AC1827 (v.1) - Façade compliance guide · architect, facade engineer, structural engineer, fire engineer and material and product suppliers. Engaging the relevant fire design professionals

Page 1 of 24

Façade guidance Achieving compliance

Page 2 of 24 August 2019 AC1827 (v.1)

2

3

5

5

Table of Contents

Introduction

Why use this guide?

The Building Act 2004

New Zealand Building Code

Design phase 6

6

6

7

8

8

9

9

10

10

Plans

Compliance path report

Pre-application meeting

Quality assurance, inspections & observations

It’s not just all about keeping water out

Fire

Acoustic

Energy efficiency

Internal moisture

Maintenance 10

Construction phase 11

11

11

12

12

12

13

13

Site inspections and observations

Council inspections

Project team inspection

Producer statements PS3

PS4 and site observations

Peer review log

Site water testing

Substitutions/minor variations/amendments 13

Procurement of goods 15

Façade compliance path table 16

Additional Information 20

Definitions 21


Introduction

Auckland is a rapidly growing city and we are seeing more

high-density developments being constructed. The Auckland

Unitary Plan has assisted in allowing what we would classify as

mid-rise buildings, hence the need for this guidance brochure.

The guide outlines compliance requirements for façades and

provides a compliance table outlining some of the possible

compliance pathways available for mid-rise construction from a

predominately weathertight perspective. By establishing these

compliance pathways, we hope to help applicants understand

their options and see how compliance requirements for the

external envelope systems may be presented.

These are not the only options available to achieve

compliance. All applications for consent will be assessed on a

case by case basis. By outlining these compliant pathways, we

aim to provide more clarity about the building consent process.


Why use this guide?

The intention of this document is to provide assistance and guidance to designers, building

owners, developers and the like when considering the various external envelope options

available to them when building in the mid-rise area.

While there is a trend for these buildings to incorporate traditional

residential materials and methods of construction, when the

building height is over 10m it is outside the scope of the acceptable

solution of E2 (external moisture). By default anything above 10m

is deemed an alternative solution so demonstrating compliance is

more complex. It will require further documentation than if less than

10m and using the acceptable solution E2/AS1.

The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) have

information relating to alternative solutions on their website www.mbie.govt.nz

The way in which compliance is demonstrated is referred to as the “compliance path”.

Regardless of how you elect to demonstrate compliance, it is the compliance path that

forms the backbone of any building consent application. The compliance path is to be in

writing and referred to as a “compliance path report”. More on this later.

Whichever compliance path option is chosen, some basic information such as cladding

wind pressures, building deflections, test data, and structural design, will need to be

included in the compliance path report.

Early engagement with the various professionals and suppliers is highly recommended to

assist in negotiating the regulatory compliance path.

http://www.mbie.govt.nz/


The Building Act 2004

The Building Act 2004 (the Act) sets out the rules for the

construction, alteration, demolition and maintenance of

new and existing buildings in New Zealand. This is the

primary legislation this information booklet is based on.

There is one section of the Act we quote here for reference:

Section 49 ‘A building consent authority must grant a building consent if it

is satisfied on reasonable grounds that the provisions of the

building code would be met if the building work were properly

completed in accordance with the plans and specifications that

accompanied the application’

So what does this mean?

Put very simply, job specific material/systems construction details etc. are required prior to

issuing the building consent. Performance based specifications do not demonstrate

compliance.

This has been confirmed and upheld by the High Court.

In New Zealand, all information confirming compliance is required up front before the

building consent being issued. All inspections, observations and the like during

construction are to verify the work is being undertaken in accordance with the consented

building plans and supporting documents.

Prior to lodging a building consent application, designers need to specify the actual

products, systems and the like they intend to have installed in or on the building, along

with the various products, systems etc. and their respective compliance paths

demonstrating their compliance with the New Zealand Building Code. Without this

information applications cannot be approved. Hence the earlier statement about the

benefits of early engagement of suppliers.

New Zealand Building Code

This document concentrates primarily on what keeps moisture out of the building: focusing on the

building code clause E2 (external moisture) as well as B1 (structure) and B2 (durability) as they

relate to E2. When considering the design of the building enclosure other code clauses must also

be considered. More on this later.

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2004/0072/141.0/link.aspx?id=DLM162576#DLM162576




Design phase

As with any building work getting the design right up-front is important. Designers in the

mid-rise space are generally relying on producer statements and peer reviews to fulfil the

compliance requirements, and this option is still

available and in fact is still required for tall buildings.

