Submission to Building Professionals Act 2005 Draft Report from:Greg Johnston

Please find attached my comments with respect to the report from Mr Lambert on the Building Professionals Act Review I make the following comments as an individual registered certifier. These comments are made by me as an individual and should not be seen as the views of the Deniliquin Council my employer.

I am generally supportive of the conclusions / findings of Mr Lambert but offer the following specific comments:

  • Provide a single body for the regulation of building related matters in NSW such as the Victorian Building Authority. This body should have control of its own funding. The title of the Office of Building Regulation is appropriate. It should contain three distinct arms, the first two with responsibility for a separate Act or separate Division of the Act if incorporated into one Building Act & Regulations:

(i)For the licensing / accreditation of all trades and professions within the industry from the design to the build and inspection stages, with a requirement for all people providing a trade or professional service to meet minimum qualification standards, minimum insurance requirements with a common run-off period for all people involved in the building process, not just certifiers. This part of the organisation would include a branch that provides for the auditing and investigation of complaints in respect to trades and professions involved in the building process with proper resourcing to enable adequate on-site auditing not just desk top auditing.

(ii)For the setting of regulations / policy and guidance to industry such as Practice Notes, standardising of forms across industry. This would include a technical building advisory service that is resourced to be open and available to the public and certifiers during normal business hours.

Note the Long Service Levy Corporation would not need to be incorporated into this body as it is not related to building regulation, rather employment conditions.

(iii)An appeals body responsible for appeals into either of the processes outlined above.

