Submission cover sheet
- Name of organisation or individual making this submission
- Authorised delegate/contact person
Questions on possible options
- What kind of plans should be signed off and declared by a statutory declaration?
- Should a statutory declaration accompany all variations to plans or only major variations?
- How should plans be provided to, or accessed by, the Building Commissioner?
through the Council
- In what circumstances would it be difficult to document performance solutions and their compliance with the BCA?
At the moment, the principal certifiers do not report to anyone other than the builder. This is what I have observed in the residential building industry and I suppose it is also true for contractions of high rise buildings. Due to their business relationship with the builder, their independence is highly compromised. Inspections may not be done properly and the construction may not be in compliance with the buildings code. Certifiers could just sign off on the certificate at the end of construction at which time all the defects have already been covered and are not visible anymore. The certifiers should be reporting to the owner and the Council directly and provide reports at critical stages of the construction and not just provide a certificate at the end. The reports should include photographs and explain why these are compliant. These reports should be timely as construction is going on and rectification of something that was missed could be harder to do after and the builder may just opt not to rectify to save on cost. Defects during inspection should be reinspected to ensure these were rectified and not just covered up. The principal certifiers should also provide all copies of all the plans (including among others, structural/engineers plans) if these are not provided by the builder. Furthermore, The builders should be required to compensate a more reasonable amount to the owners if they are delayed in construction. At the moment, residential builders for instance can only pay $30/business day if they are delayed in completing the construction. The builders can then intentionally delay the construction to squeeze the owners of time and financial resources and force them to accept a substandard build.
- What would the process for declaring that a building complies with its plans look like?
There should be a complete documentation of what are in the plans vs what were actually inspected. These should be supported by photographs during the inspection as structural items are usually covered and not readily visible when construction is completed.
- What kind of role should builders play in declaring final building work?
Builders should be held fully responsible for any defects caused by non-compliant construction.
- Which builders involved in building work should be responsible for signing off on buildings?
The main builder should be signing off on buildings as it is supervising and ensuring all work is done in accordance with approved plans. They should be held accountable and there should be consequences for them if they are negligent in performing/supervising the construction.
- Are existing licensing regimes appropriate to be accepted as registration for some builders and building designers, such as architects, for the new scheme?
- What should be the minimum requirements for a registration scheme?
- What form of insurance should be mandatory for ‘building designers’? Why?
- What kinds of minimum requirements should be prescribed for the insurance policy (for example, value, length of cover, etc.)?
- What skills should be mandatory for ‘building designers’?
- Which categories of building practitioners should owe a duty of care?
- What should be the scope of the duty of care? Should it apply to all or certain types of work? If so, which work?
- What types of consumers should be owed a duty of care?
The owner and subsequent owners.