Submission from Sutherland Shire Council to the Independent Review of the Building Professionals Act 2005 In response to the Discussion Paper May 2015 Endorsed by Sutherland Shire Council Meeting Date 29/06/2015 Report Number EHR114-15 “A certifier is only responsible for certifying whether the project meets both planning requirements and building standards. A builder is responsible to the owner for producing the building within the specifications and to a suitable standard.” (Discussion Paper May 2015, page 59) Legislative structure for building sector regulation 1. Is there merit in consolidating the legislative framework for building sector regulation and control in one part of the EP&A Act, expressed in plain English, on a principals based approach, with its own objectives and incorporating any reforms approved by the Government There is benefit in consolidating legislation and expressing it in plain English. The building industry is governed by a plethora of standards, specifications, best practice guidelines and legislation. Practitioners in the building industry, including the builders and tradesmen who are implementing development on site and the certifiers who are checking are not always proficient in the reading of legalese. Couple this with poorly set out and worded development consents means deciphering the best outcome can be extremely difficult, and this assumes the builders and certifiers are using the correct standards to begin with. Sutherland Shire Council commonly encounters difficulties with certification of works in bushfire prone areas for instance, where through ignorance the incorrect materials and building standards are used. Plain English and consolidation would assist. 2. Are there sufficient additional benefits involved to justify consolidating all building legislation in one Act, including the Home Building Act 1993 Yes, similar reasoning to above. Administrative structure for building sector regulation 3. Are there sufficient benefits to justify the consolidation of building regulation administration? Table 4 outlines advantages and disadvantages of various models. Capture of the oversight body by any party isa real risk in the building industry. The current model has operated to the greater benefit of all parties EXCEPT the broader community who find themselves confused by the plethora of legislation and standards and not necessarily well advised or well represented by either their builder or their certifier when things start to go wrong. Any option which offers a greater degree of simplification even if it is not a model of total consolidation, but can remain independent and offer robust and transparent decision making is best – Option 2 – creation of a single body for Draft Submission from Sutherland Shire Council Page 2 accreditation /licensing of certifiers and other building professionals is the preferred model. It does not offer full consolidation of the range of building regulation but it builds on the strengths of the current model (integration of planning and building policy) while also offering some protection from “capture”. Building Professionals Board governance 4. Should the BP Act provide the BPB with the power to employ its own staff in addition to seconding staff? Providing the BPB remains accountable to the Department of Planning and Environment for oversight it makes sense for the BPB to have both budget and staff. The BPB is best place to understand the demand on its resources, and it is neither well funded nor well resourced currently. 5. Is there merit in the functions being undertaken by BPB continuing to be undertaken by a statutory board? The best protection for the wider community is for the BPB to remain a statutory body. There is no guarantee that this offers the best service to the community – a case in point is the level and quality of service offered by the Land and Property Information Department – that is to say none – however the best option for proper governance of the building industry is a statutory board. Framework for cooperation between private certifiers and local government 6. Would the framework of cooperation developed by the BPB Local Government Reference Group provide an effective approach for interaction between private certifiers and local government The activities of this group are not well publicised, nor is it clear how individuals or organisations are selected for participation in this group. Some transparency around selection into the Reference Group would assist all parties to have greater confidence in the Group. Nevertheless generally a reference group is a good starting point. 7. Should certifiers be required to report all cases o Draft Submission from Sutherland Shire Council Page 3 Resourcing in council could be an issue. However being informed is a good first step. All unauthorised development should be reported – a reporting template that assists the certifier in providing some minimum documentation and assists the council in prioritising the report should also accompany a requirement of this nature. 