  • A single approvals process for building certification work (ie) do away with CC / CDC and have something simple like building approval / permit under a separate Building Act (incorporating the Swimming Pools Act) similar to the Victorian Building Act including provisions for siting that are simple and clear doing away with the added layer and very complex arrangements of the various SEPPs from the building certification process. Have planning matters dealt with under the EP&A Act with appropriate SEPPs being referenced documents in Planning Instruments. Note: I do not see there is any necessary benefit in incorporating the Home Building Act provisions in the “Building Act”. These could be incorporated into an Act and associated Regulations looking at licensing and qualification standards. The Building Regulations would include specific minimum requirements for plans (expanded version of current schedule 1 in the EP & A Regulations).
  • There should not be an ability to impose significant building conditions in relation to Development Consents. The development consents should relate to town planning, amenity, cause and effect issues relating to the use of the site, design compatibility with the location, adequacy of serving and infrastructure. Perhaps the continued use of a standard condition relating to BCA Compliance referencing the year of the BCA design so that something designed one year that carries forward to the next need not have plans updated to reflect the ever evolving BCA requirements if the design has commenced before the changes to the BCA. Where the design needs to have external siting or facade / configuration changes to meet the requirement of compliance with the BCA then an amended DA should be required. (i.e.) The consistent test be applied. There should be no reason to specify higher standards than the BCA in a development consent.
  • The ability to impose conditions of approval on a building approval is supported as this particularly enables conditions for minor matters that have been overlooked on a plan. I query the limiting to specific standard conditions but instead suggest that there be items / design elements that are not able to be conditioned as part of an approval, except to require further information as part of a later stage of the building approval if issued as a staged approval. Certification of installation of design elements should be independent of the installer by an accredited person.
  • Use of standardised forms for all applications and approvals processes and specific standard forms for certification of design and installation of building systems.
  • Need the option of a final inspection / completion certificate in addition to the occupancy permit. The Regulations need to specify where the different certificates are appropriate. An occupation certificate should where relevant include matters that are not complete or compliant with the BCA and specify a reasonable time for completion and reinspection with the certifier responsible for following up. Where notes are included with time frames as part of an occupation certification the certifier should log these electronically with the Office of Building Regulation and subsequently lodge advice of the completion. If not subsequently completed within a further twelve (12) months then the demerit point system be used.
  • Including minimum standards for plans and documentation for building work. The approved building / construction plans should contain sufficient detail to show that the design demonstrates compliance with the BCA, including a design of the components of the system not just specifying an Australian Standard (eg AS 2419.1 – 2005 for fire hydrants, or AS 1684.2 – 2010 for timber framing) as occurs. Without this detailed information it is not possible to determine that a building will comply, builders and tradesman do not have sufficient detail to build and the person inspecting the building does not have sufficient detail to carry out an inspection.
  • The Regulations would include minimum requirements for the administration of approvals process.
  • The owner be responsible for appointing the certifier. Note for strata schemes it be the strata lot holder with the consent of the strata body corporate. Lack of clarity at the moment “ the person having the benefit of the consent.”
  • A single certifier be appointed and responsible for all aspects of the project they have been appointed for from approval of the plans, to inspection of the building and issue of occupation certificates and final inspection certificates (see later comments) to taking enforcement action where appropriate.
  • Council’s should not be responsible for enforcement action where a private certifier has been appointed to carry out work. The responsibility for taking this action should rest with the certifier appointed as the responsible person for the work The proposed site signage is a good suggestion identifying responsible people to the public. When a complaint is lodged with the certifier (Council or private) the certifier should have the obligation to notify the Office of Building Regulation of receipt of the complaint and subsequently forward a copy of their documented action in respect to resolving a complaint, including as appropriate any enforcement action taken with a copy given to Council as part of their record keeping function. The Office of Building Regulation licensing branch would be responsible for ensuring reasonable action has been taken to address a complaint and have the ability to issue a PIN or other discipline action if the certifier has not been deemed to have met their obligations under the Building Act. The standardised application or approval form should include a schedule of fees / charges for the taking of enforcement action. Care needs to be exercised that this fee charging system is balanced against unscrupulous charging through the appeals process. Demerit system for certifiers is supported.
  • Proposed greater use of E-technology needs to be supported with funding. This should in particular apply to smaller rural Councils and private certifying firms who do not have the technology support systems of larger Councils are able to participate. Note: It needs to include private certifiers to ensure consistency across the sector.
  • The formatting, information provided and able to be generated by systems needs to have minimum base standards. A single system for use by all organisations is not supported as this stifles competition and potentially innovation, part of what E-technology is aiming to drive.
  • Ability to serve a PIN or take enforcement action jointly against a builder as well as the owner. Often the building owner, who is currently responsible under the existing provisions, is not aware or has no responsibility and in the case of a lot of building projects has to hand over the site to the builder until completion.
  • The ability to note at the time of the issue of an occupation certificate or final inspection that a mandatory inspection has been missed and an automatic PIN against the builder.
  • Copy of the proposed building manual to be submitted to online register held by the Office of Building Regulation and into the records held by Council. The building manual should form part of the documents provided with the sale of a property and an application for work to modify a building.
  • Extension of work of Fire & Rescue NSW beyond those services that explicitly involve fire brigade intervention is not supported. The use of the International Fire Engineering Guidelines is supported with an independent peer review certification process for alternative solutions.
  • In order to provide for greater pool of certifiers assistance in funding such as the SA Construction Industry Training Fund or the Building Commission in Victoria (as it was known) training and mentoring scholarships for rural areas. Specified training pathway and accreditation process for existing industry professionals to upgrade is supported together with clear and simplified processes for trainees to move through accreditation process. Note: there should be no distinction between Council accreditation or Private accreditation except for individual insurance cover as opposed to Council insurance cover through a mutual liability scheme. If a person is deemed fit to certify a building they need to be fit to do so whether through Council or a private certification process.
  • R1A accreditation enabling larger floor area buildings but limited rise seems appropriate.
  • Written contracts are not the answer to apparent competition discrepancies and conflict of interest matters. Suggestions include:

-prescribed minimum fee levels;

-owner to appoint certifier with a short statement of the roles / objectives of the certifier and question on the application form along the lines are you aware that the building approvals process provides options for appointing Council or independent private certifiers independent of those recommended by your builder;

-needs to be supported by proactive audits and investigations process.

  • Simplification of pool standards to one standard is good in principle but with the sun setting of Standards and changes to Standards it is going to be a case of forever chasing to catch up with upgrades.

If you require any further comment in respect to this submission please contact me via the details below.

Regards

Greg Johnston