

Some submitters saw it as an unnecessary duplication of AS/NZS 1170 Structural Design Actions.

Performance framework

Submitters commented that:

  • the tolerable impacts table should only apply for performance group 4 and 5 buildings
  • events, outcomes and performance groups are not equally applicable to all of New Zealand
  • some return periods, performance groups and definitions should be further developed
  • a cost/benefit analysis was needed to understand and make an informed comment (especially for non-engineers) - not enough information was supplied to understand how it will be implemented
  • it was good that it aligned with current design Codes
  • it was clear and logical
  • it duplicated AS/NZS 1170 Structural Design Actions and that the current Building Code was adequate
  • designers would need a lot of support to be able to use this framework.

Structural performance

Submitters were concerned that it would be difficult to meet the requirements of the Code during building alterations, and would probably be impossible to design for every possible future alteration.

Some opposed the inclusion of compliance with the Code during construction, stating it was covered by the Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992. It was noted that calculating stability during construction would be onerous.

Others felt there is no need to go beyond the design objectives of AS/NZS 1170 Structural Design Actions - but the Code must make these clear. Others rejected it on the basis that AS/NZS 1170 was adequate.

Some supportive submissions included comments that:

  • materials standards would need to be updated to include serviceable life
  • 'demonstrating' compliance with the Code throughout intended life must be limited to compliance with the Code at the time the consent was issued.

Concurrent events and physical conditions

Most submissions supported the concept. Some commented that:

  • the integration between the loadings standard (AS/NZS 1170 Structural Design Actions) and the Code was not clear
  • live and dead loads were not included as concurrent demands in the performance matrix
  • there should be different probability-based trigger points for considering concurrent loads for different performance groups
  • fire following earthquake could be a concurrent design scenario
  • the concept was too technical, and the extra complexity and cost offered no real gain
  • there was not enough probabilistic data for events in New Zealand to make it work
  • engineering commonsense was adequate to address probabilistic concurrent demands.

Requirements for the structural performance framework

Most submissions supported the concept. Some commented that:

  • it was complex to follow and apply, and that a simpler framework would be preferable
  • the definitions of some impact levels needed development
  • non-engineers would find it difficult to comment on the significance of the proposed changes
  • it appeared to be a duplication of AS/NZS 1170 Structural Design Actions, and that the current framework worked.

Safety in use

  • There were no significant issues raised in relation to this section.
  • There was general agreement with the requirements for protection from hot surfaces and hazardous substances.
  • Some submissions commented on the proposal for exposure to high levels of sound from alarms used for evacuation, with suggestions for the types and placement locations of alarm systems in buildings.

Indoor climate

Submissions generally supported the proposed requirements for internal moisture control, although a number of submitters commented that the relative humidity criterion could mean that a mechanical solution (eg, air conditioning) would be required in some parts of the country.

Submissions generally supported the proposed requirements for indoor air quality. A few submissions provided feedback on the proposed maximum contaminant exposure levels in buildings, querying the rationale for glass fibres, formaldehyde and particulate levels, and how these could be calculated.

The concept of 85 Percent Population Satisfaction seemed a challenging concept for some submitters. A number suggested it should be made simpler by using only the World Health Organization (WHO) recommendations for air temperature in homes. One submission questioned the validity of the WHO research and suggested that health of building occupants may be more related to ventilation and humidity than temperature.

Sanitation

No significant issues were raised in relation to this area.

No significant issues were raised in relation to this area. The majority of submissions supported the 50°C proposal for water for personal hygiene.

No significant issues were raised in relation to this area.

No significant issues were raised in relation to this area.

Many submitters commented that a minimum 250 litres per person per day for domestic use would be far more than is necessary and would conflict with considerations of water efficiency and conservation.

No significant issues were raised in relation to this area.

No significant issues were raised in relation to this area.

No significant issues were raised in relation to this area.

A large number of submissions were made about greywater reuse.

Submitters commented that the proposed requirements did not promote greywater recycling and would make it too hard for people to conserve and use water more efficiently.

The submissions focused predominately on three issues.

  • Allowing for greywater re-use in toilets and for outdoor use only would be too restrictive and prevent households from using greywater for other uses.
  • The E.coli level was too stringent.
  • Requiring greywater quality to be monitored would be too onerous and discourage people from installing greywater systems.

Features for wellbeing and physical independence

Submissions generally supported the proposal that multi-unit dwellings should provide an accessible route for people with disabilities, but some suggested that they could apply to only multi-storey buildings (ie, excluding semi-detached) or that they could be for a percentage of units in a building rather than all units. Some submitters suggested that this should be a guideline only.

