CONSENT EVALUATION REPORT: PART TWO

The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) has released its evaluation of the building consent system report. This is the second of four articles that explores its findings

The report was commissioned to understand how well the current consent system is aligned with its objectives and to explore the underlying causes of issues such as efficiency and effectiveness.

Under Construction has reported widely on the consenting process, with builders highlighting issues with it across the country. 

However, MBIE refuted those claims in the executive summary of the report. 

“The system faces frequent criticism for being inefficient and unpredictable, adding additional costs and delays to building projects,” it stated. “However, there has been little robust evidence to support these claims and a lack of nationally consistent data about the consenting process.”

The report gathered evidence between March and July 2021. It carried out interviews, focus groups, surveys, building site visits, reviewed existing research and analysed the current consents process. MBIE received 291 survey responses, carried out 59 interviews, held five focus groups attended by 41 industry professionals and visited sites in eight regions across New Zealand. 

This is the second of four articles that will explore how well the building consent system is aligned with its objectives, as discussed in the report.

The system generally aligns with its intent

MBIE states that “the building consent system is broadly aligned with its intent” but added that gaps remained.

“Building consents often face lengthy processing times, delays due to requests for further information and unpredictable outcomes of decision-making. This indicates that while the system may be effectively achieving its intended outcome, it is not operating as efficiently or predictably as expected.”

As the Building Code is not prescriptive, it allows Building Consent Authorities (BCAs) to develop their own methods for determining whether work satisfies Building Code requirements. Despite the potential for difference in methods, an International Accreditation New Zealand (IANZ) report carried out on behalf of MBIE found that “in general, most BCAs have good policies, procedures and systems in place to effectively undertake their building control functions”.

According to MBIE, the differences between BCAs are primarily administrative – some are increasing their uptake of electronic consenting systems and others the use of remote inspections, while some are doing neither.

The report indicated a broad agreement that the consent system is contributing to Code-compliant building work – 86% of BCAs surveyed agreed that the building consent system helps ensure safe, durable buildings and 76% of sector respondents had the same opinion.

There was less certainty about whether the system was achieving its other intended outcomes of ensuring consistency and supporting innovation.

When asked if the building consent system supports innovative and modern methods of construction, most BCAs ‘strongly disagreed’ (14%) or ‘disagreed’ (54%). Sector respondents were even stronger in their views, with 32% ‘strongly disagreeing’ and 41% ‘disagreeing’.

The system is not operating as well as it could be

In the report, MBIE stated that “the system should be able to achieve its intended outcomes, while minimising the inputs and handling required”.

MBIE recognises that the consent system ensures compliant building work, but that the process is not efficient or predictable for builders – an issue that builders are all too aware of.

It’s also one that David Kelly, Chief Executive of the Master Builders Association, said could cause builders to go under.

“Additional delays to consents mean you’ve got to wait for inspection, which makes it even harder to manage projects, harder to get specialist trades in when they’re needed, which means builders can’t move through the stages of a build on time. This could be a tipping point, which could break the back of some building services.”

Long processing times

BCAs are required to process a building consent application within 20 working days of receipt. If a BCA requires additional information to process the consent, a request for further information (RFI) can be applied for. The time it takes an application to supply request information does not count towards the 20 days.

MBIE states that most consents are processed within 20 days; however, many are put on hold following the issue of an RFI.

“With many applications put on hold pending further information, the actual processing timeframe is likely to be much longer,” said MBIE. “The extent to which this might be an issue is not currently well understood, due to the lack of sufficient consenting data.”

The average time to make a decision is 14 days; however, this does not include the time an application was put on hold via an RFI. MBIE estimates that 25% of BCAs struggle to meet their processing time requirements.

Interestingly, 61% of BCAs disagreed that the current consent system ensures construction is completed on time (11% strongly disagreed, 50% disagreed). 72% of sector respondents felt the same way (31% strong disagreed, 42% disagreed).

Quicker consents? Fewer RFIs
It’s rare that a consent application doesn’t receive an RFI. A 2017 review found that, for applications requiring further info, an average of 11 items are requested.

BCA and sector survey respondents thought that too many RFIs were being issued (75% of BCAs, 64% of sector respondents). However, the respondents were divided about why RFIs were requested.

“Sector respondents typically saw RFIs as delay tactics to allow BCAs more time for processing applications by issuing ‘unnecessary’ and ‘pedantic’ RFIs,” said MBIE.

However, BCA respondents noted that building and design work was often poor or incomplete, which is why an RFI is required.

Unpredictable outcomes lead to frustration

MBIE found that sector professionals are often frustrated by the consent process. The variation in processes between BCAs and within an individual BCA was raised as an issue by builders. Furthermore, the difference in how individual Building compliance officers (BCOs) understand whether a change is a minor variation or an amendment to the building consent has caused frustration.

“BCAs generally have good policies and systems in place to manage the building consent process,” said MBIE. “However, concerns from both BCAs and the sector about unexpected delays and unpredictable outcomes indicate that the system is not working as well as intended.

“Although interviewees expressed confidence that the system was ultimately achieving what it was meant to do, they also acknowledged that the system continued to be difficult and frustrating to navigate.”