Citywide Report - Reg Cooper

8/13/2019 Citywide Report - Reg Cooper

1/36

BUILDING CONSENT AND COMPLIANCE

REVIEW OF:

THE COOPER HOUSE LOCATED AT TAKAKA,

GOLDEN BAY

DECEMBER 2008

P.O Box 90799Victoria Street

Auckland CentralTel: 442 1560Fax: 441 3358

Email: [email protected]


2/36

2

RESUME OF BILL CARTWRIGHT

My full name is Roger William Cartwright. I am a Director of Citywide Building Consultants (Auckland) Limited

("Citywide"). Citywide specialises in building assessments, weather tightness reports, structural surveys,

issues surrounding the New Zealand Building Code and on-site compliance monitoring for the building

industry.

Qualifications and Experience

I have a trade certificate in carpentry, issued in 1973 and have many years practical experience as a building

inspector for the Auckland City Council.

My work experience can be summarised as follows:

1970 1975: Apprenticeship in carpentry;

1975 1984: Labour only and contract building;1984 1996: Building inspector for the Auckland City Council;

1996 2002: Team Manager, special projects, building inspections, Auckland City Council;

2002 Present: Company director of Citywide.

I worked for the Auckland City Council for 18 years; the first 12 years as a building inspector. From my time

at the Auckland City Council, I am in a position to comment on the practices of Territorial Authorities both in

terms of processing building consent applications and in terms of Council inspections of the building work

during construction, culminating in the issue of a code compliance certificate.

Since 2002, I have worked as an independent building consultant providing consultancy services on all

aspects of compliance with the Building Act, the Building Code, and all associated documents and standards.

This has included providing advice to numerous homeowners who have purchased homes affected by

moisture ingress. I have undertaken numerous building defect investigations and analyses, and provided

recommendations for clients on the remedial works required to rectify those defects and the resulting damage.

I have prepared and presented evidence as an expert witness for homeowners in several of these cases,

particularly addressing the role that Council building inspectors employed by Territorial Authorities may have

had in the existence of the defects in the property.


3/36

3

1. PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW

1.1. This review has been commissioned by the Home Owners and Buyers Association of New Zealand on

behalf of the current property owner in order to form a view of the consent, inspection and compliance

processes related to the construction of the subject dwelling that has given rise to its failure to meet the

performance criteria of clause E2 and all relevant sub clauses of the NZ Building Code, with the

consequential impact on its durability [B2].

1.2. Furthermore, it is intended to identify the defects of design and construction that should have been

observed and noted by the council that have at this time had, or in the future will have, an impact on

the performance of the dwelling in relation to clauses B1, B2 and E2 and all other relevant sub clauses

of the NZ Building Code.

1.3. There are various defects that have been identified that relate to the current and also future potential

failure of the structure impacting on the ability of the external envelope (claddings) to prevent moisture

penetration. This report is not limited to specifically reviewing issues relating to weathertightness [E2],

other structural and construction matters have had to be taken into serious consideration as there is

the clear potential for future failure.

2. BRIEF OVERVIEW AND HISTORY

2.1. There is extensive history to this dwelling and many reports have been submitted with regards to the

buildings defects and very obvious poor workmanship and resulting non-compliance. We will not spend

time addressing these reports and the extensive history that goes with this matter, this is all available

and can be read in conjunction with this report: In order to prepare this report we have;

a. Reviewed the material provided, being the website prepared by the owner Mr Reg Cooper

including all the attached expert reports, a copy of the Weathertight Homes report and

subsequent addendum report, and the Tait report as commissioned by the Department of Building

& Housings Manager of Determinations. We have also reviewed a file of documents supplied by

Mr Jonathan Port which contains copies of letters and photographs.

b. A copy of the site file in relation to the subject home which is held by the Tasman District Council

(the Council) was reviewed when I personally visited the Council office located in Takaka on the

27thNovember 2008. This review was limited as some information was withheld due to pending

legal action as a consequence I was only able to review a copy of the consented plans.

c. A site visit was carried out on the 26thNovember 2008 at which time I fully assessed the dwelling

and carried out some destructive testing. I was accompanied during that assessment by Mr

Jonathan Port and the owner of the property Mr Reg Cooper.


4/36

4

d. This dwelling was constructed in 1993 into 1994. A Building Consent application was lodged with

the Council and subsequently the Council issued the Building Consent to construct the dwelling.

The building consent was allocated the number of 931261.

e. The Building Consent form describes the works as New Dwelling and Garage with an intended

life of indefinite but not less than 50 years. The fee charged by the council for this building

consent was $893.00. The Building Consent was issued on the 13thAugust 1993.

f. Two other Building Consents have been issued in relation to this dwelling; one for a garage and

the other for a roof to a deck. Code Compliance Certificates have been issued in relation to all

works undertaken in accordance with both of these Consents.

g. The approved Building Consent documentation for the dwelling consists of a set of plans (two

pages), some special conditions and a set of specifications.

h. The site on which the dwelling has been constructed is a seaside property located in an elevated

position directly exposed to the ocean. It is deemed to be in a zone which is classified as both aSea Spray and a High Wind exposure zone.

3. ADEQUACY OF THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS ON WHICH THE COUNCIL

ISSUED THE BUILDING CONSENT

3.1. The Council is required to process building consents as set out in section 34 of the Building Act 1991

(Act). Section 34 states in part

34 Processing building consents

(1) The territorial authority shall grant or refuse an application for a building consent within the prescribed period.

(2) A territorial authority may, within the prescribed period, require further reasonable information in respect of the

application and, for the purposes of this Act, the prescribed period shall be deemed to have been suspended until the

further information is received by the territorial authority.

