Technical review of the building control operations of Queenstown district council - summary report
Published August 2008
Contents:
Important notice to people reading this technical review report
The Department of Building and Housing (the Department) carries out technical reviews as part of its function to monitor and review the performance by territorial authorities and building consent authorities of their functions under the Building Act 2004 (the Act), and previously, the Building Act 1991 (now repealed). The purpose of a technical review is to assist the territorial authority or building consent authority under review to improve its building control operations.
A technical review is not an audit. A technical review is a performance review based on a snapshot of information about the building control activities of the territorial authority or building consent authority. It cannot be taken as a full and comprehensive review of the competency and quality of all of those activities. A technical review is carried out by:
- assessing whether the processes and procedures used by the territorial authority or building consent authority under review are sufficient to enable it to satisfy the requirements of the Building Act 2004, the Building Act 1991 (legislation applying during part of this technical review), and related Regulations, including the New Zealand Building Code (the Building Code)
- assessing the processes and procedures used by the territorial authority or building consent authority under review for weathertightness compliance
- providing advice and assistance on best-practice building control procedures to help the territorial authority or building consent authority under review achieve an effective building control regime that is consistent with national objectives, and
- enabling the Department to receive comment and feedback from the territorial authority or building consent authority under review about its practical operations, ability to assess building compliance, and the role of the Department in this process.
Overview
Purpose
This report summaries of the results of a technical review of the building control operations of Queenstown Lakes District Council (the Council) via their contractor Civic Corporation Limited and latterly Lakes Environmental. This technical review was carried out between November 2004 and December 2007.
The report outlines:
- the role of the Department and the Council in regulatory building control
- the methodology used in the review
- the Department's key findings and recommendations
- the Council's progress to action the Department's recommendations, and
- areas requiring further improvement.
The Council
Queenstown Lakes District has an estimated population of 34,000. Lakes Environmental, a Council-owned company, was established to deliver regulatory services on behalf of Queenstown Lakes District Council, including its building consent processing activity, undertaking building inspections and issuing code compliance certificates. It employed 19 building control staff to carry out those regulatory building control functions. The Department recognises that during the course of the review the Council, like many other territorial authorities, had a challenging task in a busy environment.
Review process
Technical reviews involve a three-phased process designed to assist territorial authorities and building consent authorities to improve their regulatory building control operations. This process involves two on-site review visits (an initial review and a follow-up review) spaced over time to provide a measure of the Council's progress to implement the Department's recommendations. Reports were produced for both the initial review and the follow-up review. The third stage of the review is the publication of a summary report for the whole process. This report is published on the Department's website.
2004 initial review
At the time of the initial review the Council was contracting Civic Corporation Limited (CivicCorp) to undertake its building control functions, including processing building consents and conducting inspections. The initial review highlighted a significant number of areas for improvement and made 22 recommendations across different parts of the Council's building control operations. It found that the Council was not always complying with statutory obligations such as statutory timeframes or ensuring building work complied with the Building Code at all stages of the consent processing and inspection process. The review also identified a number of resource issues, which were affecting the Council's ability to undertake the volume of building control work it was facing. In particular, the Council needed to address the limitations in the technical knowledge of its building control staff and fill existing vacancies. Furthermore, it was identified that the backlog of expired building warrants of fitness needed to be cleared.
While the initial review report found that the Council had developed a limited Policy and Procedures Manual, which covered some building control processes, this needed to be further expanded and enhanced. In particular, the Council needed to improve its building consent processing and inspection methodologies and reassess its procedures for lodging and vetting consents.
2007 follow-up review
The Department returned to the Council in October 2007 to do a follow-up review. By this time Lakes Environmental Limited had been established and had successfully implemented some of the recommendations made in the 2004 initial review report (see terms of reference 4.2, 8.2, 8.3 and 10). In most cases the 2007 review found that Lakes Environmental had only partially implemented the recommendations made (see terms of reference 3, 4.1, 4.3, 4.4, 4.6, 5, 6, 7, 8.1, 9, 12 and 16).
However, the Department also found a number of recommendations from the initial review had not been implemented. The Department, therefore, had to reiterate these recommendations (see terms of reference 4.5, 11, 13, 14, and 17).
Improvements made during the follow-up review
Over the course of the review the Council made a number of changes to strengthen its building control practices - either through CivicCorp until 2007, and then Lakes Environmental Limited. The Department acknowledges that work, which in places continued after the follow-up review visit as Lakes Environmental underwent its accreditation assessment for the Building Consent Authority Accreditation and Registration Scheme.
Some of the key areas where the Council was performing reasonably well or had made improvements in, during the review included:
- implementing a new organisational structure
- accurately collecting and reporting building control statistics
- its compliance with statutory timeframes for issuing of PIMs and code compliance certificates
- formalising a peer review process for vetting applications and strengthening its overall building consent processing procedure
- designing a procedure for issuing (or refusing to issue) code compliance certificates and notices to fix (although further work is needed to effectively implement the procedure)
- considering different enforcement options available under the Building Act when owners are not meeting their building warrant of fitness obligations1
- developing a procedure for the acceptance of producer statements (although further work is required to ensure all staff use it accurately)
- formalising its policy and procedures for covering change of use requirements, dangerous and insanitary buildings, and identification of earthquake-prone buildings
- compliance with the accessibility provisions of the Building Act 2004.
Areas needing further work after the follow-up review
Further improvements were still required to the Council's building control operations to ensure it is able to consistently meet its obligations under the Building Act 2004. In summary, improvements were required across three broad areas. Each is discussed below.
Implementing building control policies and procedures
A common theme identified across the review was the importance of the Council's building control operations being underpinned by sound, formalised policies and procedures. Since the initial review, good progress was made to develop new policies and procedures. The Department found, however, that many new policies were yet to be fully implemented, or that some staff were unaware of them. A key recommendation was that work to implement new policies should be prioritised, particularly in the following areas.
- Building consent vetting procedures, to ensure applications lacking sufficient detail and evidence are not accepted (see terms of reference 4.1)
- Building consent processing and inspection methods, by implementing and formally documenting quality assurance mechanisms (such as peer review, internal audits of completed work, training and provisionof guidance) (see terms of reference 4.3 and 4.5)
- Consent conditions, which were still being used to cover up for deficient documentation (see terms of reference 4.4)
- The code compliance certificate review process (see terms of reference 4.9)
- Alternative solution procedures (see terms of reference 5)
- Accepting producer statements (see terms of reference 6)
- Weathertightness compliance (see terms of reference 7)
- Applying restrictions and limitations on building consents (see terms of reference 8)
- Issuing compliance schedules and the building warrant of fitness regime (see terms of reference 9)
Compliance with statutory obligations
One of the review's key findings was that the Council (through both CivicCorp and Lakes Environmental) was not always achieving a consistent level of compliance with the Building Code at all stages of the building consent processing and inspection process. Timeframes for building consent processing varied considerably due to staff resourcing constraints, staff absences and high workloads. These factors were noted in both review visits, but were not addressed.
The Department made a number of recommendations related to Lakes Environmental's compliance with statutory obligations, including that Lakes Environmental:
- identify, and put in place, initiatives to improve compliance with the Building Act's statutory timeframes for processing building consents applications. This includes developing a long-term strategic plan for the recruitment and retention of building consent processing and inspection staff (as discussed in terms of reference 11)
- prioritise strengthening its building consent vetting and lodgement system. As noted above, the Department found that Lakes Environmental was still accepting building consent applications that did not contain adequate information to enable sound informed decisions to consistently be made. This adds considerable pressure to Lakes Environmental's building consent processing workload
- ensure compliance with the Building Code is consistently achieved by introducing a peer review system for completed work, reviewing staff training provided to staff, and ensuring the training is effectively implemented.
Resourcing of the Council's building control operations
Despite the Council's organisational reform, there were still significant capacity and capability limitations that needed to be addressed to enable Lakes Environmental to meet current and foreseeable work volumes and technical capability requirements, and to effectively undertake their regulatory building control responsibilities. Many of the underlying problems were not addressed since the initial review and, in a number of places, the Department has reiterated the same recommendations as in the 2004 initial review.
Lakes Environmental needed to develop a longer-term plan for recruitment and retention of its building control staff. It was also important that it strengthens its system for assessing whether it had access to the right mix of technical skills, competencies and experience needed to do the nature and type of work it is responsible for under the Building Act 2004.
The system must ensure building consent processing and inspection work is only allocated to those who are technically competent to undertake it. It should also enable Lakes Environmental to identify skills gaps and decide on strategies to remedy these.
The recommendations made are consistent with the requirements in regulations 9 and 10 of the Building (Accreditation of Building Consent Authority) Regulations 2006. The regulations require organisations wanting to be accredited as BCAs to demonstrate they have a system for allocating work to technically competent people, and a way of assessing the competence both of their staff and of people who apply to them for employment.
Recent work undertaken after the review
Since the 2007 follow-up review, Lakes Environmental had continued its efforts to strengthen its building control operations. This has been both to implement technical review recommendations and also as part of its efforts to get accredited as a building consent authority under the Building Act 2004.
Lakes Environmental said that this preparatory work has included a number of initiatives that it considered have partially or fully implemented a number the Department's recommendations and further strengthened its building control operations. In particular, Lakes Environmental advised that:
- significant staff resources has been added since the review in November 2007. 3.5 new positions have been filled. Two are in technical processing and inspection roles, and the 1.5 position is in direct building administrative support
- it continues to engage the use of additional processing resource when it faces an increase in the number of building consent applications received
- compliance with statutory timeframes for processing timeframes of consents for the months of May and June 2008 has improved to 97.6%
- competency assessment processes have identified that Lakes Environmental has the required skill base within its staff to handle the expected volume and complexity of work
- the definition of categories of work undertaken as part of the accreditation process has helped identify the organisation's capacity needs
- continual process improvements are being undertaken and implemented throughout the organisation, including a programme of internal audit review across the range of accreditation regulations.
Back to Top
Roles of the Department of Building and Housing and the Council
The Department's role
In November 2004, the Department assumed the roles and functions of the former Building Industry Authority. The Department became responsible for conducting technical reviews of territorial authorities and building consent authorities.
