New building code

[awa355]

Apparently, from the 1st March, any alterations, around the house that requires a building permit has to be carried out by a bonified builder.

Currently I'm putting up a decent lean to along side the garden shed for the firewood. Was told it would need to be put up by a builder if done after the 1st. because it will be a permanent structure.

The local Gestapo can get fucked, if they think I'm getting a builder in to put up a bloody cover for the firewood. :nono:

Any body else aware of the implications of the new rules? from a FIY perspective?

[JimO]

doesn't worry me seeing as im a LBP

[Padmei]

I'm a sparky & get round a lot of renos & new houses.
I have learnt enough by now to ignore the complaints about 'bloody council inspectors' wanting to inspect everything & bloody paperwork.
At the end of the day if someone I cared about was buying a house less than a few years old I would feel reassured it was done by the book.

[Scuba_Steve]

Yea, (I have to check to confirm) but my understanding is this law is utter shit, anything other than cosmetic need to be done by a qualified builder or you must have a qualified builder watching over you the whole time. Which to me is excessive especially since you still need to pay for building inspectors & the whole reason for this law to supposedly to stop dodgy building, the same dodgy building that was done by the qualified builders :facepalm:
Like I said I'll have to actually look for myself sometime to confirm but this is what I've heard about the law.

Oh also now you need to recheck your land for chemicals regardless of previous checks at a LARGE cost to you if you want to build (anything requiring permit) if your property has previously had chemicals on it or been checked before

[Zedder]

Apparently, from the 1st March, any alterations, around the house that requires a building permit has to be carried out by a bonified builder.

Currently I'm putting up a decent lean to along side the garden shed for the firewood. Was told it would need to be put up by a builder if done after the 1st. because it will be a permanent structure.

The local Gestapo can get fucked, if they think I'm getting a builder in to put up a bloody cover for the firewood. :nono:

Any body else aware of the implications of the new rules? from a FIY perspective?

Check out the info on here:http://www.dbh.govt.nz/builditright?gclid=CIG6noG6vK4CFQVLpgodqTfbQA

[Swoop]

the whole reason for this law to supposedly to stop dodgy building, the same dodgy building that was done by the qualified builders :facepalm:
You might be surprised to learn that there are a large amount of unqualified "cowboys" out there. Hopefully this "licence" may cut out a few, however I have heard of quite a few good builders who are hanging up the toolbelt as they do not want more "paperwork bullshit" to deal with.

[Scuba_Steve]

You might be surprised to learn that there are a large amount of unqualified "cowboys" out there. Hopefully this "licence" may cut out a few, however I have heard of quite a few good builders who are hanging up the toolbelt as they do not want more "paperwork bullshit" to deal with.

I know about the cowboys that they've previously tried to stop with the law stating you are responsible for your work for 10yrs, this law I cannot see doing anything other than forcing up costs. the conspiracist in me thinks this might be a master builders brought law.

[ellipsis]

....and now there are a bunch of 'qualified 'cowboys out there...i'm one of the experienced, tradesmen builders who will not be paying any 'tax', which is what it will become, to be lumped into what is nothing more than a way for a bunch of arseholes , (fletchers, carter-holt-harvey...) to have the complete monopoly on the building game in NZ...coming up for thirty eight years in the trade as a self employed and very experienced builder and to be replaced by anyone that pays the money to be registered...there are a lot of very good builders who are now LBP's and a whole lot of liars and cheats...nothing changes, just more bullshit to suck more money from joe public who generally wouldn't know they were being fucked 'til they coughed, but they will know they are being ripped off and dealt to by 'qualified thieves'....time for me to leave the sinking ship...anyone who thinks this is going to improve the building industry, has their head stuck up their own arse....but this is good ole NZ...nothing changes...when joe public cottons on, way down the track, it will be far too late...sad but true...if joe public have been sucked into the fantasy that the building game just got 'safer' for them, then they have a bit of a surprise waiting for them down the road a bit....an expensive and disappointing surprise...looks like i'm semi retired and on the heap next week...oh well...

[Drew]

Permits required, for anything over $5000, or any structural changes. Been like that for years now.

Where the new law differs however, is it makes the chippie responsible, rather than the architect. This is a fuckin crock!

We aren't allowed to do anything that won't comply, but they can fuckin draw it. We can't do fuck all that's not on the plans, because that's what has been consented. Anyone see the problem in that?

Architects get paid very fuckin well to do what they do, and I think you'd be surprised at how useless they can be. I have gone to build things that have nothing shown as to how they're held up. I've built walls that have very differnt finish details, that are supposed to come together, leaving holes you could fit a finger through.

Get the architect in to sort it, and I swear to god, they stand there looking at it untill the builder gives them a solution, and they fuck off and draw it our way.

There is an issue in need of attention, what with the leaky buildings that are all over the country. But riddle me this, who designed it? Builders and project managers for the most part, don't cut corners when it comes to claddings. How can so many buildings leak if they were consented to be built as per NZ standards?