8. Is there merit in a partnership model between the State and local government in the area of certification and building regulation enforcement? A partnership model offers the best chance of success. Local government is experienced in regulation enforcement. Certification in NSW is still recent enough that a significant proportion of certifiers are ex-local government. There is therefore a lot of common ground and experience to build on. Strata and community title developments 9. Would enhanced oversight of the certification process assist in addressing the problems experienced by owners of strata and community title developments? Start the revolution from the bottom up – unskilled labour is increasingly used to carry out skilled work with little or no supervision from an experienced or qualified tradesman. The building industry has been flooded with unskilled labour, while education and training has been deconstructed for builders and trades. TAFE funding and resources are continually under threat and being reduced, while the Apprentice system no longer functions as intended. In this context the certification system is probably the least dysfunctional area of the industry – although it is fatally flawed given that the builder / developer is paying the certifier to certify their work. A requirement for trades to produce certificates of compliance for their work that is backed by insurance would transform this issue. As it is now the insured certifier is left with a fist full of certificates that have little or no real value. Further, lack of accountability of big developers in the building industry is an endemic problem that goes beyond the ability of an individual certifier to overcome on a specific site. Participation by developers in the Building Compensation Fund would offer them some incentive to provide a better quality development. Draft Submission from Sutherland Shire Council Page 4 Use of e-technology 10. W ould an electronic system for development applications complying developments and building certification generate useful information for governed and the industry and improve regulatory performance The certification practioners are by and large is low tech in their administration and based on very simple business models. Sutherland Shire Council accepts certification in soft copy – only to find most of these documents provided in a manner which is administratively cumbersome (ie one big document, via CD or USB which is hundreds of pages in length, and usually password protected – which means to store them electronically they must be printed and then scanned). In order to overcome this problem an online lodgement page was developed – this attempt has not thus been successful because certifiers want to lodge the documents with the registration cheque provided by the applicant, which means mail or face to face lodgement only. The use of a corporate credit card would be sufficient to overcome this problem, and a process to charge the $36 registration fee back to the client (or charge them upfront on appointment) however there was a surprising reluctance, even amongst a couple of larger certification operatives to change their practices. Applicants using the DA process are usually able to accommodate softcopy lodgement – Sutherland Shire Council has had great success in requiring this since 1 January 2015, and has 100% compliance. However with respect to CDCs – these documents are of much poorer quality, frequently hand drawn and not to scale. Regulation to drive change, and red tape reduction to create incentive is required simultaneously in order to create sufficient momentum to shift this end of the building industry. 11. D o you support the adoption of standard forms for development applications, CCs CDCs and OCs? Standard forms for DA’s have largely been achieved via the EP&A regulation. CC’s, CDC’s and OC’s would similarly benefit. The BPB offers some templates but these are over complicated. There are other standard documents that would benefit from a template approach, such as NOPOS which could set out the minimum information required for the certifier to provide both to the offender and to Council in order to provide a better opportunity for council to properly prioritise the complaint and then act. Template NOPO could also assist in the current problem for council’s having Draft Submission from Sutherland Shire Council Page 5 to reissue NOPOS due to lack of confidence in the initial NOPO issued by the certifier. Building regulation and certification – planning and approval stage 12. D o you support as ways of improving the planning and approval stage: L imiting development approval to a concept approval A standard set of development application conditions I ndependent assessment of instances where a council seeks to impose higher building standards than the BCA I mprove information to the community on developments in their area? The EP&A Act is already premised on a DA being a concept approval. There are however many instances where this approach fails both neighbours who are impacted by unplanned or changed elements to this “concept” approval and property owners who are left with no real understanding how they have fallen foul of Council’s compliance section due to less capable or less scrupulous builders and tradesmen. A standard set of development application conditions that offered commonality across NSW would be highly valuable, so long as it did not restrain the ability of assessment staff to address one off or merit issues. Comparison of conditions of consent across local government shows that layout and language do not always assist either the builder or the certifier in implementing the requirement of the development consent. Sutherland Shire Council has developed and used template conditions for many years. Experience shows that well developed and considered template conditions also assist assessment officers in dealing with common issues in a standardised manner, to the great benefit of the local industry who deal regularly with the council. 