Building Stronger Foundations

Submission cover sheet

  • Name of organisation or individual making this submission

    Andersal Pty Ltd

  • Authorised delegate/contact person

    Henk van den Heuvel

  • Position

    General Manager

  • Organisation

    Andersal Pty Ltd

Questions on possible options

  1. What kind of plans should be signed off and declared by a statutory declaration?

    Architect or Engineer

  2. Should a statutory declaration accompany all variations to plans or only major variations?

    Statutory declarations are never prosecuted and rarely mean anything. Just straight out bureaucracy here.

  3. How should plans be provided to, or accessed by, the Building Commissioner?

    Via the Head Certifier

  4. In what circumstances would it be difficult to document performance solutions and their compliance with the BCA?

    There is a desire by architects to have no hob or step up at windows and doorways. ie flow-through look. This is in breach of the hob heights on the existing building that fail NCC performance requirements for surface water in 1:100 year storms to not flood into the building & weatherproofing under Sections P2.2.1 & P2.2.2 and 3.3.4.5, 3.3.4.9. You can provide performance solutions but prima fascie they do not conform to the NCC yet are in wide usage.

  5. What would the process for declaring that a building complies with its plans look like?

    It has to anyway? Unless you specifically declare it doesnt comply the nit is deemed to comply.

  6. What kind of role should builders play in declaring final building work?

    None

  7. Which builders involved in building work should be responsible for signing off on buildings?

    There should be a dedicated/specialist waterproofing/weatherproofing certifier that sits below a head-certifier, so there is an engineering certifier, electrical certifier, fire/egress certifier, waterproofing/weatherproofing certifier, etc. There is no one to sign off on weatherproofing or waterproofing a building except for bathrooms.

  8. Are existing licensing regimes appropriate to be accepted as registration for some builders and building designers, such as architects, for the new scheme?

  9. What should be the minimum requirements for a registration scheme?

  10. What form of insurance should be mandatory for ‘building designers’? Why?

    This is one of the worst issues. The insurance system is diabolical. This will require builders to have Professional Indemnity Insurance for their design input where before this minor design was considered common work and not covered by PI Insurance. ie any rough sketch or detailing that the builder did is not normally covered by PI Insurance, its exempt under most policies.

  11. What kinds of minimum requirements should be prescribed for the insurance policy (for example, value, length of cover, etc.)?

    Builders dont get paid for designing, there is usually no fee for that service. The only ones who should have PI insurance are those that get paid a fee for service. Otherwise there is NO PI insurance out there that covers a no-fee service.

  12. What skills should be mandatory for ‘building designers’?

    Waterproofing and weatherproofing. Its simply not taught in engineering or architecture

  13. Which categories of building practitioners should owe a duty of care?

  14. What should be the scope of the duty of care? Should it apply to all or certain types of work? If so, which work?

  15. What types of consumers should be owed a duty of care?

At our discretion we may remove parts of submissions because of length, content, appropriateness or confidentiality (privacy) reasons.

Website https://www.fairtrading.nsw.gov.au

©