[Scuba_Steve]

Fuck this is longer than the Road User Rule... But can anyone confirm this is the law concerned here??? "Building Act 2004 No 72 (as at 01 January 2011), Public Act" (http://legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2004/0072/latest/whole.html?search=ts_all%40act%40bill%40regulation _building_resel&p=1#dlm306036)

[bogan]

Apparently, from the 1st March, any alterations, around the house that requires a building permit has to be carried out by a bonified builder.

Currently I'm putting up a decent lean to along side the garden shed for the firewood. Was told it would need to be put up by a builder if done after the 1st. because it will be a permanent structure.

The local Gestapo can get fucked, if they think I'm getting a builder in to put up a bloody cover for the firewood. :nono:

Any body else aware of the implications of the new rules? from a FIY perspective?

We do a bit of 'moveable' shedding, keep it under 10 square meter floor area and no permit required. Just make everthing moveable so if some bastard kicks up a fuss about it being < its height from a boundary we just drag it somewhere else paint it camo, and move it back :lol:

Did our firewood lean-to shed like that; not too sure what the go is with carport style covers though, I thought they were exempt from permits for some reason.

Building permits for little stuff is such a crock of shit anyway, be ok if they charged wof-like amounts instead of some stupid amount. If a hurricane came through here, the 'permitted' garage would be gone, but my over-engineered firewood shed wouldn't have moved an inch.

[Zedder]

Permits required, for anything over $5000, or any structural changes. Been like that for years now.

Where the new law differs however, is it makes the chippie responsible, rather than the architect. This is a fuckin crock!

We aren't allowed to do anything that won't comply, but they can fuckin draw it. We can't do fuck all that's not on the plans, because that's what has been consented. Anyone see the problem in that?

Architects get paid very fuckin well to do what they do, and I think you'd be surprised at how useless they can be. I have gone to build things that have nothing shown as to how they're held up. I've built walls that have very differnt finish details, that are supposed to come together, leaving holes you could fit a finger through.

Get the architect in to sort it, and I swear to god, they stand there looking at it untill the builder gives them a solution, and they fuck off and draw it our way.

There is an issue in need of attention, what with the leaky buildings that are all over the country. But riddle me this, who designed it? Builders and project managers for the most part, don't cut corners when it comes to claddings. How can so many buildings leak if they were consented to be built as per NZ standards?

Reasons for leaky buildings: Bad design, using untreated kiln dried timber, unqualified and inexperienced builders etc.

[jellywrestler]

Apparently, from the 1st March, any alterations, around the house that requires a building permit has to be carried out by a bonified builder.

Currently I'm putting up a decent lean to along side the garden shed for the firewood. Was told it would need to be put up by a builder if done after the 1st. because it will be a permanent structure.

The local Gestapo can get fucked, if they think I'm getting a builder in to put up a bloody cover for the firewood. :nono:

Any body else aware of the implications of the new rules? from a FIY perspective?

get a heat pump

[Swoop]

Get the architect in to sort it, and I swear to god, they stand there looking at it untill the builder gives them a solution, and they fuck off and draw it our way.
Then note the drawing "as fitted"... then send in another exhorbitant bill for their "expert services".:wacko:

[Lelitu]

Get the architect in to sort it, and I swear to god, they stand there looking at it untill the builder gives them a solution, and they fuck off and draw it our way.

There is an issue in need of attention, what with the leaky buildings that are all over the country. But riddle me this, who designed it? Builders and project managers for the most part, don't cut corners when it comes to claddings. How can so many buildings leak if they were consented to be built as per NZ standards?

From what I've heard about the leaky building crisis, a huge part of that was a governmental fuckup of monumental proportions. sadly not uncommon.
My grandfather is the man that wrote the report on the techniques they wanted to write into the code. in his words "it will leak" their response - go ahead anyway.

basically, the standards were wrong.

[flyingcrocodile46]

Apparently, from the 1st March, any alterations, around the house that requires a building permit has to be carried out by a bonified builder.

Currently I'm putting up a decent lean to along side the garden shed for the firewood. Was told it would need to be put up by a builder if done after the 1st. because it will be a permanent structure.

The local Gestapo can get fucked, if they think I'm getting a builder in to put up a bloody cover for the firewood. :nono:

Any body else aware of the implications of the new rules? from a FIY perspective?

The Building Act 2004 Section 1 excerpt says...........


