July 15, 2013
National radio carried an interview this morning on the Nine to Noon show about work in Christchurch drying up for smaller players. Makes for interesting listening...
July 9, 2013
This was sent to me today. I reprint below with John Scarry's permission:
Sent: Saturday, 6 July 2013 6:19 PM
Subject: A Crown Manager for Christchurch City Council - URGENT
Dear Prime Minister, Ministers and Party Leaders,
If the Crown Manager who is appointed to sort out the building consent department of the Christchurch City Council is a bureaucrat or one of the other usual suspects, it will be worse than doing nothing. Please read on.
1. In 2002, my revelations regarding the crisis within the structural engineering profession and the construction industry led, along with those on leaky buildings, to the redrafting of the Building Act. Unfortunately, the redrafting was done by bureaucrats who refused to take note of any important technical issues.
Leaky buildings aside, the opportunity that the last 11 years offered with regards to improving the standards of design and construction practices in this country, and expanding the size of the professional and skilled workforce to be able to function properly and deal with crises, has been completely wasted due to nothing less than what the Americans legally describe as depraved indifference by successive Governments, Select Committees and the public 'service.'
2. The crisis that has now come to a head in the building consent department of the Christchurch City Council is simply "the chickens coming home to roost." For all its faults, the CCC cannot be held accountable for:
(a) The collapse in technical standards of architects, design draftsmen and engineers,
(b) The consequent decline in the quality of documentation submitted for building consent,
(c) The lack of available skilled staff, even with all the will in the world to employ them,
(d) The unprecedented demands for (usually complex) repairs and new buildings.
Items (a) to (c) are at the core of the crisis I have been warning about for the last 11 years, and have been at the core of all of the shockers and very serious collapses and near misses we have had during that time.
3. You may be aware that several brand new buildings of the rebuild have already failed under relatively minor aftershocks, or dancing students, and that completely illegal construction practices have/are being used in the rebuild. I informed the Canterbury Earthquakes Royal Commission of this, in person, but the Commissioners didn't seem to care, because this information did not feature in their reports.
You should be aware, courtesy of 35 days of streamed hearings at great cost to the poor beleagured taxpayer, that one of the key weaknesses of the CTV Building which contributed to the collapse was the very poor connection of the concrete floors to the North Core concrete walls. This is a defect in what structural engineers call 'diaphragm action' of the floors - the ability of the floors to carry lateral loads to the lateral load resisting elements.
Are you aware that a brand new 'Son of CTV' building was recently designed, peer reviewed, consented and constructed in Christchurch, complete with the same critical deficiency as the CTV Building - very poor connection of the concrete floors to the lateral load resisting elements? This was found by accident, and this brand new building has had to be retrofitted.
Are you aware that more designs are being proposed by engineers for Chch with this same critical deficiency?
Diaphragm deficiencies formed a major part of my most critical warnings in 2002, and again in 2009, only for my warnings to be ignored at the highest levels.
4. The deficiencies in the consenting process identified by IANZ between 2009 and 2013 seemed to focus mainly on bureaucratic 'box ticking' and the time taken to process consents, but there was some focus on the technical core - were consents being issued for designs that were technically sub-standard?
In Sept. 2012, IANZ asked the CCC to carry out a detailed technical review of (just) two house consents, and (just) one commerical type consent. (There was no mention of the already failed buildings of the rebuild, or the likes of 'Son of CTV'). Apparently, the CCC staff could not even do that.
5. It appears that a Crown Manager is to be appointed by the Government to 'save' the building consent department of the Christchurch City Council, and that special legislation will be required. Invariably, the appointee will be a senior 'distinguished' bureaucrat or perhaps one of the officially recognised 'leaders' in the building industry. If such an appointment is made, it will be worse that doing nothing.
Any person appointed to control the building consent department must be technically expert in at least one important area covered by building consents, and should have proven experience in the building consent area, from "both sides of the counter." Someone who is capable of personally looking at appalling designs such as the 'Son of CTV' building and seeing them for what they are, and able to train up the staff to see likewise.
I happen to know the perfect candidate - a competent experienced engineer with proven private practice and council experience, including upgrading council building consent performance, a man very familiar with the Christchurch design and construction environment who has long been committed to effective reform. A man who could remain in the position as a permanent head of the department, for everyone's benefit. I can provide this engineer's contact details upon request, and he would be very interested, but only if he was put in a position where he could actually achieve something positive.
