The Minister of Building and Construction says New Zealand is facing a “worrying lack of capacity” in building inspections during the current construction slump and he’s concerned about how the sector will manage inspection demands when construction ramps back up.
Chris Penk announced on Tuesday that the Government was moving forward with a requirement for building consent authorities to use remote inspections as the default method.
“Building anything in New Zealand is too expensive and takes too long,” he said in his announcement.
Penk told interest.co.nz later on Tuesday that building inspection practices had evolved differently across councils, with some permitting remote building inspections while others didn’t.
He said the Government’s requirement was to collate the best – and safest – practices that would also avoid problems like the leaky buildings saga.
“It seems to me that some [councils] are inherently more conservative and risk averse, and that's understandable given that they've got joint and several liability if something goes wrong,” he said.
“But that doesn't explain why some are different from others, because they all face that reality. I think in the case of councils where they've got maybe less specialised knowledge, all different geographical factors, such as greater distances to travel, someone around with a clipboard to inspect in person, then that might contribute to their decision to allow this or not.”
Penk said he had spoken to builders who had worked across various council jurisdictions and experienced firsthand the differences in councils’ acceptance of remote inspections.
“Some of the councils that are doing it, frankly, deserve to be commended for that, but it's a matter of giving some confidence to the other ones that are not yet on board that they can do likewise,” he said.
Asked if workloads for building inspectors would increase if remote inspections become the default, Penk said inspectors would be able to do more inspections without needing to work additional hours.
“I’m hopeful that we’ll be able to increase the capacity of the number we’ve got at the moment without necessarily increasing the headcount,” he said.
But he added there was a “worrying lack of capacity” that the industry was currently experiencing.
“With the delays that are being experienced by people who are building now when we’re in a relative slump, that doesn’t bode well for a scenario in which activity increases in time – which [we] certainly want to happen for the sake of the sector and for the purpose of supply and affordability,” he said.
“And so if we can't cope now, [there’s] no hope whatsoever when things take a turn.”
'Safety valve'
To make remote building inspections the standard approach before in-person inspections, Penk said the Government would probably need to make a law change that sets up a default system.
But he wants to hear from builders and councils first.
The Government will release a discussion document in the third quarter of 2024 which will give the building sector and councils an opportunity to provide feedback.
Penk said he wants to know from builders and councils where they think a “safety valve” in the system should be.
“It might be that certain types of building aren't appropriate or inspections at certain stages of the process are less suitable for remote visual inspections,” he said.
Remote inspections is the latest in a raft of changes in the building and construction sector that Penk has announced recently.
In April, he revealed that residential building materials approved in trusted overseas markets are now automatically accepted in NZ under changes to the Building Act.
Penk announced in May that the Government was going to be “clarifying the definition” of a ‘minor variation’ and introduce ‘minor customizations’ to the Building Act.
In his May announcement, Penk also noted that the Government has already taken steps to:
- Remove barriers for the use of overseas building products and require councils to accept products that meet international standards which are the same as or higher than those in New Zealand.
- Bring forward a review of the earthquake prone building legislation and extend remediation deadlines by four years while the review is underway.
- Exempt small building projects under $65,000 from paying the building levy.
- Require councils to submit timeframes for building consents applications.
- Cut more dam red-tape for farmers by raising the height threshold for dam safety regulations from one to four meters.
24 Comments
As someone that is building and have had a number of inspections like this (waived), the builder then ends up having to do the work and Council still complain.
This is not going to be good. If there are issue, Council will blame the builder and the home owner will have zero recourse.
I get the resourcing constraints but I don’t feel this is the correct solution.
Having been in the eternal finger-pointing triangle of builder, tiler and council, all saying "it's not my fault your shower leaked" despite it obviously being someone's fault (Council + tiler guilty as charged). I can't see remote inspection solving a thing, probably making problems for owners further down the track - maybe that's the plan (again), borrow from tomorrow to avoid doing the right thing today?
While there is a major lack of capacity and capability in council inspections the bigger problem is that with the current downturn we are once again losing people from within the building industry as well as fewer new apprentices being taken on. Expect to see another major labour shortage when things start to boom again
Unless you know enough about it yourself, then employ someone who has the expertise to inspect and evaluate the work as it progresses. Too many builders are a law unto themselves and are expert at what they can get away with. For instance, see you in court then, but it will cost you more to sue me for $35k than what it is worth. As well it is a chums club between, builder, suppliers (especially Fletchers,) and sub contractors where they all blame one another. MBIENZ needs to introduce an audit system where customers put themselves forward and cases are randomly selected. At least if builder knows that might eventuate they might think twice about their conduct.
You still have to engage & pay a LBP to supervise yourself doing almost all the foundation, structural, cladding & roofing work. Good luck if you can find any tradesperson willing to sign off on that risk, for a job they could be paid for doing entirely; why would they. Plumbing & Drainage trades have now captured the regulators to ensure no alternatives to their incomes there.
Council by giving a permit on the building should be able to see if it needs inspections by person or are happy with the builder supplying pic and written clarification example exterior cladding and roof lines if it's a bog standard house with brick and or weatherboard then ok. If it is several different claddings meeting in corners with no soffit then inspect. Also the builder if it's a newbie who hasn't got a history of good workmanship etc then inspect if say someone like a big bulk builder like GJ then ok but I feel Council still needs to at least do one or two inspections. Always good to discuss and get another point of view on the situation
Nice idea but unfortunately there are plenty of cowboys out there that would try to hide their corner-cutting and would be empowered to do so with remote inspections. What they should look at is when the council require an engineer's inspection, they also want to do their own inspection and it ends up doubling up the inspections.
After the christchurch earthquake, a lot of repair work was done using exemptions, I saw 5m high retaining walls built without drainage, I saw walls taken out and beams put in old houses, all signed off by engineers who did not supervise or inspect the work, I support council inspections, and from my experience they are easy to deal with
Shocking Handover: The Home Inspection Nightmare That Will Leave You Stunned! (youtube.com)
Remember there were council inspections involved amongst all this prior.
no better way to usher in an even bigger leaky home crisis. What could possibly go wrong with no on-site inspections? just about everything I guess. We are already a country of crappy developers and shoddy builders and this would give them carte blanche to build even worse stuff.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.