Schedule 1 s 41(1)(b)
Exempt building work
A building consent is not required for the following building work:
(a) any lawful repair and maintenance using comparable materials, or replacement with a comparable component or assembly in the same position, of any component or assembly incorporated or associated with a building, including all lawful repair and maintenance of that nature that is carried out in accordance
with the Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Act 1976, except—
(i) complete or substantial replacement of a specified system;
or
(ii) complete or substantial replacement of any component
or assembly contributing to the building’s structural behaviour
or firesafety
properties; or
(iii) repair or replacement (other than maintenance) of any component or assembly that has failed to satisfy the provisions of the building code for durability, for example, through a failure to comply with the external moisture requirements of the building code; or
(iv) repair or replacement of any water storage heater connected to a solidfuel heater or other supplementary heat exchanger, except for the repair, or replacement with a comparable heater, of any openvented water storage heater using the same pipework:
(ab) the opening and reinstatement of any purposemade access point within a drainage system that—
(i) is not a NUO system or part of a NUO system; and
(ii) is carried out in accordance with the Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Act 1976:
(ac) the alteration to drains for a dwelling, if the alteration—
(i) is of a minor nature (for example, shifting a gully trap);
and
(ii) does not include making any new connection to a service provided by a network utility operator; and
(iii) is carried out in accordance with the Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Act 1976:
(ad) the alteration to existing sanitary plumbing (as defined in section 3 of the Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Act 1976) in a dwelling (for example, replacing a bath with a shower or moving a toilet) carried out in accordance with the Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Act 1976:
(ae) the installation, replacement, or removal in any existing building of a window (including a roof window) or an exterior doorway if—
(i) compliance with the provisions of the building code relating to structural stability is not reduced; and
(ii) in the case of replacement, the window or doorway being replaced satisfied the provisions of the building code for durability:
(af) the alteration to an entrance or an internal doorway of a dwelling to improve access for persons with disabilities, if compliance with the provisions of the building code relating to structural stability is not reduced:
(ag) the alteration to the interior of any nonresidential building (for example, a shop, office, library, factory, warehouse, church, or school), if the alteration does not—
(i) reduce compliance with the provisions of the building code that relate to means of escape from fire, protection of other property, sanitary facilities, structural stability, firerating performance, and access and facilities for persons with disabilities; or
(ii) modify or affect any specified system:
(b) the construction or alteration of any motorway sign, stopbank, culvert for carrying water under or in association with a road, or other similar structure that is a simple structure and is owned or controlled by a network utility operator or other similar organisation:
(c) construction or alteration of any retaining wall that retains not more than 1.5 metres depth of ground and that does not support any surcharge or any load additional to the load of that ground (for example, the load of vehicles on a road):
(ca) the construction, alteration, or removal of an internal wall (including the construction, alteration, or removal of an internal doorway) in any existing building if—
(i) compliance with the provisions of the building code relating to structural stability is not reduced; and
(ii) the means of escape from fire provided within the building are not detrimentally affected; and
(iii) the wall is not made of units of material (such as brick, burnt clay, concrete, or stone) laid to a bond in and joined together with mortar:
(d) the construction or alteration of any wall (except a retaining wall or an internal wall), fence (except a fence as defined in section 2 of the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987), or hoarding, in each case of a height not exceeding 2 metres above the supporting ground:
(da) the construction or alteration of any dam that is not a large dam:
(e) the construction or alteration of any tank or pool and any structural support of the tank or pool (except a swimming pool as defined in section 2 of the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987), including any tank or pool that is part of any other building for which a building consent is required,—
(i) not exceeding 35 000 litres capacity and supported directly by the ground; or
(ii) not exceeding 2 000 litres capacity and supported not more than 2 metres above the supporting ground; or
(iii) not exceeding 500 litres capacity and supported not more than 4 metres above the supporting ground:
(f) the construction, alteration, or removal of any tent or marquee that has a floor area not exceeding 50 square metres if that tent or marquee is to be, or has been, used for public assembly for a period of not more than 1 month:
(fa) the construction, alteration, or removal of any tent or marquee that has a floor area not exceeding 100 square metres if that tent or marquee is, or has been, for private use for a period of not more than 1 month:
(g) the construction or alteration of any platform, bridge, or the like from which it is not possible for a person to fall more than 1 metre even if it collapses:
(h) the construction or alteration of any temporary storage stack of goods or materials:
(i) building work in connection with any detached building (except a building that is required to be licensed in terms of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 or a building closer than its own height to any residential accommodation or to any legal boundary) that—
(i) houses fixed plant or machinery, the only normal visits to which are intermittent visits for routine inspection and maintenance of that plant or machinery; or
(ii) into which, or into the immediate vicinity of which, people cannot or do not normally go; or
(iii) is used only by people engaged in the construction or maintenance of another building for which a building consent is required; or
(iv) does not exceed 1 storey, does not exceed 10 square metres in floor area, and does not contain sanitary facilities or facilities for the storage of potable water, but may contain sleeping accommodation (without cooking facilities) if the detached building is used in connection with a dwelling:
(j) building work in connection with the closing in of an existing veranda, patio, or the like so as to provide an enclosed porch, conservatory, or the like with a floor area not exceeding 5 square metres:
(ja) the construction, alteration, or removal of any fabric, glass, or metal awning on any building that—
(i) is on the ground or first storey level; and
(ii) does not exceed 15 square metres in size:
(jb) the construction, alteration, or removal of a pergola:
(jc) the construction, alteration, or removal of a porch or verandah on any building where that porch or verandah—
(i) is on the ground or first storey level; and
(ii) is over a deck or a patio; and
(iii) does not exceed 15 square metres in size:
(k) any other building work in respect of which the territorial authority (or, as the case requires, the regional authority) considers that a building consent is not necessary for the purposes of this Act because that building work—
(i) is unlikely to be carried out otherwise than in accordance with the building code; or
(ii) if carried out otherwise than in accordance with the building code, is unlikely to endanger people or any building, whether on the same land or on other property





Plus the following additional exemptions recently added.