13. W ill a significant improvement in the process of certification to allow commencement of building work be provided by; Draft Submission from Sutherland Shire Council Page 6 S tandardising the information to support the CC/CDC S tandardising the report to support alternative solutions with content confirmed by the certifier R eplacing the not inconsistent test with the consistent test for both CCs/CDCs and OCs Standardising the information that must be provided to support the CC / CDC would be highly beneficial. Overtime some specific requirements have been set out in the regulations as to the information required to support a development application. Similarly requirements for CC and CDC could also be specified. Standardisation for documentation supporting alternative solutions would also be helpful – currently the certifier is required to either accept at face value the alternative solution or undertake research which they may not be either confident or well enough resourced (with either time or information) to take – provision of a standard report would assist, especially if it requires the provider to reference the sources and supporting information as part of the package presented to the certifier. 14. D o you support combining the roles of certifying authority and principal certifying authority? Separation of certifier and PCA is not a significant problem. Although combining the roles may offer the opportunity to reduce some red tape, this is a marginal benefit. Separation of the roles provides the opportunity of peer review, and may assist in a more thorough check of approvals as the certifier cannot be certain they will be the PCA. This uncertainty means that errors in signing off a CC / CDC may be more open to scrutiny. 15. F or a CC or CDC is there merit in separating the assessment of conformity with planning requirements to be handled by the consent authority from the assessment of building requirements? A major component of CDC consideration is assessment against given criteria. The planning considerations within a CDC are usually minor. To separate would see a reversal in current legislation and the streamlining affect that CDCs created, ie it would defeat the purpose of its introduction. Draft Submission from Sutherland Shire Council Page 7 Building regulation and certification – building construction stage 16. W ould the current problems with the building construction stage regulatory approach be addressed by E nsuring the builder receives the certified plans and CC/CDC D ocumenting and requiring adherence to good certifier practice P otential additional critical site inspections based on risk assessment R eplacing interim and final OCs with an OC and development completion certificate R equiring projects with missed mandatory inspections and unauthorised work to obtain an OC E ffective financial sanctions for unauthorised work It must become accepted practice by builders and trades that all plans in play are stamped by council or the certifier. Builders and tradies need to work based on this premise and refuse to work on unstamped plans. This must be a fundamental basic premise such that unstamped plans can be assumed to be unauthorised and thus accompanied by a level of risk. As Council’s move increasingly to electronic determinations this can be easier to enforce as stamped plans can be made available more readily. Some councils are even posting stamped plans on the website after determination for download and print. The availability of digital determinations is becoming more widespread and part of accepted local government practice. It is time for the in=trodcton of penalties for using unstamped documentation. This would have the added incentive of moving all parties toward appropriate technologies for the acceptance, assessment and issue of documentation. A Practice Guide setting out the requirements of a certifier would be a useful tool in both informing practitioners and also managing unrealistic expectations of complainants. Additional critical site inspections based on risk assessment is a sensible notion, and needs swift implementation. Draft Submission from Sutherland Shire Council Page 8 Separation of the use of the building (via OC) and certification that planning and building conditions are met via a completion certificate is an attractive notion, as it accommodates requirements imposed during the development assessment that may not relate to the specific use of the building but may have been required as a social or environmental amenity consideration. However currently the OC process is fairly flawed now as there isn’t sufficient incentive by many applicants to ensure they seek an OC. There would need to be some pretty strong incentives to ensure that the completion report was seen as a valuable commodity by applicants to ensure that this system produced the desired result. Currently unauthorised work can be covered by a building certificate. This is assessed by Council. The first test in the council assessment is a check as to whether the unauthorised work would be “approvable’ under the planning instruments. If it is not it may be minor or insignificant enough to be allowed to stand, and a building certificate may be issued if the building work is satisfactory. If the unauthorised work is significantly outside the planning instruments it may be that a building certificate is not issued and instead compliance action is taken. Given that this is a local government process, with a planning element, building certificates probably remain the best approach. 