The Department has a range of statutory responsibilities for building and housing and administers New Zealand's building legislation. Within this, its building control functions include:
- advising the Minister for Building and Construction on matters relating to building control
- administering and reviewing the Building Code
- producing Compliance Documents that specify prescriptive methods as a means of complying with the Building Code
- providing information, guidance and advice on building controls to all sectors of the building industry and consumers
- implementing, administering and monitoring a system of regulatory controls for a vibrant, innovative sector with skilled building professionals
- making determinations, or technical rulings, on matters of interpretation, doubt or dispute relating to compliance with the Building Code or the issuing of building consents and code compliance certificates.
- The role of the Consent Authority Capability and Performance Group
The Department's Consent Authority Capability and Performance Group is responsible for undertaking the technical review process for the council. The Group's broad functions include:
- monitoring, reviewing and improving performance outcomes of the regulatory building control system, for example, conducting technical reviews of territorial authorities and building consent authorities
- designing and implementing a system of accreditation and registration to be used to strengthen decision-making at the important building consent and inspection stages of the building process
- managing the accreditation body that will assess prospective building consent authorities
- strengthening relationships with territorial authorities, building consent authorities, and other key industry stakeholders
- investigating and resolving complaints about performance issues
- providing guidance, advice and assistance to the regulatory building control sector.
Role of building consent authorities and territorial authorities
Territorial authorities have a wide range of statutory functions and powers under the Building Act 2004. Briefly, these include:
- determining whether applications for waivers or modifications of the Building Code, or any document for use in establishing compliance with the Building Code, should be accepted
- determining the extent to which buildings must comply with the Building Code when altered, their use is changed or their specified intended life changes
- determining whether work is exempt under Schedule 1 from requiring a building consent
- enforcing the Building Act, Building Regulations and Building Code
- performing functions relating to dangerous, insanitary and earthquake-prone buildings
- issuing certificates of acceptance
- issuing certificates for public use
- issuing and amending compliance schedules and enforcing the building warrant of fitness regime
- issuing project information memoranda
- following up on notices to fix, gaining access to buildings, collecting fees and issuing fines and infringements.
Territorial authorities must also act as a building consent authority for their district. Statutory functions of a building consent authority include:
- receiving, considering and making decisions on applications for building consents within set time limits
- inspecting building work for which it has granted a building consent
- issuing building consents, code compliance certificates, compliance schedules and notices to fix.
Back to Top
Purpose of the technical review
Technical reviews are performance reviews undertaken to monitor building consent authorities and territorial authorities and help them to fulfil their obligations under the Building Act 2004. The review is a tool to help a territorial authority and building consent authority to:
- enhance the performance of its building control activities
- implement appropriate systems and processes so it can carry out its building control operations
- effectively fulfil its obligations under the Building Act and Building Regulations.
Technical reviews also examine whether a territorial authority or building consent authority has the appropriate operational systems and resources to enable its staff to undertake their building control work effectively and efficiently.
They are not intended to evaluate the performance of individual staff and are not comprehensive audits involving detailed examinations of all aspects of a territorial authority's building control operations. Nor do they assess the territorial authority against a particular model or expressly measure it against the performance of other territorial authorities.
Legislative basis
This technical review was initiated under the Building Act 19912. Although the Building Act 2004 repealed the Building Act 1991, the functions of the Chief Executive of the Department of Building and Housing regarding technical reviews were carried over3. This provides the mandate for the Department to complete technical reviews initiated by the former Building Industry Authority (BIA) and to commence new reviews.
Accordingly, this report primarily references the Building Act 2004, with supporting footnotes outlining the appropriate sections of the 1991 Act. Further information on the comparable sections of the two Acts is provided in the Department's publication Building Officials' Guide to the Building Act 20044.
The review process
Review timeframe
Technical reviews are typically undertaken using a three-phase process, which usually takes about 18-36 months. In phase one, the Department undertakes an on-site initial review of the building consent authority's or territorial authority's building control operations and produces a report with recommendations. The organisation then provides feedback to the Department on the report and addresses recommendations made by the Department over the following 9 to 12 months.
Phase two involves a follow-up review undertaken after an appropriate period of time has passed since the completion of phase one. This phase focuses on how the building consent authority or territorial authority has addressed recommendations from the initial review. A draft follow-up report is provided to the organisation so it can make a written submission on the final findings. Following consideration of any submissions, the follow-up review report is finalised and provided to the building consent authority or territorial authority.
The review process is then completed by preparing a summary review report for publication on the Department's website. The figure below shows the stages of the review process. This report is the summary report indicated in phase three.
Figure 1: Overview of the technical review process
Investigative method
The Department measures a territorial authority's or building consent authority's performance using a number of methods, including:
- observing staff doing their work, both in the office and on site
- reviewing written material used and produced by staff (eg, policies, procedures, inspection checklists and records, manuals and approved consent documentation)
- interviewing staff about their use of material and their work
- assessing a random sample of building projects (case studies) that have recently been, or are currently being, handled by the territorial authority or building consent authority.
Figure 2: Preparing for and conducting technical reviews
Terms of reference
The table below sets out the terms of reference that were the basis for the review.
| Terms of reference |
| 1 |
Organisational and management structure |
| 2 |
Consent statistics |
| 3 |
Use of the processing clock |
| 4 |
Procedures for determining compliance with the Building Code. 4.1 Consent application vetting and lodgement processes 4.2 Project information memorandum processing 4.3 Building consent processing 4.4 Consent conditions and plan notations 4.5 Use of peer review, and external and specialised assessment 4.6 Issuing code compliance certificates |
| 5 |
Assessing alternative solutions for building compliance |
| 6 |
Procedures for accepting producer statements |
| 7 |
Weathertightness compliance |
| 8 |
Compliance with other Building Act requirements 8.1 Restrictions and limitations on building consents 8.2 Dangerous and insanitary builings 8.3 Earthquake-prone buildings |
| 9 |
Compliance schedules and the building warrant of fitness regime |
| 10 |
Accessibility compliance |
| 11 |
Human resources |
| 12 |
Technical knowledge and ability of staff |
| 13 |
Adequacy of resources |
| 14 |
Adequacy, security and availability of public records |
| 15 |
Relationships with other territorial authorities and private building certifiers |
| 16 |
Case studies of completed buildings |
| 17 |
Accompanying personnel during inspection work |
| 18 |
Feedback from the Council to the Department |
Back to Top
Key findings of the review
The key findings of the review are outlined under each heading of the review's terms of reference. This section also outlines the Department's recommendations and how the Council acted upon or responded to each recommendation.
1 - Organisational and management structure
Purpose
To summarise the Council's building control organisational and management structure and to identify any issues with its efficiency and effectiveness, and consider how the Council delegates its legislative powers, duties and responsibilities.
Background
Section 232 of the Building Act 20045 covers the delegation of powers of territorial authorities. This section links to Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002, which sets out local authorities' broad powers of delegation.
Initial review findings
At the time of the initial review, the Council was contracting Civic Corporation Limited (CivicCorp) to undertake its building control functions, including processing building consents and conducting inspections. CivicCorp was facing high workloads and had no in-house expertise for processing applications involving building systems such as structural designs, lifts, mechanical ventilation and alternative solution fire systems. In these situations they were relying on producer statements.
| Recommendations made to the Council/CivicCorp |
Action taken before the follow-up review |
| Review its arrangement with CivicCorp to ensure CivicCorp has sufficient regulatory building control capacity to meet the volume of work it was facing and to consistently comply with the requirements of the Building Act. |
The Council partially implemented this recommendation. |
| Ensure any sub-contracting or delegation of the Council's legislative building control functions to another organisation was: clearly defined so there is no doubt about the scope of the activities that have been sub-contracted or delegated underpinned by robust performance standards and requirements, which clearly specify the Council's performance expectations, and regularly checked to ensure such standards are consistently being met. |
Structural reform was undertaken to establish a new Council-controlled organisation to undertake building control functions. |
Findings of the 2007 follow-up review
Following the initial review, the Council changed its organisational structure significantly.
A high-level building services review was undertaken in 2006 and a draft report published on the Council's website www.qldc.govt.nz. The report recommended that a Council controlled organisation (CCO) be established to undertake regulatory building control services in accordance with the Building Act 2004. Following the Council's acquisition of all the shares in CivicCorp, the Council changed the name to Lakes Environmental and, on 12 March 2007, Lakes Environmental was incorporated as a company owned by the Council to deliver regulatory building control services, including issuing building consents, code compliance certificates and compliance schedules, and conducting inspections of building work.
Lakes Environmental's current organisational management structure is shown below:
Lakes Environmental undertakes regulatory building control functions on behalf of Queenstown Lakes District Council via a contractual arrangement.
The Council had a list of delegated functions. In this list, the Council initially sought to delegate to Lakes Environmental its statutory obligation to become accredited and registered as a building consent authority. However, the Council is required by section 212 to act as a building consent authority for its district. It can meet this obligation by performing the duties of a building consent authority itself, or making arrangements for another building consent authority to perform those functions on its behalf (section 213). Therefore, the Council could either become a building consent authority itself or contract the function to Lakes Environmental once it becomes a building consent authority. After the follow-up review, Lakes Environmental advised they would submit a combined application with Queenstown Lakes District Council for accreditation. The assessment is being done for the Council with the systems and processes of Lakes Environmental forming the basis of the assessment. Both organisations will be jointly named on the accreditation certificate.
Further issues about human resources, including Lakes Environmental's capacity to meet the volume of work it is facing, are discussed under terms of reference 11 of this report.
Conclusion
Lakes Environmental had substantially implemented the recommendations of the review by undertaking a significant organisational review in order for the Council to meet the volume of work it faces and to consistently comply with the requirements of the Building Act. However, ongoing review of capacity and capability will be necessary (see terms of reference 11).
2 - Consent statistics
Purpose
To review selected building control statistics to indicate the volume and nature of work the Council had to manage.