In summary, building work that was added to the current list of exempt work includes:


replacing or altering linings or finishes of any internal wall, ceiling, or floor of a dwelling
making a penetration no greater than 30cm in diameter to enable the passage of pipes, cables, ducts, wires and hoses and the like through any existing building, and any associated work such as weatherproofing, fireproofing or sealing
installing thermal insulation in an existing building other than in an external wall or a firewall of the building
demolishing all or part of a damaged building that is detached (stand alone) and no more than 3 storeys high
repairing and replacing all or part of a damaged outbuilding with a comparable outbuilding within the same area
removing any sign and a sign’s structural support, retaining wall, plinth or similar foundation, or playground equipment

Constructing, installing, replacing, or altering any:


sign and any structural support of a sign if the sign has been designed by a chartered professional engineer, or the sign does not exceed 6 square metres and is no more than 3m above the ground
height restriction gantry, and the removal of any such gantry
retaining wall in a rural zone if the wall has been designed by a chartered professional engineer, retains no more than 3m depth of ground and is no closer than its own height to any legal boundary or existing building
plinth or similar foundation designed by a chartered professional engineer, used for supporting mechanical plant, a tank, equipment, machinery, or any similar item
stall, booth, compartment, or similar structure with a floor area less than 100 square metres used at a fair, exhibition or market for no more than one month, and the removal of any such stall, booth, compartment, or similar structure
shade sail less than 50 square metres, made of fabric or other similar lightweight material and associated structural support provided it is at least 1m from any legal boundary and on the ground level or first storey level if on a building, and the removal of any such shade sail
ground level carport not exceeding 20 square metres and the removal of any such carport
playground equipment designed by a chartered professional engineer provided the work is for a government department, Crown entity, licensed early childhood centre or a territorial or regional authority
playground equipment used by a single household provided no part of the equipment is more than 3m above the ground

The following changes were also made to existing exemptions listed under Schedule 1:


in relation to the construction or alteration of a platform, bridge or the like, the maximum height that a person may possibly fall from the platform or bridge will increase from 1 to 1.5 metres
the maximum height of a wall, fence, or hoarding will increase from 2 to 2.5 metres above the supporting ground
in relation to the construction or alteration of tanks and pools and any structural support of the tank or pool the following additional configurations will be exempt:

up to 16,000 litres and no more than 0.25m above the ground
up to 8,000 litres and no more than 0.5m above the ground
up to 4,000 litres and no more than 1m above the ground
up to 1,000 litres and no more than 3m above the ground


in relation to the construction, alteration or removal of a public tent or marquee the maximum floor area will increase from 50 to 100 square metres
in relation to the construction alteration or removal of a fabric, glass, or metal awning on the ground or first storey level, the maximum size will increase from 15 to 20 square metres
in relation to the construction alteration or removal of a porch or veranda on the ground or first storey level over a deck or patio, the maximum size will increase from 15 to 20 square metres.



Seems like a pretty big list to me.

Don't get all worked up about it. As long as you are staying a metre or more away from the boundary you can build yourself a pergola (without consent but with sloping rafters) - (see bolded section above) then maybe install a bit of clear roofing over it at a later stage.

[Brett]

Yeah, it's a pain in the arse, but necessary. I am in the process of sorting out my Site 3 LBP certification so that we can keep going with a sideline business.

[Laava]

Me too. I have been approved for Qual and site 1 but I am not convinced it is not all a rort. Every year you will be required to pay an ongoing registration, but you just watch how that cost is going to inflate. I would not hesitate to build for myself without permit, but you need to be savvy about how you go about it. ie, location, size and cost. If the council get a complaint they WILL chase it up! Otherwise they do not want to know. That from several inspectors I have spoken to over the last couple of years.

[MisterD]

Yeah, it's a pain in the arse, but necessary.

NotPC says bullshit (http://pc.blogspot.co.nz/2012/02/guest-post-licensed-building.html)



We are sure the great collective will be happy when they seek a small craftsman to do a small alteration, and find instead that the small craftsman can no longer afford the time both to build and to fill out paperwork. That instead of choosing from a big pool of small craftsmen they must choose instead from a small pool of big companies—all bearing the seal of the State.

[flyingcrocodile46]

NotPC says bullshit (http://pc.blogspot.co.nz/2012/02/guest-post-licensed-building.html)

An entertaining and well written theory/opinion but it is really all just his opinion which is largely unsupported by the facts (some of it is twaddle). I doubt very much that even 5% of his views come to fruition as he has grabbed the wrong end of the stick and is barking up the wrong tree.

Licensing (LBP) is long overdue (about 40 years overdue) and will ultimately help shape a much better equipped and educated industry. Though it will take at least 10 years before any really measurable benefits will be seen. Frankly the level of knowledge of builders, designers, contractors etc about what they do for a living is abysmal.

