Building Amendment Bill 2007: Dams, licensing and accessibility

Transcription

1 Building Amendment Bill 2007: Dams, licensing and accessibility Regulatory impact statement Statement of the nature and magnitude of the problem and the need for government action The Building Act 2004 ( the Act ) introduced a range of measures to: strengthen the regulatory regime for building work; address the systemic issues that led to major building failure from the mid-1990s to 2001; and to significantly reduce the risks of building failure in the future. As the Department of Building and Housing ( the Department ) has implemented the Act, some errors, omissions and inconsistencies have been identified that impede the clarity and workability of the Act for: the dam safety scheme small dams (defined as dams under three metres depth and 20,000 cubic metres volume); the licensing levy disability access requirements for public buildings. The specific problems are set out in Table 1 below. Statement of the public policy objectives The public policy objective is to amend the Act to promote the health and safety of people regarding buildings, consistent with the section 3 principles in the Building Act 2004; encourage greater confidence in the regulation of the building and construction industry through improved consistency and quality standards across service delivery; improve the clarity and effectiveness of the regulatory framework to encourage an efficient and fair provision of building and local government services; provide a clear and comprehensive regulatory scheme for the ongoing management of dam safety; and balance the needs of local government, property owners, building practitioners and the public in a fair and effective regulatory framework.

2 Statement of feasible options (regulatory and/or nonregulatory) that may constitute viable means for achieving the desired objective(s) The status quo is not the preferred option to address the problems identified in Table 1 as the Act does not reflect existing and intended policy for the dam safety scheme, small dams and the licensing levy. For the disability access requirements issue, the preferred option is in addition to the status quo of addressing the compliance problems through non-legislative means. Table 1: Problem, status quo and preferred options Problems Dam safety scheme The Building Act 2004 ( the Act ): does not reflect the risk assessment approach for large dams (dams at least 3 metres deep and with 20,000 cubic metres volume) that are high risk (dangerous) or lower-risk defines any leaky dam as a dangerous dam, although all dams leak to some extent, and a leak does not in itself mean a dam is likely to collapse in the ordinary course of events provides insufficient incentives for dam owners to become accredited, eg, even if a dam owner is accredited for tasks relating to management of a dam safety assurance programme, they must still comply with the annual compliance certificate requirement for high/medium potential impact dams (about 80 percent of the estimated 1,150 large dams). Status quo There is no common standard for, or enforcement of, dams that have deficiencies that are not immediately dangerous but pose a danger in the longer term from indirect specific events, such as floods or earthquakes. Any dam that leaks could be classified (wrongly) as dangerous. Indications of low uptake of the voluntary dam owner accreditation scheme, and requirement that all owners of high/medium potential impact dams submit an annual compliance certificate. Preferred option Amend the Act to: include two new categories of dam: earthquake-prone and flood-prone manage earthquake-prone and floodprone dams through the existing regional authority dangerous dam policies give regional authorities a power to require a dam owner to address a flood-prone or earthquake-prone dam through the owner s dam safety assurance programme (consult an engineer and update the programme) remove the reference to leaky dams exempt accredited dam owners from

3 the annual compliance certificate requirement. Problems Small dams The Building Act 2004 ( the Act ): defines small dams as buildings rather than dams, which is problematic due to the physical differences between dams and buildings splits the jurisdiction for dams between regional authorities and territorial authorities, which is confusing for consumers and does not fully utilise the expertise of regional authorities no longer exempts small dams from building consent requirements and the associated compliance costs. Status quo Territorial authoritiesare responsible for buildings, and small dams under the Act (defined as less than 3 metres depth and 20,000 cubic metres volume). Regional authorities are responsible for dams bigger than small dams, and all dams under the Resource Management Act Consumers are required to apply for a building consent to build a small dam. Preferred option Amend the Act to: clarify small dams are dams not buildings confirm that regional authorities have jurisdiction for all dams clarify that for the purposes of the dam safety scheme dam is limited to large dams only clarify the section 157 power to address dams in immediate danger of affecting people s safety applies to small dams reinsert an exemption for small dams from requiring a building consent (Schedule 1). Problems Licensing levy A drafting error in the Act means thelicensing levy (the Building Practitioners Board ( Board ) component of the annual charge) for approximately 27,000 building practitioners is payable in arrears, not in advance as intended. This will create a revenue shortfall of $630,000 (+GST) over the first four years for the Board, and an ongoing shortfall as building practitioners become newly licensed over time. Status quo Building practitioners will continue to pay an annual charge to cover the functions of the Registrar and the Board in arrears. Continued payment in arrears of the Preferred option Amend the Act to clarify that the licensing levy to fund the Board functions is payable in advance rather than in arrears (at the time a