Findings
| 2004 initial review statistics 12 month period ending June 2004 |
2007 follow-up review statistics 12 month period ending September 2007 |
| 1,549 building consents were issued |
1,461 building consents were issued |
| 1,194 code compliance certificates were issued |
1,250 code compliance certificates were issued |
| 159 swimming pools were recorded within Queenstown Lakes District Council's jurisdiction |
100 swimming pools were recorded within Queenstown Lakes District Council's jurisdiction |
| The total value of the construction work for above period was $290,166,000 |
The total value of construction work for the above period was $342,384,208 |
These statistics indicated that the volume of building control work undertaken during the initial and follow-up reviews had decreased slightly. The value of consents, however, had increased since the initial review was undertaken.
From analysis of the statistics, the Department noted that the number of building consents that have code compliance certificates outstanding had remained steady since the time of the initial review (this is discussed further under part 4.6 of the review's terms of reference).
After the completion of the follow-up review, Lakes Environmental advised that the numbers of consent applications were remaining relatively consistent, although there was large growth at the end of 2007, which contributed substantially to an increase in processing days. However, the applications received in 2008 (to July) were actually down by approximately 15%.
Lakes Environmental advised that it had engaged the use of additional processing resource during busy times to complete the processing of code compliance certificate applications which had reached the two year milestone, and also to follow up older consents issued prior to 31 March 2005.
Conclusion
The Department was satisfied that Lakes Environmental was accurately recording all consent statistics.
3 - Use of the processing clock
Purpose
To assess the Council's use of the processing clock and how well the Council is meeting the statutory time-frames for processing applications for building consents.
Background
The Building Act 2004 specifies a range of requirements for a building consent authority when it processes applications for building consents. Section 48 of the Act requires that a building consent authority grant or refuse a building consent within 20 working days. This timeframe may be suspended if insufficient information has been supplied by the consent applicant. The applicant should be notified of this in writing.
Initial review findings
Statistics provided by CivicCorp for the initial review indicated that consents were not always being processed within statutory timeframes. It was identified that high workloads and inadequate staff resourcing were affecting CivicCorp's ability to meet statutory timeframes for processing building consents. This had resulted in a significant backlog of building consent applications and a growing number of completed buildings which did not have a code compliance certificate.
| Recommendations made to the Council/CivicCorp |
Action taken before the follow-up review |
| No specific recommendations were made. However, it was noted human resource shortages were the principal factor affecting CivicCorp's ability to meet the prescribed statutory timeframes for issuing building consents (see part 11 of the review's terms of reference). |
The Council had not addressed the factors contributing to building consent statistics variations. |
Findings of the 2007 follow-up review
Lakes Environmental was responsible for monitoring compliance with the statutory timeframes for issuing building consents. The follow-up review found that consent statistics varied in the previous four months and compliance with the processing clock also varied from 38% to 89%. A key factor in processing delays was staff resourcing, staff absences and high workloads.
Other statutory timeframes were, however, being achieved consistently, including project information memoranda processing and code compliance certificate issuing.
In July 2008 Lakes Environmental advised that it had achieved near to 100% compliance with statutory timeframes for both processing building consents and issuing code compliance certificates since April 2008.
Conclusion
Lakes Environment had progressed work to improve its compliance with statutory processing timeframes. However, the underlying causes for not meeting statutory timeframes noted since 2005 needs ongoing monitoring and further work to address (eg, human resource constraints, see part 11 of the review's terms of reference).
4 - Procedures for determining compliance with the Building Code
Purpose
To review the key processes the Council uses when accepting, vetting, and processing applications for building consents and how it establishes whether building consent applications comply with the Building Code. The processes reviewed include:
- consent application vetting and lodgement processing (4.1)
- project information memoranda (PIMs) processing (4.2)
- building consent processing (4.3)
- building consent conditions and plan notations (4.4)
- peer review and the use of external assessment (4.5)
- code compliance certificates (4.6).
4.1 Consent application vetting and lodgement processing
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 efficient processing and better compliance outcomes. Modern buildings are now considerably more technically complex. 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 findings
At the initial review CivicCorp did not have a formal policy outlining the minimum acceptable standard of consent documentation. From a review of lodged applications, it was found that most applications lacked important technical detail to ensure compliance with the Building Code.
| Recommendations made to the Council/CivicCorp |
Action taken before the follow-up review |
| Ensure CivicCorp develops a formal policy that clearly defines the minimum acceptable information requirements of building consent applications and ensures consent applications with insufficient information are rejected when lodged. |
Lakes Environmental introduced a formal vetting procedure as part of its work towards building consent authority accreditation. |
| Ensure the minimum information requirements are communicated to building control staff and external stakeholders. |
Lakes Environmental provided regular workshops for external stakeholders and developed an information leaflet summarising the building consent certification process, which is available to the public from its Queenstown and Wanaka offices and on its website. |
| Carry out appropriate training for consent vetting staff to ensure they can readily identify applications with insufficient information. |
This recommendation was not implemented. |
| Implement mechanisms to help ensure consistent application of vetting processes (eg, peer review and internal processing audits). |
Lakes Environmental had undertaken informal peer review of application vetting. |
Findings of the 2007 follow-up review
Lakes Environmental had developed an information leaflet summarising the building consent and certification process, available to the public from its offices in Queenstown and Wanaka and on its website. However, the leaflet did not adequately detail the quality of documentation expected of building consent applications. It could be enhanced with more specific information about Lakes Environmental's building control processes, including information on types of inspections and specialist inspections that may be required.
Regular workshops were provided to external stakeholders, including Master Builders and local designers. Topics covered included building consent documentation requirements, building legislation, licensed building practitioners and building consent authority accreditation.
Lakes Environmental had recently introduced a formal vetting procedure as part of its work towards accreditation as a building consent authority. The checklist was thorough and covered the appropriate sections of the Building Act and Building Code, as well as the standard and scales of the documentation that would be accepted. Where required, other legislative obligations were also covered, including, for example, requirements of the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987.
However, the Department found that the new vetting process was not always being consistently usedby staff. In particular, the Department found examples where:
- the vetting checklist was not included in the consent file or was incomplete
- information listed on the building consent application checklist was being requested from the applicant during building consent processing
- the building consent application was incomplete or lacked adequate detail to ensure compliance with the Building Code.
Lakes Environmental undertook informal peer review of application vetting, whereby the building officer processing an application provided feedback to the vetting officer on the standard of documentation or items missed during the vetting. While this was considered good practice, the Department considered that this process needed to be formalised, with any discussions documented and recorded.
| Recommendations made to the Council |
Response from the Council |
| Develop a formal peer review process that documents and records any vetting issues including detailing the problem, the reason for the problem, the solution and how the effectiveness of the solution was monitored. |
Lakes Environmental advised that it has implemented a peer review process that has resulted in a revised procedure. |
| Ensure the vetting officer signs application checklists, in order to provide appropriate accountability and traceability. |
Lakes Environmental had changed its form, which was implemented in April 2008. |
| Ensure that applications with insufficient information are rejected through consistent application of the organisation's vetting policy. |
Provide more comprehensive information to the public detailing the quality of documentation expected for a building consent application. |
| Lakes Environmental has advised that it has revised its public information. |
Provide more extensive training to vetting officers and regularly assess whether this training is being effectively implemented. |
| Three officers had formal training provided by an external company. The officers have also conducted an internal review of the documentation used. |
Conclusion
The Council had substantially implemented the Department's recommendations.
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 31-396 of the Building Act 2004 cover applications for PIMs. These sections specify the minimum information a PIM must include. Information not apparent in the district plan must be included, as well as details of other authorisations, storm water 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 findings
The Department found cases where wind zones and corrosion zones were not being identified in PIMs.
| Recommendations made to the Council/CivicCorp |
Action taken before the follow-up review |
| Ensure CivicCorp reviews the processes for preparing PIMs, so that PIMs consistently include all the information required by the Building Act. Particular attention needed to be given to ensuring information relating to wind zones, corrosion zones and minimum floor levels was recorded. |
This recommendation was fully implemented. |
Findings of the 2007 follow-up review
Lakes Environmental had reviewed PIM procedures and introduced standard PIM conditions, covering all the information required by the Building Act 2004. The information provided in PIMs included earthquake zone, corrosion zone, specific wind zones, snow loads, flood levels and network utility drainage plans and information. Information relating to wind and corrosion zones and hazards was now being consistently provided.
Conclusion
The initial review recommendation had been implemented.
4.3 Building consent processing
Purpose
To ensure the Council has a robust and defensible methodology for processing building consents.
Background
Territorial authorities and building consent authorities should have systematic processes in place to assess building consent applications in a thorough, consistent, and timely manner. This process should clearly document the technical basis for issuing the building consent and the subsequent compliance certification.
Initial review findings
The Department found that the information held on the consent application did not always adequately demonstrate how the building work would comply with the Building Code, if it were constructed in accordance with the building consent.
| Recommendations made to the Council/CivicCorp |
Action taken before the follow-up review |
| Ensure CivicCorp develops a policy to underpin its consent processing activities that includes the development of a more comprehensive checklist demonstrating that each building element has been properly assessed for compliance with the Building Code. |
Lakes Environmental introduced a new consent processing policy that included a master checklist document. |
| Ensure CivicCorp implements other quality assurance mechanisms (such as peer review and internal audits of consent processing activities) to ensure staff are consistently and accurately using the new process. |
Processing officers undertook informal peer reviews of unusual construction aspects or where elements are outside the processing officer's expertise. |
| Ensure CivicCorp has enough consent processing staff to enable consistent and rigorous processing of the Council's work volumes. |
This recommendation was not implemented. |
Findings of the 2007 follow-up review
At the time of the follow-up review, a new consent processing policy had recently been introduced. This policy included information on roles and responsibilities, the building consent process, and the procedure for building consent processing.
Lakes Environmental had also developed a 'master checklist' document, comprising four checklists:
- a building consent application processing header sheet covering building consent conditions, required inspections, compliance schedule requirements, waivers and modifications, and alternative solutions
- a checklist for Building Act considerations, including requirements such as section 112 additions and alterations to existing buildings
- a residential and commercial processing checksheet, which contained references to the Building Code, the New Zealand Standards and Acceptable Solutions for various building elements
- a processing checksheet for accessory building work, which contained limited references to building elements to determine compliance.