(3) After considering an application for building consent, the territorial authority shall grant the consent if it is satisfied

on reasonable grounds that the provisions of the building code would be met if the building work was properly completed

in accordance with the plans and specifications submitted with the application.

3.2. Plans and Specifications are defined in section 2 of the Building Act 1991 as:

Plans and specifications means the drawings, specifications, and other documents according to which a

building is proposed to be constructed, altered, demolished, or removed...

To be satisfied on reasonable grounds that the provisions of the building code would be met if the building work

was property completed in accordance with the plans and specifications it must determine whether the plans and


5/36

5

specifications submitted with the building consent application are adequate. The Act allows the Council to

require further reasonable information and may cease processing the application until it is provided.

3.3. The extent of plans and specifications required is not prescribed under the Building Act. However, in

respect of the foundations, structural elements and external building envelope it is generally

considered that the plans ought to have adequate detail, comprehensive specifications and

manufacturers technical literature relevant to the design and construction materials proposed. In logic

this is the only way the Council could possibly form a positive view of how the dwelling is to be built

and finished to achieve the required level of structural stability and weathertightness and therefore

achieve code compliance.

3.4. A building needs to not only support its own weight, it must also be structurally stable to resist

movement created by wind pressure, accumulation of snow, settlement and ground movement.

3.5. In order for the Council to properly establish whether or not the dwelling, if built in conformance with

the plans and specifications, would meet the performance and durability requirements of the Building

Code, the plans and specifications should include;

a. A site plan showing the location of the dwelling by dimension to all boundaries, this plan should

also contain the drainage plans.

b. Details of the intended foundations and floor slab to support the structure.

c. Details of the cladding system to be used and if of a nature requiring specific installation

instructions that specify particular jointing, surface coating or flashings, details such as installation

instructions and/or technical data should be included with the application for Building Consent in

this instance the James Hardies Technical literature on wood grain Hardiplanks ought to have

been provided and considered.

d. Details of joinery units and how junctions with the wall cladding are intended to be weatherproofed.

e. Details of the roof structure including the roof cladding.

f. Drainage details for surface water disposal.

g. Specifications covering all trades whose work impacts on the structural stability and weather

proofing of the building and materials that require specific installation methods or practices to

enable them to meet the requirements of the 1st schedule to the Building Regulations 1992

(Building Code).

3.6. The Councilhas a duty to maintain records as set out in section 27 of the Act 27.

27. Records


6/36

6

(1) Every territorial authority shall keep reasonably available information, which is relevant to the

administration of this Act to enable the public to be informed of their obligations and to participate

effectively under this Act.

(2) The information to be kept by a territorial authority under subsection (1) of this section shall be

kept at least for the life of the building to which it relates, and shall include

(a) All plans and specifications submitted to it in relation to an application for a building consent; and

(b) Records of project information memoranda, building consents, code compliance certificates,

compliance schedules, building warrants of fitness, [any energy work certificates received by the

territorial authority,] and any orders issued under sections 64 to 71 of this Act, in respect of a

building; and

(c) Records of any information on any land or building received from a statutory authority which has

power to classify any land or buildings for any purpose; and

(d) A summary of written complaints received by it during the preceding 5 years concerning alleged

breaches of the Act and information on how it dealt with each such complaint.

(3) Subject to the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 [and to section

23F(2) of this Act], every person shall have the right to inspect the information referred to in

subsections (1) and (2) of this section during ordinary office hours, other than any plan or

specification that the person who submitted it, the owner, or any subsequent owner has marked as

being confidential because of the need to safeguard the copyright of the plan or specification or

because of any requirements of the owner of the building relating to the security of the building.

(4) Subject to section 44A of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, a

local authority shall make photocopying facilities available to persons who inspect documents under

subsection (3) of this section, and may charge a reasonable fee for their use.

(c) Records of any information on any land or building received from a statutory authority which has

power to classify any land or buildings for any purpose; and

(d) A summary of written complaints received by it during the preceding 5 years concerning alleged

breaches of the Act and information on how it dealt with each such complaint.

3.7. My opinion on the adequacy of the plans and specifications is based on the documents provided to me

for the subject dwelling; being the documents contained on Mr Coopers website, the file copy of the

Council file provided by Mr Jonathan Port and some documents obtained from the council being a copy

of the approved Building Consent plans. Given the Councils duty to retain such records, the contents

of that file (and copies thereof) must therefore be assumed to be the extent of the documentation

considered by the Council for the purposes of issuing Building Consent.


7/36

7

The dwelling is in my opinion is a very basic home both in design and construction. It is rectangular in

shape, single level, located on an exposed level site and has a simple gable end roof. The roof

cladding is long-run coloursteel, the exterior wall cladding is wood grain Hardiplank and it is fitted with

aluminium joinery. This style of building is typical of what used to be constructed by apprentices as part

of their training and is certainly considered in the industry as simplistic and basic. This comment is

made at this point as I find it hard to accept and understand that a supposedly competent Territorial

Authority (Council) can get the process of approving the plans for the issue of the building consent and

the undertaking of the onsite building inspections so wrong, when presented with such a straight

forward building project. I also find it difficult to understand how a so-called expert or professional

builder managed to construct this dwelling in such a poor fashion. This simply highlights the

importance of the role that the Council takes in the administration of the NZ Building Act and Building

Code, unfortunately the Tasman District Council has failed miserably in this instance.

