Councils reveal builders’ biggest consent mistakes

Councils from across New Zealand are warning that common, avoidable errors in building consent applications are causing costly delays – and have shared practical steps to help builders avoid them 

While consent documentation is often prepared by designers, councils from across New Zealand say builders can play a role in preventing issues by encouraging thorough preparation, early collaboration and complete, consistent documentation. 

Be clear and consistent 

Christchurch City Council’s Head of Building Consenting, Steffan Thomas, said the reason for issuing a Request for Further Information (RFI) is documentation that does not clearly demonstrate how the design will meet the Building Code. 

“Inconsistencies between plans or reliance on generic design statements can make it difficult for us to assess compliance,” he said. “Clear, project-specific documentation that sets out how each part of the build meets the Code helps speed up the process.” 

He added that it should be easy to see who is responsible for each element and how compliance will be achieved.  

Ensure all documents are included 

Auckland Council’s General Manager Building Consents, Ian McCormick, said many applications are delayed because key documents are missing, unclear, or do not match associated drawings and reports. 

Common examples include site plans not being provided, missing producer statements or product details, and vague Building Code references without proof of compliance. 

“To help speed things up, designers and architects should double-check everything before submitting,” he said. “Consider creating quality control checklists and coordinating these with the publicly available checklists from the building consent authority.” 

McCormick said complex or alternative designs should include extra detail to show how they meet the Code, and applicants unsure of requirements should contact their local council early. 

Gisborne District Council Building Services Manager Ian Petty added that a plan’s clarity can make a big difference. 

“It’s important to show all the details required, especially junctions and fixings,” he said. “The plans should be exact and have the details clearly labelled and referenced. White space is not a crime and every gap on a sheet doesn’t need to be filled.  

“For clarity, often less is more regarding ease of checking. Make sure any calculations match what is on the plan – this is especially important for bracing and insulation calculations. There is software that does this for the designer but they are responsible for transferring that information onto a plan for us to check and the builder to follow. 

“It’s also important to read the geotechnical report and foundation recommendations. If the report states foundations must be 1.43 of the New Zealand Standard then that needs to be shown on the plans – too often the report will state larger foundations and the plans show standard.” 

Thomas echoed Auckland Council’s view, saying many problems can be avoided if designers, contractors and suppliers meet early in the process. 

“Early conversations can identify differences in construction methods, materials or detailing,” he said. “Resolving these before lodging the application reduces the risk of changes or variations later.” 

Use council resources before applying 

Councils encouraged applicants to make use of pre-application meetings and request a Project Information Memorandum (PIM) during the design phase.  

Thomas said this helps identify site-specific issues in advance, giving designers a clearer picture of what to address in their documentation. 

While the Building Act requires documentation to show compliance, it does not prescribe how that information should be presented.  

Thomas said designers with experience in the type of work proposed tend to produce clearer, more complete documentation that is easier to assess, leading to fewer RFIs and faster processing. 

Provide the required information 

Gisborne District Council also noted that it often receives consent applications that don’t include enough information. It said consents are often delayed due to the following: 

• Top and bottom plate fixings not specified. 

• Lack of supporting documentation for alternative solutions. 

• The wrong Building Code clause listed on the application form. 

• No roof truss design supplied with plans. 

• Very poor junction details – especially roof to wall junctions. 

• Sub-floor bracing showing braces that don’t comply with NZS3604. 

Napier City Council said that it most often issues RFI for consent applications that fail to demonstrate compliance with the following Building Code clauses: B1: Walls, Wall bracing, Posts, Beams, E2: Wall Cladding Systems, E1: Surface Water, G13: Foul Water and G12: Water Supply. 

Check for inconsistencies 

Hamilton City Council’s Regulatory Services Unit Director, Cory Lang, said applications proposing Alternative Solutions often lack the necessary evidence to show compliance with the Building Code. Missing specifications, BRANZ appraisals and CodeMark certifications, plus a lack of detail explaining how a solution complies are all common problems. 

He added that Producer Statements and other certification are sometimes submitted without all compliance methods listed, or with insufficient detail about the scope of work. Lang said these forms must clearly demonstrate how the design meets compliance requirements. 

Check your calculations 

Another recurring issue highlighted by Lang is when discrepancies arise between H1 energy efficiency calculations and the plans provided. 

“For example, underfloor insulation may be included in the calculations but not shown on the plans,” he said. “This kind of mismatch will trigger further questions and delay processing.” 

Frequent vetting-stage delays 

Before an application is accepted for processing, it is vetted. Lang said RFIs at this stage often relate to: 

• Missing or incorrectly signed Letters of Authority. 

• Records of Title older than two months. 

• Incomplete Certificates of Design for Restricted Building Work. 

• Missing details for specified systems. 

• Mismatches between the application form and supporting documentation. 

Wellington City Council added that issues noted include: 

• Omission of individuals who carried out the work.  

• Service request numbers provided not matching the scope of work covered by the PS1.  

• Unsigned and/or undated applications.  

• Missing supporting documents such as LBP memos, as-laid drainage plans, energy work certificates (gas and electricity) and PS4s from engineers. 

A shared goal of faster approvals 

All councils said they share the same goal as applicants – to get compliant projects approved quickly and agreed that thorough, consistent and well-coordinated applications from the outset reduce the need for RFIs and help avoid delays. 

For builders, that means encouraging designers to be detailed and accurate, checking plans for consistency and supporting early engagement with councils.