The checklists excluded some specific details necessary to determine compliance7 and did not adequately cover all aspects of the Building Code (the one exception being accessibility requirements). The Department also found that checklists were used inconsistently. Case studies revealed that not all requirements of the PIM were considered during consent processing, and that consent processing checklists were sometimes incomplete or not provided.
Lakes Environmental would benefit from breaking down the master checklist by building elements, including providing specific checklists for external cladding systems and structure types. This would assist in reducing paperwork and help ensure all aspects relevant to the specific building and construction are considered.
Processing officers undertook an informal peer review where aspects of construction were unusual or outside the processing officer's expertise. While this was considered good practice, it needs to be formalised and applied consistently by all processing staff.
Lakes Environmental did not undertake internal auditing of consents. The Department considers that documented internal auditing is an excellent way to ensure processes and systems are followed appropriately and consistently, and to identify systemic problems within these processes and systems.
| Recommendations made to the Council |
Response from the Council |
| Ensure Lakes Environmental continues to strengthen its building consent processing procedures by implementing quality assurance mechanisms (such as peer review and internal audits of consent processing activities) to ensure staff are consistently and accurately using these procedures. |
Lakes Environmental advised that a formal internal review process has been implemented, which deals with a number of processes including consent processing. Further refinement of the processing checklists has resulted from this review. It is considered appropriate to implement some formal process of document peer review as a process improvement. |
Conclusion
Lakes Environmental has implemented the Department's recommendations.
4.4 Consent conditions and plan notations
Purpose
To examine the Council's use of conditions and plan notations.
Background
Consent conditions or notations should be educational tools that also highlight aspects of construction requiring particular attention. Conditions should not be applied to cover deficiencies in building consent documentation, which should be rejected at lodgement. While using conditions or notations may enable the Council to avoid requesting additional information and can sometimes help speed up processing, it fails to meet the requirements of the Act. Incorrect use of notations or conditions may place the Council in the role of designer which is not its appropriate role in the building control context.
Section 49 of the Building Act 20048 requires territorial authorities to grant consents 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 submitted with the application.
Initial review findings
Conditions were sometimes being used to cover up for deficiencies in building consent documentation that should have been rejected when it was originally lodged with the Council.
| Recommendations made to the Council/CivicCorp |
Action taken before the follow-up review |
| Develop a policy to clarify when the use of consent conditions and notations is appropriate. This should require that: notations are only used to highlight specific areas for attention, and not to make up for inadequate information provided with consent applications notations reference relevant standards and Building Code clauses, and consent applications lacking adequate compliance detail are rejected when lodged. |
A draft procedure for the use of consent conditions and notations had been developed. |
Findings of the 2007 follow-up review
While a draft procedure for the use of consent conditions and notations had been developed, it had not been implemented. Lakes Environmental's building consent application processing header sheet showed a list of building consent conditions. The building officer chose the applicable ones to be inserted into the final building consent document. These conditions often refer to Building Code compliance requirements that should be considered during the processing of building consent applications.
The Department identified that conditions of consent were still being used to cover deficiencies in building consent documentation. Some conditions were also using incorrect terminology, regarding electrical and gas certification, for example.
The Department found that plan notations are rarely, if ever, used by processing officers.
| Recommendations made to the Council |
Response from the Council |
| Ensure Lakes Environmental implements its draft procedure for the use of consent conditions, with a particular focus on ensuring consent conditions are not used to mitigate deficient documentation. |
Lakes Environmental advised it has implemented a procedure for the use of consent conditions. The range of conditions has been reduced to only include items that require further physical action, or for documentation to be provided at the end of the construction. |
Conclusion
Lakes Environmental has progressed work to implement the Department's recommendations. However, Lakes Environment must ensure conditions are not used to make up for deficient documentation.
4.5 Peer review and the use of external assessment
Purpose
To examine the Council's peer review procedures and the use of external expertise in its building control operations.
Background
Having an internal peer review system is an important mechanism that can help ensure the Council conducts its building consent and inspection activities with rigour and consistency. Councils can contract specialist technical expertise when they do not have such skills in-house. It is generally not feasible for a Council to maintain appropriate expertise within its staff for all building control matters. Contracted expertise is often used to supplement Council staff or to provide peer review of complex projects that have been reviewed by in-house staff.
Initial review findings
CivicCorp had no formal policy or procedure for peer reviewing consent processing or inspection work. Additionally, CivicCorp had no in-house expertise for processing building systems such as structural designs, lifts, mechanical ventilation and alternative solution fire systems, with reliance often placed on producer statements. Design calculations accompanying specific structural designs were rarely being peer reviewed or checked by a qualified engineer.
| Recommendations made to the Council/CivicCorp |
Action taken before the follow-up review |
| Implement robust peer review processes to ensure: work is peer reviewed as appropriate before building consents and code compliance certificates are issued, and peer review is appropriately documented and kept on file with the consent documentation. |
The Council had not implemented this recommendation. Limited informal peer review was occurring. |
| Ensure all design calculations are either checked by appropriately qualified professionals or, if they are submitted by approved producer statement issuers, are checked on a sample basis to ensure the producer statement issuer is meeting the required calculation standards. |
The Council had employed an engineer in the role of building officer to conduct informal reviews of design calculations and producer statements. |
| Ensure designs for systems that are outside the scope of in-house expertise are assessed by people recognised as technically able to complete such a review. |
This recommendation had not been implemented. |
Findings of the 2007 follow-up review
All of the issues identified in the initial review were still relevant. Lakes Environmental did not have a formal mechanism for undertaking peer review of consent processing and inspection work. Although an engineer had been employed in the role of building officer to conduct reviews of design calculations and producer statements, this procedure was ad hoc and had not been formalised. Lakes Environmental was not doing any formal peer review of design calculations for larger and more complicated work, including specified systems, to ensure compliance with the Building Code. Furthermore, it was rarely engaging external expertise for peer reviews where Lakes Environmental did not have the internal capability.
Some informal peer review and sharing expertise was occurring, but this was not being recorded.
At the time of the follow-up review, there had been no assessment of Lakes Environmental's organisational capability via the competency assessment of its staff.
| Recommendations made to the Council |
Response from the Council |
| Implement robust peer review processes to ensure: work is peer reviewed as appropriate before building consents and code compliance certificates are issued, and peer review is appropriately documented and kept on file with the consent documentation. |
Lakes Environmental advised it has partially implemented this recommendation. |
| Ensure all design calculations are either checked by appropriately qualified professionals or, if they are submitted by approved producer statement issuers, are checked on a sample basis to ensure the producer statement issuer is achieving the required calculation standards. |
Lakes Environmental advised that individual building officers decide to call for peer reviews of consent applications based on a risk assessment of the work. |
| Ensure designs for systems that are outside the scope of in-house expertise are assessed by people recognised as technically able to complete such a review. |
Lakes Environmental had changed its system of building classification to identify buildings outside the scope of internal expertise. A peer review process is now also used. |
Conclusion
The Council has partially implemented the recommendations made by the Department.
4.6 Code compliance certificates
Purpose
To examine the Council's processes for issuing code compliance certificates (CCCs).
Background
Sections 91-95 of the Building Act 2004 contain provisions on the issuing of code compliance certificates. In summary, these provisions require that:
- an owner applies for a code compliance certificate (in the prescribed form) as soon as practicable after building work is completed
- a building consent authority issues a code compliance certificate if it is satisfied, on reasonable grounds, that building work complies with the building consent
- a building consent authority must be satisfied that any specified systems are capable of performing to the standards set out in the building consent
- a building consent authority must decide whether or not to issue a code compliance certificate within 20 working days of receiving an application, or within another further period agreed between a building consent authority and owner.
Section 92(1) of the Building Act requires building owners to apply for a code compliance certificate after all building work to be done under their building consent has been completed. If the building consent was issued after 31 March 2005, and no application has been made to the building consent authority within two years after the date the building consent was granted, the building consent authority must decide whether to issue a code compliance certificate (section 93(2)(b)(i)). Although it is not required by the Building Act 2004, the Department also considers it good practice for building consent authorities to have a system for actively following up on all building consents issued under the Building Act 1991 that have not had code compliance certificates issued9.
Initial review findings
CivicCorp did not have clear policies and procedures for dealing with offences involving the issuing of a notice to fix. Assessments of completed buildings also found non-compliant details across a range of construction facets.
| Recommendations made to the Council/CivicCorp |
Action taken before the follow-up review |
| Implement a consistent and rigorous policy to underpin its consent processing activities, and in particular the issuing of CCCs, that identifies the need for external professional input and for internal peer review. |
A policy and procedure for issuing CCCs had been developed. |
| Develop a policy and procedures for dealing with all outstanding or uncompleted building consents. |
The Council had partially implemented this recommendation by developing a policy and procedure for issuing a notice to fix as part of its BCA manual. |
| Manage non-compliance within a risk management framework, and take enforcement action when this is appropriate. This work should include developing appropriate policies and procedures for exercising enforcement powers. |
The Council had developed an enforcement and prosecution policy relating to the powers and functions under the Resource Management Act 1991. |
Findings of the 2007 follow-up review
A policy and procedure for issuing CCCs had been introduced, but not fully implemented.
Lakes Environmental had implemented a CCC review procedure. Under this a final review of producer statements, durability, consent conditions, previous inspections and the CCC application from the owner is conducted to ensure that all relevant information has been provided for the CCC to be correctly issued. However, this is not a peer review process as it is conducted by the same officer. The Department considered that the CCC procedure was an improvement, but could be refined further.
Since the initial review, the number of building consents issued under the former Building Act 1991 that had not had CCCs issued had been reduced by 580 (representing a decrease of approximately nine percent). Lakes Environmental had sent letters to all owners of outstanding building consents. However, the procedure was not documented and, due to work demands, the work had not been followed up for some time.
An appropriate policy and procedure for issuing notices to fix had been developed and forms part of Lakes Environmental's BCA Manual. However, while notices to fix are being issued, no records were provided to demonstrate that these were being consistently followed up in the required timeframes.
Lakes Environmental noted that a successful prosecution had been taken where a building owner had not complied with the requirements of a notice to fix. Other prosecution work related to work done without a building consent, a building considered dangerous, and building work constructed not in accordance with the issued building consent.
Lakes Environmental had developed an enforcement and prosecution policy. However, this policy is solely related to enforcement and prosecution powers and functions under the Resource Management Act 1991.
| Recommendations made to the Council |
Response from the Council |
| Ongoing effort needs to be put into: further refining the CCC review process following up on notices to fix, and following up on consented building work that has not had a CCC issued. |
Lakes Environmental advised it has undertaken the following work. The CCC issuing process has been modified to include a checklist for items required prior to issue. A notice to fix procedure for internal audit was being implemented, with follow-up of previously issued notices to fix which have not been completed A procedure for follow-up of building consents which have passed the two-year period has been introduced. Further follow- up of older consents is planned for the remainder of 2008. |
Conclusion
The Council has partially implemented the Department's recommendations. However, ongoing effort needs to be put into continuously improving the CCC review process, following up on notices to fix and on consented building work that has not had CCCs issued.
5 - Assessing alternative solutions
Purpose
To examine how the Council assesses alternative solutions proposed for use in building projects.
Background
Alternative solutions are one way of demonstrating that building work will comply with the Building Code. Building consent authorities can use the known performance of the relevant Acceptable Solution (prescriptive means of compliance) as a benchmark to make their own assessment of whether the performance of the proposed alternative solution is adequate. An alternative solution may involve materials, components or methods that differ from those in a Compliance Document, but still satisfy the performance objectives of the Building Code.
Initial review findings
CivicCorp did not have formal procedures for recording the assessment or acceptance of alternative solutions. Neither the processing or inspection checklist makes provision for specifically recording decisions about alternative solutions.
| Recommendations made to the Council/CivicCorp |
Action taken before the follow-up review |
| Implement procedures guiding the processing of alternative solutions. These should include requirements to: justify acceptance or rejection of a proposed alternative solution, demonstrating how compliance with the Building Code will be achieved, and clearly document and maintain records of the use and acceptance of alternative solutions. |
Lakes Environmental had partially implemented this recommendation. |
Findings of the 2007 follow-up review
Lakes Environmental had developed an alternative solution policy and some process tools, but these have not been fully implemented.
The policy described who is responsible for assessing proposed alternative solutions, background information to alternative solutions, and the systems to follow during an assessment. Checklists have been developed to aid processing that record which clause of the Building Code an alternative solution relates to and provide space for comments to be added by the assessor. Alternative solution assessment criteria have also been developed, including:
- a comparison with Acceptable Solutions/Compliance Documents
- a comparison with other documents (technical, test report, similar certified products)
- in-service history
- relevant expert opinion.
| Recommendations made to the Council |
Response from the Council |
| Ensure Lakes Environmental fully implements its policy and procedures for identifying and assessing alternative solutions and trains staff in their use. There should be a particular focus on the requirements to: justify acceptance or rejection of a proposed alternative solution, demonstrating how Building Code compliance will be achieved clearly document and maintain records of the use and acceptance of alternative solutions. |
Lakes Environmental advised that assessment of alternative solutions happens during the consenting process and the required information recorded with the building consent application. This process is to be further developed. |
Conclusion
Lakes Environmental has partially implemented the Department's recommendations by introducing alternative solution policies and procedures. However, it needs to ensure staff are fully aware of how to identify, assess and document alternative solutions.
6 - Procedures for accepting producer statements
Purpose
To examine the Council's system for assessing and accepting producer statements.
Background
Producer statements are written statements expressing the authors' views that plans, specifications or completed works comply with the technical requirements to satisfy some or all of the Building Code. A producer statement will usually be issued by a recognised specialist, for example, an engineer, architect or competent specialist contractor. It is up to the building consent authority to decide whether to rely on such a statement. These documents have no specific status in law, but they can still be accepted and considered by a building consent authority when assessing the plans and specification submitted with a building consent application.
Producer statements are intended to reduce a council's input into specific aspects of design processing or construction monitoring work. A council needs to have confidence that people providing producer statements have the appropriate experience and competence in their field. Acceptance of producer statements is discretionary.
Initial review findings
CivicCorp did not have a formal policy or procedures for the acceptance of producer statements and did not maintain a register of approved producer statement authors. For certain aspects of design or construction, CivicCorp was relying heavily on the acceptance of producer statements as a way of confirming compliance with the Building Code.
Additionally, it was identified that many producer statements failed to address Building Code Clause B2 Durability, where this was required.
| Recommendations made to the Council/CivicCorp |
Action taken before the follow-up review |
| Develop a formal policy on the acceptance and assessment of producer statements covering: when it will require a producer statement its acceptance criteria for producer statement authors (eg, their qualifications, competence, insurance, professional affiliations, quality assurance procedures, scope of practice for which they can write them) the form and required content for producer statements the charges for accepting a statement (which should include cost recovery for undertaking regular audits), and audit procedures that ensure the ongoing integrity of the list of approved authors. |
A procedure was developed to fulfil this recommendation. |
| Maintain a register of approved producer statement authors. |
Lakes Environmental had not implemented this recommendation. |
| Require producer statements for appropriate design elements to demonstrate compliance with Clause B2 Durability of the Building Code (but not in lieu of ensuring drawings contain appropriate weathertightness details). |
Lakes Environmental had not implemented this recommendation. |
Findings of the 2007 follow-up review
Lakes Environmental's BCA manual includes a procedure for the acceptance of producer statements, although it was found that it was not currently being used. Producer statements that had been accepted were still not demonstrating compliance with Clause B2 Durability of the Building Code and, in some instances, no evidence was being provided on how the acceptance of producer statements was being assessed.
| Recommendations made to the Council |
Response from the Council |
| Ensure Lakes Environmental fully implements its policy and procedures regarding producer statements |
Lakes Environmental advised that a procedure for producer statements has been introduced, with the required information stored on the building consent application. A form is currently being developed to record this information in a more thorough manner. |
| Maintain a register of approved producer statement authors. |
Lakes Environmental had decided not to maintain an individual register, but instead to support the introduction of a shared resource across the southern building controls cluster group. Work will continue on this during August 2008. |
| Require producer statements for appropriate design elements to demonstrate compliance with Clause B2 Durability of the Building Code. |
Lakes Environmental advised it has implemented this recommendation in full. |
Conclusion
Lakes Environmental has implemented the recommendations made by the Department and now needs to consider ways of ensuring its producer statement policy and procedures are being used effectively and appropriately for its purpose (eg, via internal auditing checks).
7 - Weathertightness compliance
Purpose
To assess the Council's ability to process and inspect weathertightness compliance, with particular attention to:
- weathertightness design processing methodology
- the level and detail of consent documentation accepted and approved by the Council
- technical competency of both processing and inspection staff in relation to weathertightness compliance
- the Council's inspection systems and procedures.
Background
In response to emerging reports of building failure, the government initiated several reviews that collectively found that there had been a 'systemic failure' of the building system. The term 'systemic failure' illustrates that no single cause led to the failure; rather it was the result of a complex interplay between a number of factors. Some of the key factors involved included:
- standards of design and construction that were set at the minimum level necessary to achieve compliance, providing no margin for error
- a lack of information and capability on the design and construction side
- inadequate review of consent applications and inspections of building work, which meant that specific problems were not being consistently identified and rectified
- capability and capacity issues within the regulatory building control sector identified the need for better monitoring of emerging trends within the building control system.
The Building Act 2004 introduced a more comprehensive regulatory regime for the building control sector. The Acceptable Solution (a prescriptive means of compliance) for meeting Clause E2 External Moisture (weathertightness) of the Building Code was also updated.
Initial review findings
CivicCorp had no formal procedures for processing or inspecting weathertightness compliance. Processing checklists did not refer to individual weathertightness components that should be checked. It was also found that weathertightness processing was not being properly considered, and building officers were approving applications that did not have adequate details on weathertightness.
| Recommendations made to the Council / CivicCorp |
Action taken before the follow-up review |
| Develop a policy and procedures for assessing and approving weathertightness compliance. These should include implementing the use of comprehensive checklists for processing and inspections. |
Lakes Environmental had not implemented this recommendation although it does have new consent processing checklists. |
| Make an immediate assessment of staff competence and training requirements around weathertightness. |
Lakes Environmental had not implemented this recommendation. |
| Obtain specialist weathertightness training for inspection and processing officers. |
Lakes Environmental had partially implemented this recommendation. |
| Ensure enough time and resources are allocated to processing and inspecting building weathertightness. |
Lakes Environmental had not implemented this recommendation. |
| Implement procedures for the peer review of weathertightness processing before consent is issued and for on-site compliance before issuing a CCC. |
Lakes Environmental had not implemented this recommendation. |
| Develop strategies for targeting design professionals and other stakeholders to communicate Council expectations on the level of weathertightness detail required in the consent application for high-risk-category buildings. |
Lakes Environmental had implemented this recommendation. |
Findings of the 2007 follow-up review
Lakes Environmental did not have specific policies and procedures for the assessment of weathertightness compliance and no evidence was found that peer review of weathertightness was taking place during consent processing or inspections.
New checklists had been introduced (refer to 4.3 Consent processing procedures); however, these checklists excluded some specific details necessary to determine compliance and did not adequately cover all aspects of the Building Code. The master checklist covered weathertightness requirements well, but the reduced versions were not as detailed for weathertightness requirements.
Lakes Environmental had not done a competency assessment of its staff who do technical work. However, this has been identified in a procedure in their BCA accreditation manual and an external consultant has been engaged to do this.
Specific weathertightness training had been done, with one staff member completing a weathertightness course, and it was identified that Lakes Environmental was paying more attention to the assessment of weathertightness since the initial review. The Department still considered that ongoing technical training in weathertightness, whether internal or external, should be organised for all staff.
Lakes Environmental needed to focus on compliance with the Building Code in its entirety and ensure there were enough staff members to do this. Further information on staff and resourcing is contained further on in this report (see part 11 of the review's terms of reference).
