Technical review of the building control operations of Ruapehu district council - summary report

March 2007

Contents:

• Important notice to people reading this technical review report
• Summary of main findings
• Overview
• Roles of the Department of Building and Housing and the Council
• Purpose of the Technical review
• The review process
• Key findings of the review
• Next steps

---

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consent authorities of their functions under the Building Act 2004 (the Act) and, previously, the Building Act 1991(now repealed).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 help 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 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 (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
• 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.

Back to Top

---

Summary of main findings

The Department notes that some improvements to staff numbers have been made by Ruapehu District Council (the Council). However, it considers that significant improvements are still required to the Council's building control operations to ensure it is able to meet its obligations under the Building Act 2004. Particular attention needs to be given to:

• procedures for determining compliance with the Building Code
• developing quality assurance systems and processes
• the management of contracts with external providers
• the technical skills, expertise and knowledge in and available to the Council
• developing policies and procedures to underpin the Council's building control operations.

Procedures for determining compliance with the Building Code

The Council needs to ensure it has robust policies and procedures in place for vetting and processing building consent applications and assessing whether buildings will, or do, comply with the Building Code. The Department identified a large number of examples of consent applications being accepted with insufficient information to demonstrate compliance with the Building Code or Act. Case studies also revealed instances of insufficient documentation available to establish a sound audit trail for processing consents, carrying out inspections, compliance decisions made by the Council, reasons for such decisions, and subsequent actions taken. Before issuing a building consent or code compliance certificate, the Council must be satisfied, and document why it is satisfied, that the building will or does meet all relevant clauses of the Building Code and Act.

Quality-assurance processes

The Council needs to put appropriate systems and processes in place to assure the quality of its building control systems, processes and decisions. The Department identified that neither building control decisions made by Council staff nor consent processing decisions made by an external contractor (another territorial authority) are being peer reviewed, and the Council does not undertake quality audits or peer review activities. The Department considers quality assurance mechanisms to be critical for organisations carrying out regulatory building control, and these should be incorporated into the Council's standard operating procedures. These procedures should include peer review of decisions, and regular audits of decision-making, including issuing building consents, conducting inspections, assessing alternative solution proposals and accepting producer statements.

Managing contracts with external providers

The Council needs to review its management of contracts with external providers. The Department identified that processing for the majority of building consent applications is being contracted to an external provider (another territorial authority). The agreement does not specify the acceptable level and quality of service to be provided, or processes for reviewing the service provided. Case studies revealed that all building consents were issued despite there being insufficient information to demonstrate compliance with the Building Code or Act.

The Department recommends that the Council review the extent of the processing work it contracts out, and the external provider(s) it uses to ensure all consent processing work consistently complies with all building legislation. The Council should ensure the contract clearly defines the roles, scope, responsibilities and obligations of each party, and specifies performance measures, and monitoring and review processes.Contractors should also be required to comply with the Council's policies and procedures for undertaking building control functions (for example, peer review processes and allocating work according to a skills matrix of technical abilities).

Technical knowledge available to the Council

The Council needs to strengthen the technical knowledge and expertise in and available to the building control unit. The Department identified significant limitations in the unit's collective technical building control and compliance knowledge and skill sets, which was reinforced by the level of non-compliance found in building consents reviewed, case studies, inspections and site visits undertaken. The Council needs to develop a technical skills matrix for assessing building control staff and contractors to identify skills gaps and training needs, and ensure staff work within their areas of expertise. The Council should ensure all staff are provided with adequate ongoing professional development and training, and engage external expertise in cases where it does not have the in-house technical capability or capacity to assess a specific design area (as other councils do).

Policies processes and procedures to underpin the Council's building control operations

Formal policies, processes and procedures are required to underpin all aspects of the Council's building control operations. Formal policies and procedures identify best practice, help to achieve consistency of practice and can act as a training tool for less experienced staff. The Department identified a need for formal policies, processes and procedures, supported by training, in the following areas:

• vetting building consent applications
• accepting producer statements
• processing building consent applications
• assessing weathertightness compliance
• inspections
• assessing accessibility compliance
• managing relationships with external contractors
• building on land subject to natural hazards
• using notations
• alterations to existing buildings
• peer review and quality assurance processes
• change of use and extension of building life
• assessing proposed alternative solutions
• issuing compliance schedules and building warrants of fitness.

Need for immediate action

The Department is concerned that, while some progress has been made, the Council has not made significant improvement to its performance and has not implemented the majority of the Department's recommendations over the past 2 years. Some of these issues were identified during a technical review of the Council's building control operations carried out by the former Building Industry Authority in 1996, as well as in the Department's reviews in 2004 and 2006.

Under the Building Act 2004, the Council is obliged to be accredited as a building consent authority by 30 November 2007. The findings of this review indicate that the Council must undertake significant and urgent work if it is to obtain accreditation.

Back to Top

---

Overview

Purpose

The purpose of this document is to provide a summary of the results of a technical review of the building control operations of Ruapehu District Council (the Council) carried out between January 2004 and July 2006.

This document outlines:

• the role of the Department and the Council in regulatory building control
• the methodology used in the review
• the Department's main findings and recommendations
• the Council's progress to action the recommendations
• areas requiring further improvement.

Before the Department of Building and Housing was established in 2004, technical reviews were performed by the former Building Industry Authority (BIA). This particular review was initiated by the BIA and was completed by the Department.

The Council

Ruapehu District Council services an area of approximately 6730 km² and has an estimated population of 12,650 (as at June 2006). The Council employs 63 staff to carry out its various roles in the district. There are four full-time equivalent building control staff to carry out its regulatory building control functions. The Department recognises that the Council, as with many other territorial authorities, has a challenging task in a busy environment.

Review process

Technical reviews involve a three-phase process designed to help territorial authorities improve their regulatory building control operations. They are carried out by the Department's Consent Authority Capability and Performance Group. Technical reviews usually span a period of approximately 12 months and examine a territorial authority's or building consent authority's building control operations under 18 broad criteria at an initial visit, and then again at a follow-up visit approximately 12 months later. The final phase of the review process is the production of a summary technical review report that identifies the main review findings and recommendations, and the territorial authority's response to those findings, across the whole three-phase review.

Main findings

The Department identified a number of areas for improvement at the Council and made a range of recommendations across the 18 criteria. Recommendations from the initial and follow-up visits can be categorised into three main areas.

• Ensuring the Council complies with its statutory obligations
• Ensuring adequate resourcing of the Council's building control operations
• Ensuring the Council has sound systems, processes and procedures to underpin its regulatory building control operations

Initial review

The first phase of the review was undertaken by the BIA in January 2004. The review identified that the Council was facing significant challenges in ensuring building work complied with all of the requirements of the Building Code at all stages of the consent processing, inspection and approval process, and highlighted a number of areas for improvement. These included:

• building capacity and capability in the Council's building control operation by recruiting additional staff, providing staff with adequate training opportunities, and developing a staff competency and technical skills matrix
• implementing rigorous quality-assurance mechanisms such as peer review processes, audits of building control decisions, and using checklists to ensure compliance with the Building Code is properly assessed and documented
• ensuring stakeholders are aware of the Council's expectations of the quality of consent documentation required, and of general construction quality and standards.

The initial review noted that some of these issues had been identified in the BIA's previous technical review of the Council's building control operations in 1996.

Follow-up review

The Department returned to the Council in July 2006 to carry out a follow-up review.

This found the Council had responded to some of the initial review recommendations but many areas still required significant improvement. These included:

• assessing the collective technical skills of building control staff and implementing strategies to ensure it has the requisite skills and experience to undertake its building control functions
• implementing quality-assurance systems at each stage of the Council's building consent processing, inspection and approval process
• ensuring contracts with external providers clearly define the roles, responsibilities and expectations of each party and include specific performance measures and review processes
• developing policies and procedures to underpin all areas of its building control operations and ensuring staff are aware of, and abide by, these policies and procedures.

Conclusion

The Department conducted two reviews of the building control operations of Ruapehu District Council in 2004 and 2006. Since the initial review the Department has produced a range of guidance information focusing on developing good practices in regulatory building control, has presented at a number of training seminars and conferences where improving performance has been the focus, and has been working with sector representatives on building consent authority accreditation. These actions have been undertaken by the Department to provide support and guidance for Councils. Despite this support, Ruapehu District Council has made very little progress in implementing the recommendations made in the Department's review reports and has, for the most part, failed to improve its level of performance and building control outcomes. In particular, the Council is still facing unacceptably high levels of non-compliance with its obligations under the Act, Building Code and Building Regulations.

