Editorial: Get building industry back to basics

Week after week this newspaper has revealed cases of damage caused to buildings that leak. Our focus has been on multi-unit dwellings and the Taradale development that features today is but the latest addition to a growing casebook. To that list could be added no doubt hundreds of single houses that have evinced similar problems. And they would reinforce common themes: inadequate materials or construction that allow water to gather inside a structure and rot untreated timber.

A less common theme is a willingness to accept responsibility, acknowledge the extent of the problem and remedy the situation without delay. It was refreshing, therefore, to see Downer Construction this week acknowledge its obligation to restore the 65-unit Silverfield Terraces development and to safeguard the welfare of residents.

While such an attitude is commendable, it is not the answer to the overall problem. The solution must lie in building dwellings that are designed to cope with an average rainfall of between 600mm and 1500mm a year over most of the country and a likelihood of rain in the North Island on 130 days out of 365. It means building in the expectation that some moisture may find its way inside the structure and needs to find its way out again. It means coping with the residue by using treated timber that resists rot.

Next week an inquiry ordered by the Building Industry Authority is expected to confirm its interim finding in May that the country faces "a major systemic breakdown" in the building industry unless action is taken quickly. The association's weathertightness overview group said the right things in its interim report. It spoke, for example, of the old belt-and-braces approach to construction which provided back-up solutions such as drainage holes and cavities in case a leak occurred.

It went on to say, however, that "a confluence of factors has now made the systemic problem manifest". The systemic problem embraces the design of buildings, the materials being used in construction, the way in which they are being applied and the oversight of the process.

It is to be hoped that the final report recommends a solution that has multiple "checks" built into the building process. Those checks must start with a building code that puts weatherproofing on the same level of importance as structural integrity and reduces the temptation for developers to build cheaply to maximise margins.

Architects and designers must include all necessary detail in their working drawings to ensure that tradesmen build "weatherproof" dwellings. Local authorities, which might already be sweating over possible liability for approving construction in some instances, must demand these details before issuing building consents. To their credit, some councils are already putting on the pressure but they can doubtless do more. And tradespeople must certify their work to acceptable standards.

Too often in the sorry tales we have told there is talk of litigation, of having to resort to the courts to recover the sometimes substantial cost of repairs from those directly responsible. That suggests yet another weakness in the system - a lack of clear accountability. Buyers of new homes have an absolute right to know at whom they should point the finger when things go wrong.

However, the issue here is not one of blame. It is all about risk avoidance and the creation - or, perhaps, the reinstatement - of building requirements that provide a reasonable expectation that it will be years rather than months before a home needs significant repair. Anyone who remembers the tale of the three little pigs knows how to minimise the risk.

* If you have information about leaking buildings,
email the Herald or fax (09) 373-6421.

Further reading
Feature: Leaky buildings

Related links