Submission on sunsetting of the building regulations

Municipal Association of Victoria and Victorian Municipal Building Surveyors Group

Combined submission

Sunsetting of the Building Regulations

August 2014

Table of contents

1Introduction 4

2Background 4

2.1.The two organisations 4

2.2.What were the key issues in preparation of the current Regulations? 5

2.3.What changes have been made to the Regulations since 2006? 6

3Commentary 6

4.1Residential standards – Regulations 407- 421 7

4.2Swimming pools and spas – Part 7 8

4.3Keeping of records – Regulation 324 10

4.4Documents to be submitted to council – Regulation 319 11

4.5Fees – Regulation 312 and 320 11

4.6Infringements – Regulation 1703 and new regulation 12

4Operational matters 13

5.1Fire Performance Wording - Regulation 113 and 113A 13

5.2Minimum information - Regulation 302 14

5.3Permit details - Regulation 322 15

5.4Request for information – Regulation 326 15

5.5Dependant persons units - Regulation 407 15

5.6Residential Standards – Part 4 16

5.7Combined allotments and subdivision of existing buildings – Regulations 502 and 503 17

5.8Footing adjoining boundaries – Regulation 514 18

5.9Protection works – Regulation 603 18

5.10Retaining walls - Regulation 606 18

5.11Stormwater discharge - Regulation 610 19

5.12Inspection - Regulation 904 and 905 (also s216B) 19

5.13Prescribed temporary structures - Regulation 1104 20

5.14Certificates of compliance – building work - Regulation 1506 20

5.15Maintenance of buildings and places of public entertainment - Part 12 21

5.16Exemptions from permits and regulations - Schedule 8 21

5.17Road Management Act 22

5Conclusions/Findings 22

1Introduction

The Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV) and the Victorian Municipal Building Surveyors Group) welcome the review of the Victorian Building Regulations 2006 and are of the opinion that they are a solid and robust part of the framework for the administration of building in Victoria. While there are a number of matters that could do with some revision, we do not believe that are fundamental flaws in the existing Regulations.

This joint submission by the MAV and the VMBSG provides Government with a local government view about the sunsetting of the Regulations.

In preparing this submission councils, including Municipal Building Surveyors, were consulted. We would like to particularly like to acknowledge the assistance of the VMBSG working group convened to provide input.

The submission does not purport to represent the views of every council and it is anticipated that councils will have made their own individual submissions where they believe change is necessary.

2Background

2.1.The two organisations

The MAV is the peak representative and advocacy body for Victoria's 79 councils. The MAV was formed in 1879 and the Municipal Association Act 1907 appointed the MAV the official voice of local government in Victoria.

The role of the MAV is to represent and advocate the interests of local government; raise the sector's profile; ensure its long-term security; facilitate effective networks; support councillors; provide policy and strategic advice; capacity building programs; and insurance services to local government.

The VMBSG is an incorporated association made up of local government building control officers (Municipal Building Surveyors) who aim to advance and achieve the best ideals in local government building control.

The VMBSG promote professional standards, advocate in the interests of local government, municipal building surveying and building control and cultivate consistency through training and education.

2.2.What were the key issues in preparation of the current Regulations?

In responding to the Regulatory Impact Statement prepared for the new Building Regulations in 2006 there were a number of high priority issues for Municipal Building Surveyors. A number of these issues are still relevant and should be addressed as part of the current review. The matters raised included:

Issue	Response in Regulations	Ongoing concern?
Maximum fees for report and consents Concern about the under-recovery of fees. Councils charged for each regulatory matter requiring report and consent rather than per building application.	Maximum fees were included in the Regulations. The practice of charging for each regulatory matter has continued upon advice from the Building Commission.	Yes. The current, Government endorsed, practice should be reflected in the Regulations.
Timelimits - for applications for building and occupancy permits Schedule 3 requires a reporting authority to report on and consent to an application. This was clearly an error in wording.	This error was not addressed when the Regulations were made.	Yes, the wording should be modified in the review.
Requests for information Required detail of any current statement issued by a relevant building surveyor.	The requirement was included in the Regulations despite workability concerns.	Yes, councils are still not able to ensure that statements are current as there is no requirement for the relevant building surveyor to lodge the revocation of a statement.
Retaining walls Proposed changes to the power to order a retaining wall were thought to create additional responsibility for MBS’.	No changes were made to the Regulations.	Yes, MBS’ still have concerns about this regulation.
Maintenance schedules The consolidation of lists of essential safety measures was seen to be unnecessary and present additional liability for councils.	No changes were made to the Regulations.	No, the concerns of MBS’ did not eventuate.
Registers Some concern was expressed about the requirement to include in registers information not provided to councils.	No reference was included to registers in the Regulations.	No, format for registers not set.
Section 8 exemptions A range of further refinements to the exemptions were suggested.	Only one (out of eight) suggestion was taken up on the making of the Regulations.	The refinements to exemptions should be considered as part of the current review including: Change to the height of Class 10a outbuildings Removal of cross-referencing to other legislation Retention of ‘structural member’ requirement Time limited temporary structures An additional condition for education buildings relating to impact on adjoining properties