The Department has a role to play in helping to achieve efficient and effective building control practices in the industry, and aims to do this through collective input from itself, territorial authorities and building consent authorities, building practitioners and other relevant industry stakeholders. The Department will continue to carry out technical reviews of territorial authorities and building consent authorities, including further reviews of Ruapehu District Council, in accordance with its statutory requirements under the Building Act 2004.

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 about 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 completing the technical review process for Ruapehu District 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 industry stakeholders
• investigating and resolving complaints about performance issues
• providing guidance and advice to the regulatory building control industry.

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 granted or refused
• 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 fix¹.

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 fulfil their obligations under the Building Act 2004. The review is a tool to help a territorial authority or building consent authority to:

• enhance the performance of its building control activities
• implement appropriate systems, processes and resources 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. In November 2004, the Department assumed responsibility for conducting technical reviews, including completing reviews initiated by the former Building Industry Authority (BIA).

The Building Act 2004 repealed the Building Act 1991. However, the functions of the Chief Executive of the Department of Building and Housing for technical reviews have been carried over³. This provides the mandate for the Department to complete technical reviews initiated by the BIA and to commence new reviews.

Parts of this technical review examined Ruapehu District Council's performance of its statutory building control obligations under various sections of the Building Act 1991. Because this Act was repealed and replaced by the Building Act 2004, this report contains footnotes that outline the 1991 Act's equivalent sections in the Building Act 2004. These footnotes are intended as broad summaries only and are not intended to provide a definitive outline of the new legislation. Further information on the comparable sections of the two Acts is provided in the Department's publication Building Officials' Guide to the Building Act 2004.⁴

Back to Top

---

The review process

Review timeframe

Technical reviews are undertaken using a three-phase process, which usually takes approximately 12 months from start to finish.

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 6 to 9 months.

Phase two: A follow-up review is undertaken 6 to 9 months after completion of phase one, which 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.

Phase three: 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 for Ruapehu District Council.

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, checklists, manuals and 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

Figure 3: Conducting reviews

The January 2004 on-site visit to Ruapehu District Council was undertaken over a 3-day period using a two-person team. In July 2006 the follow-up review on-site visit was undertaken over a 3-day period using a three-person team. This provided a snapshot of the Council's building control operation at these points in time. The Department looked at the processes undertaken in processing and approving building consents and undertaking inspections, including for work that had recently been completed and had code compliance certificates issued. These case studies were selected randomly.

Terms of reference

The table below sets out the 18 broad terms of reference that were the basis for the technical review of Ruapehu District Council's building control operations.

Terms of reference for technical review
1	Organisational and management structure.
2	Consent statistics.
3	Use of the prcessing clock.
4	Procedures for determining compliance with the Building Code. Consent application vetting and lodgement processes Building consent processing Use of notations and endorsements on building consent documents Peer review Use of external assessment Audit trail for determining compliance
5	Assessing alternative solutions.
6	Procedures for accepting producer statements.
7	Weathertightness compliance.
8	Compliance with other Building Act requirements.
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 inspections.
18	Feedback from the Council to the Department.

Back to Top

---

Key findings of the review

The main findings across the technical review are set out under 18 broad criteria. The summary focuses on where recommendations were made by the Department. However, the reader should note that recommendations were not always made for each of the 18 criteria during each of the two review visits made to Ruapehu District Council (the Council).

The Department made no recommendations in its January 2004 initial report for criteria 2, 3, 14 and 15. Information for these areas informs the review of other criteria and is provided in the summary report, where available.

Criterion 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. This criterion also considers how the Council delegates its legislative powers, duties and responsibilities.

Background

Section 78 of the Building Act 1991 covers the delegation of powers of territorial authorities⁵. This section links to Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002, which sets out local authorities' broad powers of delegation.

Initial review

At the time of the initial review, the Council had one building control officer and was contracting out much of its building consent processing work to another territorial authority. The Council had recognised the need for additional staff and was advertising for another building control officer.

Recommendations to the Council	Action taken by the Council before the follow-up review
Recruit additional technical staff to fill exsisting vacancies.	The Council employed three new building control staff.
Ensure delegations have been made for all sections of the Building Act that require authorised officers to perform statutory functions, duties or powers.	The Department was unable to assess the Council's progress in implementing this recommendation as delegations were not supplied to the review team.
Ensure operations are being undertaken only by appropriately delegated officers.	The Council advised taht measures were put in place to ensure only delegated officers sign official documents, project information memoranda and building consents.

Follow-up review

The follow-up review identified that three new building control staff had been recruited following the January 2004 review: two new building control officers and a team leader responsible for regulatory building services (including building control). The Council's organisational chart is shown in Figure 2.

Figure 3: Ruapehu District Council structure for building controls

The Council advised that, after receiving the January 2004 review report, measures were put in place to ensure only delegated officers would sign official documents, project information memoranda and building consents. The Council did not provide copies of delegations or delegated authorities and so the Department was unable to assess whether they have been amended to reflect the Building Act 2004 and to ensure appropriate delegations have been made.

The Council did provide copies of staff warrants. The Department found that warrants issued under the Resource Management Act 1991 and the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987 were correct, but that warrants issued under the Building Act 2004 and the Local Government Act 2002 did not accurately reflect the powers conferred by that legislation.

Conclusion

The Department considers that the Council's organisational structure is satisfactory for the level and type of building control it undertakes.

However, the Council must ensure its staff warrants are valid and are issued in the appropriate manner by the appropriate individual. Human resources are discussed further in criterion 11.

Criterion 2 - Consent statistics

Purpose

To review a series of building control statistics to provide an indication of the volume of work the Council has to manage.

Initial review

The Council provided statistical information for the 11-month period from 1 February 2003 to 1 January 2004.

Table 1: Ruapehu District Council consent statistics for February 2003 to January 2004

Action	Total number
Building consents issued	537
Building consents issued valued under $500,000	534
Building consents issued valued over $500,000	3
Building certificates received	1
Code compliance certificates issued	329
Building consents that have not had code compliance certificates issued	1,467
Compliance schedules issued	Unavailable
Total value of construction work consented	$15,891,934

Follow-up review

The consent statistics for the Council's building control operations for the 12-month period from March 2005 to March 2006 were as follows.

Table 2: Ruapehu District Council consent statistics for March 2005 to March 2006

Action	Total number
Building consents issued	695
Building consents issued valued under $500,000	The Council did not supply accurate data
Building consents issued valued over $500,000	The Council did not supply accurate data
Building certificates received	The Council did not supply accurate data
Code compliance certificates issued	The Council did not supply accurate data
Building consents that have not had code compliance certificates issued	2,519
Compliance schedules issued	280
Total value of construction work consented	$26,226,090

The Department encountered some difficulties in obtaining consent statistics from the Council and found that Council staff did not know how to produce a report containing the full range of information requested.

Conclusion

The Council needs to review its IT software and staff training to ensure it can provide the necessary statistical information for its building control activities in a timely and accurate manner. The Council's capacity to process this volume of building work is discussed under other criteria in this report.  

Criterion 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 timeframes for processing applications for building consents.

Background

The Building Act 1991 specifies a range of requirements for a territorial authority when it processes applications for building consents⁶. In particular, a territorial authority must grant or refuse applications within a prescribed timeframe. This timeframe may be suspended if insufficient information has been supplied by the applicant. The applicant must be notified of this in writing.

The prescribed time period at the time of this review was contained in clause 6 of the Building Regulations 1992. Building consents under the value of $500,000 were required to be granted or refused within 10 working days. The building consent had to be granted or refused within 20 working days if it was valued at over $500,000⁷.

Findings

The initial review found that the Council's use of the processing clock was sound and the majority of building consent applications were being processed within the prescribed timeframes. The Department did not make any recommendations during the initial review and so the use of the processing clock was not considered at the follow-up stage of the technical review.

Conclusion

The Department is satisfied that the Council is using the processing clock correctly.

Criterion 4 - Procedures for determining compliance with the Building Code

Purpose

To review the processes and procedures the Council uses when accepting, vetting and processing applications for building consents, and how it establishes whether applications comply with the Building Code. These processes include:

• consent application, vetting and lodgement processes
• building consent processing
• use of notations and endorsements on consent documents
• use of peer review and external or specialised assessment.

4.1 Consent application vetting and lodgement processes

Purpose

To assess how well the Council accepts and vets applications for building consents.

Background

Good-quality plans and specifications submitted with building consent applications help ensure better efficiencies in processing and compliance outcomes. Modern buildings are now considerably more technically complex, and designers and consent applicants must ensure they provide building consent authorities with appropriate design information to show how Building Code compliance will be achieved.