3.8. The plans that form this building consent application consist of a floor plan and two elevations only,

being the end elevation containing the garage door and the rear side elevation with the two single back

doors. There is no site plan so the positioning of the dwelling on the site in reference to due North was

simply not possible. For the purpose of this report we will refer to the end wall as above the west wall,

and the back wall as above the south wall. This is the full extent of the plans that the council used to

assess compliance with the Building Code against. There are no elevation drawings of the other two

elevations, the east end wall that contains the large sliding door unit and the north side wall with the

two sliding door units. There are no roof framing plans, no cross sectional drawings showing key

construction and compliance items, no drainage plans, no site plan and amazingly, absolutely no plans

or references whatsoever to the foundations and concrete floor slab. It simply is not even remotely

possible for the Council to have assessed compliance with the Building Act and the Building Code with

reference to these documents. The exposed location of this site to the prevailing winds and the

physical location beside the sea make it even more important that full detailed plans were provided to

ensure compliance will be achieved with the NZ Building Code and all associated documents (NZS

3604) despite the simplicity of the dwelling.

3.9. The only course of action that the Council should have taken was to have rejected these plans at the

time that the application was lodged with the Council. A letter should have been provided to the

owner/agent advising of this rejection and providing the correct advice and guidance to ensure that

when the application was resubmitted, Council would be able to process the application without further

delay. Unfortunately this course of action was not taken by the council.

3.10. The Councils own Check Sheet that has been used during the process of approval and the councils

own Guide to Consents Under Bu ilding Act 1991 contain a basic list of the required plans and

specifications. This check sheet has been used by the Council as part of the vetting of this Building

Consent application as a tick has been placed against the reference to specifications. Notwithstanding

the presence of this check list the Council has failed to ensure that adequate information was provided

to demonstrate compliance. The Building Regulations 1992, Form 4, states:


8/36

8

This application is accompanied by ; The drawings, specifications and other

documents according to which the building is proposed to be constructed to comply

with the provisions of the building code.

These basic requirements simply have not been met.

3.11. The Building Consent document issued by the council has a statement typed on it that states

This building consent is consented under the building Act 1991 to undertake

building work in accordance with the attached plans and specifications so as to

comply with the provisions of the building code. It does not effect any duty or

responsibility under any other Act nor permit any breach of any other Act

3.12. It simply would not be possible for the council to be even remotely satisfied that their statement as

entered on the building consent could be achieved with this building consent application.

3.13. A set of special conditions have been imposed by the Council as a condition to this Building Consent.

The first special condition states that the Council require one days notice prior to the pole hole

inspection. What pole holes? The plans do not provide any detail on the foundations; the dwelling

was eventually constructed on concrete foundations and floor slab.

3.14. Condition 3 states that the bracing is to be installed as marked on the approved plans ;there are

no references on the plans as to the bracing.

3.15. Special condition 6 states that you can not occupy the dwelling unt il all interior lini ngs have beenfixed in place and that once this stage has been reached the Advise of Completion fo rm

should be returned. This very clearly implies that the Councils interpretation is that once the

plasterboard wall linings are in place the dwelling is in effect complete, despite all the other areas of

the building code that would not have been satisfied at that point in time.

3.16. The specification that has been submitted and accepted by the Council and forms part of the approved

Building Consent pre-dates the introduction of the NZ Building Act 1991 and is not project specific. This

specification makes reference to outdated building controls such as the Building By-Laws and

associated NZ Standards and building methods not relevant to this building, such as, the roof to be

pitched on site. It also states that the studs and plates are to be constructed using Rimu. This

specification is a generic specification and is not specifically written for this particular dwelling it is

therefore deficient in that it is of little to no use in assisting the Council to be reasonably satisfied that

the building works will comply with the Building Code as per the statement on the building consent.

3.17. The plans make no reference whatsoever to the exterior cladding. The only reference to the cladding

are some horizontal lines drawn on the two elevations that seemingly depict the use of weatherboards.

The plans do not provide any indication of the type of weatherboard to be used and do not provide any


9/36

9

details as to how weathertightness or compliance with Clause E2 and ultimately Clauses B1, and B2 of

the NZ building code will be achieved.

3.18. The cladding system as installed is a Rusticated Hardiplank. The council should have requested the

manufacturers technical literature on this cladding as there are some requirements that are specific to

this system such as the method of fitting the plank end back soakers. The fact that these soakers have

been incorrectly installed by the so called expert or professional builder demonstrates the vital

importance of this document.

3.19. It is not common practice to report on foundations and floor slabs when assessing buildings for

weathertightness. In this instance however, the significant deficiencies of these building elements

requires this. We are of the opinion that the deficiencies with the foundations and slab are so

significant that there is a very high probability that they will fail at some time in the future, and within the

intended 50 year durability period to which this dwelling was built. This future likely failure will

compromise the integrity of the exterior claddings and would logically result in moisture ingress and

damage to other building elements. This issue is fully addressed later in this report.

3.20. We are of the opinion that the Council has demonstrated a blatant disregard for the principles of the

Building Act in negligently discharging its delegated duties and statutory obligations to enforce the NZ

Building Act and Building Code. The Council owes a duty of care to the owner and any and all

subsequent owners to ensure that compliance would be achieved. Accordingly Council ought to have

requested further in-depth and complete information to enable the Council, and indeed the client, to be

satisfied that compliance with the NZ Building Code would be achieved. The council had the power and

duty to reject these plans and specifications however it has obviously failed to do so.

3.21. Some of the specific and crucial details missing from the plans that otherwise would havedemonstrated how structural stability, weathertightness and subsequent durability was to be achieved

are:

a. Roof

Apart from the notation of coloursteel on the elevation plan and reference to Coloursteel in the

specification, there is no other reference whatsoever as to the roof cladding or construction of the roof.

The specification alludes to a roof structure that was to be pitched in position rather than the use of roof

trusses. It also makes reference to battens to be installed at 400 mm centres which would indicate the

use of tiles as opposed to long run coloursteel roofing.

It simply would not be possible for the council to have had any understanding as to how the roof was to

be constructed and what it was to be clad with. As reported earlier, this site is in a Sea Spray Zone

and is classified as a High Wind area; it would not be possible for the Council to be even remotely

satisfied, given the extreme deficiencies in the documents submitted for Building Consent, that the

building would be constructed to meet the specific requirements in NZS 3604 for dwellings located in

these zones resulting in compliance with the NZ Building Code.


10/36

10

The building inspector when on site undertaking inspections would not have been clear on what was

intended to be constructed or what was consented by the Council. Thus the inspector was denied the

level of consent documentation that ought to have formed the basis of his inspection regime.

Section 76 of the NZ Building Act, states

Inspection by Territorial Authority For the purpose of this part of the Act, inspection means

the taking of all reasonable steps to ensure- (a) That any building work is being done in

accordance with a building consent .

Due to the lack of information that the building inspector would have had available on site it simply

would not have been possible for the building inspector to have satisfied this very important

requirement of the Building Act. For example, for the building inspector to have passed any inspection

that related to the roof structure when he was on site, would simply have been an act of negligence as

he had no basis for that inspection in terms of what ought to have be prescribed in the Building

Consent documentation. The Council had the power and the duty to request all the relevant additionalinformation required to demonstrate compliance with the NZ Building Code, in particular clauses B1

Structure; B2 Durability and E2 External Moisture, however the Council has evidently failed to do

so.

b. Joinery

The plans make no reference whatsoever to the windows and doors. The specification refers to both

timber and aluminium joinery. There are no details and/or information that show how the joinery units

are to be installed to provide a weathertight junction with the exterior wall cladding. The council had

the power and the duty to request all the relevant additional information with respect to the joinery that

was required to demonstrate compliance with the NZ Building Code, in particular clauses; B1

Structure, B2 Durability and E2 External Moisture, however the Council has evidently failed to do

so.

c. Exterior Wall Cladding

Apart from some horizontal lines on the two elevations that indicate weatherboards, there is no

reference on the plans as to the type of weatherboards. The specification states that wall areas are

to be covered with exterior lin ing as shown on the drawings .

James Hardie produced a technical booklet on the proposed Hardiplank cladding system. This

literature should have formed part of the documentation submitted with the application for Building

Consent and would normally have been contained in the specification document. There is nothing of

the sort either in the specifications or loosely held on the Council file so we must presume that it had

not been included in the application documentation. Without this important information the Council

could not have been reasonably satisfied that the exterior cladding would be installed to meet the

manufacturers installation requirements and the requirements of the NZ Building Code. In addition to


11/36

11

this the building inspector on site would have had no reference material to ensure that when he

assessed the exterior cladding it had in fact been installed correctly. The council had the power and

the duty to request all the relevant additional information with respect to the wall cladding that was

required to demonstrate compliance with the NZ Building Code, in particular sections; B2 Durability

and E2 External Moisture, however the council failed to do so.

Inspection by Territorial Authority For the purpose of this part of the Act, inspection means

the taking of all reasonable steps to ensure- (a) That any building work is being done in

accordance with a building consent .

d. Foundations and floor slab

The plans include no reference to the floor or the foundations for this dwelling. The specification covers

both concrete and timber floors. The councils own special conditions state that the council requires

one day notification with respect to the inspection of the pole hole . This would imply that at the

time the Building Consent was being processed the council somehow believed the foundations were

to be poles.

The council could not have known how the foundations or floor was to be constructed as there were no

details whatsoever contained within the application. Without this information the Council had no way of

knowing how this structure was to be supported to resist loadings and meet the performance

requirements of clause B1 Structure and in the event of failure there would be the inevitable impact

on the performance requirements of clause B2 Durability and indeed clause E2 External Moisture

as prescribed by the NZ Building Code.

Foundations that are inadequately designed and/or poorly constructed will result in settlement

movement which will impact on the ability of the exterior envelope to remain impervious to moisture

due to deflection possibly causing fissures in the exterior cladding systems. This will result in the

failure of the dwelling to meet the requirements of clauses B1 Structure, B2 Durability and E2

External moisture. The Council had the power and the duty to request all the relevant information that

was required to demonstrate compliance with the relevant performance and durability requirements of

the NZ Building Code, however the council has evidently failed to do so.

4. SUMMARY IN RESPECT OF THE SPECIFICATIONS

4.1. The specification provided as part of this application is not specific to this project. It also pre-dates the

introduction of the Building Act and refers to NZ standards that were superseded at that time. The

specifications provide no technical literature on the products, materials and required construction

techniques chosen despite it being mandated by section 27 of the Building Act 1991.

4.2. Specifications are necessary to define appropriate material and construction standards, quality of

materials, durability standards, warranty provisions, recommended maintenance requirements etc.

The lack of accurate and detailed specifications results in a greater potential for inappropriate


12/36

12

construction practices and unsuitable materials being used this is likely to impact on the performance

and durability of the dwelling in relation to the building code requirements and we say that that is the

case with this dwelling and that it applies to the foundations and all other aspects of the construction.

4.3. The lack of full and comprehensive specifications and appropriate supporting technical material also

denies the Councils inspectors the ability to make an objective and critical analysis of the construction

so that they are able to properly discharge their duties when undertaking the required building

inspections.

4.4. Significant examples are:

a. Tiling and waterproofing specifications including control joints, adhesive, grouting materials and

laying procedures.

b. Cladding and substrate material technical information.

c. Gutter and roofing material specifications.

d. Surface coating specifications.