However, by the council providing a documented

approach, it is envisaged that the designer will within

set criteria (buildings less than 13m in height; cladding

pressures less than +/-2.5kPa) be able to put together a

proposal (a compliance path report) without necessarily

having to engage a third party to design or review the

proposal prior to lodging a building consent application.

Plans

The plans need to represent what will be built, showing exactly how things will be put

together. We accept things may change once on site (this is covered later). What this will

mean in reality is detail, detail, detail.

There needs to be sufficient information/detail to demonstrate to everyone what and how

to build is being proposed. In the case of proprietary systems, this may well mean shop

drawings, or at least sufficient detailing often from the systems supplier to demonstrate

compliance. Cut and paste of a supplier’s standard details on their own may not be

enough. Non-proprietary systems still need to be detailed sufficiently to demonstrate

compliance and enable everyone to understand how things will be built.

Compliance path report

The compliance path sets out how the proposal complies with the New Zealand Building

Code.

This must be provided in writing and include supporting documentation appropriate to

support the proposal. Basic information required in the compliance path report includes

(but not limited to): wind pressures, building deflections, and test data. Each appropriate

code clause needs to be identified and an explanation of how the proposal meets that

clause is required.


The complexity of the external envelope will dictate what information needs to be provided

within the report, and the documentation supporting it. Please remember it is only the

information applicable to the proposed works that needs to be provided. More is not

always best and providing unnecessary information or generic data only slows down the

assessment process. The intention of the report is to demonstrate compliance and so

keeping it succinct and relevant is important.

Pre-application meeting

The biggest cause of frustration for both applicants and the council are “requests for

further information” or just simply RFI’s.

There are a number of reasons why an RFI is sent. The most common for external

envelopes is a lack of or incomplete

information. Inconsistent details and

information are also well up there in the RFI

league table. Lodging a building consent

application that is incomplete makes no

sense. RFI’s mean double handling for all

parties which is time consuming and

inefficient, often causing delays which will

then impact on critical path construction

timing but often worse still, money. The

council is introducing a new system

whereby incomplete applications will not be accepted on presentation.

Buildings outside the scope of the acceptable solution of E2 require a suitably qualified

and experienced person for review of the design proposal and supply a compliance path

report. When buildings fit the lower risk profile (refer to our table at the end of this

guidance) and when designers are both experienced and willing to supply their own

exterior envelope compliance report, the need for a design review may not always be

necessary.

It is recommended that the façade review requirement or otherwise, is discussed at your

initial pre-application meeting. We have also developed a compliance matrix which covers

four possible compliance paths which could be used to demonstrate compliance of the

building envelope. Option 1 is suitable for buildings only marginally outside the scope of

E2/AS1 (traditional residential construction methods). Options 3 and 4 address complex

designs likely incorporating bespoke facade elements.


Quality assurance, inspections & observations

There are several options for how the inspection of the external

envelope construction and assembly can be managed. The

path chosen will depend on the complexity of the building, the

type of materials, products and systems used, and the

expertise of the project team and the council. The programme

for site visits must be submitted in the compliance path

documentation as part of the building consent application.

The inspection process will involve the council. The degree of involvement will vary on the

complexity and novelty of the façade being installed. Buildings using residential

construction methods, such as wraps, RABs and more traditional residential claddings, will

involve more council inspections. Possibly some PS3’s onsite testing and inspections by

the design team reviewer will also be required. Building envelopes which incorporate

specific design façade types such as curtain walls, will be largely directed by the specialist

façade designer/reviewer and supported with a PS4.

With some pathways the reviewer will need to complete site visits and observe the façade

installation is in accordance with the building consent documentation. In another option the

designer will fulfil this role. Checking the contractor's documentation and ensuring

appropriate records are being kept onsite is also a critical element of this role. Records of

site visits are to be left on site and made available to the council. Consistency of work is

important. Any corrective actions identified on site shall be signed off as being completed

by the same person who identified the issue to be remediated.

Some form of on-site water testing will almost always be required. The detail, such as type

and frequency, must be nominated within the compliance report. These test results will

form part of the onsite quality management system.

It’s not just all about keeping water out

The external envelope is not just about keeping moisture out of a building. There are many

other ways in which the building envelope contributes to making the building fit for purpose

and keeping the occupiers of the building healthy and safe. While this guidance focuses on

the E2 aspects of compliance, there are other code clauses that will need design input

when consenting the building envelope. For example:


Fire

Careful consideration must be given to fire spread to the outside of the building. Building

cladding systems are very complex and may require a collaborative approach involving the

architect, facade engineer, structural engineer, fire engineer and material and product

suppliers. Engaging the relevant fire design professionals early in the design process is

highly recommended as this may have a major impact on the types of external envelope

systems that can be used.