12.1.4 Type 3 changes

Resource efficiency

  • Submitters generally supported the intent of the discussion document's proposals and were positive about improving the resource efficiency of buildings. The support ranged from full endorsement to qualified support or support in principle.
  • Submitters noted that this was a complex area and needed further development work.
  • Some submitters commented that the promotion of resource efficiency in the construction and use of buildings was achievable but wanted to include all greenhouses gases (or CO2 equivalents) in the assessment.
  • Using a Life Cycle Assessment approach was widely supported and submitters suggested that this should include all CO2 emissions, both positive and negative, from the entire product life cycle. This would include mining and transporting raw materials, and manufacture as well as the resulting energy consumption required in operating the building and demolition.
  • A number of submissions noted that, given the complexity of this area, it would be important to get the building science behind it correct. They wanted a robust and scientifically based system that will be easy to administer.
  • Submissions from local government authorities and designers commented that ease of use would be an important factor in the success of this performance requirement.
  • Some submitters were concerned about the consumption and waste of resources through the operation of the building over its lifetime. They noted that these can produce significantly larger environmental impacts. Some suggested having additional, but separate, energy, water and waste measures as well as the CO2 emissions standard.
  • Some submitters suggested having interim resource efficiency measures such as energy and water efficiency until the CO2 measure was introduced.
  • The predominant comment from submitters not supporting the proposal was that it would be too complex and difficult to administer. Comments included a suggestion that resource efficiency should be left to the market to regulate. Others noted that they felt this was a Resource Management Act issue, rather than a Building Code regulation.
  • Other submitters suggested that the Department partner with the Green Building Council, EECA or BRANZ to make use of existing rating tools and expertise. Other suggestions were made about what to measure/what not to measure.

Fire safety

  • Submissions generally supported the fire safety proposals, but some submissions queried the robustness of the technical methodology. There were also some expectations that the Code should regularly review the fire provisions to keep up to date with changes in building design.
  • Several submissions raised concerns that the proposals did not apply to residential buildings and some submitters perceived that the proposals disadvantaged people with disabilities. Some submitters advocated installation of sprinklers as a fire safety solution.

Features for wellbeing and physical independence

Submissions generally supported for the proposals for Features for wellbeing and physical independence, although some commented they may be difficult for local authorities to administer.

  • Submissions supported the concept of a 'design furniture' test for space in buildings. There was a common acknowledgement that it was difficult in some buildings, and units within buildings, to get furniture in and out of lifts, up and down stairwells, and through doorways.
  • There was, however, a common misunderstanding that this proposal was about introducing minimum space sizes for apartments/houses. Some submitters felt that the rules would be very complex, and preferred District Plans to stipulate minimum room or apartment sizes.
  • Some submitters expressed concern that the government was intervening in the market and that it was an individual's choice to live in a small apartment or room. They commented that regulation in this area was not necessary.
  • Submissions were supportive of this concept and many made the connection between the outdoors and health and wellbeing. Submitters stated that natural light was important and needed to be provided in habitable spaces in residential dwellings.
  • Others noted that commercial buildings should also have wellbeing aspects, as people spend more daylight hours at work than at home. Others commented positively about the flexibility of design that this proposal would allow. One submitter cautioned about increasing in energy costs due to larger windows being provided for connection to the outdoors.
  • Others noted that, while an outdoors connection was important, it may not be everyone's prime need. Affordability and choice are also important. A few submissions also felt that this was a District Plan issue.

12.1.5 Introducing changes to the Building Code and Compliance Documents

  • There were many general comments about introducing changes to the Building Code and Compliance Documents. These included concerns that any Building Code changes be introduced in stages and in tandem with changes to the Compliance Documents. Recognition of potential compliance costs was raised in some submissions. The capacity of the industry to adopt the new Code provisions was also identified as an issue, with several submissions advocating a need for education programmes to accompany these (funded and implemented by the Department of Building and Housing).
  • A variety of views were expressed about the desirability of reviewing Building Code provisions. Some submissions felt regular general reviews were desirable while others felt these should only be undertaken in response to specific issues as these become apparent as problems. Recommended review periods varied from three to five years.
  • There was interest in ensuring that proposed changes were based on sound professional advice, but also that Verification Methods and Acceptable Solutions were given appropriate attention to ensure innovation. The needs of the disabled were frequently raised as an issue, with recommendations that the Building Code regularly review these provisions to ensure they continued to receive consideration.

12.2 Focus groups

This is a summary of findings from 11 focus groups held in different locations in New Zealand in August 2007. The focus groups discussed two of the performance requirements under consideration in the discussion document: connection to the outdoors and resource efficiency. The groups also raised other points in relation to the Building Code.

Connection to the outdoors

  • Participants felt strongly that buildings should connect to the outdoors and that this was necessary for health and wellbeing.
  • The most important aspects of connection to the outdoors were natural light, natural ventilation and sunlight.
  • Connection to the outdoors was seen as being part of 'New Zealandness', which should not be compromised by higher-density development.
  • It was felt that most rooms in a home should connect to the outdoors as should all types of housing, including apartments.
  • Participants felt that the way in which buildings connected to the outdoors was a matter of personal preference and also that people were prepared to make tradeoffs between different aspects of this, for example choosing a view over direct sunlight.