5. SUMMARY IN RESPECT OF THE PLANS

5.1. We are of the opinion that the plans are deficient and fail to address the construction of this dwelling in

any meaningful way. It simply would not be possible to construct or reproduce the specific requirements

of the owners design brief let alone ensure compliance with the NZ Building Code and associated

documents. These plans could not even be considered to be concept plans. Therefore it is our opinion

that the Council simply did not receive sufficient or adequate information to have enabled them to be

satisfied, on reasonable grounds, that any of the provisions of the NZ Building Code could be met.

5.2. Therefore, it is our opinion that the Council should not have issued the Building Consent based on this

application and that to have done so was a negligent act.

6. COUNCIL INSPECTION

6.1. The Council has not issued a final unconditional Code Compliance Certificate (CCC) for the work

authorised by the relevant building consent. The council has however issued the CCC for the two other

building consents for the carport and the roof over the deck.

6.2. The Councils responsibilities in issuing a Code Compliance Certificate are set out in section 43 (3) of

the Act


13/36

13

Except where a code compliance certificate has already been provided pursuant to subsection (2) of this section, the territorial authority

shall issue to the applicant in the prescribed form, on payment of any charge fixed by the territorial authority, a code compliance certificate,

if it is satisfied on reasonable grounds that

(a) The building work to which the certificate relates complies with the building code; or

(b) The building work to which the certificate relates complies with the building code to the extent authorised in terms of any previously

approved waiver or modification of the building code contained in the building consent which relates to that work.

Section 42 of the NZ Building Act states that;

42. Notices to rectify (1) The territorial authority may issue to the owner or to the person

undertaking any building work a notice to rectify, in the prescribed form, requiring any building

work not done in accordance with this act or the building code to be rectified.

Section 43 of the NZ Building Act states that;

43. Code compliance certificate (6) Where a TA considers on reasonable grounds that it is

unable to issue a CCC in respect of particular bu ilding work because the building work does not

comply with the building code or with any waiver or modification of the code, as previouslyauthorised in terms of the building consent to which that work relates, the TA shall issue a

Notice to Rectify in accordance with section 42 of this act.

6.3. The Council must be satisfied on reasonable grounds that; the building work to which the certificate

relates complies with the Building Code or any waiver or modification. There are no records on the

Councils file of any waiver or modification.

6.4. Reasonable grounds for being satisfied that Code Compliance has been achieved includes inspection

by the Council and as I see it, any other means it considers reasonable and acceptable, such as

producer statements, product appraisal etc. The available Council inspection records indicate that only

four building inspections were undertaken. These inspection records, together with Council actions

have been investigated as we believe there are areas of non compliance and defective works. As a

result of these investigations we doubt that the building will satisfy the durability requirements of the NZ

Building Code.

6.5. We have taken into account the fact that the building is approximately 15 years old when considering

whether the building will continue to perform for the next 35 years (minimum, if not indefinitely) as

required by the approved building consent under the terms of the building code. The defective building

work and areas of non compliance will in our opinion fail within this time. Had the council been diligent

and followed the requirements as set out in the Building Act at the time of application for a Building

Consent, and at the time of construction in relation to inspections, then we firmly believe that the

condition of the building would be markedly different now and certainly in the future years to come.

These concerns have also been raised by other building experts who have assessed this dwelling.

6.6. With reference to the Councils own inspection history the building inspections undertaken by Council

are as follows;


14/36

14

6.7. 17thAugust 1993, Foundation inspection, which was passed by the inspector;

As there are no details on the plans that describe the type of foundations and how the foundations were

to be constructed, we are at a loss as to the basis on which the inspector carried out his inspection.

As previously stated in this report, this dwelling is of simple design and accordingly, after having taken

into consideration the geographical location and ground conditions (NZBC, B1 and NZS 3604) the

foundation system would be of straightforward design and construction. This simplicity however does

not provide the basis that the foundations should have simply been passed by the Council with no detail

having been provided.

Other expert reports raise concerns over the nature of the ground and the effects that water can have on

the bearing capacity of the soils on the site and the filling beneath the floor slab. An analogy of a sun

dried clay brick in water was made by one expert in his report, when whilst dry it is strong however

immerse it in water and it dissolves. The council at the time of the foundation inspection had no idea as

to what should have been constructed or inspected.

The only course of action available to the building inspector was to request that the works were to cease

until such time as a foundation design was submitted to the council for approval. This advice should

have been in the form of a Notice to Rectify as set out in the NZ Building Act 1991.

It would also have been obvious at the time of this inspection that the vegetation had not been removed

from the area to be covered by the dwelling; this has been raised as a serious concern in the other

reports as the bearing capacity has been compromised due to the vegetation rotting. This is also

covered in NZS 3604 and is basic knowledge to any experienced and competent building inspector.

A competent building inspector should have also been aware that it would not have been possible to

strip this vegetation and sub soil off after the foundations had been poured as according to the

inspection notes the foundation walls had been boxed with the steel already in place. We are of the

opinion that it would not be possible for the durability requirements, B2 of the NZ Building Code to be

achieved, given the potential for settlement and movement to occur. This will result with the ingress of

moisture to affect the building elements.

6.8. 30thAugust, progress inspection which appears to have been a random site visit at which time it was

noted by the council that the floor slab had been poured without prior inspection. The preparation and

filling of the subfloor area has been the subject of previous reports and conclusions were that no

guarantees could be given that these works would satisfy the durability requirements of the Building

Code (the brick analogy) for a further 35 years (minimum if not indefinitely) We also note that the

Council inspection notes state floor slabs have all been poured . As this is in the plural, it would

appear from this comment that the floor slab to the garage (under a separate building consent) had also

been poured; this consent has been issued with a CCC.


