The vexed issue of requests for information

The vexed issue of requests for information

Building consent applications are often slowed down by requests for information (RFIs) from building consent authorities (BCAs). This frustrates both applicants and BCAs. What’s behind the problem, and what can be done to speed things up?

Phil on the BRANZ helpdesk told Build: “I often get complaints from designers about council RFIs being over the top and, on the other hand, councils saying the opposite; that designers’ plans are poor quality and lacking in certain pieces of information.”

RFIs aren’t just inconvenient niggles. One piece of recent research suggests that, across the country, there could be over 600,000 line items in RFIs each year, leading to over half a million days lost.

BCAs must grant a building consent if they are satisfied ‘on reasonable grounds’ that Building Code provisions will be met, if the building work is completed in accordance with the plans and specifications attached to the consent application (Building Act section 49). Where they think they cannot make this decision because information is incorrect or missing, they ask for further information.

With 67 city and district councils acting as BCAs around the country, it is not surprising that vague phrases such as ‘on reasonable grounds’ have led to various interpretations of what is required and different approaches. In 2024, MBIE developed guidance for BCAs to apply the ‘reasonable grounds’ test.

There is more to BCA caution than just questions of wording, however. In the leaky homes disaster, many businesses involved in designing and constructing leaky homes were placed in receivership, leaving BCAs the only remaining bodies that could be sued in court. Leaky buildings claims have cost BCAs billions of dollars to settle, and they are keen not to repeat the exercise. (Recent Government announcements may rebalance some of the risks – see the bottom of this story for more.)

Building consent timeframe blowouts

Section 48 of the Building Act requires BCAs to process a building consent in 20 working days in most cases, but RFIs can blow this out significantly. Within those 20 days, BCAs can request ‘further reasonable information in respect of the application’, suspending the required 20-day timeframe until it receives the information.

Recent research indicates that, in practice, the consent process takes much longer. For example, over one period studied, Auckland Council took 55 working days to grant a consent. This equated to 19 days of actual processing time and 36 days waiting for a response from the applicant to its RFIs. MBIE is now monitoring BCAs’ consent system performance and publishing the details on its website.

Analysing RFIs in Auckland and Tauranga

The BRANZ external research report ModelDocs: Transforming building consenting behaviour for better housing, authored by Professor Anthony Hōete and funded from the Building Research Levy, examined the behaviour of those preparing building consent applications and the BCA staff processing them. It involved a national survey and looked in detail at building consents processed in May 2023 in Auckland Council and Tauranga City Council. On average, each building consent application generated 2.3 RFI letters with 27 sub-line items requiring a response (Tauranga) and 2.5 letters with 30 sub-line items (Auckland).

The research found:

• 86% of RFI items are related to applicant behaviour and 14% to BCA staff (RFIs that need not have been sent).
• Of the 86%, missing documentation accounts for 66%, incorrect documents 10% and coordination issues (such as between architect and engineer) 5%, with obscured documents, a responsibility for both the applicant and BCA, at 5%.
• General and documentation issues accounted for 20–25% of RFIs, Building Code clauses 75-80%.
• Of the Building Code clauses, 31-32% were related to B1 Structure and 19-25% to E2 External moisture. The report points out that targeting these two Code clauses alone could potentially resolve over half of the line items.

Denise Whelan, Manager Building Consents Capability at Auckland Council, told Build that the high profile of B1 and E2 is because they – together with fire – are high-risk components of a building.

“It is crucial that the means of compliance in the application is completely described and appropriate and that evidence is provided,” she said.

While the research involved just two councils, Auckland and Tauranga, there is evidence that its findings are likely to apply in other areas. For example, at Christchurch City Council, several of the most used residential processing questions for RFIs also apply to B1 and E2.

Missing documents, inappropriate details

The variable quality of consent applications is nothing new. In 2016, a BRANZ survey of 52 sets of building consent documents for new houses (Study Report SR355 Consent documentation quality for new housing) also found absent or incorrect documents:

• 43% of the applications lacked details.
• Over 30% were missing uplift details.
• 10–15% were lacking bracing and junction details.
• 20% contained drawing details not applicable to the house.
• 50% had inconsistent scales in the plans.

BCA responsibility

BCAs sometimes get it wrong too. The ModelDocs research found that 14% of RFIs need not have been sent because the information was either originally correct (9%) or present but obscured (5%).