4 Board component ( licensing levy ) will exacerbate the one-year lag in the revenue situation for the Board. An increase will be required in the annual charge ($5 + GST for the first four years, then subject to review) to cover the shortfall. practitioner applies for a licence). Disability access/ PIM* amendment *A project information memoranda (PIM) is an administrative document or record issued by territorial authorities ( councils ) to building designers/owners to flag the regulatory requirements for a proposed building project. It contains technical information held by the council about that specific property, such as special features of the land; and authorisations required prior to building consent under other (non-building) legislation, such as the Resource Management Act Problems Accessibility requirements in the Act and Building Code are not: a) adequately met by building designers/owners; or b)fully enforced by territorial authority staff ( councils ) responsible for issuing building consents only for compliant public building designs. Despite training, it appears there is a widespread lack of awareness by council staff of accessibility requirements and a lack of appreciation of people with disabilities needs and challenges they face when using public buildings. Lack of enforcement by councils creates obstacles for persons with disabilities and impacts on their ability to visit and work in public buildings (approximately 15 percent of buildings). Option 1: Legislative status quo/improved compliance through education Accessibility requirements are set out in the Building Code, and (as a mark of their higher status) in the Act itself. Continue to use PIMs as flags for authorisations in non-building Act legislation, as per their purpose. Use education and other non-legislative means to improve compliance with the accessibility requirements by designers and council staff. This option has yet to be scoped but will proceed in the Departmental work programme 2007/08. Option 2 Amend the Act s PIM provision to require that all councils include on PIMs a statement flagging there are accessibility requirements. Use the PIM amendment in addition to Option 1.

5 Statement of the net benefit of the proposal, including the total regulatory costs (administrative, compliance and economic costs) and benefits (including non-quantifiable benefits) of the proposal, and other feasible options The costs and benefits to affected parties for each of the three issues covered in this paper are summarised in Table 2 below. Table 2: Costs and benefits of preferred options Dam safety scheme Sector Costs Benefits Government Nil Clarify and improve workability of the Act before the wider dam safety scheme commences, in the next two years. Consistent risk assessment approach for dams. Industry (regional authorities) One-off costs to update dangerous dam policies. 1 Less annual compliance certificates to process Less compliance costs in addressing leaky dams as dangerous dams. Greater clarity around the parameters of the scheme and therefore ability to comply with statutory obligations. Society (large dam owners) Variable minor one-off familiarisation costs. 1 Possible compliance costs to update a dam safety assurance programme, if a dam is earthquake-prone or flood-prone (estimated $100 - $4,000 in engineer fees). Reduces/spreads compliance costs to manage flood-prone or earthquake-prone dams (can rectify over time instead of immediately). Increases incentives to become accredited dam owners. Reduces compliance costs (annual compliance certificates). Greater community confidence that dams in New Zealand are built well, managed correctly, and are adequately maintained.