15/36

15

6.9. The Council should have intervened at this point and issued a Notice To Rectify as it would not have

been possible for it to have been reasonably satisfied that the filling had been placed and compacted as

required, sand blinding provided, the polythene membrane placed and taped at the joints and the

reinforcing mesh positioned, tied and supported to provide the appropriate concrete coverage. The

previously mentioned reports advise of the concern of capillary action affecting the reinforcing. At the

time of this assessment the water table in the ground beside the dwelling was within 350mm of the

surface. This is shown in the photos below. We have been provided with a photograph that shows water

right up to the underside of the concrete floor slab; this was located in the opening that was cut in the

concrete floor in a wardrobe. We are of the opinion that it would not be possible for the durability

requirements, B2 of the NZ Building Code to be achieved given the potential for settlement and

movement to occur due to the affects that intermittent and frequent presence of water will cause and the

eventual corrosion to the floor slab reinforcing.

Water level


16/36

16

6.10. At the time of my visit a crack to the plaster that has been applied to the concrete foundation wall was

observed. This crack was located some 100mm down from the top of the floor slab and ran the full

length of the end of the dwelling that contains the garage door and also the full length of the side wall

of the dwelling that contains the sliding doors. This fracture is located at the junction of the floor slab

and the foundation wall and indicated to me that the floor slab was not adequately tied to the

foundation wall and foundations.

6.11. I undertook some destructive testing to the corner of the dwelling (south west) by using a small electricconcrete breaker to chase out the crack along the top of the foundation wall. This chase was

completely through the foundation wall at the corner and 100mm through the foundation wall for a

distance of 800mm from the corner. Two holes were drilled at random locations through the foundation

wall to determine the depth of the wall; this revealed that the wall was 120mm and 135mm thick. I did

not want to cut the chase right through the wall as this would have removed all support from this area.

We consider that any reinforcing steel located in this 25-30mm of concrete would be ineffective.

6.12. The Councils inspection records dated the 17 thAugust 1993 state that at the time of the foundation

inspection that D10 starters to penetrate the floor were observed. There is no reference to these

starters in either the consented plans or the specification. It is a requirement that these starters be

placed at 600mm centres along the foundation wall. The chase that I cut extended 800mm from the

corner and no starters were found at all. From this investigation we are of the opinion that there are no

starters provided or if there are, they will be ineffective due to being spaced too far apart or in the

wrong location within the wall.

6.13. The reinforcing mesh to the floor slab was found to be sitting on what appeared to be the upper surface

of the foundation wall and not 50mm up from the underside of the slab as required. It was necessary to

Water level tounderside concretefloor


17/36

17

tie the mesh to the starters so that it is held in position; if this was the case then we would have

expected to sight these starters.

6.14. Moisture will be able to penetrate this crack and the mesh reinforcing to the slab eventually causing

spalling of the concrete and compromise the ability of the foundation system and floor slab to resist

seismic movement. Thus the ability to support the structure above the floor level has been

compromised.

Crack at floorand foundation

all junction


18/36

18

Floor mesh


19/36

19


20/36

20

6.15. We do not believe it is possible for remedial works to be carried out to remedy the poor workmanship

and defects in the area of the foundations and floor slab. The only effective remedy is to remove these

works and provide the appropriate foundations and floor slab that will be suitable for this site and

achieve compliance with all the appropriate sections of the NZ Building Code. A building consent for

both the removal of the floor and foundations and for the reconstruction should be applied for.


21/36

21

6.16. 13thOctober, Pre Line inspection, various items were observed by the inspector i.e. there was no head

flashing over the north wall sliding door, gaps in the foam seal, concern over the placement of the head

flashing, discussion and advice regarding the short roofing iron and concerns over the incorrectly set out

weatherboards.

6.17. At the time of my site assessment Mr Cooper pointed out that the sliding door in the north end wall was

binding and would not open easily. There were also cracked weatherboards above this opening, a

fracture to the slab and foundation wall below and a crack to the patio floor slab. Sighting a line above

the door shows that there is some downward deflection in the framing; this is also consistent with the

cracking below the door. There is also a similar problem with the south end wall.

6.18. The roof cavity was accessed in order to assess the gable end trusses. Much to my amazement I

discovered for some unknown reason the builder has cut out all the struts within both these gable end

trusses. Short stumps of these struts and the nail plates are all that remains. This would have been

clearly visible to the building inspector at the time of both preline inspections and should have been

addressed at that time. See the photographs below.

Cracking topaving and floorslab beneath door


22/36

22

Crackedweatherboard

Doors notaligning andbinding

Saggingabove door


23/36

23

Misalignmentof framing

Remains ofthe struts


24/36

24

6.19. The method of construction to the end walls of the dwelling is such that no lintels have been provided

over the openings as the trusses are designed to span the width of the building and transfer the loading

to the outer corners. With the removal of these struts the loading of the wall framing, roofing and any

seismic/wind design considerations has now been transferred to the length of the wall that contains no

lintels; this has resulted in the sagging above the openings. The cracking and sagging that has resulted

from this provides the very obvious potential for moisture to access the building elements resulting in

decay. We are of the opinion that it would not be possible for the durability requirements, B2 of the NZ

Building Code to be achieved given the potential for settlement and movement to occur. This will allowthe ingress of moisture to affect the building elements. Combine this with the potential for settlement to

the foundation system and the problem instantly becomes greater.

6.20. I also noted that the soakers to the joints of the weatherboards have not been correctly installed at the

time of construction. The James Hardie technical literature clearly shows how these are to be installed.

It became apparent at the time of my assessment that the weatherboards have been fixed in place by

starting at the top of the wall and working downwards to the bottom. This is not the way to fix

weatherboards in place.

The soakers fitted to the joints in this system are semi concealed; the soaker in fact sits behind the

weatherboard and has a pre formed lower edge to accommodate the lower edge of the weatherboard;

the upper end of the soaker has a tab that has to be folded over the top of the weatherboard; this is

what holds the soaker in place.

