Articles | SDS Design

Amended Building Consent? Or a Corrupt Council? By: , Wednesday 16 June 2010

Two years ago, I designed a renovation project for a client of mine in New Lynn, under Waitakere City Councils' jurisdiction. The project entailed an additional master bedroom with ensuite etc, and a re-design of the living area. The dwelling has a concrete tile roof, similar style to an old state house, and had cedar bevelback weatherboards as it's cladding, complete with timber rimu joinery. The cladding was in exceptional condition considering the home was 60 years old. As a result of this, I specified "cedar horizontal timber weather-boards - to match existing" which is quite normal.

The project gained its building consent in the normal way, and my client asked me to arrange a quote with the builder who referred me initially and they were going to achieve a few quotes from their own resources.

I was aware, from my client, that they had chosen a builder and construction was about to be under way, not by the builder who originally referred the project to me.

I will iterate a company policy of mine, which comes from the company I originally did my time with - we do not endorse panel type products that are designed to achieve a "monolithic" surface and the reason simply being, we do not accept the durability of any wood fibre mixed with cement as being a cladding with integrity. Those who read this will understand that I am not referring to a product name or company but will probably know the product being mentioned.

Eight weeks into the project, I was contacted by the owner as they had had an inspection by Waitakere City Council, and the inspector advised, after passing the inspection, that the "designer needs to apply for an amended building consent" as the cladding has changed.

Why, I ask? The builder talked the client into using "Linea" weatherboard by Hardies on the new extension. And naturally, because the "pitch" of the existing weather-boards (110-115mm) would not match the pitch of "Linea" - ie 106mm, they should "re-clad" the whole house. Now, anyone who knows how much it costs to re-clad an existing house, especially those who have had to completely re-clad due to their home leaking, would know that this will not be a cheap exercise. Not to mention that we do not have any confidence in the product based on its composition and track record to date, which is my personal opinion, that I feel I am allowed via "free speech"(?) alas this is a democracy isn't it?.

My Problem: I sent a disclaimer to council, denouncing the "on-site" change, that has in effect, been approved by the on-site inspector, without it actually being specified on the consented drawings. Now, the inspector wants me to provide some amended drawings to specify a product that has in effect, already been installed.

The building code clearly states - since 1992 - that "the territorial authority cannot issue a retrospective building consent", - this is under any circumstances.

Obviously this work has been installed, and approved by the on-site inspector, therefore, as existing un-consented works, the owners would need to apply for a "Certificate Of Acceptance". This is a basic certificate to say that the works appear safe and sanitary, but is by no way an "approval" that would appear on their property file from council; information available to any future prospective purchasers of the property.

The long term repercussions of what the council are asking me to do is: Be legally responsible for the building if it leaks. (Yeah Right!) I am not that stupid.

I wrote my disclaimer to the council, and it was addressed to the "inspector" I was asked to contact (whom I later found out was a processing clerk!). After 12 weeks of no reply, I wrote another letter and included as an attachment, the original disclaimer letter, but still no reply. I rang council, and I spoke to a gentleman, to whom I explained my situationo, and he understood. When I had finished, he asked me why I have a problem with this type of product - I explained that, builders spend a lot of time ensuring that "timber" is separated from "concrete" via some form of water-tight "membrane", as this is to prevent a transfer of moisture. But, here we have a product that mixes wood fibre with cement - where is the membrane? It is the paint!.

From a young designer of age, I learned that "paint" is the last form of defence against moisture penetration, and the first form of defence, is its design, and paint is secondary. So, this product structure is entirely relying on the paint to enable its life, which appears to be short from what I have seen, albeit proven to be minimal.

Do not forget, that a new building in New Zealand, based on the code we have, is not required to "Fail" or fall to pieces within 15 years. This is another way of saying that - Anyone can build a house that only needs to last 15 years as its minimum life! No wonder houses fall to pieces so quickly. It's legal!

I pity the paint companies who stood by these products in their inception.

So my overview of the situation I find myself in, is, that, unbeknownst to council, their employees are trying to make the architectural designer of the original project responsible for the changes to a project, which they have already approved via their inspection staff, which I will not endorse. This puts the council in a precarious position, as I am not going to do what they ask based on a moral principal. I simply, will not pick up the pieces of an inspection system (which should have failed the builder, based on un-consented works) and basically be financially responsible for something that is not within my control as I am an uninformed party.

Tagwords: Amended Building Consent, Corrupt Council

Your comments: