Appendix two: Summary of options for feedback
On this page
Section one: Options to increase the uptake of remote inspections
Option one: Review remote inspection guidance, address failure rates and/or publish wait times (non-regulatory)
Benefits
- Identifying and addressing inspection failures will reduce delays and costs associated with rework, free up inspection resource, and improve build quality.
- Publishing data on wait times could incentivise building consent authorities to improve efficiency, reducing overall time and cost to build.
- Guidance:
- is low-cost to implement and provides flexibility for building consent authorities to choose an approach that balances level of investment with expected efficiency gains
- does not make system more complex and allows building consent authorities to manage their own risk (and potential liability).
- Guidance can continue to be easily updated as technology and confidence improves. Can be easily adapted to align with any future system changes.
Risks and costs
- Guidance alone may be insufficient to promote widespread uptake and drive greater consistency in approach, which would limit potential efficiency gains.
- Data collection and analysis is resource intensive. New data requests would need to be prioritised within existing data collection programme.
Option two: Require building consent authorities to have the systems and capability to conduct remote inspections
Policies, procedures, technology, and training required by building consent authorities to maintain accreditation
Benefits
- Should result in greater efficiency gains than option one as it would enable more productive use of inspection resources and a reduction in wait times and overall build times (which may provide for a reduction in associated costs, such as rental costs incurred by an owner during the build).
- Flexibility to share inspector capacity and capability across building consent authorities and private companies (who could undertake remote inspections on behalf of building consent authorities). Also supports efficiency and productivity at the national level.
- Policies, procedures, quality controls, and auditing (required under the Accreditation Scheme) would support robust decision making.
- Discretion allows building consent authorities to:
- determine when a remote inspection would be more cost effective and/or efficient
- manage their own risk when undertaking inspections (for example, limiting to builders with a good track record).
- Could provide homeowners with a digital record of work done, which could help identify responsible parties should issues be found later.
Risks and costs
- Some inconsistency between building consent authorities is likely (due to different policies and procedures).
- Having the ability to conduct remote inspections does not mean building consent authorities will maximise their use, limiting potential efficiency gains.
- Implementation costs (to establish policies, procedures, technology, and training) may lead to higher fees if those costs outweigh efficiency gains. This is more likely for smaller building consent authorities with low inspection volumes who may need to engage others to do remote inspections on their behalf.
- Set-up and implementation costs might not be recovered if there were voluntary consolidations or structural reform to the building consent system in the future.
- Time and cost for the sector to upskill.
Option three: Require building consent authorities to use remote inspections as the default approach to conducting inspections
Could include:
- Enabling provision in Building Act
- Criteria in regulations on inspections to conduct remotely.
Benefits
- Should lead to the highest efficiency gains, ensuring more productive use of inspection resource and reductions in wait times.
- Building owners would benefit from a reduction in overall build times (greater benefits when demand for inspections is high) and associated costs (for example, avoid paying rent for longer periods).
- National guidelines would support consistent and robust decisions on inspections that should be done remotely.
- Flexibility to share inspector capacity and capability across building consent authorities and private companies (with clarity on what should be inspected remotely). Also supports productivity at the national level.
- Could provide homeowners with a more comprehensive digital record of work done (compared to option two), which could help identify responsible parties should issues be found later.
Risks and costs
- Requiring by default removes the flexibility for building consent authorities to manage their own risks in line with the capability and confidence of people using remote inspection tools. This could lead to issues being missed in the inspection, resulting in building defects, which would impact building owners and increase building consent authorities’ exposure to liability claims.
- Some homeowners may be concerned that remote inspections are less robust than on-site inspections.
- Above risks could be mitigated by initially focusing on lower risk building work and inspections to allow inspectors and the sector to adapt to using remote inspections.
- Similar costs to option two. Investment and implementation costs may lead to higher fees (as noted in costs for option two).
- Set-up and implementation costs might not be recovered if there were voluntary consolidations or structural reform to the building consent system in the future.
- Some inspections might take longer to conduct remotely (however, this may be offset by reduced travel).
- This option would likely take longer to implement and realise benefits.
Option four: Create a new offence to deter deceptive behaviour (stand-alone or complementary option)
- Supports buildings to be healthy, safe and durable by reducing the likelihood of defects.
- Should increase efficiency by giving building consent authorities more confidence to use remote inspections by addressing a key barrier to uptake (such as, potential liability claims).
- Makes the responsibilities and accountability of builders clear.
- Can be implemented on its own or with any of the other options.
- Would support the use remote inspections under any future system.
Risks and costs
- May not significantly increase uptake of remote inspections (if implemented as a stand-alone option).
- Effectiveness of the option depends on councils detecting and pursuing enforcement action related to dishonest behaviour.
- Time and costs for councils or other authority to prosecute, which may reduce effectiveness as a deterrent.
Section two: Increasing inspection capacity
Increasing inspection capacity through the use of Accredited Organisations (Building) to undertake inspections
Benefits
- Supports greater flexibility and timeliness (efficiency) of inspections by increasing overall inspection capacity and capability.
- Could provide smaller building consent authorities with an alternative way to do remote inspections, reducing implementation costs.
- Allowing owners to contract directly could support consistent inspection decisions for developers who work across multiple regions (such as, due to inspector familiarity with a developer’s standard designs), and provide options to find a faster inspection service, reducing overall build time.
- Could support greater capacity under a future system.
Risks and costs
- Could lead to higher inspection costs. However, these costs may be balanced out by the benefits of flexibility and timeliness.
- Allowing owners to contract directly could lead to a perception of less independence and less robust decisions. However, these risks could be addressed through proposed mitigations.