Initial review

The initial review identified that the Council was not formally vetting or assessing building consent documentation at the lodgement stage. The Department found that consent information accepted by the Council did not consistently demonstrate how compliance with the Building Code would be achieved.

Similar findings were made in the 1996 technical review.

Recommendations to the Council	Action taken by the Council before the follow-up review
Redesign processes for receiving and vetting building consent applications to ensure building consent applications with substandard documentation are not accepted.	The Council has not implemented these recommendations. The Council advised that it is planning to formalise its procedure for this area of its operations in the future.
Develop a policy that clearly specifies the Council's minimum information requirements for accepting building consent applications.	The Council has not implemented these recommendations. The Council advised that it is planning to formalise its procedure for this area of its operations in the future.
Monitor the quality of information being supplied with building consent applications to ensure accepted applications are of a consistently good quality.	The Council has not implemented these recommendations. The Council advised that it is planning to formalise its procedure for this area of its operations in the future.
Communicate its information requirements for building consent applications to appropriate stakeholders.	The Council produced an advice sheet on its information requirements for building consent applications, which is now attached to all application forms.
Provide training to vetting staff to ensure they can readily identify applications with insufficient information.	Frontline administration staff have received training on the building control legislative framework, but not specific training on how to vet building consent applications.

Follow-up review

The follow-up review found that the Council had not implemented a formal policy or procedures for vetting building consent applications. The Council advised the Department that it is planning to formalise its procedure for this area of its operations in the future.

The Council had produced an advice sheet, which is now attached to all application forms, informing applicants of the information that must be included with building consent applications. However, the Department identified that the advice sheet stipulates only a very basic set of information requirements and does not provide sufficient detail on the quality of the consent documentation required.

Most frontline administration staff had received some training on the building control legislative framework by attending the Frontline Building Controls course. The Department noted that such training provides a general overview of building legislation and is regarded as a good introductory course. However, it does not provide specific training on how to vet building consent applications to ensure they comply with all legislative requirements and include the necessary level of compliance detail.

After considering the actions undertaken by the Council, the Department made a set of further recommendations.

Recommendations to the Council	Response from the Council
Communicate its information requirements for building consent applications to appropriate stakeholders (eg, local builders and designers).	No response provided.
Implement a formal policy and procedures for vetting and accepting building consent applications, with a view to identifying and rejecting applications that are of poor quality or contain incomplete supporting documentation.	No response provided.
Provide specific vetting training for staff and allocate appropriate staff resources to consent vetting so that consistent vetting of all building consent applications can be achieved.	No response provided.

Conclusion

The 1996 technical review, the Department's 2004 initial review and the 2006 follow-up review reports all contained recommendations on the need to strengthen the vetting of building consent applications to ensure applications with incomplete or insufficient information are not accepted into the system. While the Council has made a limited start to implementing these recommendations, it has not fully implemented them and needs to considerably strengthen its processes for vetting applications. It is also recommended that the Council develop a communications plan to inform its stakeholders of the minimum acceptable information required with building consent applications. The Council should also build on its initial training efforts by providing specific vetting training to front counter staff.

4.2 Building consent processing

Purpose

To ensure the Council has a sound methodology for processing applications for building consents.

Background

Once territorial authorities or building consent authorities have accepted building consent applications, it is important to have a systematic process in place to assess applications in a thorough, consistent and timely manner, which clearly documents the technical basis for issuing the building consents and the subsequent compliance certification.

Initial review

The initial review identified that the Council processed some building consent applications in-house and undertook inspections of building work. Consent processing for larger projects was contracted out to an external provider (another territorial authority). The Department identified a need for a sound processing methodology to demonstrate that the Council (or the external provider on its behalf) has considered compliance with all relevant clauses of the Building Code.

Recommendations to the Council	Action taken by the Council before the follow-up review
Develop and implement a process to guide the consent processing work undertaken in-house to ensure each application receives a rigorous and consistent review.	The Council has adopted a processing checklist for consents processed in-house.
Develop formal policies and procedures to govern the consent processing work that is contracted out to ensure the Council has demonstrable evidence that all building consent applications are assessed for compliance with all clauses of the Building Code.	The Council has not implemented this recommendation.

Follow-up review

The follow-up review identified that the Council had adopted a processing checklist for consent applications processed in-house. However, the Department noted that the checklist only addresses a limited number of the issues the Council should be considering when processing building consent applications and does not contain references to all relevant clauses of the Building Code.

The Council had not developed a formal policy and procedures for processing building consents applications (whether processed in-house or contracted to an external provider), the result of which was evident in the consent files examined by the Department. All files were missing important information on how the decision-maker checked to ensure the building would comply with the Building Code and the basis of their decision to approve the application. The Council advised that it is considering adopting the Department's guideline documentation on consent processing.

At the time of the follow-up review, the Council was still contracting another territorial authority to undertake the majority of its building consent processing work. The Department found that the Council still did not have a formal policy for consent processing work that is contracted out and that no performance measures or review processes had been included in the agreement with the contractor.

The Department made a further set of recommendations during its follow-up review.

Recommendations to the Council	Response from the Council
Implement a system to ensure it only issues building consents when it can justify its decision and can demonstrate that compliance with all relevant clauses of the Building Code has been considered and achieved (whether processed in-house or externally).	No response provided.
Develop or source a new and comprehensive consent processing checklist that covers all relevant sections/clauses of the Building Act and Building Code, and provide training on how to apply this checklist.	No response provided.
Ensure all processing officers consistently use the new checklist(s) and give due consideration to all Building Code clauses when processing consent applications.	No response provided.
Formalise its arrangements with any other provider it contracts to undertake building control services. Agreements (or contracts) should: define the scope of services to be provided include performance measures to ensure the services are performed to acceptable levels and standards and meet appropriate quality and compliance requirements specify appropriate systems of internal peer review and other quality assurance mechanisms define clear lines of accountability and delegation, and delineate the roles, obligations and responsibilities of the parties.	No response provided.

Conclusion

The Council must ensure it does not issue building consents unless it is satisfied, and can justify its decision, that a building will comply with all relevant provisions of the Building Code. There should be a clear, documented audit trail for each building consent processed, approved and issued, decisions made and reasons why, regardless of whether the consent is processed in-house or by an external contractor.

The Department considers that there is an immediate need for the Council to clarify the specific roles and responsibilities of any contractors it uses to undertake building control work (such as the external contractor that is currently undertaking much of its consent processing work).

4.3 Use of notations and endorsements on building consent documents

Purpose

To examine the Council's use of building consent conditions and plan notations during its processing of building consents.

Background

Consent conditions or notations can be used as educational tools and to highlight aspects of construction that require particular attention. However, some building consent authorities apply conditions or notations to cover deficiencies in consent documentation. While this can sometimes avoid the need to request additional information and can sometimes help to expedite consent processing, by using conditions and notations in such a way territorial authorities or building consent authorities encroach on the designer's role by specifying how Building Code compliance will be achieved (eg, by nominating a specific standard or method). While the solution Council staff nominate may comply with a particular Acceptable Solution (prescriptive means of achieving Building Code compliance), it is usually only one of a number of ways of achieving compliance. Nominating design solutions may also have cost implications for the consent applicant and should therefore be left to the designer and building consent applicant to determine.

Initial review

The initial review found that the Council places few stamps or notations on consent drawings.

Recommendations to the Council	Action taken by the Council before the follow-up review
Develop a policy to clarify when the use of consent conditions and notations is appropriate including specifying that: notations are only to be used to highlight specific areas for attention and not to make up for inadequate information provided with building consent applications notations should make reference to relevant standards and Building Code clauses.	The Council has not implemented this recommendation.

Follow-up review

Very few notations were written on the plans in the case studies considered during the follow-up review. The Department found that it was not always clear whether the plans on file were the approved versions, and identified plans that had been amended but lacked clear information on the date of the amendment.

The Department found some plans were stamped or marked with terminology that is no longer used in the legislation (eg, 'building permits', which have not existed since the 1980s). The Council advised that its stamps are being revised to contain advice notes on inspection requirements and specific Code or standard requirements.

The Department identified instances where conditions had been placed on building consents but had not been followed up to ensure they were met. It was not apparent from the consent files who had imposed conditions on the consents or who processed each aspect of the consents. The Department also identified instances where the Council's contract processor (another territorial authority) had requested further information to help its decision-making, but the Council then issued the consent before the information was received and compliance established.

The Department made a further set of recommendations during its follow-up review.