He would have the full backing of me, and assistance and advice from some of the truly top engineers in the country.
Yours faithfully,
John Scarry, Structural Engineer
July 9, 2013
Tim Rainey, of Rainey Law - a Leaky Homes specialist lawyer, has come out strongly for the Government to make changes to the Financial Assistance Package (FAP) forhomeowners being partially funded to help fix their houses.
Given the Govt makes as much money back in GST as it hands out in funding for a situation that was really created by them, it would seem to be inefficient, miserly and poorly thought through...read more here...http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10895592
July 4, 2013
The Christchurch Council building consents fiasco throws up some worrying questions:
1. How long has this been going on? I have read there are indications going back to 2007of problems within the department.
2. How many homes are affected by these 'technical issues'?
3. What legal position are homeowners in if there proves to be an issue with building?
4. How many other councils may have similar problems and what is being done to identify these?
5. Where was the MBIE oversight?
June 21, 2013
MacQuarrie's Kerry Porter Misrepresents the bouyancy of the Construction Sector on NewstalkZB this morning
Business commentator, Kerry Porter, from MacQuarrie Group, commented on recent GDP figures for the country showing an anaemic 0.3% growth figure, pointing out that the construction sector is showing signs of strong growth and that this is underpinning growth in GDP.
Unfortunately, he neglected to mention that this growth in the construction sector is coming off a very low base - just 16,000 homes (without apartments being counted) were built in the 12 months to April 2013 versus a 10 year average of 20,000 homes and a peak level of around 30,000 homes 2004-7.
Also, the growth is almost all in Christchurch, which is to be expected, and the rest of the country, including Auckland, is showing signs of very little growth or no growth at all.
After contacting Newstalk ZB, they took the story off their website, however the headline was still top of the Business News section as of mid-morning even though the link doesn't work. Mr Porter was somewhat less accommodating when I spoke with him, however, pointing to a 5% growth rate and that without that growth, the economy would have contracted, therefore he is correct.
According to Dept of Stats figures, April 2013 consents were up 19% over March (which had an 8.3% DROP over Februrary) and the Value of Building work for the March Quarter, was 12% up over the previous quarter. While these are impressive growth rates, a large increase from a small base remains a small number.
Of course, without the growth in construction, GDP would have been negative - which shows the real state of the nation.
This kind of misreporting about the building sector has been rife since the Department of Statistics released their last set of figures for Value of Work for the March Quarter, lauding a 12% growth - the strongest for ten years. Radio NZ news reporter, Kate Gudsell, misinterpreted it and reported the statistics as the "highest number of homes built in ten years", which was patently wrong, and now this.
Let us state quite categorically, there is NO building boom in New Zealand right now. Although we think the future is looking very bright, it ain't here now.
21/06/2013 1.10pm Update - the story is back up on the site as of midday.
June 10, 2013
The Govt's handling of Auckland Council planning gets called out by Bob Dey in his Property Report
Auckland Council has picked up the Government’s gauntlet – the introduction in the housing accord bill of override clauses which weren’t agreed when the accord was signed a month ago – and has demanded those clauses be deleted.....
It’s an unnecessary standoff and one which the Government has set itself up to lose.... Either it supports the principle of local democracy - in which case it accepts the work done in Auckland on rationalising 8 councils into one, creating a masterplan for growth and establishing the parameters for development, whether it likes the content or not – or it rejects the principle and tramples on local participation....
If the Government doesn’t want to be seen to back down, it will undo the real value of having a single council for the region....
The council could have looked for a way for both parties not to lose face, but the Government has been intent on bullying. If the Government does proceed with its accord bill as written – hardly an accord – some will see it as a victory of sense over a council intent on writing bad planning rules and not getting on with the job of preparing greenfields sites for housing - sprawl before services, but that will be OK.....
That act would destroy a decade of putting plans in place to enable sustainable development, respecting the environment into which built forms would go....
One reason for ramming the bill through is that housing development has been woefully low for the last 5 years. Critics who cite this fact use it to demand more land be made available, choosing to ignore the equally obvious fact that housing hasn’t just gone through a low point in the cycle but has had a global financial crisis weighing it down as well.... Consents are picking up, just as you’d expect when the cycle turns....
Where do I see the loss for the Government? Auckland’s local body elections this October are likely to result in a similar weighting of left & right as happened in the 2010 elections. Continuing Government intransigence will make central government interference the difference, instead of local government performance....
