Skip to content.
Return to Department of Building and Housing home page.

Key findings of the review

7 - Weathertightness compliance

Purpose

To assess the Council's ability to process and inspect weathertightness compliance, with particular attention to:

  • weathertightness design processing methodology
  • the level and detail of consent documentation accepted and approved by the Council
  • technical competency of both processing and inspection staff in relation to weathertightness compliance
  • the Council's inspection systems and procedures.

Background

In response to emerging reports of building failure, the Government initiated several reviews that collectively found that there had been a ‘systemic failure' of the building system. The term ‘systemic failure' illustrates that no single cause led to the failure; rather it was the result of a complex interplay between a number of factors. Some of the key factors involved included:

  • standards of design and construction that were set at the minimum level necessary to achieve compliance, providing no margin for error
  • a lack of information and capability on the design and construction side
  • inadequate review of consent applications and inspections of building work, which meant that specific problems were not being consistently identified and rectified
  • capability and capacity issues within the regulatory building control sector identified the need for better monitoring of emerging trends within the building control system.

The Building Act 2004 introduced a more comprehensive regulatory regime for the building control sector. The Acceptable Solution (a prescriptive means of compliance) for meeting Clause E2 External Moisture (Weathertightness) of the Building Code was also updated.

Initial review

The Department team found that the Council's weathertightness compliance performance needed to be strengthened, as a number of consents reviewed lacked the appropriate and site-specific weathertightness detail. Inspection staff were also not always able to assess weathertightness compliance on site because of time limitations and workload pressures. Additionally, the Department considered that the Council's approach to assessing the compliance of monolithic claddings needed to be reconsidered to ensure it was consistent with Acceptable Solution E2/AS1. The Department noted that the 2002 technical review made similar findings.

Recommendations made to the Council Action taken by the Council before the follow-up review
Ensure adequate time and resources are allocated to processing and inspection of building weathertightness. A number of initiatives were undertaken to strengthen performance on this issue (see below).
Ensure all processing and inspection staff are given appropriate levels of practical weathertightness training. Require designers to provide site-specific construction details that demonstrate adequate compliance.
Develop robust processes to demonstrate how compliance has been achieved. Ensure consent applications with inadequate weathertightness detail are rejected or suspended.
Develop strategies for targeting design professionals and other stakeholders to communicate Council expectations on the level of weathertightness detail for high risk category buildings.

Follow-up review

The Department found that the Council's processing contractors place a strong emphasis on weathertightness elements during consent processing, with all of their processing checklists covering weathertightness elements. The Council's contractors also require designers to provide site-specific details in all building consent applications. The Council has also held meetings with design professionals emphasising the importance of good weathertightness detailing in consent applications. The Council's processing contractors informally communicate with their clients to outline the required level of weathertightness detailing. The Department noted a number of instances where further weathertightness detail was being requested during consent processing.

The Department found that the Council's staff and its processing contractors have received some formal training in weathertightness compliance, with a number of staff having attended the BRANZ weathertightness training course. Additionally, staff received informal training whereby product manufacturers brief them on new product specifications.

The Council also advised that it had not received any weathertightness claims that applied to the Building Act 2004. All weathertightness claims have pre-dated the Department's technical review process (which began in 2004). The Council considers that this may provide a good indicator that it is adequately considering weathertightness compliance.

Conclusion

The Council has substantially implemented the recommendations from the initial review and has considerably improved weathertightness processing procedures and compliance.