Recommendations to the Council	Response from the Council
Implement a policy and procedures to clearly define when processing staff and contractors may endorse the processing of building consents (and ensure the policy is complied with).	No response provided.
Follow up on all consent conditions to ensure they are complied with during construction.	No response provided.
Ensure stamps are up to date and consistently used to clearly advise the status of documents on file (eg, whether plans have been superseded, amended or approved).	No response provided.

Conclusion

The Council needs to clearly document its procedures for when staff (or external consent processors) should issue conditions and notations and when they should be followed up to ensure compliance. More up-to-date stamps are required and should be consistently used to ensure file documentation is clearly stamped with appropriate information (eg, whether a plan has been superseded by a revised version).

4.4 Peer review and use of external assessment

Purpose

To assess how the Council undertakes and documents in-house peer review of its building control operations and uses external expertise.

Background

Territorial authorities and building consent authorities have a responsibility to ensure building consents and code compliance certificates are issued correctly, and that inspections are carried out effectively. An internal peer review system helps ensure the systems used for regulatory building control are rigorous and consistent. Additionally, by using appropriate technical specialists the Council will ensure building consents comply with the Building Code and buildings are completed in accordance with the consented plans and specifications.

Initial review

The initial review found that the Council was not undertaking peer review of in-house building consent decisions or decisions made by its external contractor. The Department noted that building consent files did not indicate that the external consent processing contractor was making use of any external expertise in processing particular specialist aspects of building consent applications (eg, fire, structural or geotechnical engineering design).

The need for formal peer review processes was also identified in the 1996 technical review.

Recommendations to the Council	Action taken by the Council before the follow-up review
Ensure robust peer review processes are implemented at all stages of consent processing, inspection and approval.	The Council has not implemented this recommendation.
Develop policy to ensure applications that require specialist input are reviewed by the appropriate specialists, and build this requirement into the arrangements with contractors who undertake consent processing work.	The Council has not implemented this recommendation.

Follow-up review

The Department found that the Council did not have a formal policy or procedures for conducting peer review of building consent application processes and inspections, and peer review was still not occurring. The Council did not peer review decisions made by the external contractor processing consent applications before issuing building consents, nor were in-house decisions being reviewed. While both building officers were in attendance for some final inspections of building work, officers undertook different components of the inspection independently and did not review each other's work.

The Department found that the Council was not seeking external specialist assessment on technical issues where the Council lacked internal expertise (eg, structural or fire engineering expertise).

Recommendations to the Council	Response from the Council
Implement the recommendation from the 2004 initial review to develop a formal policy and procedures for the peer review of decisions made by contractors and Council staff at all stages of consent processing, inspection and approval.	No response provided.
Implement other quality assurance mechanisms to support peer review activity, such as internal audits of consents processed and inspections to gauge how well they have been undertaken.	No response provided.

Conclusion

Peer review is a basic quality control tool used in all sectors and is appropriate for a regulatory control environment. Given that this issue was first raised in 1996, it is a significant concern that the Department's recommendations have not been implemented. The Department considers that the Council needs to urgently develop and implement formal policies and procedures for the internal peer review of building consents and code compliance certificates, whether these are approved by contractors or by Council staff.

Criterion 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 Document⁸, but that still satisfy the performance objectives of the Building Code.

Initial review

The initial review found that the Council did not have a formal policy for dealing with alternative solution proposals. The Department found no evidence that the Council was distinguishing between Acceptable Solutions and proposed alternative solutions in the way it approved and documented its decisions.

Recommendations to the Council	Action taken by the Council before the follow-up review
Develop a policy to define how it processes proposed alternative solutions including requirements to: demonstrate how Code compliance will be achieved justify acceptance or rejection of a proposed alternative solution clearly document and maintain records of the use and acceptance of alternative solutions.	The Council has not implemented this recommendation.

Follow-up review

The follow-up review found that Council staff were still having difficulty in identifying proposed alternative solutions and distinguishing them from Acceptable Solutions. The Department identified that, in cases where a proposed alternative solution was accepted, the acceptance and rationale for the decision was not recorded on the consent file.

The Council had not developed formal policies and procedures for identifying, assessing and making decisions on whether to accept proposed alternative solutions. The Council advised that it intends to develop such processes, but it had yet to begin this work at the time of the follow-up review.

Recommendations to the Council	Response from the Council
Implement the recommendation from the 2004 initial review to develop a policy to define how it processes proposed alternative solutions.	No response provided.
Ensure any contract with external providers specifies how the processing or inspection of proposed alternative solutions should be conducted.	No response provided.
Ensure contractors and staff record how proposed alternative solutions are assessed and why they are accepted.	No response provided.
Identify in its policy the person or position responsible for the final sign-off of proposed alternative solutions.	No response provided.
Provide technical training for staff in identifying and assessing alternative solution proposals.	No response provided.
Provide training on the legislative framework for building controls.	No response provided.

Conclusion

Sound policies and procedures and good technical skills and expertise are essential to effectively assess proposed alternative solutions and ensure compliance with the Building Code is consistently achieved. The Council needs to take action to implement the Department's recommendations.

Criterion 6 - Procedures for accepting producer statements

Purpose

To establish whether producer statements accepted by the Council are adequate to achieve compliance, and that the Council producer statement acceptance regime is credible, non-contestable, and clearly understood and consistently practised by staff.

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 territorial authority or 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 territorial authority or building consent authority as part of the plans and specifications.

Initial review

The initial review identified that, while the Council did not accept many producer statements, some producer statements had been accepted without the required compliance information. The Department also found that the Council did not have any formal policy or procedures for dealing with producer statements, a record of assessed and approved authors or providers, or an audit process for checking either the validity of a producer statement or the credibility of its author.

Recommendations to the Council	Action taken by the Council before the follow-up review
Develop a policy to cover its acceptance and checking of producer statements, including: when it will require a producer statement acceptance criteria for producer statement authors (eg, 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 documentation of consideration and decision-making on producer statements the charges for accepting a statement (which should include cost-recovery for undertaking regular audits) audit procedures.	The Council has 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 compliance details).	The Council has not implemented this recommendation.

Follow-up review

The Council had not introduced a formal policy or procedures for the acceptance of producer statements at the time of the follow-up review. The Council advised that it is using the producer statement assessment checklist included in the Department's Building Consent Authority Development Guide to assess the producer statements it receives.

The Department found that producer statements were not always being checked and assessed. The Council was accepting specific design documentation, accompanied by producer statements, without an assessment of the producer statement author's qualifications, experience or history. Producer statements were not being sent out for peer review. The Department also found that the Council lacked the technical capability required to check compliance with all aspects of the Building Code (eg, structural, geotechnical, mechanical and fire engineering, and complex weathertightness compliance).

The Department made a set of further recommendations during its follow-up review.

Recommendations to the Council	Response from the Council
Implement the recommendation from the 2004 initial review to develop a rigorous policy and procedures for accepting and checking producer statements.	No response provided.
Ensure it engages a suitably qualified individual to assess the durability aspect of the specific design in cases where a producer statement does not detail compliance with the durability provisions of the Building Code and the Council does not have the technical capability in-house.	No response provided.
Obtain technical training for building control staff in the assessment, acceptance and adequacy of producer statements as a tool to help establish compliance with the Building Code.	No response provided.

Conclusion

The Council needs to develop a comprehensive policy and procedures to underpin how it assesses and makes decisions on producer statements. The Council also needs to assess when the specialist or technical nature of a producer statement is outside the technical knowledge and ability of Council staff and requires external peer review (eg, producer statements that concern structural, geotechnical, mechanical or fire engineering matters).

Criterion 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 weathertightness compliance
• the Council's inspection systems and procedures.

Background

Over the last 5 or so years, reports of building failure began to emerge. In response to these concerns, 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, which identified the need for better monitoring of emerging trends within the building control system.

The Building Act 1991 was repealed and replaced by the Building Act 2004, which 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

The initial review identified a number of compliance issues relating to weathertightness, where claddings were failing to meet the requirements of Clauses E2 External Moisture and B2 Durability of the Building Code. Many instances of non-compliance were of a relatively technical nature, rather than being significant omissions or issues that would pose immediate weathertightness problems. Nevertheless, they were still instances of non-compliance with the Building Code.

The Department also found that some consent files did not include documentation on whether manufacturers, installers or applicators had provided producer statements, whether alternative solution cladding systems had been assessed during consent processing, or whether the Council had established weathertightness compliance during its inspections.