Lakes Environmental has made presentations to the design and construction community on matters such as requirements of the Act, detailing, plans and applications for building consents.
| Recommendations made to the Council |
Response from the Council |
| Implement the recommendations from the initial review by: developing policies and procedures for assessing and approving weathertightness compliance. These should include implementing the use of comprehensive checklists for processing and inspections undertaking an immediate assessment of staff competence and training requirements in relation to weathertightness obtaining specialist weathertightness training for inspection and processing officers ensuring adequate time and resources are allocated to the processing and inspection of building weathertightness. |
Lakes Environmental advised it has: developed comprehensive checklists and procedures which have been put in place to address weathertightness aspects of building consent applications completed staff competency assessments which indicate there are appropriate weathertightness skills in the building controls team to process and inspect building work been sending, and will continue to send, staff on training courses aimed at weathertightness. |
Conclusion
Lakes Environmental has substantially implemented the Department's recommendation.
8 - Compliance with other Building Act requirements
Purpose
To examine the Council's performance on a range of other building control operations required by the Building Act.
8.1 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 Act contains a number of provisions that require or empower a territorial authority or BCA to place restrictions, limitations or advise or seek inputs from other parties on building consent matters.
One example is section 3710, which relates to the Resource Management Act (RMA) 1991. If the Council considers that an authorisation under the RMA has not been obtained, and this would materially affect the building work in question, it can attach a certificate to the consent prohibiting building work from proceeding, or limiting the extent of the work, until that authorisation has been obtained. Other provisions relate to:
Initial review findings
CivicCorp did not have a formal policy or procedures for assessing the extent of upgrade required for existing buildings undergoing alteration.
| Recommendations made to the Council/CivicCorp |
Action taken before the follow-up review |
| Develop a policy and procedures to formalise how changes of building use and alterations to buildings are addressed. |
A policy and procedures had been developed. |
| Ensure staff receive appropriate training about their obligations under these sections of the Building Act. |
Lakes Environmental had not implemented this recommendation. |
Findings of the 2007 follow-up review
Lakes Environmental has developed a policy covering change of use requirements and alterations to existing buildings. However, these policies and procedures have not been fully implemented and training in these procedures was not undertaken prior to the follow-up review. The Department found that changes of use and additions and alterations to existing buildings were assessed differently by different staff.
Lakes Environmental has developed policies and procedures for other Building Act requirements but, as above, these have not been sufficiently implemented and staff were sometimes unaware that there were procedures to follow.
| Recommendations made to the Council |
Response from the Council |
| Lakes Environmental should ensure staff receive appropriate training about their obligations under these sections of the Act. |
The Council advised it has revised and implemented its relevant processing sheet which highlights other Building Act considerations that must be taken into account when processing an application. |
Conclusion
Lakes Environmental has made progress with developing new policies, but the Department still considers it important that staff training on these Building Act provisions is provided.
8.2 Dangerous and insanitary buildings
Purpose
To consider the Council's approach to dangerous and insanitary buildings.
Background
Sections 121 and 123 of the Building Act 2004 set out the meaning of a 'dangerous' building and an 'insanitary' building. Sections 124-130 set out the powers of territorial authorities in respect of dangerous or insanitary buildings. Section 131 requires a council to develop a formal policy and procedures for dangerous or insanitary buildings.
Initial review findings
Complaints regarding dangerous or insanitary buildings are treated on a case-by-case basis. Once a formal complaint has been received, an officer will investigate the complaint and send a report to CivicCorp's Chief Executive outlining recommended action. This report is forwarded to the Council to obtain a directive for further action.
| Recommendations made to the Council/CivicCorp |
Action taken before the follow-up review |
| Develop a policy to guide its assessment, decision-making, and consequent action for buildings that are potentially dangerous or insanitary. |
The Council had fully implemented this recommendation. |
Findings of the 2007 follow-up review
The Council had developed a formal policy and procedures for dangerous and insanitary buildings, as required under section 131 of the Building Act 2004.
As detailed previously under section 4.6, Code compliance certificates, the Council had taken recent enforcement action against the owner of a dangerous building.
Conclusion
The recommendation of the initial review has been fully implemented.
8.3 Earthquake-prone buildings
Purpose
To consider how well the Council identifies and manages earthquake-prone buildings.
Background
Sections 122 of the Building Act 2004 set out the meaning of an 'earthquake-prone building'. Sections 124-130 set out the powers of territorial authorities in respect of earthquake prone-buildings. Section 131 requires a Council to develop a formal policy and procedure for earthquake-prone buildings.
Initial review findings
The initial review identified that CivicCorp had no mechanisms for identifying earthquake-prone buildings.
| Recommendations made to the Council/CivicCorp |
Action taken before the follow-up review |
| Develop a policy to guide its assessment, decision-making, and consequent action for buildings that are potentially earthquake-prone. |
The Council had fully implemented the recommendation of the initial review. |
Findings of the 2007 follow-up review
The Council has developed a formal policy and procedures for earthquake-prone buildings, as required under section 131 of the Building Act 2004.
Conclusion
The recommendation of the initial review has been fully implemented.
9 - Compliance schedules and the building warrant of fitness regime
Purpose
To evaluate the effectiveness of the Council's compliance schedule and building warrant of fitness (BWoF) regimes.
Background
Sections 100-111 of the Building Act 2004 set out the responsibilities for owners, territorial authorities and building consent authorities where buildings contain specified systems. Where specified systems (ie, fire alarm systems, lifts etc) are installed in a building, the building must have a compliance schedule issued with the last code compliance certificate and the owner must maintain a BWoF.
Initial review findings
While building officers were required to complete a compliance schedule form identifying the building's features, this was not always happening. The Department found that there was little monitoring of compliance or follow-up of overdue certificates and that 123 of the Council's 381 BWoFs had expired.
| Recommendations made to the Council/CivicCorp |
Action taken before the follow-up review |
| Ensure the Council can meet its statutory compliance schedule obligations and that all outstanding warrant of fitness certificates are followed up and all buildings involved are fully compliant. |
Lakes Environmental had not implemented this recommendation. |
| Develop a policy and procedures for issuing and amending compliance schedules, including the new Building Act 2004 requirements. |
Lakes Environmental had developed new policy. |
| Provide adequate resource to ensure: all BWoFs supplied under section 108 are correct every report provided under section 110 is correct. |
Lakes Environmental had not implemented this recommendation. |
Findings of the 2007 follow-up review
Lakes Environmental has developed a policy and procedure for issuing and amending compliance schedules; however, this procedure has not been formally implemented.
The follow-up review found that Lakes Environmental had one technical staff member and one administrative staff member dedicated to managing compliance schedules and BWoFs. Lakes Environmental used a procedure where the administrative officer entered BWoF and Form 12A information in the NCS computer system once it was received from the building owner. No audit or review of this information was conducted.
At the time of the review, a total of 131 BWoFs had not been provided to Lakes Environmental. These BWoFs are not actively followed up due to high workloads and resource issues. This could be a potential risk to the public if any specified system was not operational in any of the 131 buildings identified.
| Recommendations made to the Council |
Response from the Council |
| Lakes Environmental should: take immediate steps to ensure the Council can meet its statutory compliance schedule obligations and that all outstanding BWoFs are followed up and all buildings involved are fully compliant develop review procedures for BWoF and Form 12As received from building owners to ensure that all inspection and maintenance reports are included for each specified system, and provide adequate resource to ensure: - all BWoFs supplied under section 108 are correct, and - every report provided under section 110 is correct. |
Lakes Environmental advised that additional administration staff (1.5 FTE) have been used to assist with follow-up on outstanding building warrant of fitness certificates and the provision of Form 12A building information. BWoF procedures between the Queenstown and Wanaka offices are being reviewed and a system of planned auditing of buildings requiring compliance schedules will be introduced. The Council is also considering charging applicants for this service. |
Conclusion
Lakes Environmental has partially implemented the review recommendations by recruiting additional staff and reviewing its current procedures. However, it still needs to complete its implementation and ensure that the system is adequate.
10 - Accessibility compliance
Purpose
To examine the Council's application and enforcement of the Building Code's requirements for access and facilities for people with disabilities.
Background
The Building Act and Building Code contain requirements to ensure people with disabilities are able to enter and carry out normal activities and functions within buildings. These provisions include sections 117-120. There are a range of training courses available for staff to enhance their knowledge and skills in this area.
Initial review findings
CivicCorp had no formal policy for accessibility compliance. Case studies of completed buildings also identified instances of accessibility non-compliance.
| Recommendations made to the Council/CivicCorp |
Action taken before the follow-up review |
| Develop a policy and procedures to assist building control processing and inspection staff to assess accessibility compliance and require building officers to formally document the reason for any requests to upgrade facilities. |
Lakes Environmental had fully implemented this recommendation. |
| Provide appropriate training opportunities to building control processing and inspection staff. |
Lakes Environmental had fully implemented this recommendation. |
Findings of the 2007 follow-up review
Lakes Environmental had developed policies, procedures and systems for accessibility compliance. TS16 Access to Buildings for People with Disabilities is contained in their BCA manual and reiterates the requirements of the Act and sets out the procedures to ensure accessibility requirements are met. The procedures refer to systems that feature in Lakes Environmental's processing checklist CS19.3.
In part 4.3, the Department found that Lakes Environmental's reduced checklists excluded some specific details necessary to determine compliance and did not adequately cover all aspects of the Building Code. This was not the case for accessibility requirements, which were covered more comprehensively than the 'master checklist'.
The Department observed an improvement in the overall compliance with the accessibility provisions of the Building Code when viewing completed buildings and observing building consent processing activity. The Department considered that this improvement has been achieved through a greater understanding of accessibility requirements, staff training and a greater emphasis being placed on this issue by the Building Act 2004.
Conclusion
The Department's recommendations were implemented.
11 - Human resources
Purpose
To assess the strength and depth of the Council's building control human resource capacity and how effectively it is being used.
Background
Increased building activity over the last few years has significantly increased the workload of building control staff. Territorial authorities and building consent authorities are able to address this by increasing staff levels and by using existing staff more effectively. Opportunities to increase staff levels are limited in the short term because the national supply of appropriately qualified and experienced new staff is inadequate.
