Submission to Building Professionals Act 2005 Discussion Paper from:Campbelltown City Council

Dear Dr Gabrielle Wallace,

I apologise for the delay in providing this submission.

Please accept this submission to the Independent Review of the Building Professionals Act 2005.

  1. Council supports the establishment of a Building Commission as a “one stop shop” for the building Industry.
  2. Council supports the adoption of standard forms for DA’s, CC’s, CDC’s and OC’s.
  3. Council supports the standardizing of information required to support the CC/CDC and Alternative Solutions.
  4. Council supports replacing the not inconsistent test with a consistent test for CC’s, CDC’s and OC’s.
  5. Council also seeks further changes to the system to ensure that private certifiers issuing construction certification documents are required to ensure that CC documentation strongly accords with approved development consent plans (including materials/colours). Council has had some issues in the past with the final building not matching materials/colours and architectural details of the approved development consent plans. The BPB needs to make sure that private certifiers are more rigid on ensuring physically constructed buildings match Council and community expectations.
  6. Council supports the adoption of additional risk based critical Stage inspections.
  7. Council supports replacing interim and final OC’s with OC and DCC.
  8. Council supports the reduced use of Building Certificates and the requirement to obtain an OC for missed mandatory inspections and unauthorised works but require more information as to how this will be implemented.
  9. Council supports the use of effective financial sanctions for unauthorised works including full cost recovery for Council when required to undertake compliance action associated with unauthorized works.
  1. Council strongly supports support the creation and maintenance of a building manual for new class 1b to 9 buildings.
  2. Council supports the accreditation of fire safety designers and installers.
  3. Council strongly supports the adoption of a Practice Guide for certifiers and very strong supports heavy sanctions for certifiers that not adhering to the guide.
  4. Council supports the education of the general public and industry in the role of the certifier as we believe it is not currently clear.
  5. Council supports that the current accreditation system makes it difficult to progress from A4 to A1, especially for council certifiers as they don’t get the exposure to larger projects. An alternative/parallel pathway should be considered.
  6. Council supports the adoption of a fully online accreditation system.
  7. Council supports the use of proactive investigations and audits of certifiers.
  8. We do not support the creation of an online complaints system if Council’s are required to investigate and action the complaint as Council is concerned that this may create an easy pathway for trivial complaints from some members of the public that Council does not have the resources investigate and provide a response. If however the BPB staff are going to follow up on the complaints then Council supports this system.
  9. Council strongly supports a demerits points system and believes it may be effective, provided it is clear and sanctions enforced. Penalties for wrong doing need to increased substantially to kerb wrong doing by private certifiers.
  10. Council supports the establishment of targeted education and training for certifiers based on issues identified by audits and complaints.
  1. Council strongly supports the establishment of a consolidated building services advisory hotline.
  2. Council supports the introduction of cost recovery via levy’s on all DA’s and CDC’s.
  3. Council is concerned that Councils are not funded or adequately supported to follow up on complaints about private certifiers. It is hoped that the proposed changes to the Act do not put additional strain on Councils in this area without additional resources being made available.
  4. Council also feels that more rigor and impartiality needs to be incorporated into the system to break the cosy arrangements that exist between builders/developers and private certifiers. At present private certifiers are beholden to builders/developers for their income so are very reluctant to be strong with them for fear of losing future work. Private certifiers are undertaking a regulatory function on behalf of government and it should be conducted with integrity and impartiality. Perhaps the system can be changed to ensure that private certifiers operate for the good of the community rather their own economic interests or that of their clients.
  5. Council would also support any steps to ensure that s94 contributions and public area inspection fee are paid in full prior to release of the CC or CDC by private certifiers. At present CC’s and CDC’s are being issued and Council is forced to chase the owners for the outstanding money.
  6. Council supports the creation of an appeals section within the BPB that can make a binding ruling on the validity of CDC’s. Council has had situations in the past where CDC’s have been issued in error (eg wrong zoning) or the building constructed without regard to the CDC plans (eg too close to boundary setbacks or exceed maximum floor area). In each situation the onus was on Council to bring an action in the Land & Environment Court to have the Court declare the CDC invalid. This is a costly and time consuming process that Council is forced to pay for when Council was not party to issuing of the invalid CDC or responsible for overseeing construction of the non-complying buildings.

Please contact me should you wish further clarification with respect to any of the above points.

Kind regards

Brendan Leo
A Manager Development Services