Recommendations to the Council	Action taken by the Council before the follow-up review
Develop a formal policy and procedures to underpin its checks for weathertightness compliance, which should include: information requirements for acceptance of alternative solution cladding systems on-site inspection procedures to ensure compliance is achieved during and after construction weathertightness consent processing and inspection checklists.	The Council had not implemented this recommendation.
Ensure adequate time and resources are allocated to processing and inspecting building weathertightness and that all processing and inspections staff are given appropriate levels of practical weathertightness training.	The Council had not implemented this recommendation.
Develop a policy to define the required level of weathertightness detailing in building consent applications and to require designers to provide site-specific construction detailed to this standard, so demonstrating adequate compliance.	The Council had not implemented this recommendation.
Ensure consent applications with inadequate weathertightness detail are rejected or suspended.	The Council had not implemented this recommendation.

Follow-up review

The findings of the follow-up review were consistent with the findings of the initial review in 2004. A number of instances of weathertightness non-compliance were identified that were of a technical nature, rather than being significant omissions or issues that would pose immediate weathertightness problems (eg, leaky building syndrome). The Department found that a combination of factors such as using low-risk design features for most buildings in the region, the relatively dry environmental conditions, and the use of treated timber are helping to minimise the risk of weathertightness problems for the Council.

The Department found that the Council had not developed any formal policies or procedures to underpin its consideration of weathertightness compliance issues, to define the required level of weathertightness detailing in consent applications or to ensure consent applications with inadequate weathertightness detail are rejected or suspended. The Department considered that the Council had not implemented the recommendation to allocate adequate time and resources to processing and inspecting building weathertightness, and to give processing and inspection staff appropriate levels of practical weathertightness compliance training.

The Department made a set of further recommendations during the follow-up review.

Recommendations to the Council	Response from the Council
Implement the recommendation from the 2004 initial review to develop a policy and procedures to underpin its assessment of weathertightness compliance.	No response provided.
Ensure, through adequate training, that all processing and inspection staff are able to develop appropriate levels of practical weathertightness compliance knowledge and skills.	No response provided.
Develop a policy to define the level of weathertightness detail required in building consent applications and ensure applications with inadequate weathertightness detail are rejected or suspended.	No response

Conclusion

The Department has released a number of guides to help building consent authorities with weathertightness compliance⁹. We strongly encourage the Council to use this information.

There are also a number of training courses in this area that the Council could use. The BRANZ Ltd  weathertightness training course provides a 2-week comprehensive training programme and the New Zealand Institute of Building Surveyors  also runs training courses in weathertightness compliance. The Council needs to significantly improve its work in this area.

Criterion 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 that are not specifically covered under the other criteria.

Background

The initial review examined how the Council was undertaking its legislative responsibilities in the following sections of the Building Act 1991.

• Issuing building consents where an authorisation under the Resource Management Act 1991 is required (section 35(1A))¹⁰.
• Building on land subject to erosion, etc (section 36)¹¹.
• Alterations and changes of use to existing buildings (sections 38 and 46)¹².
• Dangerous and insanitary buildings (section 64)¹³.
• Earthquake-prone buildings (section 66)¹⁴.

Initial review

Issue of building consent where Resource Management Act authorisation is required

The initial review identified that, in situations where Resource Management Act issues affecting the work were still to be resolved, the Council was not issuing the required certificate according to the form prescribed by the Building Regulations. The Council was adding notations on the 'addenda/condition of consent' sheet instead¹⁵.

Building on land subject to erosion

The initial review found that the Council's territory includes areas of land affected by the criteria outlined in section 36 of the Building Act 1991. The building control officer was aware of what was required when an application to build on a hazardous site was received, but the Council had no formal policy or procedures for dealing with these cases.

Alterations and changes of use of buildings

The initial review found that the Council did not have a formal policy or procedures documenting its approach to the upgrade of existing buildings or to alterations or changes of use for buildings. This posed a problem for Wanganui District Council, which was undertaking processing on behalf of Ruapehu District Council. Building consent applications involving alterations or changes of use were considered on a case-by-case basis. The rationale for deciding on the degree of upgrade required, if any, was rarely documented.

Dangerous and insanitary buildings

The initial review found that the Council did not have a formal policy or procedures for dealing with dangerous or insanitary buildings. However, the Council instigated proceedings when necessary.

Earthquake-prone buildings

The initial review identified that the Council's district is located in Earthquake Zone A and that the Council was aware that some buildings in its region might be earthquake-prone. However, none of the buildings were over three storeys high or considered to be high risk. The Council did not maintain a formal register of earthquake-prone buildings because the Ruapehu District has few at-risk buildings and collating a register was not seen as a high priority.

Recommendations to the Council	Action taken by the Council before the follow-up review
Develop procedures to ensure consistent application of requirements under sections 35(1A), 36, 38 and 46 of the Building Act 1991 and ensure consideration of these issues is clearly documented.	The Council has not implemented these recommendations.
Ensure staff receive appropriate training in their obligations under these sections.	The Council has not implemented these recommendations.
Develop a policy to guide its assessment, decision-making and consequent action for buildings that are potentially dangerous or insanitary.	The Council has developed a policy for dangerous, insanitary and earthquake-prone buildings.

Follow-up review

Issue of building consent where Resource Management Act authorisation is required

The follow-up review found that although the Council was aware that the Building (Forms) Regulations 2004 prescribe the form and content for certificates to be issued under section 37 of the Building Act 2004, the Council was not using it when issuing building consents that are subject to Resource Management Act issues.

Building on land subject to erosion

The Department found that few applications had been identified as being subject to sections 71 to 74 of the Building Act 2004. No formal policy or procedures have been developed to deal with these types of application when they do arise.

Alterations and changes of use of buildings

The follow-up review found that the Council had not developed or implemented a formal policy or procedures for changes of use or alterations to existing buildings, or to assess the extent of upgrade required. The Department identified that the Council was only considering the compliance of new work associated with existing buildings. In situations where existing buildings are upgraded, no consideration was being given to fire, egress and accessibility issues, so that these are upgraded in the existing parts of the building to comply as nearly as is reasonably practicable with Building Code requirements.

The Department also found that the Council had not developed any guidelines on dealing with applications involving a change of use. Such applications were still being considered on a case-by-case basis and the rationale for decisions on the degree of upgrade required was not being appropriately documented.

Dangerous, insanitary and earthquake-prone buildings

The follow-up review found that the Council had developed a policy for dangerous, insanitary and earthquake-prone buildings, as required by section 131 of the Building Act 2004.

Making requests for additional information

The Department also found that the Council was making requests for additional information (such as weathertightness risk matrices or engineering design information) within its project information memoranda rather than in separate letters. Under the Building Act 2004, issuing project information memoranda is a territorial authority function and not a function of a building consent authority.

The Department made a set of further recommendations during its follow-up review.

Recommendations to the Council	Response from the Council
Develop policies and procedures for undertaking the Council's responsibilities under the Building Act 2004 for: use of the prescribed form required by section 37 of the Act building on land subject to natural hazards alterations to existing buildings changes of use and extension of building life.	No response provided.
Cease making any requests for additional information from building consent applicants within its project information memoranda (such requests should be in separate letters).	No response provided.
Ensure Council staff members are appropriately trained in the use of the policies and procedures once completed. No response provided.	No response provided.

Conclusion

The Council still needs to develop and implement policies and procedures in a number of areas, including building on land subject to natural hazards, and alterations and changes of use for existing buildings. It should also clearly separate any request for additional information it makes to building consent applicants from the project information memoranda it produces. The Council needs to ensure staff receive appropriate training in their obligations under all these sections.

Criterion 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

Buildings containing certain safety features and essential building systems, such as fire alarms, sprinklers and lifts, require a compliance schedule. The owner of the building must ensure continued effective operation of those features and systems, and demonstrate it by holding a current BWOF. The Building Act 1991 also imposed responsibilities on building owners and the territorial authority when the use of a building is to be changed and that change of use requires alterations to the building to bring the building into compliance with the Building Code (section 46)¹⁶.

Initial review

The initial review found that the Council's compliance schedule and BWOF operations were sound, but should be underpinned by clearly documented procedures. The review identified that the Council was being proactive in promoting building owners' obligations under section 46.

Recommendations to the Council	Action taken by the Council before the follow-up review
Document its compliance schedule and building warrant of fitness policy and procedures, including how it will follow up and action non-compliance.	The Council has developed a short procedure document with brief guidelines on the recording and monitoring of BWOFs.

Follow-up review

The follow-up review found that the Council had developed a short procedure document containing brief guidelines on the recording and monitoring of BWOFs, which is used by the building control officer responsible for monitoring the Council's compliance schedule and BWOF regimes. However, the Department noted that the document needs to be enhanced. The Council advised that it was delaying the development of new policies and procedures until the standards and criteria for accreditation as a building consent authority have been finalised by the Department.