As the weatherboards have been installed from the top down it has not been possible to fold the tab

over the top of the weatherboard; it is only the building paper in contact with the soakers that is holding

them in place. This demonstrates the inability of the builder to install a well known and widely used

Remains ofthe struts


25/36

25

cladding system in the appropriate fashion. These joints in the weatherboards must be within 150mm of

a stud this is not the case in all of the joints.

It also appears that the weatherboards have not been set out correctly and that cover of the boards is

not equal. This has resulted in the lack of the prescribed 30mm cover for each weatherboard which will

compromise the ability of the lap from keeping moisture out. The building inspector has identified this

non compliance and stated in the inspection notes

I noted there was a varying lap size of the wood grain Hardip lanks and I suspect these may not

comply with the manufacturers specifications

Back soakers notattached to top of

weatherboard, daylight can be seenthrough joint


26/36

26

There is a letter on file from James Hardie Building Products dated the 21st May 1996. This letter

advises that the James Hardie warranty only applies if the weatherboards have been installed strictly to

their specification and that if the installation does not comply with the James Hardie specification then

the provisions of the NZ Building Code have not been met.

The other issues that were noted were that the hold down bolts had the wrong size washers under the

nuts, some of the studs are at centres that exceed 600mm, and the frame has not been nailed in

accordance with NZS 3604. Furthermore, it would appear that the bottom plates at the location of the

braces have not been adequately fixed in position, many framing members (dwangs, lintels and jack

studs) have been cut short, only 50mm thick lintels have been used in a high wind loading zone and

little or no attempt has been made to straighten wall plates horizontally and studs vertically, resulting in

most, if not all, walls exceeding the acceptable tolerances for framing (5mm deviation from line in plan

and 5 mm deviation in vertical) . This is visibly obvious to all walls of the dwelling.

700mmbetweenstuds


27/36

27

Wrongwashers tohold down


28/36

28


29/36

29


30/36

30

Walls notstraight


31/36

31

Several interiordoors bind due to

settlement


32/36

32

My observations were made from the garage area only as this is the only section of the dwelling that

has not had the wall linings installed (apart from the tolerances). As this represents only a small

percentage of the dwelling I am more than confident that the same faults are present to the rest of the

structure.

A diligent building inspector should have identified all these defects and a written instruction left with the

builder requesting rectification of all these matters (including the trusses and non tensioned roof plane

braces)

6.21. 27thOctober, this is what appears to be a follow up Pre-Line inspection and the inspection notes state

that all the previous matters have been modified and that everything appeared in order to

proceed ; this is not the case at all. At that point the Council should have dealt with all the areas of

non-compliance by issuing a Notice to Rectify. This was the second opportunity for the Council to have

observed all the above mentioned deficiencies and the Council has evidently still failed to do so.

6.22. We are of the opinion that the incorrectly installed soakers, poorly constructed framing and lack of

correct fixings and fastenings all lead to the potential for moisture ingress resulting in failure to achieve

the performance criteria of clause E2 External Moisture and clause B2 Durability of the NZ Building

Code. This is because giving consideration to the fact that apart from the weatherboards these

components have to continue to perform for a further 35 years minimum if not indefinitely. The

performance of the weatherboards themselves is not in question, however the installation of the

weatherboards, soakers and the structure that they are attached to is of serious concern;

The James Hardie technical literature on the weatherboards states that;

Framing to be in accordance with NZS 3604:1990 code of practise for lightweight timber frame

buildings or as specifically designed


33/36

33

It is clear that the framing does not meet with these requirements.

NZS 3604 states in the Forward that;

This standard is an acceptable solution to cl ause B1 of the NZ Building Code

Scope and Interpretation 1.1.1 states;

This standard sets down construction requirements for light timber frame buildings not

requiring specific design within the limitations specified by 1.1.2 and is approved as a means of

compliance with the relevant requirements of the NZ Building Code

C1.1.1 states;

Compliance with the exterior wall covering, roof coverings, vapour barriers and damp proof

course requirements of NZS 3604 will satisfy and exceed the performance requirements NZBC

and is an alternative solu tion for NZBC E2

6.23. We do not believe it is possible for remedial works to be carried out to remedy the poor workmanship

and defects in the areas of the exterior claddings, wall framing and roof construction as they are too

extensive. The only effective remedy is to remove these works and reconstruct using the appropriate

materials and methods to achieve compliance with all the appropriate sections of the NZ Building Code

and associated documents. A building consent should be sought for the removal of all these works and

for the reconstruction of same.

6.24. 29thSeptember Final Inspection. The council was provided with an advice of completion notice as

required by the Building Act. This has a date of the 29thSeptember 1994 handwritten on the top right

corner. It also has a stamp in the lower right corner that has been signed by the building inspector.

There is an inspection comment that has been handwritten along the lower margin. It would appear that

this advice of completion has been acknowledged as having been received on the 29thSeptember and

a final inspection carried out on the same day. This inspection failed due to some concerns over the

plumbing installation with absolutely no reference to any other defects. This was in essence quite

misleading in that the owner could quite rightly take some comfort from that failure notice in that it did

not put him on notice that there were any serious defects like the ones that I say could have been seen

and should have been seen throughout the construction.

6.25. I have sighted a Memorandum dated the 30thJuly 1996 that has a hand written entry on it which states:

we havent issued a CCC because there is outstanding work - tempering valve and

polybutylene piping. We havent done a final plumbing inspection.


34/36

34

A letter dated the 20thSeptember 1996 states:

My predecessor, Mr. Cliff Dockery, signed off the building side of building consent for the

dwelling on the 29th

September 1994, so a partial Code of Compliance covering the bui lding work

only (no plumbing o r drainage) could be issued now if that is of any assistance to you .

