Upfront Quality Assurance Could Be The Answer To Building Consent Delays

Utilising third-party quality assurance and design review services to tackle significant building consent application delays could be the answer to ‘stopping the clock’ on processing work.

So says the New Zealand Institute of Building Surveyors (NZIBS), which says the solution to essential information missing lies in more rigorous checking before documents are submitted.

Recent Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment data shows that an estimated 64% of applications are paused while councils request further information.

“Before an application goes to council, a Building Surveyor can review the plans, check the detail, make sure all the supporting documentation is there, and that everything cross-references properly and that which is detailed is not only compliant but also buildable,” NZIBS President David Clifton says.

“It’s like getting someone to check your homework, to make sure all the T’s are crossed and I’s are dotted before it lands on the council’s desk.”

While there is a cost to using these services, Clifton argues that the investment pays off quickly by avoiding costly project holdups.

“The cost isn’t just the delay in consent. It’s the contractors waiting, the sites sitting idle, the materials ordered but unused.

“It may even seem like an unnecessary step in the rigmarole, but that small upfront effort can significantly reduce processing time, the number of RFI’s, cost, and delay down the line.”

He says Building Surveyors are well placed to provide this service due to their experience across the full building process.

Advertisement - scroll to continue reading

“We’re often the ones who come in later to clean up. We understand how council processes work and where the documentation falls short.

“We can draw on structural or specialist expertise as needed, depending on the scale of the project.”

Clifton also points to another contributing factor to delays: a disconnect between design professionals and regulatory requirements in the tertiary education system.

“Architectural courses are traditionally very conceptual. There’s minimal focus on compliance or understanding the Building Code. That disconnect shows up when the designs hit the approvals process,” he says.

Improving training to include stronger compliance content, such as familiarity with consent requirements, the building act, the building code and a greater understanding of acceptable vs alternative solutions, would help bridge the gap between design intent and regulatory expectations.

“With better training and more upfront review, we could see real improvements in consent efficiency across the country,” Clifton says.

© Scoop Media