Builders want improved systems

The Ministry of Building, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) has released a submissions summary provided as a result of the consultation on the building consent system

Participants from across the building sector – 270 in total – submitted responses to MBIE’s Building Consent System Review between June and August 2023. Responses demonstrated “strong support” for removing barriers to product substitution and variation – as long as the performance of a substituted product was comparable to the original.

An area that caused builders problems during Covid was constrained supply of plasterboard and related product – often due to a lack of alternative plasterboard or GIB being specified.

To try and help alleviate the issue, four alternative brands were listed as approved GIB alternatives for use as structural bracing in June and July 2022.

Submissions indicate that builders believe this approach should be rolled out to other products, with 97% of respondents agreeing with MBIE’s preferred approach of exploring ways to reduce specification by brand and increase the flexibility of the MultiProof scheme.

Alternatively, submitters also suggested an option to add a place where building consent applications can specify suitable alternative products.

More efficiency requirements

On the thorny issue of the building consent system, MBIE reported that there was “general agreement” about the need to improve performance. “There is general agreement that the performance of the building consent system could be improved and made more efficient and streamlined through nationally consistent processes and requirements, and through centralised training for building control officers (BCOs).”

Of the 208 responses to this issue, 176 supported nationally consistent processes and requirements. Only 32 didn’t support it or said they were unsure. Centralised training for BCOs was supported by 143 submitters.

Both capacity and capability across the consent system should be boosted, said the summary, while Building Consent Authorities (BCAs) should work together more effectively to deliver consistency across service delivery via shared workflow or service arrangement, as well as centralised knowledge sharing.

“Two thirds of submitters supported shared workflow or service arrangements and a central resource of expertise,” said MBIE.

“While more people supported a central pool of expertise than a centre of excellence, some submitters recognised that they could serve similar functions, for example processing complex consents, and could potentially be combined into one service or entity.”

Criticism for MBIE

MBIE also came under some light criticism from submitters, who “broadly agreed” the organisation can do better in terms of oversight and stewardship to improve the performance of the regulatory system via better monitoring, collaboration and responsiveness.

Overall, submitters agreed the following would help MBIE become a better regulator and steward:

• MBIE must take a stronger role to improve performance of the regulatory system. 
• System performance improvements need to include system participants through collaboration.
• Better monitoring and increased responsiveness to issues go hand-in-hand.
• Providing good information is crucial, but all three initiatives need to work in tandem.

Change needed, but not forced

Within the regulatory system, the summary reports that there was weak support for statutory change to promote competition among the building supplies market but stronger support for non-regulatory approaches.

“There was strong support for non-regulatory options, including issuing MBIE guidance to territorial authorities on promoting competition and incorporating the promotion of competition into MBIE’s regulatory stewardship framework for the building system,” said the summary.

Strengthened roles

Roles and responsibilities are not well understood across the sector, said the majority of responders. They called for greater clarity across the board with particular focus on designers.

There was also consensus that BCAs hold too much responsibility for providing assurance of Building Code compliance, while weak incentives for builders to ‘get it right first time’ places a strain on the system.

Additionally, respondents felt that all designers should provide a declaration of design compliance.

“Submitters had mixed views on what information should be provided in the declaration, with most agreeing it needed to cover all relevant code clauses,” said MBIE.

“While many agreed it could be a modification of the current design memorandum, others suggested it include some or all of the information required by the producer Statement for design.”
Most respondents agreed there should be a requirement for a person responsible for on-site sequencing and coordination of building work, with 126 answering ‘yes’ and 57 answering ‘no’ or ‘not sure’.

Producer statements, in particular, should have clearer legal status and their role should be clarified, said the majority of respondents.

“There is broad, in-principle support to establish a self-certification pathway for approved professionals and accredited companies, as well as establishing a new commercial consent pathway,” said the report.

“However, concerns were raised about the readiness of the sector to take on the additional responsibilities and accountabilities.”

MBIE says it will use the feedback provided to provide advice to the Government on streamlining the consent system and improving the building system as a whole.

This consultation follows another regarding consents that sought feedback specifically on the consent system as a whole, from building design to code compliance. The outcome has previously been reported by Under Construction. The first of four articles that explore its findings can be found in the September 2022 issue on underconstruction.co.nz.