Short of removing 90% of available building products to suit the current knowledge levels (going back to the 70's designs and selections) this is the best answer.

[Scuba_Steve]

An entertaining and well written theory/opinion but it is really all just his opinion which is largely unsupported by the facts (some of it is twaddle). I doubt very much that even 5% of his views come to fruition as he has grabbed the wrong end of the stick and is barking up the wrong tree.

Licensing (LBP) is long overdue (about 40 years overdue) and will ultimately help shape a much better equipped and educated industry. Though it will take at least 10 years before any really measurable benefits will be seen. Frankly the level of knowledge of builders, designers, contractors etc about what they do for a living is abysmal.

Short of removing 90% of available building products to suit the current knowledge levels (going back to the 70's designs and selections) this is the best answer.

I would say his view is the opposite bias of the corporate media, but there's probably more truth in his bias than the other given less money to spend on spin doctors.
Licencing always sounds good in theory, but may I point you to our vehicle licence's, or maybee our gun licence if it plays out the same as them it is nothing more than a tax to make an already expensive process even more expensive & complicated.
I personally think you have to much faith in this LBP, especially given it's effectively brought about by those responsible for most the problems in the 1st place

[flyingcrocodile46]

I would say his view is the opposite bias of the corporate media, but there's probably more truth in his bias than the other given less money to spend on spin doctors.
Licencing always sounds good in theory, but may I point you to our vehicle licence's, or maybee our gun licence if it plays out the same as them it is nothing more than a tax to make an already expensive process even more expensive & complicated.
I personally think you have to much faith in this LBP, especially given it's effectively brought about by those responsible for most the problems in the 1st place

Lol. I must admit to my own skepticism in the early stages, but given that the woes caused by "those responsible for most the problems in the 1st place" are mostly (but not solely) born out of a lack of adequate governance, (as well as political interference) I don't see how the much needed increase in industry knowledge is going to occur without something along the lines of the LBP system, which at the very minimum at least provides a mail out list for educational material (industry updates from DBH, BRANZ, Councils, Suppliers etc) which otherwise doesn't exist.

All these accusations of builders not complying with best trade practice are questionable when there is no mechanism for the distribution of the knowledge of those practices. You can't be held to be negligent if you are ignorant.

[Brett]

NotPC says bullshit (http://pc.blogspot.co.nz/2012/02/guest-post-licensed-building.html)

I bloody hope it is. It will save me a lot of money....

[Drew]

I would say his view is the opposite bias of the corporate media, but there's probably more truth in his bias than the other given less money to spend on spin doctors.
Licencing always sounds good in theory, but may I point you to our vehicle licence's, or maybee our gun licence if it plays out the same as them it is nothing more than a tax to make an already expensive process even more expensive & complicated.
I personally think you have to much faith in this LBP, especially given it's effectively brought about by those responsible for most the problems in the 1st placeI am gonna see what level of LBP I qualify for, with nothing but hands on job training, and most of the commercial building. I may well share you skepticism after that.

I would bet good money that the "tax" you speak of, is not the intended purpose of the LBP bill. I'd probably bet my winnings that it is however, what it becomes.

[Drew]

I bloody hope it is. It will save me a lot of money....Notice how bullshit (http://pc.blogspot.co.nz/2012/02/guest-post-licensed-building.html) is a different colour? It's a link to what appears to be a middle aged tradesman, who takes a lot of pride in his work and how he goes about it, telling of what he thinks he's just been forced to become.

[MisterD]

It's a link to what appears to be a middle aged tradesman,

Peter Cresswell, Architect, blogger and Libertarian spokesman for a bunch of stuff. You should really go read his posts on leaky buildings.

[Coldrider]

Don't know how long this has been happening in other areas but I see now the foundations are boxed up straight on the ground without foundation footings dug into the ground, not even tied onto a sunken pile or such. It is as if ahouse can be nudged around a section with a bulldozer. Now that is a saving. I assume this would be for lightweight exterior cladding only.

[paturoa]

Well the powers that be are running out of nails to get all of those BAD BAD BAD home handyman types that built all of the leaky homes and apartment biuilding complexes.

FOR FUCKS SAKE. This really pisses me off. CORRUPTION.

So what is happening here is that the councils are organising to get themselves leglislated out of any liability for the service(?) they provide. By requiring "licensed" peeps to do all structural work....

[flyingcrocodile46]

Don't know how long this has been happening in other areas but I see now the foundations are boxed up straight on the ground without foundation footings dug into the ground, not even tied onto a sunken pile or such. It is as if ahouse can be nudged around a section with a bulldozer. Now that is a saving. I assume this would be for lightweight exterior cladding only.

That may be a raft slab you are looking at. They are designed to float on the ground (spread the weigth over the whole area rather than just through the perimiter footings). They are well capable of supporting heavy claddings such as brick (even two or three levels) but depending on ground conditions may require piling and brittle cladding such as bricks may require control joints.

Conventional floor slabs require strip footings around the perimiter of each level (of the slab). The embedment depth varies depending on ground conditions. Most areas of Auckland are clay so embedment depth tends to be a minimum of between 450 to 600mm.