Initial review findings
Workloads were high and staff resourcing was not adequate to enable statutory timeframes to be achieved. Further capacity was also needed to reduce the backlog of 6500 building consents without code compliance certificates.
| Recommendations made to the Council/CivicCorp |
Action taken before the follow-up review |
| Undertake a review of the human resource requirements for its building control operations. |
An informal review was undertaken. |
| Recruit and train additional staff to enable it to meet building control work volumes and legislative building control responsibilities. |
Four staff had been recruited and had informal in-house training. |
| Develop a long-term strategic plan for recruitment and retention of building control processing and inspection staff that will enable it to meet current statutory obligations. |
The Council had not implemented this recommendation. |
Findings of the 2007 follow-up review
Although Lakes Environmental advised that an informal review of the human resource requirements for its building control operations had been done, this review was not recorded. The Department found that, although four new staff were recruited in the last six months of 2007, Lakes Environmental still required additional people for the day-to-day building consent and inspection workload. Evidence indicated that statutory timeframes for issuing building consents were not being consistently met and that overdue BWoFs were not being actively followed up. They were also not following up old building consents that do not have a code compliance certificate.
The Department found that Lakes Environmental had not formally developed a long-term strategic plan for recruitment and retention of building control processing and inspection staff. No written records existed to show how this was to be achieved.
| Recommendations made to the Council |
Response from the Council |
| Undertake a formal review of the human resource requirements for its building control operations. |
Lakes Environmental advised that continual review of resource requirements and weekly reporting of volumes of applications and consent processing had been undertaken. |
| Recruit and train additional staff to enable it to meet building control work volumes and legislative building control responsibilities. |
Lakes Environmental has recruited two additional staff to add to the building control officer resource, and a further 1.5 people to carry out building administration functions. |
| Develop a long-term strategic plan for the recruitment and retention of building control processing and inspection staff that will enable it to meet current statutory obligations. |
Lakes Environmental advised that, as a result of the increased staff numbers, it has attained satisfactory compliance with statutory timeframes for the processing of building consents. |
Conclusion
Lakes Environmental has made good progress to implement the Department's recommendations. Staff resourcing concerns underpin many of the problems identified in this report and it is vital that Lakes Environmental continues to monitor its resource requirements and develop a long-term recruitment strategic plan.
12 - Technical knowledge and ability of staff
Purpose
To examine the technical knowledge of building control staff and the provisions that have been made for staff training and up-skilling.
Background
Building control is becoming progressively more complex as new building materials gain wider use and housing density increases. Construction methods now allow for fewer margins for error and the technical knowledge of building control staff must increase with that trend.
Initial review findings
Despite most of CivicCorp's building officers having building control experience, Building Code and Building Act compliance was not being consistently achieved. The Department considered that CivicCorp required a formal staff training strategy, and more investment in ongoing professional development. Although informal work-related discussions were occurring in the course of processing, there was no formal time allocated for meetings or in-house training. Additionally, CivicCorp had not developed a skills matrix identifying staff competencies and training requirements, and did not have comprehensive audit systems for demonstrating how compliance with the Building Code was being achieved.
| Recommendations made to the Council |
Response from the Council |
| Undertake a formal review of the human resource requirements for its building control operations. |
Lakes Environmental advised that continual review of resource requirements and weekly reporting of volumes of applications and consent processing had been undertaken. |
| Recruit and train additional staff to enable it to meet building control work volumes and legislative building control responsibilities. |
Lakes Environmental has recruited two additional staff to add to the building control officer resource, and a further 1.5 people to carry out building administration functions. |
| Develop a long-term strategic plan for the recruitment and retention of building control processing and inspection staff that will enable it to meet current statutory obligations. |
Lakes Environmental advised that, as a result of the increased staff numbers, it has attained satisfactory compliance with statutory timeframes for the processing of building consents. |
Findings of the 2007 follow-up review
Lakes Environmental did not have an appropriate procedure to do a full assessment of technical competence. It had developed a staff self-assessment procedure; however, no formal competency reviews were done prior to the follow-up review. Lakes Environmental advised that a consultant had been engaged to develop, conduct and document competency assessments for staff.
A skills matrix had also been developed. However, this had not been populated and was subject to the findings from the consultant engaged to do the competency assessments.
Training had been done, but only formal training courses have been recorded. Internal training by staff who had completed training courses or were experienced in the subject matter, technical reading, and peer review processes needed to be better recorded. Lakes Environmental had not assessed the outcomes or implementation of any training.
Training needs identified included training for vetting and processing staff on change of use and compliance schedule requirements. Staff training that had been provided included accessibility training (through the Barrier Free New Zealand Trust), weathertightness training and various BRANZ Limited and Building Officials Institute of New Zealand (BOINZ) courses, seminars and conferences.
As stated in part 4.5, no formal mechanism for peer reviewing consent processing and inspection work had been developed.
| Recommendations made to the Council |
Response from the Council |
| Complete the planned review of its collective technical competence in assessing Building Code compliance. |
Lakes Environmental advised the assessment of technical competence for processing and inspection staff had been completed. This review found there was adequate competence to cover the range of building work encountered in the district. |
| Complete the skills matrix to identify required levels of staff competence and training needs, along with a short to medium-term strategy to meet these training needs. |
Lakes Environmental undertakes training assessment needs on an ongoing basis, with specific training courses targeted to complement the skills of individuals. |
| Ensure the necessary training continues to occur (especially in weathertightness compliance and the requirements of the new Building Act 2004). |
Lakes Environmental advised that training courses are ongoing. Staff attended a weathertightness course in Christchurch in early 2008, and another is planned for October 2008. |
| Ensure specific building consent and inspection work is only allocated to those who are technically competent to undertake it. |
Lakes Environmental considers the range of skills identified in its completed competency assessments show it has staff with skills appropriate for its requirements. |
| Implement quality assurance mechanisms, including sourcing additional technical resources to peer review and undertake quality audits of consent processing, inspections, and approval work. |
Lakes Environmental has implemented some elements of internal audits which will form part of a continual review process. |
Conclusion
The Council has substantially implemented the Department's recommendations.
13 - Adequacy of resources
Purpose
To examine the resources that building control staff have at their disposal.
Background
Building control staff effectiveness can be enhanced if they have access to aids and resources such as a technical reference library, digital cameras and moisture meters.
Initial review findings
CivicCorp's technical staff had access to Building Code documentation and relevant standards, but the level of technical literature available was not extensive. In particular, the Building Code and standards were not up to date.
| Recommendations made to the Council/CivicCorp |
Action taken before the follow-up review |
| Ensure technical literature is continuously kept up to date. |
The Council had not implemented this recommendation. |
Findings of the 2007 follow-up review
The Department found that there was no system to ensure technical literature was being managed effectively. Out-of-date New Zealand Standards and manufacturers' technical literature was still being used.
Both up-to-date and superseded technical literature must be available for staff. This needs to be well managed to ensure the correct technical literature is used.
The space that Lakes Environmental's staff operates in is limited. When Lakes Environmental expands and employs new staff, it is likely to be difficult to provide enough room to effectively undertake its delegated regulatory duties. Technological resources (computers, computer systems and copying equipment) are currently appropriate, but will need to be increased when new staff is employed.
| Recommendations made to the Council |
Response from the Council |
| Ensure technical literature is continuously kept up to date and appropriate facilities are available to staff. |
The building control area of the Queenstown office has been redeveloped and provides appropriate space for staff. A Register of Standards has been produced. An audit of the technical literature resulted in an update of all documentation. Technical literature is continually updated, although increasing reliance is placed on electronic information. Lakes Environmental advised it is still the applicant's responsibility to provide the required current information with an application. |
Conclusion
The Council has implemented the Department's recommendations.
14 - Adequacy, security and availability of public records
Purpose
To assess the Council's record-keeping processes and facilities, including the access it provides to the public.
Background
Sections 216 and 217 of the Building Act 2004 set out the broad record-keeping requirements for territorial authorities and building consent authorities.
Initial review findings
The public record storage room was secure, but it was not fire proof.
| Recommendations made to the Council/CivicCorp |
Action taken before the follow-up review |
| Review its record keeping facilities and consider providing secure and fire-proof storage of public records or alternative measures to ensure these records are kept for the life of the buildings they relate to. |
The Council had not implemented this recommendation. |
Findings of the 2007 follow-up review
The fire rating of Lakes Environmental's public record storage room has not been done.
Lakes Environmental must ensure records about the administration of its functions under the Building Act, for example inspection records, are kept.
| Recommendations made to the Council |
Response from the Council |
| Review record-keeping facilities in accordance with its obligations under the Public Records Act 2005. |
Lakes Environmental continued to store and archive the Council's files. An investigation and negotiation is under way into the option of electronic storage, and retrieval, of property information which will add another level of security to the files and documentation on hand. |
Conclusion
The Council has progressed the Department's recommendations.
Note: Since the initial review, the Public Records Act 2005 has come into force. This Act puts in place a framework for organisations who keep public records. A 'Storage Standard' was issued by the Chief Archivist in June 2007 with certain requirements, including protection from fire, to be considered and assessed, and appropriate steps taken. Information on the storage standard and the Public Records Act can be found at www.archives.govt.nz There are also record-keeping requirements that are relevant to how Councils' provide access to building records under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 and the Privacy Act 1993.
Although compliance with these Acts is not within the terms of reference of this review, we recommend that the Council review record-keeping procedures to ensure it is meeting its statutory obligations under other legislation.
15 - Relationships with building certifiers and other territorial authorities
Purpose
To identify any specific issues arising from the Council's dealings with private building certifiers and other territorial authorities.
Background
Building certifiers no longer operate within the current legislative framework, and so this part of the review is no longer relevant. The Department does, however, encourage councils to foster relationships with neighbouring territorial authorities (amongst other organisations) to help achieve consistency and improvement in their regions.
Initial review findings
The Council did not have formal policy or procedures for dealing with other building certifiers.
Findings of the 2007 follow-up review
All private building certifiers had exited the New Zealand market by late 2005 and, as such, the findings regarding certifiers are no longer relevant.