Sadly, many parts of the world have experienced catastrophic external envelope (often

referred to as façade) fires. More recently in the United Kingdom that came with significant

loss to lives. New Zealand is very fortunate and has only experienced relatively minor

façade fires nevertheless our rules are tightening.

It is important that the fire engineer provide commentary on how the external wall cladding

system meets the building code requirements of C3.5 and C3.7 within the building consent

documentation.

The Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment have released a guidance document

“Fire Performance of External Wall Cladding Systems” which discusses how external wall

cladding systems can be tested to determine their fire performance:

Go to www.building.govt.nz and search “Fire performance of external wall cladding

systems” to find out more.

Acoustic

Reducing noise from sources outside the building is often

critical for the quality of life of the occupants. Being close to

such things as main arterial transport corridors or below

flight paths to airports can be an issue. Maximum noise

levels within the building can often be set by a condition in

the Resource Consent but then not addressed adequately

at building consent stage. The consequences can be very

expensive in both time and money.


Energy efficiency

The efficient use of energy needs to be considered.

The building occupants’ comfort needs to be considered as well as the ongoing costs of

heating/cooling and its energy use; for example, the use of artificial lighting when natural

light may not be sufficient.

Internal moisture

The question how a building manages internal moisture is becoming more important as

our buildings become more airtight. The accumulation of condensation, moisture

movement in the air and its effect on the occupants’ health as well as the building fabric

needs to be considered. Understanding where dew points are occurring (e.g. not within the

wall cavity) will have an influence on the design of the external envelope.

Nothing should be considered in isolation but in this case by addressing internal moisture

you may likely impact energy efficiency and energy use.

Maintenance

No building is maintenance free, and no building product lasts forever. Once construction

is completed and the Code Compliance Certificate (CCC) has been issued, maintenance

should start. As part of the design phase, thought and care should be given to how the

external envelope is to be maintained and provision made for that. Given we are talking

about buildings over 10m tall this is likely to involve an access system such as fall arrest

anchors and abseil anchors, building maintenance units (BMU), building maintenance rails

or potentially the hire of temporary safety systems if the site allows. Whatever the system,

it needs to be detailed on the building consent application.

The council recommends that the designer provide information and documentation to the

owner(s) at the completion of the project outlining the maintenance requirements of the

materials and systems that have been installed in their building.


Construction phase

Demonstrating compliance continues once the building consent has been granted.

Ensuring the construction is in accordance with the building consent is just as important, if

not more so than the design phase. Site observation of the external envelope during

installation is critical. This should be carried out by someone who has been involved in the

design phase. Council inspections are required as well as and not in lieu of site

observations.

Site inspections and observations

The more complex the external envelope, the greater level of record keeping, quality

assurance, inspections and site observations are required.

Council inspections

Having issued the building consent, the council will

always be involved on site. This will include inspections.

The number and type will vary from one project to

another, but this will be identified at the time the building

consent is issued. Often it will not just be an inspection in

the traditional sense of the word but will include checking

that the QA programmes are being followed, and the

appropriate people outside of council have also been

fulfilling their obligations i.e The reviewer.

These requirements will be discussed in advance, at the pre construction meeting with the

applicant or their representative to ensure everyone has a good understanding of the

various roles and responsibilities.


Project team inspection

As part of the onsite QA, the project team will need

to complete site visits and observe the façade

installation is taking place in accordance with the

building consent documentation. A Quality

Management System (QMS) is mandatory and the

project team will have responsibility to ensure the

contractors' documentation is accurate and to

maintain appropriate records onsite for the council.

Copies of all site visits, instructions and closure of

corrective actions are to available on site, then

collated into one document and provided to council

with application of the Code Compliance

certificate.

Producer statements PS3

Producer Statements are commonly used to help council in determining the construction

complies with the building consent. A PS3 is normally received from an installer/contractor

confirming their installation is in accordance with the building consent.

PS4 and site observations

In a medium to very high-risk construction project a peer reviewer will be engaged to

provide an independent review of the building envelope compliance at design stage. That

author may then be required to assist the council by undertaking site observations

ensuring the construction is as designed and by providing a PS4 at the completion of the

construction to enable issue of the CCC. Authors must be on council’s producer statement

authors register for issuing producer statements in relation to the external envelope.