[Coldrider]

That may be a raft slab you are looking at. They are designed to float on the ground (spread the weigth over the whole area rather than just through the perimiter footings). They are well capable of supporting heavy claddings such as brick (even two or three levels) but depending on ground conditions may require piling and brittle cladding such as bricks may require control joints.

Conventional floor slabs require strip footings around the perimiter of each level (of the slab). The embedment depth varies depending on ground conditions. Most areas of Auckland are clay so embedment depth tends to be a minimum of between 450 to 600mm.Yes i did see heaps of poly in a stack so that is what it will be. My current house built four years ago is on clay, 300 X 300 footings supporting plaster over block, fill being straight haul. Am looking to build again so watching.

[awa355]

Lol. I must admit to my own skepticism in the early stages, but given that the woes caused by "those responsible for most the problems in the 1st place" are mostly (but not solely) born out of a lack of adequate governance, (as well as political interference) I don't see how the much needed increase in industry knowledge is going to occur without something along the lines of the LBP system, which at the very minimum at least provides a mail out list for educational material (industry updates from DBH, BRANZ, Councils, Suppliers etc) which otherwise doesn't exist.

All these accusations of builders not complying with best trade practice are questionable when there is no mechanism for the distribution of the knowledge of those practices. You can't be held to be negligent if you are ignorant.

If you are Trade trained, where's the excuse for being ignorant of trade practices? Isn't that what Apprenticeships are for?

[flyingcrocodile46]

Well the powers that be are running out of nails to get all of those BAD BAD BAD home handyman types that built all of the leaky homes and apartment biuilding complexes.

FOR FUCKS SAKE. This really pisses me off. CORRUPTION.

So what is happening here is that the councils are organising to get themselves leglislated out of any liability for the service(?) they provide. By requiring "licensed" peeps to do all structural work....

Not at all. The govt (not councils) make legislation. The govt has had to (in their eyes) pass law to force it on the industry because the industry has proven it isn't capable of doing it itself (unlike plumbers/drainlayers and electricians) and needs to be.

Someone recently pointed out to me that Councils in civilized country's (i.e England) don't have this level of problem (perceived failure of their ability to properly take ownership of the liabilities of those who design and build the defective work). I pointed out that in those councils aren't expected to police or take accountability of the building industry so no one is crying about the fact that they dropped the ball. (they never carried it). In England you can't buy a house without a recent building survey/condition report from a registered building surveyor. If you suck a lemon you sue your building surveyor (who is insured)

In NZ if we buy a car without a vehicle check don't look to sue the council or the motor industry when we find it's a lemon. Why do we expect to be able to sue a council for not satisfactorily doing a job (which they had foisted on them by the govt) and that they are charging too little for in an industry that is allowed to build what ever it likes using any material and building system they choose to use.

Councils tried to manage the public's interests by making it hard for owners and designers to build risky designs using untested products but the industry and public cried foul, so the govt stepped in (the building act 1991) and forced Councils to accept the risks and limited the time which they could take to approve them. The govt forced councils to approve untreated framing in housing and that is the core problem/cost driver in leaky buildings.

If everyone who wants councils to be fully accountable had to be satisfied, the councils would have to charge ten times more for building consents than they currently do. No longer would applicants be able to benefit from cost savings generated by inspectors doing between 8 and 13 inspections a day (which with travel time taken out leaves about ten to fifteen minutes to actually inspect the work). They would have to pay more per hour for better qualified inspectors (with an enhanced training similar to that of a building surveyor) and pay for them to do proper inspections of every nut/bolt/nail plate/stick of wood/cladding junction etc etc (rather than cursory inspections of a few examples with reliance on the integrity of the contractors) that would take two to five hours each inspection. Then those same whiners would be pissing and moaning about the costs.

[flyingcrocodile46]

If you are Trade trained, where's the excuse for being ignorant of trade practices? Isn't that what Apprenticeships are for?

When new products are appearing on the market every week and acceptable solutions and NZ standards are being changed every 6 months and there is no registration (list of recipients) so the information regarding all the changes can be sent out to, your apprenticeship knowledge is outdated in a matter of a few years.

BTW I have read determinations that have ruled that builders failed to comply with good trade practices (in the late 90's) because they omitted to install kick outs at the bases of sloping apron flashings when the only record of 'trade related reference documents' that first cited this detail requirement weren't published until circa 2003. Small wonder builders don't complete their work to best trade practices when they are being judged by standards of trade practices that have yet to be published and distributed to them.

That's what happens when you rely on lawyers and judges to get it right.

[paturoa]

Not at all. The govt (not councils) make legislation. The govt has had to (in their eyes) pass law to force it on the industry because the industry has proven it isn't capable of doing it itself (unlike plumbers/drainlayers and electricians) and needs to be.

Disagree, govt made this leglislation after EXTENSIVE lobbying. The propoganda uses the word "consultation". The council's role is to esnure through inspections that the relevant standards and methods comply both before and during construction. So now we have the situation where if there is a problem then it is all on the builder. So what exactly are we paying the council approval and inspection stuff for???