The Department found that the Council had positive and interactive relationships with its neighbouring territorial authorities and is part of the Southern Building Controls Group.
16 - Case studies of completed buildings
Purpose
To prepare 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 covered in 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. Sometimes, however, 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 case studies were used to support and reinforce the more general review findings outlined in the report.
Initial review findings
The case studies found:
- that the consent documentation supplied by the Council (via CivicCorp) for the case studies, did not demonstrate to the Department that the buildings would comply with the Building Code if constructed in accordance with the plans and specification supplied
- instances of non-compliant details in buildings to which the Council (via CivicCorp) had issued code compliance certificates. There were a range of non-compliant details, but accessibility and weathertightness compliance were of particular concern
- that important inspections considered fundamental to assessing compliance were not being done
- that building officers' inspection notes were considered brief and provided little information on what was observed or what elements had been checked.
| Recommendations made to the Council/CivicCorp |
Action taken before the follow-up review |
| Note the case studies collectively found that improvements are required in: procedures for dealing with consent applications with insufficient information processing and inspection methodology to ensure inspection documentation is complete, and that compliance is consistently achieved for all clauses of the Building Code. Particular attention should be given to improving compliance with accessibility and weathertightness requirements 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 processes for documenting alternative solutions and the basis for their acceptance or rejection training programmes that increase technical knowledge recruitment programmes that meet both short and long-term staff needs. |
Most of the recommendations had not been implemented prior to the follow-up review. |
Findings of the 2007 follow-up review
The Department found that Lakes Environmental was still facing most of the same compliance issues that were found in the initial review. The main findings were that Lakes Environmental:
- has accepted building consent applications that lack sufficient detail and evidence to ensure compliance with the Building Code (see terms of reference 4.1, Consent application vetting and lodgement requirements)
- has used conditions to cover deficient documentation (see terms of reference 4.4 Use of notations and endorsements on consent documents)
- needs to strengthen its inspection activities as they lack formal processes and documentation. In particular, all relevant information is not documented on inspection sheets and some inspections that should have been required were not being done (see terms of reference 17, Accompanying personnel during inspections), and
- staff have not applied new policy guidelines, for example regarding alternative solutions, and may need training (see terms of reference 5, Assessing alternative solutions for building compliance).
| Recommendations made to the Council |
Response from the Council |
| Continue to work on implementing the recommendations identified in the case studies, as discussed throughout this report. In particular improvements are required in: procedures for dealing with consent applications with insufficient information processing and inspection methodology to ensure inspection documentation is complete, and that compliance is consistently achieved for all clauses of the Building Code documentation of its decision-making for processing and inspections, including how the Council was satisfied on reasonable grounds that Building Code compliance was, or would be, achieved processes for documenting alternative solutions and the basis for their acceptance or rejection training programmes that increase technical knowledge, and recruitment programmes that meet both short and long - term staff needs. |
Lakes Environmental advised that it is continuing to tighten procedures for dealing with consent applications, and a number of applications with insufficient information are being rejected. Revised processing checklists have been implemented and contain a level of detail to allow the accurate processing of building consent applications. Lakes Environmental was now documenting processing and inspection decisions, as well as reasons for decisions. Alternative solutions are considered as part of the building consent processing stage. External, as well as internal, training will continue to be provided to Lakes Environmental staff members. |
Conclusion
Lakes Environmental has made significant progress to implement the Department's recommendations. Continued effort will be required to ensure all policies and procedures are being used accurately by staff and that compliance with all aspects of the Building Act and Building Code is maintained.
17 - Accompanying personnel during inspections
Purpose
To assess the effectiveness of inspectors' building control processes, how they use the Council's inspection methodology, the level of building compliance achieved, and how inspectors interact on site with consent applicants and builders/contractors.
Background
The inspection processes and the effectiveness of the inspectors are critical to the overall effectiveness of the building control process. This section of the review involved accompanying the inspectors during their normal inspection workload. Observations from the Department often reinforce observations made during the case studies of completed buildings (see terms of reference 16).
Initial review findings
Recording by inspectors of the observed inspection findings was sometimes inadequate. Notes were brief and provided little information on what was observed by the building officers. Check sheets were also very basic and provided limited information about which elements had been checked.
| Recommendations made to the Council / CivicCorp |
Action taken before the follow-up review |
| Review and enhance its inspection methodology by: developing a comprehensive inspection checklist to ensure compliance with the Building Code is achieved and that the process is documented. Any conditions of consent or requirements identified during processing must be included on the inspection checklist developing robust record-keeping and reporting systems to support the inspection processes ensuring all inspections required to confirm compliance are done ensuring on-site amendments are documented and reviewed in a way that clearly demonstrates how Code compliance was achieved doing regular audits of its inspections to determine if compliance with the Building Code was demonstrated. |
The Council had not implemented the recommendations. |
Findings of the 2007 follow-up review
Inspection records identified 23 types of inspection that could be done on building work. Completed inspection records showed inconsistency between inspectors. Some recorded only items that were not approved, while some recorded what was inspected, approved and whether remedial work was required.
Lakes Environmental had not developed or implemented comprehensive checklists for its inspections, with the exception of the final inspection checklist CS30.2. This checklist has been designed to include both residential and commercial final inspections; however, it is considered by the Department to be generic and simplistic. For example, the commercial section consisted of five headings with prompts which covered only a small proportion of the requirements of the Building Code.
Lakes Environmental did not undertake any on-site auditing of inspections.
The case studies have identified that complete inspection records are not being appropriately transferred to the building consent file.
| Recommendations made to the Council |
Response from the Council |
| Continue to work on implementing the recommendations identified in the case studies, as discussed throughout this report. In particular improvements are required in: procedures for dealing with consent applications with insufficient information processing and inspection methodology to ensure inspection documentation is complete, and that compliance is consistently achieved for all clauses of the Building Code documentation of its decision-making for processing and inspections, including how the Council was satisfied on reasonable grounds that Building Code compliance was, or would be, achieved processes for documenting alternative solutions and the basis for their acceptance or rejection training programmes that increase technical knowledge, and recruitment programmes that meet both short and long - term staff needs. |
Lakes Environmental advised that it is continuing to tighten procedures for dealing with consent applications, and a number of applications with insufficient information are being rejected. Revised processing checklists have been implemented and contain a level of detail to allow the accurate processing of building consent applications. Lakes Environmental was now documenting processing and inspection decisions, as well as reasons for decisions. Alternative solutions are considered as part of the building consent processing stage. External, as well as internal, training will continue to be provided to Lakes Environmental staff members. |
Conclusion
The Department's recommendations have been partially implemented.
18 - Feedback from the Council
Under section 276(2)(a) of the Building Act 2004, the Department, when carrying out technical reviews, must give territorial authorities a reasonable opportunity to make written submissions on the review. In accordance with this, the Department provided several opportunities for the Council to submit feedback and, at each stage of the review process the Department has sought feedback from the Council. When provided and where possible, this has been incorporated under each of the terms of reference used as the basis for the review.
Lakes Environmental Limited's feedback on this report has been incorporated throughout the report as appropriate. No additional comment was made for this section.
Back to Top
Next steps
Further reviews
The Department will continue to carry out technical reviews of territorial authorities and building consent authorities including further reviews of Queenstown Lakes District Council, in accordance with its statutory requirements under the Building Act 2004.
New system of accreditation and registration
The Department's technical reviews are an important tool for territorial authorities and building consent authorities to assess their readiness and assist their preparation, for the new regulatory system introduced by the Building Act 2004. The Building Consent Authority Accreditation and Registration Scheme will regulate building control provided at the local level. This will bring about significant changes to regulatory building control in New Zealand.
Accreditation in the building control sector aims to strengthen the decision-making processes at the critical building consent and inspection stages of the building process. Successful implementation will bring about greater consistency in regulatory building control across New Zealand. It will help lead to performance improvements, raised standards in the sector, and greater consumer confidence in the system.
Under the Act, organisations wanting to undertake building control functions must be registered as building consent authorities. In order to be registered, an organisation must be accredited by the Building Consent Accreditation Body (International Accreditation New Zealand) as a building consent authority.
The Department's Consent Authority Capability and Performance Group is leading the work to implement this new system. The accreditation process is involving prospective building consent authorities being assessed by the independent accreditation body against a set of standards and criteria Building (Accreditation of Building Consent Authorities) Regulations 2006 covering key components of good-practice regulatory building control.
The accreditation assessment process will incorporate many of the critical regulatory building control components of the Department's existing technical review process. The Building (Accreditation of Building Consent Authorities) Regulations 2006 have a strong industry focus and cover three key areas.
- 1. Formal policies, systems and processes
- 2. Technical competence
- 3. Quality assurance
Further information
Further information about both the technical review programme and the Building Consent Authority Accreditation and Registration Scheme can be accessed online at www.dbh.govt.nz
Guidance documentation
Under section 175 of the Building Act 2004, the Chief Executive (of the Department of Building and Housing) may publish information for guidance for territorial authorities and building consent authorities. The Department has published a range of guidance information to assist territorial authorities and building consent authorities in understanding how to comply with the Building Act 2004 and their building control responsibilities. This includes:
- Building Officials' Guide to the Building Act 2004 (August 2005, second edition)
- Building Consent Authority Development Guide (February 2006)
- Building Consent Authority Accreditation Preparation and Self-assessment Guide (February 2007)
- Building Officials' FAQs (August 2005)
- Earthquake-prone building provisions of the Building Act 2004: Policy guidance for territorial authorities
- Dangerous and insanitary building provisions of the Building Act 2004: Policy guidance for territorial authorities
- External moisture - a guide to using the risk matrix
- External moisture - An introduction to weathertightness design principles
- Critical requirements for the Assessment of 'Monolithic Cladding' (April 2004)
- Practice Advisory 6: Achieve best practice - every step of the way
- Practice Advisory 5: Allow for movement
- Reinforcing steel in New Zealand - A quick guide for designers, building consent authorities and contractors.
- Guide to applying for a building consent (simple, residential buildings) (January 2007)
This and other guidance information is available online at www.dbh.govt.nz The Department also participates regularly in workshops and conferences to provide updates and information to the sector.
Back to Top
Notes