Apart from this, BCAs also have a big responsibility in making their requests clear. The ModelDocs research found that “the quality of RFI line-item response related to the clarity of the RFI query” and “a badly worded RFI can generate more line items”. The report says an efficient RFI will always include four actions:

• Identify clearly what the applicant has done or not done.
• Explain exactly what is not compliant and why.
• Explicitly describe what is required to resolve the issue.
• Direct the applicant to the relevant compliance requirement.

Ways for applicants to reduce the risk of RFI requests

There are many approaches to reducing the risk of RFI queries:

• Make sure you are working from current versions of Acceptable Solutions, Verification Methods, standards and codes of practice.
• Pay particular attention to the requirements and compliance pathways for Code clauses B1 Structure and E2 External moisture, which account for a high proportion of RFIs.
• Make the whole application project specific. Don’t cut and paste large pieces of content from old applications.
• Get a project information memorandum (PIM) from the council early in the process. This can help identify specific land features and design requirements or approvals required. The PIM may give information around, for example, flood risk, subsidence, slippage, stormwater/wastewater systems and heritage status. The costs vary by council and the work/time involved. There is typically a deposit or base fee required.
• Arrange a pre-application meeting with BCA staff to discuss consenting issues relevant to the site and project. Denise Whelan at Auckland Council says this will be especially useful for someone who is starting out and does not have a lot of experience with building consent applications. The cost will depend on the complexity of the project.
• Make good use of the BCA’s lodgement checklist. BCAs commonly require a completed checklist as part of an application. This identifies the information the BCA requires and can be an incredibly useful tool.
• Take advantage of other guidance, such as MBIE’s Standard order of documents checklist for building consent applications.
• Check early in the process whether the BCA has specific requirements for any documents – for example, does it require engineers’ producer statements to be peer reviewed?
• Ensure that engineering drawings and architectural drawings match up and that the façade fire design/fire report matches the architectural plans.

The ModelDocs report came up with three longer-term recommendations to improve consenting in general:

• Missing documents from applicants are behind most RFIs. To address this, each applicant group – such as LBPs, architects, engineers – needs to be specifically addressed. LBPs make up most applicants (87% in Tauranga and 70% in Auckland), and there are various ways to reach them.
• Architects’ behaviour can be transformed through CPD education.
• As 14% of RFIs need not have been sent (the information in the application was present and correct), BCA staff behaviour can be transformed through CPD education.

BRANZ is exploring what more it can do to help resolve the problem of RFIs. This work is at a very early stage – progress will be reported in due course.

RFIs and resource consents

The issues around RFIs also apply to resource consents but, in this case, they are section 92 requests under the Resource Management Act. James Hassall, Head of Resource Consents at Auckland Council, told Build that there would be a request for further information with around 80% of resource consent applications.

Some councils place a timeframe on RFI responses, such as 15 working days. If you don’t respond in time and don’t request a time extension, your non-notified application may be processed as a publicly notified resource consent instead.

Hassall said that most resource consent applications are lodged by private planning consultants. His advice for reducing the risk of problems is to only use a reputable and well-experienced consultant, check whether resource consent is required well before lodging a building consent application, and sit down with a council planner early in the process to fully understand what will be required. While this will have a cost, it will be a small part of the overall resource consent cost, which is typically tens of thousands of dollars.

“It is a false economy not to do this,” said Hassall.

Government changes may transform consenting

If all the government proposals announced in 2024 are put into action, the whole consenting experience is likely to be radically reformed in several years’ time:

• A proposed new Building Act schedule would exempt a building up to 70m² that meets strict requirements from needing a building or resource consent.
• Reforming the consent system to have fewer but larger BCAs and addressing the issue of liability may mean fewer inconsistencies between BCAs and a less conservative, risk-averse approach – reducing delays.
• A Building Act amendment would enable international standards to be used to show compliance with the Building Code. BCAs may be required to accept building products certified overseas and recognised by MBIE.
• One proposed replacement law for the Resource Management Act will provide for a greater use of national standards, setting minimum requirements for developments and other processes currently regulated through consents. Standards will reduce the number and scope of consents.
• Activities complying with a national standard will not require resource consent.
• A Building Act amendment will clarify the definition of a minor variation, reducing the need to submit a new consent application for minor product or design changes.

---

Article written by David Hindley, BRANZ Freelance Technical Writer. This article was first published in BRANZ’s Build 205 magazine in March 2025. www.buildmagazine.co.nz. Images supplied by BRANZ.