17. D o you support the option of requiring the creation and maintenance of a building Manual for all class 1b -9 buildings? Section 3.5. Building Maintenance 3.5.1 Compliance Schedules in lieu of Fire Safety Schedules (FFS) There is no discussion as to how the Building Manual and its main components such as schedules will interact with current legislation. This needs consideration/discussion. It needs to be established that the overarching responsibility for the document (Building Manual) is vested with the owner as the building manual will evolve over time and needs to be passed successfully from one owner to the next on sale of the premises, and Strata managers should be informed of this process and Manual. Therefore there needs to be a legal mechanism in place to ensure hand-over of the manual on sale of the premises, otherwise the idea of continuous updating is lost and the exercise is a waste of time. Enforcement provisions (but would need to be under separate legislation ie EPA Regs 2000) and may be necessary and by ensuring it is the owners responsibility means that enforcement if required is an easier process. Draft Submission from Sutherland Shire Council Page 9 This is a creative solution however the success lies in the execution; currently the Fire Safety aspects of certification is the point of greatest concern and risk of certifiers because installers and trades are self certifying without the requirement of appropriate qualifications, training nor are they backed by their own insurance. 18. D o you support the reform of the fire protection system certification, including the proposed revised role for Fire & Rescue? 3.6 Fire Performance & Safety (p44) Schedules and Certificates will play an integral role within the Manual. Ensuring accuracy of Fire Safety Schedule (or Compliance Schedule) and sufficient information in them and or Fire Safety Certificates will be crucial in establishing proper certification and ongoing maintenance. These matters when handled poorly can and do have consequences for building owners and the community, in the Annual Fire Safety Statement AFSS process. In some cases, certifiers provide to Council a list of documents relied upon with Occupation Certs. In many cases, the documents relied upon by certifiers are poorly worded, quote incorrect or outdated legislation, and in many cases, wrong standards of performance. It is considered that the proposed idea of moving to a Building Manual could result in Certifiers dumping a bundle of poorly worded contractors certificates which don’t accurately reflect the performance standards listed in the Schedule,( yet are accepted by the PCA without proper consideration or any scrutiny) and relied upon as third party certification. Unfortunately, building owners in many cases don’t have the expertise to understand the documentation. Subsequent PCAs would also have considerable difficulty trying to resolve/understand inaccurate information. The documents would result in confusion and additional costs to the community and perhaps poor maintenance which may have disastrous consequences. Examples In many cases the schedules and certificates are not detailed and could/should be in order to identify and give locations and details of Lightweight construction used in the building rather than just the current industry practice of listing BCA C1.8 & Spec C1.8 as the standard of performance. These BCA Clauses offer no benefit in terms of standards of Draft Submission from Sutherland Shire Council Page 10 performance. The clauses give no help to owners and or contractors in attempting to locate and assess/maintain it. Poor quality Schedules result in poor maintenance practices. This then has potential for fire safety consequences litigation etc. Many Certifiers don't accurately list the current/relevant version of Alternate Solutions. Some certifiers submit third party certs that are listed in the "documents relied upon" for fire safety measures that are not listed in the Schedule, and don't bother to clarify the situation. There is also a trend in certifiers listing AS1530.4 and or the rest of that suite as a standard of performance. It cannot be listed as a standard of performance. Unfortunately many certifiers believe that they only have to list fire safety measures that are listed in Cl 166 of the Regs 2000 as they don’t fully understand the provisions within the Regs 2000 that any component/system or the like can and should be included as a fire safety measure. Eg Exit latches are not listed in the statutory list, nor are bollards, but these play an important part in Fire safety provisions and most certifiers don't list them in schedules. NB It may help to amend the outdated Cl166 of the Regs 2000. Recommend It is suggested here that certifiers be provided with better education or be provided with clear practice guidelines in or as part the Revised BP Act in handling Schedules and Fire Safety certs and how those documents work with Occupation Certs and Schedules. Furthermore, Fire Safety Certificates can be signed off by the building owner or their agent who generally has no knowledge of fire safety or even what they are doing or why. The Fire Safety Certificate is an important document that should require a suitably qualified and experienced person too sign off on it, such as a certifier with accreditation