The Government might think it can win by stripping out time-consuming & community-supporting protections, but that is bound to quickly make a fragile environment worse. And it is a fragile environment – a harbour that has started to be cleaned up but beaches that are too frequently closed because of pollution are examples....
The costs of returning to more damaging ways would outweigh the quick gains from wrecking methodical development processes....
June 10, 2013
The (In)Famous 1/4 Acre Section
It's time we laid this myth to rest.
A 1/4 Acre section is over 1000m2. At least in Auckland, and I'd say in most cities, the only people with 1/4 acre sections live on the outskirts of the city or are rich.
June 5, 2013
Building Consent Trends
The release of the March Quarter Value of Work Placed by Dept of Stats has garnered talk of a building boom going on. The headline of their Media Release was "Largest increase in activity since March 2008". Given the construction industry has been running at 1/2 to 2/3 of its normal level (20,000 consents per year and 30,000 or so at its peak 2004-2007), ANY increase was going to look good.
We thought we'd do a bit of an analysis of the year to April 2013 from the stats release by the Dept. at the end of May. It really doesn't look all that rosy. But as we say below, things are building (pun intended) and momentum is returning to the industry.
As you can see, while Christchurch especially (an not surprisingly) is showing a decent increase, Auckland is not increasing that fast and continues to show large fluctuations.
May 30, 2013
Confluence of Construction Trends Bodes Ill for Country
In a good year the construction industry contributes around 4-5% of GDP, employs over 150,000 people and every $1 spent in building has a flow on effect of up to $5 to the wider economy. The last five years, however, have not been good years and the industry has been running at two-thirds its normal levels.
Now the National and Labour parties want to increase building activity to reduce pressure on house prices and to provide housing in Auckland at prices that more people can afford.
What is not being taken into account is that the industry is already facing major issues: a pending major increase in home building as demand ramps up to normal levels compounded by shortages caused by under-activity for the past few years, work required to rebuild Christchurch, repair leaky homes, strengthen buildings for future earthquakes and prepare Auckland for another million people.
The pending work facing the country is staggeringly enormous. The construction industry will need to increase in size by 300% to cope but there does not seem to be any realistic plan to cater for this, perhaps because it is unrealistic to expect this to happen.
Unfortunately, New Zealand is facing a shortage of skilled tradespeople following years of businesses collapsing and workers leaving for Australia.
Evidence for these trends playing out is being seen in the shortage of skilled tradespeople in Auckland and a well-publicised shortage of builders and related trades in Christchurch.
Labour is proposing to build 100,000 homes around the country, mainly in Auckland and Christchurch. While their plan gives a three year timeframe to gear up the industry, there is still the question as to whether there will be sufficient builders at the end of that time.
National is also now looking at Housing reforms – speeding up the consent process and intending to open up greenfield areas around Auckland’s periphery to create more sections for building on with a goal of 39,000 homes for Auckland within three years.
There were 3500 new homes built in Auckland in the last 12 months, so that represents an increase of more than 10,000 homes per year. Incidentally, Given that many of these homes will likely be large stand-alone houses on reasonably sized sections that will sell for more than the current average house price, it’s hard to see how this will help alleviate a housing affordability problem in Auckland.
Also impacting is the new licensing scheme for builders designed to create consumer confidence in builders severely dented by the Leaky Homes fiasco.
However, there are significant issues over the Skills Maintenance regime that is supposed to maintain skill levels amongst licensed builders, with builders, 50% of whom are semi-literate (according to the Productivity Partnership report into building productivity), able to choose which courses they do, no auditing of those courses, and only random audits of builders to ensure they are claiming legitimate points.
Perhaps the major issue is how to pay for this $200-250 Billion of construction work. Much of this will be borne by private owners who will have to borrow to pay for their build. This will be added to the $140 billion currently owed by New Zealanders and have a major impact on the private debt levels held by New Zealand.
At least the Labour/Greens plan is self-funding, if somewhat unrealistic. National seems to be sidestepping the whole problem. Either way, the housing crisis facing New Zealand is more complex and with more frightening implications than most people realise.
There is certainly a case for greater consumer education from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment – the Department now in charge of building. Changes to legislation controlling house building sees responsibilities for quality control moving from Councils to builders and homeowners with the implication for this confluence of trends being a potential to repeat the Leaky Home crisis as we see demand increase, a shortage of skilled builders, and fewer council inspections. Consumers need to be aware of their obligations and not abdicate responsibility to their building professionals.
