KEY POINTS:
Council building inspectors have failed to meet higher standards demanded by the Government as a response to the leaky building crisis.
Out of 73 councils around the country, only Palmerston North has so far been accredited as technically competent to check buildings. Some councils - struggling with understaffing
and lack of training - have been found to be woefully inadequate.
The problem is so bad that the Government has agreed to give councils another seven months to meet the new standards. The original deadline was November 30 but insisting on this could have brought the construction industry to a halt.
The Government demanded better services from all councils three years ago after the leaky building crisis and an uproar about slow processing times, excessive red tape and poorly trained staff. But many council inspection divisions, charged with issuing consents and then inspecting new buildings, are in extremely poor shape.
The Department of Building and Housing's technical review of Rodney District Council's building control operations last year found it lacking in 18 categories. These included not meeting legal timeframes for processing building consents; not complying with the Building Code; poor staffing levels; training deficiencies, particularly in the technical building control area; policy gaps and issues with computer systems. The department made a string of recommendations needed to upgrade Rodney which oversees building work worth $400 million annually.
The department's 2003 review of North Shore City Council found the need for change in 34 separate areas but after seven months, changes had been made in just five. The council processes consents for work worth $500 million annually.
The department's review of Auckland City - processing consents for annual construction worth $1.3 billion - criticised acceptance of sub-standards documents, poor staffing levels and lack of staff training. More building consent staff were needed.
Phil O'Sullivan, an Auckland building consultant, said the excessively busy construction market had exacerbated the problems. "All councils, including Auckland, face problems with training and retention of staff, especially with a busy building market," he said.
The leaky building crisis is partly to blame. Earlier this decade, councils farmed out building inspection duties to private certifiers, slashing resources, staffing and training. But the leaky building crisis draggedprivate certificaters under, leaving councils to pick up the building duties again.
The councils were so desperate for time to bring their building services up to scratch that they pressured the Government to buckle, crying out for more time.
Local Government NZ pleaded for an extension, complaining bitterly about what it called the Government's "unreasonable deadlines".
The situation became so serious that Building and Construction Minister Clayton Cosgrove had to amend the law to give poorly-performing councils extra time. "A few councils need a bit more time to come up to speed with the new higher building consenting standards required of them," he said.
On August 7, he introduced an amendment. And he revealed how some councils were simply not up to scratch, criticising small rural councils which he said lacked capacity to do their job.
Bob de Leur, Auckland City Council's principal building officer, said he expected to be accredited soon. "We have been through the initial assessment meeting with International Accreditation NZ which identifies if a building consent authority is ready to undergo final assessment. Our final assessment will be carried out from September 25 to 28," he said.