It is important to understand that this peer reviewer is independent of the contractor, or any

construction contracts other than to review the façade and provide the appropriate advice

and producer statements. They are assisting the council in fulfilling their role and the

council will rely on them and their professionalism and integrity.

It is also important to understand that when engaging a person to undertake construction

observations and provide a PS4, council will rely on their integrity and professional

judgement to assist in its decision to issue the CCC. They must be independent of the


contractor or any construction contracts other than to review the façade and provide the

appropriate producer statements.

The council’s current producer statement policy can be found at

www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz and search for Producer Statement Policy.

Peer review log

A log of queries/changes requested by peer reviewer to the designer with confirmation of

changes and closed off requests needs to be included within the compliance path report at

the time of lodging the building consent application.

Copies of plans or other documents with comments and questions on them in lieu of a log

is not required or desired. There can be many changes and amendments made between

the designer and reviewer which in some instances run into several hundred pages. The

council does not need these. It is only the final documents that are required.

Site water testing

During construction, site water testing will generally be required. It is expected the

programme for site testing will have been submitted in the compliance report as part of the

building consent application.

The tests are to be witnessed by the design reviewer or the designer if a reviewer is not

engaged. Documentation relating to the tests is to be provided to council as part of the

application for a CCC.

Substitutions/minor variations/amendments

As previously outlined, building work is to proceed in accordance with the building consent

but changes sometimes happen. Any changes need to be recorded and approved by the

council prior to the building work starting.

“Wash-up as-built drawings” of changes undertaken without council approval provided at

the conclusion of the project do not comply with the legislative requirements of the Building

Act.


It is important to ensure all building work is undertaken in accordance with the consent and

that any product substitution is done by way of an amendment or, a minor variation if

applicable. Failure to properly address substitutions or amendments creates delay on site

and if compliance of a substituted product cannot be demonstrated then product

substitution without consent can prevent the CCC being issued. The council may decide to

take further regulatory action if building work is undertaken other than in accordance with

the consented building plans. This may include prosecution.

The effect on resale and the requirements from your insurer and banker should also be

considered.

Information regarding amendments and minor variations can be obtained at

www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz and search for amendments and minor variations.


Procurement of goods

Ensuring goods and products selected for the project are fit for

purpose is essential. Whether goods are locally sourced or

imported it is important that the supply chain, manufacturing

processes and installation can be verified as appropriate.

When selecting products or system designers should ensure the

products and supply chains are supported by a strong QMS.

A QMS such as AS/NZS ISO 9001:2008 will demonstrate the

manufacturer is able to consistently meet customer, statutory and

regulatory requirements. Does the supplier QMS give you

confidence that they will consistently provide products that will do

what they say they will do while complying with applicable regulations?

During the manufacturing process the façade reviewer or their appointed agent on council’s behalf,

reserve the right to undertake their own audit of the supply and manufacturing process at any time.

The results of such an audit are to be provided to council with what, if any, corrective action was

required and confirmation that it has been done.

Prior to the issue of the CCC, a copy of the completed supplier/manufacturers QMS and Product

Quality Performance (PQP) for the job is required by council. We suggest that this is supplied as

soon as possible to avoid delaying the issue of the CCC.


Façade compliance path table

Facade

Compliance

Path table

Option 1

(Mid-rise)

Option 2

(Mid-rise)

PS2

Option 3

(Mid-rise)

PS1

Option 4

(High-rise)

PS1 + PS2

Building Complexity

It is essential to align the complexity of the building with the skills of

the team

Height limit 13m 27m 27m No limit

(ULS)

This limit is

not hard and

fast but a

practical

guide

Cladding

pressure

+/- 2.5kPA

(ULS)

No limit

(ULS)

No limit

(ULS)

No limit

(ULS)

This limit is

not hard and

fast but a

practical

guide

Building

movements

Low High High High All

parameters

(e.g. applied

loads,

movements,

tolerances

e.t.c) must be

determined

and

summarised

but it is

important to

note that as

movements in

particular

increase so

too will

façade design

complexity

Features of the

design

● Cavity

Systems

● Tested

Proprietary

Systems (no

As for 1

plus minor

deviations

from

proprietary

As for 1 plus

deviation

from

proprietary

systems and

As for 3

plus

novel/bespo

ke systems

(including

Performance

Specifications

(promises

about future

processes or


changes or

deviations)