There is also a definite need for government assistance on delivering the capability for skill development within the building trades, rather than focusing on fast-tracking and ‘build, build, build’. This will have the added benefit of bringing in young people into training and eventual employment and help ensure good quality housing is provided.
More resources need to be given to builder education – remedial reading and a more robust skills maintenance regime as a bare minimum, but ideally business training, project management and technology skills – to help builders be better at their profession and ensure better outcomes around building projects for their customers.
Finally, a more considered, and ideally bipartisan, approach to supply of new housing will contribute to growing employment, better housing, and supply of housing types that are in demand in a controlled way and in a way that will control our potential exploding debt.
Mark Graham
Publisher of the Design Guide, Building Guide, Building Guide website and BoB – The Business of Building: guides for homeowners and builders in residential construction.
February 1, 2013
Skills maintenance for LBPs - More Rule Changes!
We review the recent changes to Skills Maintenance for Licensed Builders and find a bit to be concerned about…
We have spent a lot of time and effort explaining details about LBP classifications, roles, requirements and the compulsory programme to keep your skills sharp, called ‘Skills Maintenance’
In our last edition we proudly told you we had been added to the list of approved activities, having received DBH's [now MBIE] approval for BOB as a recognised publication for gaining skills maintenance points.
At the time we quoted the registrar that a review of the scheme was underway, but the next announcement of changes to the scheme from MBIE has flabbergasted a lot of us and, we feel, moved the objective of the skills maintenance idea further away from reality.
For the record and as noted throughout our past editions of BOB, we fully endorse the idea of licensing and especially the requirement of continual compulsory training in order to upskilll and maintain skills for all building professionals. We would like to see a scheme that makes a difference.
As a reminder, being licensed means you must maintain your skills and knowledge. You need to acquire skills maintenance points and be able to submit these to the Registrar at least every two years. In general, one hour of learning equals one point and you are able to choose whatever activity you deem to be relevant to your needs. You must also keep a record of the activities undertaken (via a diary or online resource such as the Building Hub).
Originally, there was a list of ‘Approved Activities’ that qualified LBPs for specific points and LBPs had to gain these points from different types activities with maximum points from any one area, for example a maximum of six points for seminars, a maximum of six points for publications, etc..
These requirements were put in place with the consultation of CBANZ and RMB who are both extremely disappointed that all the time and consultation was thrown out the door when both the list of approved activities was discarded and LBPs became able to choose whatever activity they felt suited them.
The rationale behind these recent changes is that LBPs should know the rules by now and you can select the most relevant activities for your own work. This is in spite of the fact that half of all builders are semi-literate according to the Productivity Partnership report and from feedback a significant proportion of them struggle to know what they should and shouldn't be learning and need some guidance.
It also was announced that there was some concern directed to DBH from industry groups that some courses on the approved list were seen as little more than marketing exercises for products made by the companies/organisations offering the courses, so they removed all approvals for all activities previously accredited.
So, the Skills Maintenance regime is now this:
"You choose the activities that best suit your needs and the requirements of your licence class. Your activities need to inform you about things such as changes to the Building Code, building materials, design technologies, and good design and building practices. You’ll probably find you do many of these activities anyway. The following are some examples on how you can acquire skills maintenance points:
- reading material
- attending seminars, workshops, conferences, trade events
- inductions
- on-the-job training
- formal study
- supervising of apprentices (formal arrangement required)
- activities approved by the Registrar"
MBIE Website
So the Skills Maintenance requirement options are now not defined and this means you can earn all your points one way, such as reading BoB or other construction related literature.
One of the issues we raised was that if you take 1 hour to read BoB, you earn 1 point, and if you take 3 hours, you earn 3 points. It doesn’t seem fair to us that poor readers should have an advantage in gaining points. This, of course, applies to any relevant publication you may wish to read and use as part of your skills maintenance work. This remains the case.
Mark Scully, LBP Registrar, told us there will be auditing of Skills Maintenance activities done for LBPs coming up to renew their license as the rollover begins, but admitted to us that there is currently no audit system in place, and it would seem when one is initiated, initially, at least, it will be random LBPs selected for audit, not everyone.