6 Small dams Government Nil Certainty of jurisdiction. Aligns the Act with the policy intent. Industry (regional authorities) Minimal additional responsibilities for regional authorities, as small dams are not part of the dam safety scheme and all small dams will be exempted from requiring building consents. Regional authorities can further develop dam expertise as the responsible bodies for all dams under the Act, and the Resource Management Act. Certainty of jurisdiction. Society (small dam owners) Nil Reduced compliance costs ($150 - $1500) for small dam owners, eg, farmers and roadworks managers. Certainty of jurisdiction. Licensing levy Sector Costs Benefits Government Nil Aligns the Act with the policy intent. Provides a long-term solution and solves the drafting problem upfront, before the licensing scheme commences. Makes cost recovery principles transparent, ie, matches expenditure and the accruing benefits for licensed building practitioners in the same year. Provides a precedent for future comparable legislation that requires financial fix-up solutions to address a similar drafting error. Preserves the credibility of the licensing scheme. No additional government funding is required. Industry Nil preserves the existing costings agreed to by industry Allows the Building Practitioners Licensing Board to provide full service functions to building practitioners from the start. Ensures a smooth transition for the Licensing Board to operational capacity during the 2007/ /12 phase-in period, and in

7 future years. Consistent with industry expectations and policy intent. Society Nil Provides certainty and stability in a sector that provides quality building design and building work for New Zealanders. Disability access/pim issue Sector Costs Benefits Government Changes purpose of PIM: PIMs are designed to address only matters in non-building legislation. Publicity and guidance information would be required to inform councils of the new PIM procedures to include accessibility flags. Aligns with government priorities such as the New Zealand Disability Strategy and the New Zealand Positive Ageing Strategy Territorial authorities (councils) One-off costs for councils to change their PIM templates and documentation to include (may be several hundred dollars per template). Additional ongoing costs of $718,000 - $1.15 million annually (New Zealand-wide) for staff time to determine if the statement is relevant to each PIM (estimate 10 minutes per application x 75,000 PIM s issued annually, about 15 percent relate to public buildings staff time at $50 per hour). Increases workload for councils. Does not address the underlying compliance problem with council staff not upholding accessibility requirements at the building consent stage. Society Council costs likely to be passed on to building owners and/or ratepayers. The estimated 600 owners/designers who seek the PIM early for

8 May increase existing delays for building consent timeframes due to additional steps for PIMs. public buildings will be informed upfront that accessibility requirements will apply. May indirectly contribute to raising disability awareness in the building industry, eg, avoiding a perception that nonbuilding legislation flags on PIMs, such as historic places, have a higher status than accessibility. Possible improved accessibility and employment opportunities for disabled persons. Statement of consultation undertaken Stakeholders consulted The proposed amendments were shared on a targeted basis with relevant stakeholders. Where appropriate, concerns have been incorporated in this document and the accompanying Cabinet paper. 1. Dam safety scheme: Over 50 submissions were received on a dam safety public discussion document in June In addition the Department worked closely with the Regional Authority Working Group, an advisory group of government agencies, dam owners and operators including the New Zealand Society of Large Dams (NZSOLD), engineers, rural sector representatives, including Federated Farmers, and regional authority stakeholders, to develop the proposed amendments. 2. Small Dams: Regional Authority Working Group, Local Government New Zealand, and Railways Corporation. Stakeholders agree with the proposals. 3. Licensing levy: LBP Industry Reference Group, including Master Builders, Institution of Professional Engineers (IPENZ), and New Zealand Institute of Building (BOINZ) Stakeholders agree with the proposed amendment. Some government agencies consider the financial/non-legislative option equally viable. 4. The Disability/PIM amendment is: supported by the Office for Disability Issues, the Ministry of Health and various disability stakeholders support the amendment (including CCS, Barrier Free New Zealand Trust, and DPA (New Zealand) Inc

9 opposed by Local Government New Zealand, Department for Internal Affairs, and various building industry stakeholders (including the Building Construction Industry Training Organisation, Master Builders Federation, and New Zealand Institute of Building Surveyors). Government departments/agencies consultation The following government agencies/departments have been consulted on the contents of this paper: Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet; Ministries of Justice, Economic Development, Environment, Health, Agriculture and Forestry, Culture and Heritage, Transport, Civil Defence and Emergency Management, and Consumer Affairs; Departments of Internal Affairs and Conservation, Office for Disability Issues, Transit New Zealand and Treasury. Footnotes 1 These costs will be incurred anyway, as the dam safety scheme commences.