● Rigid Air

Barrier

● Not many

systems

(max 3)

● Alternative

Solutions

through

comparison/e

xtrapolation

of

compliance

documents

systems good practice

first principles

façade

design

project

specific

testing)

deliverables)

are not

relevant as

consent/comp

liance

evidence

Features

unlikely to be

in the consent

design

● No Open

Jointed

Rainscreens

● No Specific

Engineering

Design

● No inferred

detail or

responsibiliti

es

● No E2-AS1or

E2-VM1,

● No Perfect

Barrier

Systems,

● No

Mass/Storag

e Systems,

● No Single

Skin

Blockwork

● No Open

Jointed

Rainscree

ns

● No

Specific

Engineerin

g Design

● No inferred

detail or

responsibil

ities

● No E2-

AS1 or E2-

VM1

● No Perfect

Barrier

Systems

● No

Mass/Stor

age

Systems

● No Single

Skin

Blockwork

● No inferred

detail or

responsibiliti

es

● No E2-AS1

● No E2-VM1

● No Single

Skin

Blockwork

● No inferred

detail or

responsibil

ities

● No E2-

AS1

● No E2-

VM1

● No Single

Skin

Blockwork

Performance

Specifications

(promises

about future

processes or

deliverables)

are not

relevant as

consent/

compliance

evidence

Consenting Requirements

Compliance

report

Unifying

Produced by

designer

Compliance

Report from

designer

and/or a

A report from

Façade

Engineer on

the design

A report

from

Façade

Engineer on

The council

wants to see

one document

that explains


Document

(the primary

document the

Council relies on

to summarise

compliance

pathways for the

whole façade)

PS2 report

from

Façade

Engineer

side i.e. a

PS1 report

the design

side i.e. a

PS1 report

the rational

basis for the

design and

compliance of

the whole

façade

Building

envelope

designer

Designer Designer Facade

Engineer

Facade

Engineer

Ensure

design

responsibilitie

s are clear

Other building

envelope

design Inputs

● Proprietary

Systems

Suppliers

● CPEng

Structural

Engineers

for Cladding

pressure &

building

movement

● ProprietarySystemsSuppliers

● CPEngStructuralEngineersforCladdingpressure &buildingmovement& misc bitsB1/B2

● Proprietary

System

Designers

● Specialist

Subcontract

ors

● CPEng

Structural

Engineers

for misc bits

B1/B2

● Façade

Engineer for

B1/B2/E2/F

2

● ProprietarySystemDesignersand/or

● SpecialistSubcontractors

● and/or● CPEng

StructuralEngineersfor miscbits B1/B2

● FaçadeEngineerforB1/B2/E2/F2 (andothers ifrequired)

Design

reviewer

Council Façade

Reviewer

(PS2)

Council Façade

Reviewer

(PS2)

The council

will require

the review to

be

outsourced

with complex

designs

Onsite Requirements

Producer

Statements

PS3 Construction supplied by all façade subcontractors

PS4 Façade

Review and

Site

Observations

PS4 Façade

Review and

Site

Observations

PS4 Façade

Review and

Site

Observations


Inspections Council

Inspections

Limited

Council

Inspections

Limited

Council

Inspections

Limited

Council

Inspections

The council

will require

the

construction

observations

to be

outsourced

for complex

designs

Lead Designer may be required to undertake site observations as

part of their agreement with their facade reviewer/ facade designer

QA programme

and inspection

record

Applicants should identify where they think there are complicated

enclosure details and how their proposed QA system responds to the

challenges/risks inherent in those areas, the intent is to have QA

processes that demonstrate the efficiency of installed solutions. Site

QA should often/usually include some site water testing undertaken

to reputable standards and within the scope of the standards.

Methods like: field hose testing, internal pressure box testing with

external spray devices, external pressure box and external spray

devices, flood testing, EVFM testing, thermal imaging camera etc.

Applicants should identify the proposed regime in a project specific

outline QA Plan and explain how and why they have decided on the

QA methods.

Projects need

to explain

their

proposed

processes for

site QA with

consent

applications.

Evidence of

completion of

the proposed

QA is

required with

CCC

applications

The complexity of building features will determine the level of compliance documentation appropriate for the

building. A building with wind pressures of 2.8kPa will bump a building up to the next compliance option even if

the height of that building is only 13m.


Additional Information

Build Magazine - Avoiding risky behaviour

A suggested risk matrix for steel and concrete buildings up to 15 storeys could inform

decision making in façade component choice and installation for some buildings that fall

outside the scope of E2/AS1.