There is also no current quality control over Skills Maintenance activities yet, and while a system for that, too, is being examined there is no indication as to when it will be introduced.
Mr Scully admitted to BoB that there was no infrastructure around Skills Maintenance when the scheme was launched and there is none still – that the focus was initially on getting the LBP Scheme up and running without worrying about how to run an ongoing skills maintenance regime.
This took us by surprise as it seemed there would have been plenty of time between the introduction of the LBP scheme in the 2004 Building Act, and its eventual launch in 2007 and the introduction of Restricted Building Work in 2012 to ensure a robust Skills Maintenance regime was in place.
We asked Mr Scully why this was so and his response was that he wasn't sure, and then he referred us to the (previous) DBH senior management, all of whom, of course, have now departed for other opportunities and therefore cannot be reached for interview.
The skills maintenance requirement stayed mostly in the background and the exact process of how points could be earned was slow to evolve. As highlighted in our earlier edition, initially there was a deliberate reduction of quality of content for point’s accreditation. This was because of concern that new entrants to the scheme would bail out and not continue if the skills maintenance process was found to be too difficult.
We are also aware and disappointed that there had been a deliberate shunning of expertise gained from trade and technician teaching establishments early in the LBP process, as DBH appeared not to want to tie competencies or skills maintenance with existing trade or technician qualifications. The link of LBP categories to such qualifications is still not fully established and, BoB understands, is intended to be resolved sometime in 2015. Then, if they do as they plan, you will not be able to apply for a license unless you have a recognised qualification.
LBP Communications and Consumer Education
We also asked Mr Scully about a communications plan around the LBP review in order to update LBPs on what is going on.
We have offered BoB as a means of communication with the industry to MBIE- B&H Group several times, but nothing has been forthcoming.
We have regularly pointed out that DBH was remiss in its lack of communications to the industry and public, and unfortunately, this seems to be continuing for the moment. However at a recent meeting BoB had in Wellington with the new CEO and GM Infrastructure, there does seem to be a genuine desire to change the approach of the Department.
It would seem that there is nothing planned at this stage although there is some ad hoc messaging coming out (we haven’t seen any). With somewhere between 20,000 and 25,000 Licensed Building Practioners paying $600 each per year, that equates to revenue of around $4-5 million.
There was certainly not that amount spent on educating consumers around the introduction of LBPs last year and the seminars and consultation process with LBPs last year around the scheme are unlikely to have cost anywhere near that amount, so we wonder where the revenue that is being collected is going.
LBP Auditing
As highlighted earlier, LBPs are now free to choose activities they deem to be best suited for their own needs.
There are some merits to this for builders who are interested in maintaining and developing their skills – like you, if you’re reading this. But what about the other guys who would rather be fishing or playing golf than in improving their work skills? (I know we would probably all rather be fishing or playing golf, but there are some building professionals who take things seriously enough to want to be better at what they do and not just play and there are some who would rather play)
So we asked Mr Scully about ongoing auditing of LBPs around maintaining their skills, after we raised concerns around the auditing process changes on Radio NZ and in our email newsletter and, indeed, directly with MBIE - B&H Group at the end of last year.
MBIE - B&H Group are still planning the details around this, such as working out how to select people for auditing, but it is coming. As Mr Scully says, they are working in a “fluid environment” at the moment, and there is a "...lot of other stuff they are working on." Obviously this includes the Canterbury rebuild, changes to Seismic Standards and a rewrite of the Unit Titles Act (regulating the management of multi-unit housing) which was so poorly written it has to be done over.
Because being an LBP to do Restricted Building Work was not mandatory till March 2012, and with industry seeing continuing changes during the lead up to its introduction, there was initially a slow uptake of LBP applicants. It didn’t help that some in the industry were opposed to Licensing – BoB was at a seminar in Whangarei three years ago where builders were advised not to sign up too early – something we have disagreed with throughout the introduction of Licensing.
And then it was all on, a last minute rush of LBP applications to beat the mandatory deadline, and then processing was held up because of MBIE limited resources. They were also swamped with requests from commercial proposals for skills maintenance points to be approved for their activities.
And then came the next change, the bombshell - that LBPs can determine the content of their own training needs and that there would be no register for you to identify approved providers! So let's look at a copy of these latest words taken from the MBIE web site.
