Question 11

Summary of feedback

Overall, 904 submitters answered this question. Homeowners made up nearly 40% of responses to this question, with builders and architects/designers being the next largest groups. Feedback is summarised by savings area below.

Financial savings

Overall, 55% of submitters felt there would be some form of financial savings.

• 19% of submitters felt there would be financial savings of $15,000 or higher
• 15% felt the saving would be between $3,000 – $15,000, 
• 13% stated that the financial savings would be less than $3,000. 
• The remaining 8% submitted there would be financial savings, but did not specify a value.

The point was made that the largest cost remains the actual building work, of which this proposal will not affect. It was also noted by some that the financial benefits may be relatively small, especially if additional inspections or certificates are added. Some even stated that there may be an increase in overall costs, particularly if there were issues with the build quality that needed to be remedied post-construction.

Homeowners generally commented that there would be significant time and financial savings. There was also a consensus that council processes are overly complicated and hard to use. Cost-to-build was cited as a remaining deterrent.

Some builders submitted that it would create financial and time savings, but that they may be outweighed by increased costs later in the process. It was commented that the building consent fee is only a very small contributor to the overall costs. Others stated it could provide an additional workstream for builders, whilst some had a preference to stick to the status quo to avoid further problems.

Some architects and designers commented it will effectively allow homeowners to build non-compliant buildings, which saves on costs but increases risks.

Councils largely submitted that the cost of a building consent was low given the level of assurance that the process provides to the quality of building work. They were concerned that the cost to rectify non-compliant buildings could result in a net-loss.

Time savings

Overall, 34% of submitters stated that there would be some amount of time saved with this proposal.

• 12% of submitters stated that there would be more than three months of time saved, 
• 10% felt there would be between one to three months saved, and
• 4% felt that less than one month of time would be saved. 
• The remaining 8% submitted there would be time savings, but did not specify a value.

Some architects and designers commented that it should save time as the paperwork in the consenting process can take longer than the construction process.

Offsite construction was submitted as one way to further enable time and money savings and to assist with reducing poor quality building.

< Question 10 | Question 12 >