Anyway at least all those incompetent home handymen wont be able to build any more leaky apartment complexs or homes that comply with all the buidling anc construciton codes et al.:weep:

[flyingcrocodile46]

Disagree, govt made this leglislation after EXTENSIVE lobbying. The propoganda uses the word "consultation". The council's role is to esnure through inspections that the relevant standards and methods comply both before and during construction. So now we have the situation where if there is a problem then it is all on the builder. So what exactly are we paying the council approval and inspection stuff for???

Anyway at least all those incompetent home handymen wont be able to build any more leaky apartment complexs or homes that comply with all the buidling anc construciton codes et al.:weep:

That consultation process involved anyone who cared to submit comments (the whole industry). The Councils neither suggested it nor had much of a hand in shaping it. From memory the facility of the LBP scheme was mooted and included in the original draft of the 2004 act and extensive consultation was called for ideas on how various trade categories should be set up etc. I suspect that the DBH (previously BIA) provided the majority of input into the draft so it is more likely them that first shaped it. (though the 2002 Hun report into leaky buildings suggested it) Excerpts below;


Recommendation 16
That the BIA in conjunction with the appropriate affected sector groups:
a) explore the issues involved in advocating the national registration of builders and building related trades, given the contents of this report and concerns expressed about the standards of some trade practices on-site; and
b) support such advocacy if it is convinced of the benefits to the Industry.


Potential contributing causes such as, but not limited to:
a) Inadequacy in the Building Code and Approved Documents
b) Inadequate documentation supplied for building consent.
c) Insufficient checking at building consent, during construction, and at Code compliance stages
d) Inadequacy of building products, materials and components, including evaluation of their suitability or fitness for purpose
e) Insufficient technical information provided by manufacturer’s literature and instructions
f) Inadequate contract documentation
g) Inadequate trade skills and supervision on site
h) Lack of co-operation and sharing of responsibility on site


If the houses complied with the building code they would not have leaked and the materials they were built from would have been durable enough to handle a little bit of moisture.

As stated, the govt forced the councils to approve untreated framing (and suspect cladding systems) and that is the straw that broke the camels back in respect to the methodology and costs of repairs. You can't repair a a leaky building with untreated framing without first removing ALL (not just the leaky bit) of the cladding and then paint on a second rate insitu preservative.

[SPman]

If everyone who wants councils to be fully accountable had to be satisfied, the councils would have to charge ten times more for building consents than they currently do. No longer would applicants be able to benefit from cost savings generated by inspectors doing between 8 and 13 inspections a day (which with travel time taken out leaves about ten to fifteen minutes to actually inspect the work). Auckland City reckoned (2004), that the inspection costs charged, just covered costs - the only division in council to do so. 60 mins for a final inspection (incl getting there , sometimes across the City) wasn't really anywhere near enough. I met an ex German building inspector on 1 job - in Germany, they work through the Justice dept. and are on similar levels (and pay) as lower court judges, and have 7-8 years study/training!

[flyingcrocodile46]

NotPC says bullshit (http://pc.blogspot.co.nz/2012/02/guest-post-licensed-building.html)

I went back and had another read of this guys story.

On re-reading the first three paragraphs it appears that (pretty prose and tears aside) he is claiming , in his own words,......... "we must conform to the grey mandates of the collective. No longer are we required to explore new ideas. We are able to formulate new ideas in our minds but we are not to take these ideas any further unless we have received permission from our grey leaders; those more equal than us"...... What a crock. The whole purpose of the Act in the first place was to provide ways for suppressed (by Councils) arty farty designers to visually assault the landscape with their cutting edge visionary flair (or 'Wet dreams' as I like to call them). The LBP scheme changes nothing in that respect. It simply asks that the artist take some accountability for their work by signing their name to it. If they are doing their jobs properly they wont suffer any penalty.

As for driving people out of business with red tape and more working hours? Again a nonsense. A one of application process followed by an annual fee of less than $100 and signing off a two or three page memorandum for each job. Seriously???

Then the next two paragraphs made the claim that "while being given ‘guidelines’ within which to build (the rigidity of which belies the name, the practices being spoken about being ‘enforced’ on us)" .....
What a load of bollocks. A complete denial (or gross misunderstanding)of the reality of the Building Act and NZBC. We can design what ever and build however we want as long as we can demonstrate that it will comply with the NZBC(as we have always [since 1992) been obliged to do)....
and... "we will nonetheless bear all responsibility when any of these guidelines fail. As they will. This means we will have to find ways to hide our finances to protect ourselves when our grey leaders come to clean us out regardless of whether we are to blame or not".
More bollocks. If he is referring to 'The Acceptable solutions' as "guidlines" and they fail to satisfy the NZBC then there is no blame attributed to any party (accept if it is possible, The DBH who drafted them). Again, the LBP scheme changes nothing in that respect. It simply asks that the artist/builder take some accountability for their work by signing their name to it. If they are doing their jobs properly they wont suffer any penalty.