This indicates that the signature placed above the Building Inspector section on the stamp on the

advice of completion, proves that the Council was in fact satisfied that all the building works complied

with the approved Building Consent. A Building Consent which contained no details on the dwelling

whatsoever, the fact that the items which failed in the first Pre-Line inspection were not remedied, there

were areas of work such as the floor slab completed without being inspected and that both myself and

other building consultants have identified various other areas of non-compliance that are obvious and

should have been identified by a diligent building inspector. It is unexplainable that the defects and non-

compliance were not noted and it is, in our opinion, a serious dereliction of the duties and statutory

obligations on the part of the Council.

The Council was prepared to issue an Interim CCC at that point in time. We are of the opinion that thiswas inappropriate advice as this situation was not one where an Interim CCC could be issued. This

simply mislead the owner into thinking that the building works, with the exception of the plumbing were

compliant.

A letter dated the 8th August 1996 to Mrs Moore states that the Council could not issue the CCC

because of two non complying plumbing matters and goes on to state that once these two matters had

been resolved the Council should be contacted to make a request for a final inspection.

In our opinion there is adequate evidence on the Council file to show that the council was reasonably

satisfied that all the building work was complete and if it was not for the two plumbing issues the CCC

would have been issued.

However, as the Council had stated that the final inspection failed due to plumbing matters, the only

proper course of action available to the Council was to issue a Notice to Rectify.

Section 43; of the NZ Building Act; Code Compliance Certificate; subsection(6) states:

Where a TA considers on reasonable grounds that it is unable to issue a CCC in respect of

particular building work because the building work does not comply with the building code or

with any waiver or modification of the code, as previously authorised in terms of the building

consent to which that work relates, the TA shall issue a Notice to Rectify in accordance with

section 42 of this act.

The council has not issued a Notice to Rectify with respect to this non complying work.

6.26. This has the direct impact on the performance requirements of B1 Structure, B2 Durability and E2

External Moisture of the NZ Building Code.


35/36

35

7. CONCLUSION AND LIABITY

7.1. The Council

i We are of the opinion that the Council has liability and was negligent in issuing the Building

Consent based on the appalling and very obvious lack of information contained in thedocumentation submitted as part of the Building Consent application. As set out in this report,

Council should have requested additional information in order for it to be reasonably satisfied

that the building works would meet the requirements of clauses B1, B2 and E2 of the NZ

Building Code.

ii The areas of non-compliance resulting in the defects and the potential for further ongoing

failure are directly related to the lack of details and information contained within the approved

Building Consent documents. It is my opinion that the Council simply did not have adequate

information that would give them reasonable grounds to issue the Building Consent and

therefore it should not have been issued.

iii We are of the opinion that the Council has significant liability in these matters as not only did the

Councils Building Consent vetting processes fail to catch the woefully inadequate

documentation as submitted, but the Councils own Building Inspectors failed to observe when

on site that there was inadequate information contained within the approved Building Consent

documents. The first indication would have been at the time of the foundation inspection; it

would have been impossible for the Council to determine the location of the dwelling in relation

to the property boundarys as there was no site plan providing these dimensions. The Council

then approved the foundations but on what basis? There were no foundation plans and

construction details within the approved plans. In short the Council did not know what was to be

built or where it was to be built, and furthermore, at the time of the inspection the area to be

occupied by the dwelling was still covered in vegetation, however despite this the inspection

was passed. Councils notes state that floor starters were in place tying the floor to the

foundations via the foundation wall; my initial investigations show that this is most likely not the

case.

iv The Council then carried out and recorded as passed, a floor slab inspection to a floor slab

that had been poured prior to the inspection being carried out; this in effect openly admits

approval to uninspected works.

v The council went on to carry out a preline inspection where some items of non-compliance

were noted, however several other non complying matters were either ignored or overlooked.

The Council was made aware that the roofing material was too short so the Council assisted in

resolving this matter by advising on a flashing system; the Council noted that the laps to the

weatherboards did not comply with the manufacturers requirements and did nothing more

about this. The council inspected the ceiling cavity and failed to observe and address the very


36/36

obvious butchering of the gable end trusses. One would expect at this point a diligent building

inspector to have become aware of the poor standard of workmanship and non compliance and

gone through the building with a fine tooth comb, however he did not, or if he did failed to

address all the items of non compliance.

vi A reinspection for the preline was then carried out, the inspection history states that:

It was noted that the faults which had been picked up on a previous inspection had

been modified in accordance with the code.

This is simply not correct.

vii The final inspection was then undertaken and two items of non-compliance with the plumbing

were observed and noted and the inspection was recorded as failed; no Notice to Rectify was

issued by the Council as required by the Building Act.

viii The Council has demonstrated nothing but a blatant disregard to properly discharging its dutiesas a Territorial Authority in its role of administering the NZ Building Act/Code. Every input that

the Council has had right from the day that the application was submitted through to present is

in our opinion negligent. This has resulted in an unnecessary and totally preventable long

running dispute over the non-compliance matters and resulting defects.

ix In my opinion the Councils negligence has resulted in the inability of the dwelling to met the

performance criteria of clauses B1 Structure, B2 Durability, resulting in the eventual failure to

achieve the performance criteria of E2 External moisture.

x I am of the opinion that in order for the requirements of the NZ Building Code to be met all the

defective and noncompliant works ought to be removed. A building consent application must be

submitted and approved by the Council for the removal of these works and for the

reconstruction.

Review undertaken by:

BILL CARTWRIGHT

CITYWIDE BUILDING CONSULTANTS (AUCKLAND) LTD

Documents

Citywide Report - Reg Cooper