Resource efficiency

  • Participants generally supported the approach set out in the discussion document and felt it was important to make buildings more sustainable.
  • Some concerns were expressed about the practicality of the approach, in particular that it could lead to increased bureaucracy.
  • It was felt that measuring carbon emissions should be easy to understand and that there was a need for education and information at all levels including designers, building inspectors, builders and the public. Participants felt it was particularly important to have information on materials and durability.
  • Some participants wanted incentives to build to a higher level of sustainability than the minimum set out in the Building Code, for example through ratings schemes.
  • Participants generally agreed that it was better to pay more upfront to get a building that would cost less to run, but they were also concerned about whether the carbon emissions standard might make housing unaffordable.

Comments on other areas of Building Code

  • Many participants were concerned about building accessibility. This partly reflects the make-up of some of the focus groups, which included representatives from community groups for older and disabled people. Participants felt that buildings should be designed to meet the needs of people at all stages of their lives and of all abilities. There was also concern about the accessibility of public buildings, particularly community buildings.
  • Participants also raised concerns about fire safety, including fire prevention measures such as smoke alarms and sprinklers, as well as the need for safe exits from fire.
  • Some participants expressed a lack of confidence in builders and building inspectors and felt that modern houses were built to poor standards.

12.3 Workshops

This is a summary of findings from four workshops held in Auckland, Wellington, Christchurch and Dunedin during August 2007. The workshops discussed the proposals in the discussion document relating to resource efficiency and implementation of a new Building Code. There was also an open forum session where participants could ask any questions relating to the discussion document.

Findings - key overall themes

  • The key theme to come out in the workshops was the continuing need to engage openly and transparently with the sector. Participants wanted information readily available and wanted to be involved in the next stages of the Building Code development. They will need realistic lead times and support to ensure the new Building Code is implemented well.
  • There is still a lack of understanding about what the Building Code is and what a Compliance Document is (prescription versus performance). While understanding has improved since the last consultation period (August - October 2006), some people still do not fully understand performance requirements as opposed to prescriptive requirements. This is expected to be reflected in the submissions.
  • There was discontent with the consenting processes administered by territorial authorities. Many of the open forum questions related to council processes, consistency of decision-making and delays processing applications. While these concerns are outside the scope of the Building Code review, it is important to note that they exist and that the implementation of a new Building Code could impact further on these issues.
  • There was general support in principle for the carbon emissions target, but many questions about how the Department would develop this further, and a desire to have more information before giving it their full support. The support in principle was not universal. Detractors felt it was too ambitious and that the Building Code should focus on energy efficiency, water efficiency, waste minimisation and so on as separate performance measures.

Resource efficiency

  • The carbon emissions target received general support, in principle, but many questioned how the Department would develop this further and wanted more information before giving it their full support. Participants wanted to know whether it would apply to all buildings and building work, including renovations; what the threshold would be; how the Department would calculate the CO2 emission content of material; and what material would be included in the calculations (eg, would they have to count every nail, screw and so on).
  • Some detractors felt it was too ambitious a performance standard for the Building Code. Some were concerned that without a specific focus on energy efficiency, water efficiency, waste minimisation and so on (as separate performance measures), the overall carbon target would not have a sufficient impact on these areas. A small number did not agree with a carbon emissions target. They questioned whether climate change was occurring and whether a Building Code should be regulating this at all.

Implementation

  • Simplicity was very important, including the need for simple, clear language. Everyone (territorial authorities, builders, designers, homeowners) needs to understand the information and be aware of the timeframes. The information will therefore need to be well publicised and readily available.
  • Timing will be the key. The sector will need realistic lead times and will need to know how long the transitional phase will last (ie, when new requirements will take effect). It will also be important that the Department sticks to the agreed timetable and doesn't let any dates slip.
  • Access to information will be important. There needs to be one place to go to for all the information. The Department needs to take responsibility for ensuring the information is available and easy to find.
  • Support for the sector is imperative. They would prefer a 'step change' rather than a 'big bang' approach to implementing the new Building Code. They would like the Department to update all the supporting documents (Compliance Documents) and ensure these are available at the same time as amendments to the new Building Code are released. They also commented that the intensity of the changes could be quite overwhelming for some organisations. The Department also needs to engage with the sector to 'enable, align and bind' them to the amended Building Code.

Open Forum - Comments on other areas of Building Code

  • Most questions during the open forum session sought clarification or further information about the proposed performance requirements in the discussion document. These ranged from those relating to the CO2 emissions measure, to greywater to accessibility.
  • There were also questions and comments relating to the Building Code review process, including:
  • whether the new Building Code would increase the cost of compliance
  • what the process for the Building Code review was from here
  • performance versus prescriptive Codes.

It should be noted that some participants were still confused about the difference between a performance-based and a prescriptive Code, and the Building Code versus Compliance Documents.