Submission to Building Professionals Act 2005 Draft Report from: Robin Howard
Editor’s note: email #1
Subject of email: Yet another farcical DA condition highlighting one of the root of the
problems with the planning approvals system in NSW
Body of email:
Please call should you need to discuss the above.
Kind Regards,
ROBIN HOWARD
DIRECTOR | BUILDING CERTIFICATES AUSTRALIA Pty Ltd
Editor’s note: email #2
Subject of email: FW: <editor’s note: address of development removed> - Services in Fire
Stairs
Body of email:
Hi, please see below and attached.
This is what certifiers are trying to police on a daily basis - from a footings inspection, stormwater
connections, 10% of wet areas and a final.
Luckily on this one the Project Manager has a basic knowledge of what can be placed in fire stairs –
not so the person installing services!
When will the trades on these multi-unit building sites become accountable for this basic lack of
knowledge?
Please introduce accreditation and accountability for building trades ASAP. Therein lies a significant
solution to defective buildings.
‘Building Professionals’ are not just category A accredited certifiers – please police all ‘Building
Professionals’
Thanks
Please call should you need to discuss the above.
Kind Regards,
ROBIN HOWARD
DIRECTOR | BUILDING CERTIFICATES AUSTRALIA Pty Ltd
Editor’s note: email #2 had three attached photographs:
Editor’s note: email #3
Subject of email: Comments on Mr Lambert review
Body of email:
Hi – some comments on the system below:
1. The setting of one standard set of conditions to be used on all Council Development Consent
notices under the EP&A Act and Regulations will eliminate significant confusion for certifiers
trying to interpret the vast array of poorly worded and erroneous conditions currently
placed.
2. The setting of a consistent pro-forma Development Consent notices for use by all Council’s,
together with a standards conditions set, will assist greatly in maintaining consistency.
3. There are significantly more ‘Building Professionals’ in the building industry than just ‘A’
category Accredited Certifiers. The ‘Building Professionals’ Board need to focus on more
than just category A building surveyors acting as PCA and who are wearing the brunt of an
extremely overly layered, piecemeal and extremely poorly defined legislatively based role.
The role has evolved based on an interpretation of what should be industry standard by
those not directly involved in applying the legislation in a daily role or position.
4. To make up in shortfalls with the Act and Regulations, we have the very broadly and loosely
worded Building Professional’s Code of Ethics that is used as a blanket disciplinary tool
against certifiers, instead of a establishing direct nexus between a clear breach of the EP&A
Act and Regulations. The Act must define what is required and the Regulations must clearly
define how the Act requirements are to be implemented.
5. I find it particularly strange that staff at the Building Professionals Board are able to wield such
investigative and disciplinary powers, when they do not possess near the qualifications nor
experiences to gain the accreditation levels of those whom who they are investigating are
auditing.
6. The existing prescribed PCA critical stage inspections regime is ridiculous. The larger the
building, the less inspection there are, yet during the sum total of a prescribed footing
inspection pre pour, drainage connections and a pre-OC for say a 30 storey office block – the
PCA is expected to somehow be accountable a defective building. Why would a PCA do more
inspections where the LEGISLATION gives the maximum required and there is competitive
environment to obtain work, Councils included?
7. A building constructed in Australia is bound by the BCA and Australian Standards. For design of
building components and systems, through to their installation, each individual in that
process must be fully accountable for their professional work, and must be required to
certify their design and/or installation to the relevant BCA and Australian Standards. This
should be in the form of a design or compliance installation certificate that has statuary
standing. That Certificate is then pulled out when a defect is found and the person is
penalised.
8. Is the BPB aware that complainants ringing the Council about anything to do with a
development are now told to go straight to the PCA and that if they do not get any
satisfaction with the PCA that they should call up the BPB and complain? We have a
situation where someone who has no idea of the role of the PCA, calling up and speaking to
someone else in Customer Services at Council who has no idea on the role of the PCA, who
in turn then tells the complainant to complain about the PCA not doing their role
appropriately. Absurd and no doubt clogging up the resources of the BPB to make
meaningful changes to the system.
9. To ensure that CC plans are deemed ‘not inconsistent’ and as built developments are deemed
not-inconsistent, why not introduce a prescribed review by a Registered Architect who must
provide a ‘Not inconsistent’ verification statement at CC and then at OC stage. Much like a
SEPP 65 statement? This frees up the Building Surveyor to thoroughly check fire safety and
other BCA items whilst leaving the architectural design of the building to the designers
themselves.
Anyway – If I had more time I would write more.
Thanks for taking the submission.
If you require any further information or wish to discuss the above, please do not hesitate to call.
Kind regards,
Robin Howard
Director | BUILDING CERTIFICATES AUSTRALIA Pty Ltd