The Department identified that Council staff had limited understanding of the requirements for issuing certificates for public use under the Building Act 2004. For example, they did not fully appreciate that any certificate for public use issued before the code compliance certificate should be supported by sound consideration of any specified systems within the building.

The Department made a set of further recommendations during its follow-up review.

Recommendations to the Council	Response from the Council
Document its policy and procedures for issuing compliance schedules and its BWOF policy. This should provide clear links to other building control activities that will impact on these policies, including: policy and procedures for issuing certificates for public use (and how these should consider specified systems) the Council's vetting and building consent processing policies to ensure documentation accepted into the system is comprehensive and includes floor plans showing the location of the specified systems (so these are not missed or overlooked as the building project progresses).	No response provided.
Ensure Council staff are appropriately trained in the use of the policies and procedures and in the Council's legislative obligations for compliance schedules and BWOFs.	No response provided.
Undertake internal audits of BWOF compliance.	No response provided.

Conclusion

The Department considers it important that the Council develop formal and documented policies and procedures to underpin its recording and monitoring of building warrants of fitness, even before the standards and criteria for accreditation have been finalised. This work is fundamental to the Council's building control function, regardless of the accreditation scheme requirements. The Council has had some time to address this issue, which was originally raised in the 1996 technical review¹⁷.

Criterion 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 1991 and Building Code contained requirements to help ensure people with disabilities are able to enter a building and carry out normal activities and functions within it. These provisions include sections 47A, 38 and 46¹⁸.

Initial review

The initial review found a number of instances of accessibility non-compliance in the case studies examined. In addition, there was no apparent reference to guidance documentation, the Building Code, or New Zealand Standards during processing. There was no documentation to support the decision-making process for building consents or to guide the Council's inspection work. The Department noted that the Council should be seeking full compliance of issues of access and facilities for people with disabilities, as required by the legislation.

Recommendations to the Council	Action taken by the Council prior to the follow-up review
Develop appropriate process support and documentation to help building control staff assess building consents for accessibility compliance and to ensure completed work is also compliant (using the checklists in the Barrier Free training handbooks as a starting point).	The Council adopted the accessibility checklist contained in the Barrier Free training handbook.
Provide staff with training opportunities to ensure the Building Act 2004 and the accessibility requirements of the Building Code are consistently applied by processing and inspection staff.	The building compliance officer completed a Barrier Free training course.

Follow-up review

The Department found that, while the Council had implemented the recommendations of the 2004 initial review report, accessibility compliance was still an issue for the Council. Case studies identified several commercial buildings that had recently been processed, inspected and approved by the Council, but which did not comply with the accessibility clauses of the Building Code.

Recommendations to the Council

Response from the Council

Consider means of ensuring all building work it approves is fully compliant with the accessibility provisions of the Building Code. Such means could include: undertaking audits of completed buildings continuing to invest in staff training and actively encouraging continued professional development in matters of technical building control, including accessibility compliance ensuring any policies and procedures developed for processing building consent applications and undertaking compliance inspections include adequate reference to accessibility compliance.

No response provided.

Conclusion

The Department's findings indicate that the Council has not been consistently achieving compliance with accessibility provisions of the Building Code and Building Act. Continued professional development and ongoing training needs to be provided for individual staff so that accessibility compliance is consistently achieved. Significant improvement is required.

Criterion 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 limited.

Initial review

The initial review identified that the Council only had one building control officer and that much of the Council's consent processing work was being contracted out to an external contractor (another territorial authority). The Department considered that the Council did not have an appropriate number of technical staff to cope with existing work volumes and to ensure compliance with the Building Code was achieved for every building.

At the time of the review, the Council was actively looking for another building control officer. The Council had reported difficulties in attracting applicants due to the national shortage of competent building officials and the Council's remote location.

Recommendations to the Council	Action taken by the Council
Recruit additional technically competent and experienced staff to enable it to meet building control work volumes and legislative building control responsibilities.	The Council recruited three new technical staff.
Develop a long-term proactive strategic plan for the recruitment and retention of building control processing and inspection staff.	The Council had not implemented this recommendation.

Follow-up review

As discussed under criterion 1, the Council had recruited three new technical staff by the time of the follow-up review. The Council was still outsourcing the majority of its consent processing to Wanganui District Council. The follow-up review identified that the district was experiencing substantial growth and was faced with more growth in the future.

The Department emphasised that the Council is responsible for ensuring all building work within its jurisdiction fully complies with the building legislation, even when consent processing is undertaken by an external contractor. The Department expressed concern that compliance with the Building Code and Act was not consistently being achieved and made further recommendations to help the Council improve the standard of decision-making and quality of compliance outcomes.

Recommendations to the Council	Response from the Council
Review the type and quantity of processing work being outsourced and implement appropriate measures to ensure it is satisfied that full compliance with the Building Code has been assessed for each consent it issues.	No response provided.
Review the external provider it uses to undertake building control work to ensure all consent processing work consistently complies with all legislative obligations, and consider other possible providers if consistent compliance cannot be demonstrated.	No response provided.
Develop a long-term strategy for the recruitment and retention of building control staff, as recommended in the 2004 review report.	No response provided.

Conclusion

The Department's findings indicate that building work in the Ruapehu District does not always comply with the building legislation. If the Council continues to contract out parts of its building control operations to another provider (eg, consent processing), it must develop and implement the systems, processes and human resources to ensure it is satisfied that each consent it issues, and each building inspection it approves, fully complies with the law.

The Department notes that correct processing of building consent applications benefits the technical staff who undertake subsequent inspections of those buildings. Building compliance is a complex technical discipline and building control staff need sufficient time to ensure they make sound regulatory decisions, which consider compliance with all applicable clauses of the Building Code. This can be difficult for a building control officer to do thoroughly if his or her first encounter with the building project is during an inspection when construction has already started.

The Department concludes that the Council still needs to recruit additional building control staff, despite the progress made since the 2004 review. In particular, the Department believes that the Council needs additional staff resources to cope with technically complex work. The Council may also require additional consent processing staff should it consider conducting more of its consent processing work in-house.

Criterion 12 - Technical knowledge and ability of staff

Purpose

To examine the collective technical knowledge and ability of the building control unit regarding the Building Act, Building Regulations and the Building Code, and to examine staff training provisions.

Background

Building control has progressively become more scientifically complex, as new building materials and building systems gain wider use, as safety provisions become more comprehensive, and as housing density increases. Construction methods now allow for smaller margins of error and the technical knowledge and expertise of building control staff must increase with that trend.

Initial review

The initial review found that the Council's sole building control officer displayed a commendable level of technical knowledge and awareness of building control and building compliance requirements. However, the Department identified that workload pressures on the building control officer were impacting on his training opportunities and that additional technical support and other quality assurance mechanisms, such as external peer review, urgently needed to be implemented.

Recommendations to the Council	Action taken by the Council before the follow-up review
Develop a staff competency and technical skills matrix that clearly identifies staff training requirements.	The Council has not implemented this recommendation.
Ensure this training occurs and that additional external resources are available to cover staff while they attend training courses, seminars and other initiatives essential to their professional development and maintenance of their ongoing competence.	Staff received some training.
Use external contracted resources to implement quality assurance mechanisms, such as peer review and audits of consent processing, inspection and approval work.	The Council has not implemented this recommendation.

Follow-up review

The follow-up review identified that staff had received some training. However, there was still a need for additional technical training in a number of areas. The Department identified significant technical limitations in the building control unit's collective technical regulatory building control knowledge and skill set. This finding was supported by the significant level of non-compliance found in the case studies and site visits undertaken. The main areas identified were:

• compliance with the provisions of the Building Act 2004 and Building Regulations
• accessibility compliance
• fire compliance
• weathertightness compliance.

The follow-up review found that the Council had yet to develop a staff competency and technical skills matrix and assessment system to ensure it has the right mix of skills and experience in its building control unit and that work is allocated to personnel who are competent to undertake it. The Council had not introduced quality-assurance mechanisms.

The Department made a set of further recommendations during the follow-up review and noted that the 1996 technical review made a similar recommendation that the Council develop a training programme.

