Auckland acts alone on timber ban

Doubts have been raised over the long-term reliability of kiln-dried framing timber treated with a surface spray and known as T1.2.

The manufacturer says the timber is perfectly acceptable and calls Auckland City Council's move to reject consents specifying the framing as overkill.

According to National MP Nick Smith, as many as 10,000 homes have been framed with T1.2 wood.

Other councils are refusing to follow Auckland City's lead in banning the use of a controversial new timber framing product.

Hamilton, Wellington, Christchurch and Westland councils are not rejecting T1.2 spray-treated timber, despite claims that it will lead to a new round of rotting homes.

Palmerston North and Porirua City Councils have said they do not have the authority to reject building consent applications using the product, while Kapiti Coast, Masterton and Manawatu District Councils say the timber is rarely used in their regions.

Auckland City this week told staff to reject building consent applications where the new timber is being used.

But Wellington City's director of building consents and licensing services, George Skimming, said if the product was used properly by builders, there was no problem.

Auckland had taken a "bold move" to ban a timber accredited by the Building Industry Association.

John Kay, building controls general manager at the Building and Housing Department, said Auckland City could not reject consents because the timber was approved.

Forest Industries Council chief executive Stephen Jacobi and Forest Owners' Association chief executive David Rhodes criticised Auckland, saying the ban was "bizarre and possibly unconstitutional".

Auckland was obliged to accept the timber because it complied with the Building Code, they said.

"Auckland City would be better served putting its energy into ensuring its inspection and certification practices are as rigorous as possible to help lift building standards."

Mr Rhodes urged the building industry to stay focused on good design and building standards rather than debating the use of timber.

"If builders and architects do their job properly, water shouldn't get behind cladding," he said.

But Auckland City's principal building officer, Bob de Leur, said the ban would stay in place until the department released findings of its investigations.

Building inspectors would require treatment certificates and timber testing to ensure the level of treatment was adequate, he said.

Auckland City had taken immediate action by telling staff to reject consent applications using T1.2 timber until the department's findings were known, Mr de Leur said.

In a separate move yesterday, the Commerce Commission was called in to sort out turmoil over T1.2 timber, which has been put into thousands of homes in the past 15 months.

National MP Nick Smith yesterday said he had laid a complaint with the commission because the new timber framing had been misrepresented to builders and consumers.

Consumers needed to know that T1.2 framing had only been surface-treated with the preservative boron.

But Building Issues Minister Chris Carter said the department was already investigating concerns about the wood.

Any timber could rot, regardless of what it was treated with, he said.

"All builders should be trying to avoid getting timber framing wet for long periods of time, regardless of what type of timber they are using.

"TimberSaver boron is sold with conditions on its use and the building industry should be following those conditions in the way they do with other products."

Scientist Robin Wakeling said the surface spray of TimberSaver did not penetrate wood as well as traditional soaking and was liable to wash off.

Greg O'Sullivan, of Auckland building consultants Prendos, said T1.2 timber was being misrepresented as soak-treated H1.2 and builders did not understand the difference. But the misuse would not necessarily lead to rot on the scale of the leaky building problem.

- additional reporting, NZPA