Go to www.buildingmagazine.org.nz and search for “avoiding risky behaviour”

A Weatherproofing Risk Matrix for Multi-Storey Buildings.

“A Weatherproofing Risk Matrix for Multi-Storey Buildings” can be found at the bottom of

the above webpage “avoiding risky behaviour”.

Auckland Council Producer Statement Policy

A copy of the policy can be found at www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz and search for

Producer Statement Policy.


Definitions

Building Movements

The building structural design and resulting deflections influence the façade and affect

the detailing required. The structural engineer may be able to provide the actual

deflections to allow the facade designer to provide a more accurate design.

Cladding Pressure

Cladding wind pressures are the loads from wind acting on the façade systems. They

include factors the shape multipliers and local pressure factors. They are usually

determined by an engineer experienced in the use of AS/NZS1170.2 or through wind

tunnel studies.

Compliance Report

This is the primary document the Council relies on to summarise compliance pathways

for the façade as a whole. For low-risk applications, this document is expected to be

produced by the designer and then reviewed by Council. The compliance table within this

guide provides an expectation for what constitutes a low-risk application. When a facade

engineer is engaged there is discretion for the compliance report to be produced by

either the facade engineer or designer.

The compliance report will be made up of a Project description, Designer Memorandum

and Compliance Pathway. The compliance pathway is best presented by using a table of

building envelope components, showing on the table how test reports, compliance

certificates etc. have been used to ensure the cladding system achieves compliance with

the NZBC.

The compliance report will also outline how the construction will be monitored and will

include a quality assurance programme nominating the onsite testing requirements and

the onsite observations. While these can be carried out by a third party the party will

need to be nominated and agreed to at building consent stage.


Compliance Pathway

Used by BCAs to evaluate how proposed building work will comply with the performance

requirements in the Building Code. Using these compliance paths will help designers to

demonstrate compliance. A clear compliance path will be established using a comparison

between building factors (height, cladding pressures, building movement) with an

Acceptable Solution or Verification Method, Product certification and citing relevant

testing

Designer Memorandum

Designers memorandum is a declaration that the design professional has applied the skill

and care in carrying out or supervising the building envelope design. It should state that

the building envelope if constructed in accordance with the drawings, specifications, and

other documents provided, will comply with the relevant provisions of the Building Code.

Project Description

Forms part of the external envelope compliance report. This will outline the engineering

requirement.

Onsite QA Programme

Includes designers’ nominated process for inspections and a completed agreement to

supply producer statements. Applicants should identify where they think there are

complicated enclosure details and how their proposed QA system responds to that in

order to demonstrate the efficiency of installed solutions. Site QA should often include

some site water testing undertaken to reputable standards and within the scope of the

standards. Methods like: field hose testing, internal pressure box testing with external

spray devices, external pressure box and external spray devices, flood testing, EVFM

testing, thermal

Facade System, Cladding system, Building Envelope (for weathertightness) AS/VM

E2

The outside or exterior weather-resistant surface of a building; including roof cladding and

roof underlays, wall cladding and wall underlays, and cavity components, roof lights,

windows, doors and all penetrations, flashings, seals, joints and junctions.


Site Inspections

The programme for site inspections will be submitted in the compliance report with the

Façade documentation lodged for building consent. When a façade engineer has been

engaged the weight of the inspections process will be directed by that specialist façade

engineer. It is the council’s expectation that the façade engineer will complete site visits

and check the façade installation is in accordance with the consent documentation. The

façade engineer will ensure any changes have been addressed by way of Minor Variation

or Amendment. The façade engineer will check the contractor's documentation and ensure

appropriate records are being kept onsite.

Copies of site records and instructions and close-offs are to be made available to the

council inspectors and shall be provided to council at the conclusion of the project prior to

the issue of the Code Compliance Certificate.

The facade engineer will need to ensure all deficiencies are closed out prior to the issue of

PS4.

Peer Review

The council will require the facade review to be outsourced to an independent façade

reviewer where the design complexity fits within either options 2,3 or 4 in the Façade

Compliance Path table.

All peer reviews should include review of the project plans and specifications including

facade compliance report, site observation methodology and a Peer Review Log

documenting the review process with the supporting PS2.


Find out more: phone 09 301 0101 or visit aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/

Documents

AC1827 (v.1) - Façade compliance guide · architect, facade engineer, structural engineer, fire engineer and material and product suppliers. Engaging the relevant fire design professionals