equivalent to the class and type of building to which the fire safety certificate relates. P46 Final dot point; “provide fire & rescue with the power to issue Penalty Infringement Notices” There is no discussion on this or how/why it is relevant to the Building Professionals Act or the discussion, yet In short – in response to Q18 - the answer is “yes in principal only” - it would be useful to know what the F& R is wanting to issue PINS on and why the Draft Submission from Sutherland Shire Council Page 11 question is framed with next to no direct correlation in the discussion as to what the PINS would be issued on. 19. W ould the options for change set out in this paper be helpful in improving the supply of qualified certifiers and making it a more attractive profession? Yes – the changes set out in this paper would assist given that it includes sharing of responsibility for building outcomes with the trades who implement the built form. At the moment too much of the risk and responsibility lies with the certifier, while the public does not sufficiently understand the limits of the role. 20. I s there an adequate pathway that allows a certifier to progress from the A4 category (building inspector) right through to A1 (building surveyor-grade 1) if desired? No, accreditation has been captured by established certifiers, and is reminiscent of a closed shop. 21. W ould the proposed changes to the accreditation process address the main deficiencies in the current system? The process of accreditation, particularly to A1 requires greater transparency and overhaul. Over sight by an academic or practice based third party such as TAFE should be considered. 22. D o you support the use of an evidence based framework and guide for the review of the accreditation scheme? A good start would be to work with universities to build a really strong practical component into their course requirements. UNSW has done this with the Bachelor of Town Planning Course with great success. Students take a one year break from study in their third year to seek supervised work experience. Some courses require 90 day placements, but UNSW requires a full year. With such a lengthy period for work experience, there is strong rational for the organisation employing the student to offer proper work place training and use it as a recruitment strategy for entry level positions. It is a model that Sutherland Shire Council has sought to follow with other scarce professions Draft Submission from Sutherland Shire Council Page 12 such as both building surveyors and engineers, but with little success as it works best as a course requirement set by the educational establishment. 23. A re the following sufficient to create a suitable level of accountability for certifiers in respect to their regulatory role” I mproved transparency of the performance of a certifier with a Practice Guide P roactive investigations and audits I ncreasing the awareness of the role of certifiers? All three points above would go some way in assisting in greater accountability for certifiers in respect of their regulatory role. Sutherland Shire Council has a very active Compliance team and therefore has developed some very good working relationships with certifiers, and this has significantly improved accountability of certifiers with respect to the broader community. However this approach requires significant investment by local government and this is not always possible. Builders and trades being held to greater accountability through training, insurance, and statutory oversight would also go a long way to improving the success of the system in NSW. 24. D oes the establishment of certifier panels by councils have merit? This is a creative idea which is worth exploring provided that it did not become another opportunity for “closed shop”. 25. D o you support an expanded program of proactive investigations and audit by the BPB and if so how should they be conducted? Audits and proactive investigations would have the impact of improving performance. Consequences of such an audit would be identification of areas for improvement by way of recommendations which would then be followed up. Failure to implement would result in the imposition of a penalty A process like this could then be used to assist in the development of best practice guide lines and would also provide the BPB with firsthand experience of some of the new technologies and processes that are being used to offer better administration and decision making. Currently the certification process is Draft Submission from Sutherland Shire Council Page 13 beset by old fashioned and cumbersome business models and technology. These make it difficult to implement process efficiencies and reduce red tape for all parties. This is made even more difficult where certifiers are sole traders and unwilling to implement, invest or are unaware of technology. 26. W ould introducing a demerits point system and issuing more penalty infringement notices provide a more timely mechanism for disciplining certifiers who have not performed to a required professional standard? This appears to be a sensible solution if resourced adequately for proper implementation. 27. W ould you prefer an online system for the lodgement of complaints? On line lodgement of all forms of application (not only complaints) is a must. 28. W ould the establishment of an education and training program for inquiries, complaints and audits together with a building services advisory hot line address the needs of certifiers for training and information support? The above is sensible. Currently the BPB is seriously under resourced such that a timely response is rare, although if you are lucky enough to get a response the information is appropriate, to the point and useful. 