Message to Practitioners regarding skills maintenance10 August 2012: The list of Providers of activities for skills maintenance points no longer appears on the website. This does not mean that the skills maintenance programme has changed. It hasn’t. It is continuing as before. In order to assist you when the Licensed Building Practitioner skills maintenance programme was in its early stages, the Registrar placed a list of organisations (Providers) on the website that were delivering activities (workshops, presentations etc.) related to the competencies. The Registrar has received an increasing number of applications from Providers for their activities to be placed on the website. This process has been reviewed in light of the fact that you now understand the types of activities you can engage in for skills maintenance points. There are many Providers of activities related to your areas of practice in the building and construction sector, and we do not want you to think that you must participate in listed activities so the Registrar has removed the list from the website. You will be able to attend any activities from any Provider which relate to the competencies in the Rules. The skills maintenance programme hasn’t changed, and one hour of activity earns one point for skills maintenance. Enabling you to participate in your own choice of activity (self-directed) demonstrates the confidence the Building and Housing has in your ability to assess the types of activities best suited to your practice.
|
It is generally understood that one of the major contributing factors for leaky buildings was lack of education and a lack of knowledge around the detail of product performance linked to different styles of design under different environmental conditions.
From that we believe it is abundantly clear that in simple terms a lot of builders, subcontractors and designers "don't know what they don't know!"
The LBP system was introduced to give certified persons specific tasks for which they were deemed competent and accountable and which were supposed to be easily recognised by the public. It was introduced to regain confidence in the residential construction sector, soured after the disclosure of leaky buildings. It included a compulsory regular upskilling requirement to overcome the identified problem of persons not keeping up to date.
It would seem totally unrealistic to assume that seemingly overnight all licensed tradespersons could suddenly, for ongoing skills upgrades, identify their weaknesses and have the "ability to assess the types of activities best suited to their practice".
Remember that a significant number have only gained accredited LBP status at the last moment [mandatory for restricted building work March 2012] and have barely come to grips with skills maintenance requirements.
The announcement on the MBIE web site detailed above that made LBP's responsible for determining their own skills maintenance concluded with the following statement:
The Building and Housing Group [of MBIE] is planning to review the skills maintenance programme in the near future, and you will be kept informed as the review progresses.
So there are more changes proposed and that means the current situation is temporary while MBIE get the Skills Maintenance regime sorted out. We noted earlier that the initial skills maintenance programme developed under DBH included maximum points per category but this had been abandoned.
Other organisations, such as NZIA, ADNZ, ECANZ and Plumbers and Gasfitters, have already been through the exercise of having developed, run and amended CPD requirements for their members. Such requirements for these organisations all have limitations on both content and presentation method so that a range of content and learning environments are part of the mandatory requirements.
|
A wider scope of examples of such methods of achieving CPD points include:
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
While this is a brief summary of a higher level professional organisation’s CPD content, there are similarities between some of these items and the earlier list from the MBIE website, but there is one significant difference. Other organisations set clear limitations as to how many points can be earned in each of their different categories, so gaining sufficient points requires a range of content and learning activities.
From comments received, there is a strong possibility that reverting back to this more balanced approach of defining and limiting the number of points per category will be the way MBIE sets LBP Skills Maintenance of the future.
However, while it is unlikely that MBIE will backtrack on the self-select options, other factors also must be taken into account in this next review round.
What is needed must meet current and future needs of the industry, for example the recent changes to the Building Act that put more responsibility and accountability on the builder.
The proposal for fewer inspections by the BCA, which builders currently rely on as part of a check on their construction, will have to be factored in. So the Skills Maintenance options, in addition to keeping up to date with new products and regulation changes, must also focus on improving business skills to identify and manage risk, plan more efficiently and involve sub-contractors more effectively.
A suggestion is that involvement in specific significant categories of activities could be a compulsory proportion of the Skills Maintenance points. MBIE – B&H Group needs to set parameters for worthiness of credits of specific skills.
Risk Management and Planning must become a mandatory part of residential building company operations, as Health & Safety is today. A fast tracking consenting process to recognised Approved Builders may be one way of making, by default, such operations part of an Approved Builders process. However at all times those in the residential sector must also be mindful of the push for more affordable homes and improved productivity.
Master Builders and Certified Builders and other newer groups such as the Building Hub are playing an important role in proposing and adopting systems and processes that are best practise for their members, as they have the history of what was originally discussed and agreed to but then abandoned.
That still leaves those un-represented others out there needing the guidance and support to do things properly but we wonder how many don’t care.