Appendix 1: Building Act options
On this page
Options that do not require a building consent
Option 1
Add new exemption to Schedule 1 of the Building Act.
- The exemption would cover single storey, simple construction, standalone dwellings up to 60 square metres.
- If this option required occupational regulation of qualified professionals, this could help ensure building quality (Licensed Building Practitioners/Plumbers).
Benefits
- Reduced time-to-build and regulatory burden (red tape), including avoided consent fees in the order of approximately $2,000 to 5,000 based on a standard consent.
- Provide flexibility for consumers to choose the particulars of the design and build.
Risks/costs
- Increased risk of non-compliant buildings and public health risk (fire, sanitation, building failure) due to no third-party checks.
- No official record of these buildings may lead to issues with infrastructure, quality and safety.
- Potential difficulty for homeowners obtaining finance, insurance or seeking re-sale.
- Owners responsible for ensuring qualified professionals complete the work, however no entity would check this.
- May reduce demand for existing fast-tracked consenting pathways: MultiProof and BuiltReady.
- Adds complexity to the system.
Option 2
Establish a new Schedule in the Building Act to provide an exemption for simple standalone dwellings up to 60 square metres with additional criteria than Schedule 1 to recognise increased risk of these buildings.
- Requires occupational regulation of qualified professionals to ensure building quality as per Status Quo.[1]
- Requires use of certain Building Code Acceptable Solutions (Structure, Weathertightness, Plumbing related) unless MultiProof and BuiltReady are used, to support quality assurance.
- Unlike option 1, would include a requirement to notify to councils as a condition of the exemption.
Benefits
- Reduced time-to-build and regulatory burden (red tape), including avoided consent fees in the order of approximately $2,000 to 5,000.
- Provide flexibility for consumers to choose the particulars of the design and build.
- Provides a record to Councils that these dwellings exist to address issues with infrastructure, financing, and quality issues.
- Avoids significant negative impacts on MultiProof and BuiltReady and complements recent changes to improve flexibility of the MultiProof scheme.
Risks/costs
- Increase in risk of non-compliant buildings due to no third-party checks, however lower risk than option 1 because of notification requirement and other criteria.
- Potential difficulty with finance, insurance and re-sale.
- Owners responsible for ensuring qualified professionals complete the work, however no entity would check this.
- Adds complexity to the system.
Option 3
Introduce a new opt-in self-certification regime for accredited companies and professionals, including for small standalone houses.
- This self-certification scheme could include assurance and auditing systems to ensure applicants continue to meet requirements.
Benefits
- Reduced time-to-build and regulatory burden (red tape), including avoided consent fees in the order of approximately $2,000 to 5,000.
- Provide flexibility for consumers to choose the particulars of the design and build.
- Provides significant risk mitigations to building failure and public health and safety.
- Provides consumer protections and disputes processes.
Risks/costs
- Will take longer to implement than Option 1 or 2
- (quality assurance, training, monitoring, and enforcement regime) and would need to take account of a broader range of building work and wider impacts on the broader building system.
- Depending on the eligibility criteria and accreditation process, there is a risk that few companies and professionals meet requirements to self-certify.
- Adds complexity to the system.
Fast track building consent options
Option 4
Targeted promotion campaigns of BuiltReady and MultiProof, specifically for standalone dwellings up to 60 square metres
- This promotion would include making existing designs more visible to members of the public wishing to purchase them and would encourage more designers to create designs to serve the “granny flat" market.
Benefits
- Reduced time-to-build, but less effective than options that don’t require building consent.
- Quality assurance and consumer protection mechanisms are built into the schemes.
- Provides a record to Councils that these dwellings exist to address issues with infrastructure, financing, and quality issues.
- Complements recent changes to improve flexibility of the MultiProof scheme.
Risks/costs
- Risk of lower impact on the market compared to option 1, 2 or 3.
- Limits consumer flexibility to choose particulars of design and build.
Option 5
New MBIE/Government MultiProof approval for a 60 square metre standalone dwelling
- This option would see the government developing specific designs for small standalone houses and approving them under MultiProof. These could then be made freely available to the public.
- If demand for these designs is strong, it could stimulate private designers to develop MultiProof designs to service the “granny flat" market.
Benefits
- Provides ready-made, free to access designs. Reduced time-to-build, but less effective than options that don’t require building consent.
- Quality assurance and consumer protection mechanisms are built into the schemes.
- Provides a record to Councils that these dwellings exist – can help to address potential issues with infrastructure, financing, and quality issues.
- Complements recent changes to improve flexibility of the MultiProof scheme.
- Enables MBIE to ensure designs meet certain standards.
Risks/benefits
- Risk of lower impact on the market compared to option 1, 2 or 3.
- Limits consumer flexibility to choose particulars of design and build.
- Could negatively impact demand for self-contained dwellings at 60 square metres and under that have already been approved through MultiProof for private companies.
Footnote
[1] Under the Building Act, Licensed Building Practitioners are required to work within their area of competence and must abide by a Code of Ethics. Licensed Building Practitioners can be disciplined for carrying out or supervising building work in a negligent or incompetent manner. Note that Chartered Professional Engineers are deemed Licensed Building Practitioners (design licence class).