29. I s it possible to achieve full competitive neutrality without either councils ceasing to offer certification services, or private certifiers being abolished? This (competition between private and council certifiers) is possibly less important than it first appears, especially while Council remains the certifier of last resort. Further, Council’s can position themselves to offer a specialised service that, due to risk (ie bushfire, flooding) requires a further level of complexity that private certifiers may not wish to engage in. The fatal flaw is the tension between the certifier as a public officer but also provide of a purchased services, with builder as customer is more of a risk than lack of full competitive neutrality. Draft Submission from Sutherland Shire Council Page 14 30. W ould certifiers insurance issues be addressed by expanding certification and accreditation to cover critical building elements and design, and by implementing an industry scheme to cover the gap in insurance cover from certifiers leaving the industry or where certification changes for a particular project? If not what additional problems remain? 31. D o you agree that there is not a “last person standing” problem arising from the different liability cover between builders and certifiers? If it does arise, please explain the problem created. In response to 30 &31 above, building companies have a different legal identity to certifiers. This is extremely problematic ... phoenixing – cheap shelf companies that disappear as soon as a project is complete, is a recently recognised phenomena that places increasing and unfair pressure on the certifier when the builder has failed to produce a building with the specifications and to a suitable standard. The builder, the principle offender, is gone and only the certifier is available for prosecution. 32. D o you favour a simplification of the requirement for swimming pool fencing certification requirements, moving from three standards to one? Yes – the current system of swimming pool certification is over complicated by a desire not to impose costs for upgrading of fencing on pool owners with old pools. This has created significant complexity for certifiers as efficiencies cannot be leveraged from streamlined administration. This is because an overwhelming amount of research is required to check which standard applies to all but newer pools. This is a real difficulty for local government who are further hamstrung by a regulated fee. Moving to a single standard uncomplicates the system, puts the compliance burden back on the pool owner and offers an economy of scale that can be worked to the advantage of the broader population of pool owners who pay the reduced pool inspection fee. The current process just leaves councils agitating for a higher fee because the work cannot be done under the regulated fee with three standards. Three standards also prevents the development of a successful market solution, which is sorely needed given the number of pools in NSW, as only local government can be counted on to hold sufficient information to determine which standard applies to a pool. Draft Submission from Sutherland Shire Council Page 15 33. W ould setting charges for both councils and the State to recover processing costs for development applications and CDCs be the most equitable and efficient approach? DA fees have not been reviewed in over 15 years. As applications become more complex, due to both increased residential densities, and increased difficulties on site (as easy sites have been taken up in the past), more and more “assessment” is needed to make the site work – car parking (including ingress/egress), drainage, flooding and bushfire. Also a greater level of negotiation with neighbours is required to response to objections about the application. A review of the DA fees is well over due given this context. CDC fees are capped by the DA fee. Let market forces prevail for CDC’s – as they are capped by the DA fee anyway, and as a last resort any application can be processed by council as a DA, even if it is complying development. This offers some protection for the applicant, by setting an upper limit for a CDC. Conclusions While the focus of the review is on the role of certification, there are myriad problems with the structure of the building industry in NSW. These include the deconstruction of formal training for skilled trades, the use of unskilled labour to replace trades, self certification by installers, failure of certifiers to properly accept the role of a public official and take responsibility for the protection of the rights of future occupants, the environment or the broader community inadequate insurance schemes for developers to protect purchasers and capture of some elements of the accreditation scheme by interest groups, restricting access to higher levels of accreditation. Certifiers are largely small businesses, unaware or unwilling to invest in better administration, technology or a more agile business model, making it difficult to create a momentum for change or for the certification practioners themselves to leverage efficiencies from change. This review is welcome. Draft Submission from Sutherland Shire Council Page 16