Recommendations to the Council	Response from the Council
Implement the recommendations from the 2004 initial review and the 1996 technical review by: developing and maintaining a technical skills matrix for in-house staff and contractors/consultants to assess the technical competencies of personnel in the building control unit and how this corresponds to the range of building control work being undertaken developing and maintaining a staff training and mentoring programme targeted at technical skill deficiencies of the building control unit and tailored to the needs of individual personnel considering options such as staff exchanges with other building consent authorities to upskill staff in important technical areas or one-on-one training in how to comply with the Building Code ensuring it provides human resources, as appropriate, to cover staff absences when staff members are undertaking professional development and training (this process should also be formalised).	No response provided.
Ensure it encourages and supports staff to participate in ongoing professional development.	No response provided.
Ensure work is allocated according to technical competence rather than geographic location, so staff consistently work within their scope of technical expertise.	No response provided.

Conclusion

There are significant limitations in the Council's technical knowledge, expertise and ability compared to the range of building control work it is required to undertake. Rectifying this will require a range of strategies, including:

• considerable investment in staff training, continuing professional development and initiatives such as mentoring
• introduction of quality-assurance mechanisms (eg, peer review and internal audit) with feedback to staff to help them learn and develop, and address their technical limitations and share knowledge internally
• strategic decisions about contracting in technical assistance when this does not exist in-house (even the largest, best-resourced and most competent building consent authorities do this) by developing a pool of potential technical providers to ensure high-quality services are provided.

Criterion 13 - Adequacy of resources

Purpose

To examine the resources that the Council's building control staff have at their disposal to carry out their building control operations.

Background

The effectiveness of building control staff can be enhanced with access to appropriate aids and resources such as a technical reference library, digital cameras and moisture meters.

Initial review

The initial review identified that the Council's offices have an adequate range of technical literature and current construction-related periodicals. However, the building control officer did not have a copy of all amendments to the Building Act at the time of the review visit and there was no copy of the Building Regulations 1992.

Recommendations to the Council	Action taken by the Council before the follow-up review
Ensure its technical literature and legislation is up to date and readily accessible to staff (including the Building Act, Building Regulations and Building Code, Compliance Documents, and relevant standards).	The Council has fully implemented this recommendation.

Follow-up review

The Department found that the Council had successfully implemented the recommendation of the January 2004 review. Building control staff had copies of the Building Act 2004, up-to-date copies of NZS 3604 were available in both the Taumarunui and Ohakune offices, and technical libraries in both offices had been reviewed, with standards and proprietary literature separated into sections for current and reference-only documents (superseded documents). The building control officers had access to computers and the internet, allowing them to access relevant information sources, including manufacturers' technical literature and websites such as Brookers and the Department of Building and Housing.

Conclusion

The Department is satisfied that the Council is providing its building control staff with an appropriate level of technical information and other technical resources.

Criterion 14 - Adequacy, security and availability of public records

Purpose

To assess the Council's record-keeping processes and information facilities, and public access to these.

Background

Section 27¹⁹ of the Building Act 1991 sets out the broad record-keeping requirements for territorial authorities regarding their building control functions. These include making information available about the administration of the Building Act to enable the public to be aware of the Council's obligations.

Initial review

The initial review found that the Council's record storage facilities were adequate. No recommendations were made at this stage of the review.

Follow-up review

The follow-up review found that the Council still has secure record-keeping storage facilities. However, over the course of the review, the Department identified some significant limitations in the Council's record-keeping systems, accuracy of filing processes, and ability to access and retrieve specific information in a timely manner.

Recommendations to the Council	Response from the Council
Improve its information filing and retrieval systems and processes to ensure it: consistently files information about building consents accurately can retrieve information in a more accurate and timely manner.	No response provided.

Conclusion

The Council needs to improve its record-keeping systems to ensure information is filed accurately and to enable it to retrieve information as required.

Criterion 15 - Relationships with other territorial authorities and private building certifiers

Purpose

To identify any specific issues arising from the Council's dealings with private building certifiers and other territorial authorities.

Background

When this technical review was initiated, the Building Act 1991 provided a framework for private building certifiers to undertake specified regulatory building control work. This provided a private sector alternative for consumers to access instead of territorial authorities. It was, therefore, important for territorial authorities to have good working relationships with private building certifiers as both could be involved with the same building consent.

Findings and conclusion

No issues of concern were identified during the initial review or the follow-up review in the Council's relationships with private building certifiers. No private building certifiers operated in the Ruapehu District.

As noted under criteria 4.2 and 11, the Department considers the Council needs to strengthen its contracting processes with external providers, including other territorial authorities, and consider sourcing other contract providers to help fulfil capability issues.

Criterion 16 - Case studies of completed buildings

Purpose

To undertake case studies of building consents that were completed within a 6- to 12-month period before the review, to assess the adequacy of the Council's building consent processing and inspection regime, and to observe Building Code compliance assessment practices.

Background

The Department identified a number of building consents that had recently been processed and approved by the Council and had progressed to code compliance certificate stage (although some case studies involved buildings that were still in the construction phase to ensure sampling of processing work was recent). These building consents were chosen to be typical of the building type that the Council deals with, and also to involve compliance elements that are known to be difficult or high risk (such as access for people with disabilities, or weathertightness of monolithic claddings).

The findings of the case studies were used to support and reinforce the more general review findings outlined under the other criteria.

Initial review

The initial review found a range of deficiencies across the case studies examined, which reinforced the findings discussed under other criteria. These included:

• building consent applications being accepted with insufficient supporting information
• non-compliance with statutory requirements
• significant non-compliance with fire design, accessibility and weathertightness requirements
• consent processors and inspectors not identifying proposed alternative solutions when these were submitted and, consequently, not recording why alternative solutions were accepted
• inadequate records of processing and inspections, and inadequate records of the basis on which the Council was reasonably satisfied that buildings would or did comply with the Building Code before it issued building consents and code compliance certificates.

Follow-up review

The follow-up review found that all of the issues identified in the initial review were still relevant. The Department found considerable non-compliance in the following areas.

• Compliance with the provisions of the Building Act 2004 and Building Regulations
• Accessibility compliance
• Fire and egress compliance
• Weathertightness compliance
• Engineering requirements (eg, relating to driven piles, B Grade masonry)

All of the approved consent plans and specifications reviewed showed significant non-compliance with the Building Code, or lacked sufficient detail to establish compliance with the Building Code. The Department identified a number of instances where there was insufficient documentation or records available to establish an audit trail for the processing and approval of consents, decisions made, reasons why and actions taken. Information gaps also existed when applicants were asked for additional information to support their applications and consent applications were suspended.

Information was often lacking on how consent processors had reached their decisions about building consent applications. The Department found no evidence that officials were distinguishing between alternative and Acceptable Solutions when processing consents and approving building work. Discussions with Council staff confirmed this misunderstanding. When the Council had accepted proposed alternative solutions, there was no explanation of the rationale behind such decision-making.

The Department found very few examples where processing officers had given instructions to field inspection staff. When conditions were imposed on building consents, these were often not followed up to ensure they were adhered to.

Consent processing work was not being peer reviewed or internally audited. There also appeared to be no sound rationale behind how consent processing work was being allocated to particular staff to ensure work was only given to those who had the competence and experience to process it.

Recommendations to the Council

Response from the Council

Note that the main findings of the case studies are consistent with the limitations identified across the other criteria in the review and listed in other recommendations. In general, improvements are required in: processing and inspection policies and procedures to ensure compliance is consistently achieved for all clauses of the Building Code documentation and audit trails of decision-making for processing and inspections to ensure the Council records how it was satisfied on reasonable grounds that Code compliance was achieved processes for identifying and assessing proposed alternative solutions and documenting the basis for their acceptance or rejection the Council's quality assurance processes, which apply at the different stages of consent, inspection and approval processing the technical knowledge and skills of Council staff, which can be achieved via appropriate continued professional development and training.

No response provided.

Conclusion

The Department is concerned at the Council's lack of progress in implementing the review recommendations. The case studies reinforce the other findings in this report and emphasise the need for the Council to make a sustained effort to improve its building control operations.

Criterion 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 or 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 work. Observations from the Department often reinforce observations made during the case studies.

Initial review

The initial review found that the Council needed to strengthen its inspection methodology so that it could clearly demonstrate how it was satisfied on reasonable grounds that Building Code compliance was being achieved for every building it inspected.

Recommendations to the Council

Action taken by the Council before the follow-up review

Enhance its inspection methodology by: developing a more comprehensive inspection checklist to ensure Code compliance is achieved and the process is documented ensuring there is appropriate record-keeping of inspection findings, including how the inspector was satisfied on reasonable grounds that the work was Code compliant ensuring on-site amendments are documented and clearly demonstrate how Code compliance was achieved undertaking audits of its inspections to determine whether Code compliance was demonstrated giving consideration to developing a more effective and efficient system for recording inspections that would allow a copy to be left on site with the owner or builder.