After that his carriages started jackknifing and all the contents became a jumbled mix of tears, poetry, spiritualism, fragments of conspiracy theories and fuck all reality or facts so I gave up taking him seriously.

God! designers are such over dramatic ponces when they wind themselves up over their misinterpretation of the building act/NZBC.

I shudder to think what his opinion on the leaky building debacle is. I don't want to even read it. If what he has had to say about the impact of the LBP scheme is anything to go by he will likely have it all wrong.

[ellipsis]

....anybody can err to the left or the right of a debate and still be taken seriously...but err too far to either and some sort of zealotry begins to emerge, or it seems...when the dogma of the string pullers starts to become gospel and heart, soul and spirit is taken, taxed or outlawed... I hope the zealots who side with the pro's have a happy life in their regulated, overly safe and insured world...:(

[flyingcrocodile46]

....anybody can err to the left or the right of a debate and still be taken seriously...but err too far to either and some sort of zealotry begins to emerge, or it seems...when the dogma of the string pullers starts to become gospel and heart, soul and spirit is taken, taxed or outlawed... I hope the zealots who side with the pro's have a happy life in their regulated, overly safe and insured world...:(

My god. The LBP just isn't that onerous. PITA yes, but it ain't hard and as for the accountabiliy. It's already there anyway.

HTFU

I can't waste my time soothing people who are upset by what they cleary don't understand. I have enough problems already.

[ellipsis]

My god.

I can't waste my time soothing people who are upset by what they cleary don't understand. I have enough problems already.



...ahh...the condescending tones of someone who THINKS 'THEY' have the right answers...and whats god got to do with it...

[oneofsix]

...ahh...the condescending tones of someone who THINKS 'THEY' have the right answers...and whats god got to do with it...

I suspect he is his own god, this is why he thinks he knows it all. :corn:

[Scuba_Steve]

...and whats god got to do with it...

Not alot I'm just hanging round for personal interest in the subject

[Zedder]

A lot of what the Levitating Crocodile wrote was bang on. It's obvious he's in the industry and knows the facts on the leaky building syndrome etc.

However, the latest impression I got was one of frustration not condescention.

[pzkpfw]

Having second thoughts about building a shed outside for an office, now thinking of walling off part of the garge (as it's used for 1 car plus 1 bike; I don't need to get 2 cars in).

The walls would be non-structural (just two walls to make a corner into a "room"), but there'd be a door and some windows.

Would that count as needing a builder?

[Scuba_Steve]

Reading DBH & BRANZ propaganda I'm not impressed by 1 statement if I'm reading it right...

At present, the scheme is competency-based, but from 2015, it is intended to be qualification-based

That appears to be going the wrong way. "at current it's skill based, in future they will have read a book" is the way I'm reading it, I hope I'm wrong cause I'll take real skill over book skill any day of the week.

[Drew]

Peter Cresswell, Architect, blogger and Libertarian spokesman for a bunch of stuff. You should really go read his posts on leaky buildings.Architect ya say? FUCK HIM then, hope the cunt has to take a pay cut because he doesn't have top level qualifications.

Architects are NOT tradesmen either.

Any architects out there who think I'm being unreasonably biased against them, can also get fucked. Steriotypes are what they are, for the reason of majority usually, and the steriotype that architects are morons is well deserved.

[Drew]

Reading DBH & BRANZ propaganda I'm not impressed by 1 statement if I'm reading it right...

At present, the scheme is competency-based, but from 2015, it is intended to be qualification-based

That appears to be going the wrong way. "at current it's skill based, in future they will have read a book" is the way I'm reading it, I hope I'm wrong cause I'll take real skill over book skill any day of the week.Oh fuck, now I'm straight up agreeing with you.

Look at modern mechanics. They leave tech "qualified". Piss off, I used to get around with a guy who I wouldn't let change my spark plugs for fear of later having the head off to helicoil or worse. But he knew how to plug in a diagnostic machine, then totally balls up the injector pump on a diesel because of how he interpreted what it told him. How can a course tutor let someone like that loose on a car? Scaling up exam results would probably be half the reason.

[Swoop]

Architects are NOT tradesmen either.

Any architects out there who think I'm being unreasonably biased against them, can also get fucked.
A mate of mine says "the only thing that stays inside an architect's head for more than an hour, is a cold".

He has the qualifications to competently say that!

[Drew]

He has the qualifications to competently say that!Umm, this thread kinda flies in the face of qualifications. However, your friend is clearly an enlightened individual. Feel free to buy him a beer in my absence.

[SPman]

A mate of mine says "the only thing that stays inside an architect's head for more than an hour, is a cold". As a qualified/experienced Chippy, Building Surveyor and Quantity Surveyor, I'd tend to agree with that in many cases........

[flyingcrocodile46]

As a qualified/experienced Chippy, Building Surveyor and Quantity Surveyor, I'd tend to agree with that in many cases........

That's pretty harsh. I have known some that can hold a tune in their heads for days on end......... Dumb de do, dumb me do, dumb me do...