The Council made some improvements to its inspection processes, including the use of digital cameras and an inspection checklist during inspections and the recording of comprehensive inspection notes.

Follow-up review

The follow-up review found that building inspectors were using digital cameras to record any faults identified during their inspections. The Department noted that additional photos could be taken for the files to document compliance with the Building Code.

As discussed under criterion 4.4, two inspectors attended certain final inspections and assessed different aspects of building compliance individually. The Department noted that the inspectors could operate more of a buddy system and jointly discuss inspections to share knowledge and provide peer review of decisions.

The Department found that inspectors made good inspection notes and used an inspection list. However, the checklist was not completed until some time after the inspectors had left the building site and so some items identified during inspection were not captured in the inspection notes.

The follow-up review found that, because most consents are being processed by an external provider, inspectors did not always have a thorough knowledge of the building consent until they arrived on site for the inspection. The Department also noted that the Council was not building the in-house technical skills and expertise needed to inspect complicated building projects.

Recommendations to the Council

Response from the Council

Note that the main findings concerning inspections are consistent with the limitations identified across the other criteria in this report and listed in other recommendations. In general, improvements are required in: developing formal inspection policies and procedures to ensure compliance is consistently achieved for all clauses in the Building Code the technical knowledge of the Council staff, which can be achieved by appropriate continuing professional development and training.

No response provided.

Conclusion

The Department acknowledges the improvements the Council has made to its inspection processes. The Council needs to further enhance its inspection methodology by developing formal policies and procedures and ensure staff receive appropriate professional development and technical training.

Criterion 18 - Feedback from the Council to the Department

Under section 276(2)(a) of the Building Act 2004, the Department, when carrying out technical reviews of territorial authorities, 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 criteria used as the basis for the review.

Council statement

The Council refutes the finding and conclusions of the review and considers that it does not accurately reflect the Council as a building consent authority. The Council further believes that the review reports contain errors and inaccuracies.

Note: The Council did not provide the Department with any specific feedback on the findings and conclusions detailed in any of three separate reports provided to the Council over the 2-year review process. A number of requests were made.

Department response

The Department acknowledges the Council's feedback. However, it stands by, and has documented evidence to support, all the findings and conclusions made in this and previous reports.

At no time has the Council given specific feedback or evidence to the Department to support its contention that the reports given to the Council contain errors and inaccuracies. The Department also notes that the technical review process involves considerable technical and legal input and that all findings, conclusions and reports are thoroughly peer-reviewed for accuracy.

Finally, the Department considers that this report contains recommendations that require the Council's immediate attention and is concerned that the Council may not be giving sufficient consideration to the gravity of the findings and conclusions detailed in this and previous reports.

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 Ruapehu District Council, in accordance with its statutory requirements under the Building Act 2004.

The Department aims to help achieve efficient and effective building controls in the industry through collective input from itself, territorial authorities, building consent authorities, building practitioners and other relevant industry stakeholders.

The technical review process is an important tool for territorial authorities and building consent authorities to assess their readiness and help their preparation for a new regulatory system, which is being designed and implemented.

New system of accreditation and registration

The Building Act 2004 introduces an accreditation and registration scheme to 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 more consumer confidence in the system.

Under the Act, any organisation that wishes to undertake building control functions after 30 November 2007 must be a registered building consent authority. 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 design and implement this new system. The accreditation process will involve prospective building consent authorities being assessed by an independent accreditation body against a set of standards and criteria, the Building (Accreditation of Building Consent Authorities) Regulations 2006, covering the main 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 main areas.

• Formal policies, systems and processes
• Technical competence
• 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.

Guidance documentation

Under section 175 of the Building Act 2004 the Chief Executive of the Department of Building and Housing has a statutory role in the publishing of guidance information for territorial authorities and building consent authorities. The Department has published a range of guidance information to help territorial authorities and building consent authorities understand how to comply with the Building Act 2004 and their building control responsibilities.

• Building officials' guide to the Building Act 2004 (August 2005, second edition)
• Building consent authority development guide (February 2006)
• Building officials' FAQs (August 2005)
• Earthquake-prone building provisions of the Building Act 2004: Policy guidance for territorial authorities (June 2005)
• Dangerous and insanitary building provisions of the Building Act 2004: Policy guidance for territorial authorities (October 2005)
• External moisture - a guide to using the risk matrix (June 2005)
• External moisture - an introduction to weathertightness design principles (June 2005)
• Critical requirements for the assessment of 'monolithic' claddings (April 2004)
• Practice advisory 6: Achieve best practice - every step of the way (December 2004)
• Practice advisory 5: Allow for movement (December 2004)
• Reinforcing steel in New Zealand - a quick guide for designers, building consent authorities and contractors (July 2005)
• Guide to applying for a building consent (simple, residential buildings) (January 2007)
• Building consent authority accreditation preparation and self-assessment guide (February 2007)

This and other guidance information is available online. The Department also participates regularly in training workshops and conferences to provide updates and information to the building control sector.

Back to Top

---

Notes

¹ The points summarised for territorial authorities and building consent authorities are similar to the functions described in section 24 of the Building Act 1991. The Building Act 2004 repealed the Building Act 1991.

 ² Section 12(1)(d) of the Building Act 1991 provided that one of the functions of the BIA was to undertake reviews of the operations of territorial authorities and private building certifiers in relation to their functions under the Act. Section 15(1) empowered the BIA, of its own motion, to undertake a review of the operation of territorial authorities' functions under the Act. These sections were revoked on 31 March 2005 by the Building Act 2004.

 ³ Sections 11(h), 204 and 276 of the Building Act 2004 are the main sections.

 ⁴ Available in hard copy from the Department by calling 0800 242 243 or in electronic form from the Department's website at www.dbh.govt.nz

 ⁵ Section 232 of the Building Act 2004 is the equivalent section.

 ⁶ Sections 44, 45, 48 and 49 of the Building Act 2004 are the equivalent of sections 33 and 34 of the Building Act 1991. In summary, these sections cover when and how to apply for a building consent, the processing of a consent application, and the granting of a consent by a building consent authority.

 ⁷ Under section 48 of the Building Act 2004, all building consents, irrespective of value, must be processed within 20 working days.

 ⁸ A prescriptive document produced by the Department of Building and Housing that specifies a means of compliance with a particular clause of the Building Code.

 ⁹ These can be accessed on the Department's website and include:

• Critical requirements for the assessment of 'monolithic' claddings, April 2004
• New weathertightness solutions, October 2004
• Timber treatment requirements, February 2005
• External moisture - a guide to using the risk matrix, June 2005
• Constructing cavities for wall claddings, June 2006
• External moisture - an introduction to weathertightness design principles, August 2006
• E2 External Moisture, third edition July 2004, updated February 2005, July 2005, December 2005.

 ¹⁰ Section 37 of the Building Act 2004 replaced this section when the Building Act 1991 was repealed.

 ¹¹ Sections 71-74 of the Building Act 2004 replaced this section when the Building Act 1991 was repealed.

 ¹² Section 112 of Building Act 2004 replaced section 38 when the Building Act 1991 was repealed. Sections 114 and 115 of the Building Act 2004 replaced section 46.

 ¹³ Section 64(1), (2) and (3) of the Building Act 1991 has been replaced by section 121 of the Building Act 2004. Section 64(4) of the Building Act 1991 was replaced by section 123 of the Building Act 2004.

 ¹⁴ Section 122 of the Building Act 2004 replaced this section.

 ¹⁵ Form 4A of the second schedule of the Building Regulations 1992 prescribed the form and content of such certificates. Under the Building Act 2004 the prescribed form is now form 4 of the Building (Forms) Regulations 2004.

 ¹⁶ Section 46 of the Building Act 1991 was replaced by sections 108-111 of the Building Act 2004.

 ¹⁷ The Department recommends that the Council refer to sections T-27 and T-28 of the Department's Building Consent Authority Development Guide for further guidance on developing a policy for its compliance schedule and BWOF regimes. This document was provided to the Council in February 2006 in hard and electronic copy and is available on the Department's website.

 ¹⁸ Section 47A of the Building Act 1991 is the equivalent of sections 117-119 of the Building Act 2004. Section 46 of the Building Act 1991 is the equivalent of sections 114-115 of the Building Act 2004. Section 36 of the Building Act 1991 is the equivalent of sections 71-74 of the Building Act 2004.

 ¹⁹ The main equivalent sections in the Building Act 2004 are sections 216 and 217.