2.3.What changes have been made to the Regulations since 2006?

Since 2006 amendments to the Building Regulations have included:

• 
  Places of public entertainment – inclusion of prescribed classes and exemption of community based organisations in certain conditions.
  
• 
  Bushfire construction/private bushfire shelters/community fire refuges – requirements in relation to the construction of dwellings, shelters and refuges.
  
• 
  Annual fee setting
  
• 
  Clarification of walls and carports on boundaries
  
• 
  Reference to the National Construction Code
  
• 
  Others.
  

3Commentary

Our comments about the existing Regulations have been divided into two sections. The first section relates to policy matters. Those matters that raise matters of Government policy, require a position to be formed or have an impact on the Building Act 1993. The second are operational matters that impact the day to day administration of the Regulations.

Policy matters

The matters that have been identified as impacting Government policy, requiring a position to be formed or having an impact on the Building Act 1993 are:

• 
  Residential standards
  
• 
  Swimming pools and spas
  
• 
  Keeping of records
  
• 
  Documents to be submitted to council
  
• 
  Fees
  
• 
  Infringements
  

1. Residential standards – Regulations 407- 421

Background and intent

It is a significant achievement in Victoria that single dwellings are largely unregulated by the planning system. This is not the case in other States in Australia.

This has been the result of including the standard residential requirements of clause 54 of planning schemes into the Building Regulations.

While it is considered that this system largely works well there are some matters that suggest a revision of the residential requirements is required:

• 
  The absence of the Environmentally Sustainable Development (ESD) related residential requirements of clause 54 in the Building Regulations restricts the ability of building surveyors to consider the siting of dwellings to achieve environmentally sustainable design. Matters the Building Regulations could consider are energy efficiency, orientation and layout of development, reduction of fossil fuel energy use, daylight and solar energy.
  

• 
  A default lot size provision when matters default to the planning system. This is generally 300 square metres but in some instances has been increased to 500 square metres. This is capturing a significant numbers of applications that could be dealt with more simply.
  

In April, 2014 a Ministerial Advisory Committee and Planning Panel examined Environmentally Efficient Design Local Policies in a number of municipalities. The Committee report made recommendations not only about individual policies but also broader recommendations about where such requirements should sit in the planning and building systems. The overarching recommendation is:

“There is value in reviewing the Building Regulations to determine whether they can achieve more in terms of sustainability. Such a review would be best undertaken following the development of the recommended Statewide approach.”
Proposed changes and potential impacts

Consideration should be given to:

• 
  the inclusion of the ESD requirements in the Building Regulations
  
• 
  review of the default lot size for planning consideration.
  

As the requirements orginate from the planning system, a concurrent review of planning scheme requirements and requirements in the Building Regulations is required.

2. Swimming pools and spas – Part 7

Background and intent

The Victorian Swimming Pool and Spa Safety Committee, made up of Kidsafe, the Victorian Building Authority, Swimming Pool and Spa Association of Victoria (SPASA), Australian Institute of Building Surveyors, Municipal Association Victoria (MAV) and Consumer Affairs Victoria (CAV), has been working to identify improvements to swimming pool and spa safety.

There have been 13 drowning deaths of children aged 0-4 years in a home pool or spa betweeen 2003-2013. While there had been a steady decreasing trend, which was likely due to legislation for pool and spa safety barriers as well as extensive education and public awareness campaigns, records indicate an increase in the last 5 year period (2008-2013). Records indicate that the deaths primarily resulted from a combination of inadequate carer supervision immediately prior to the drowning and inadequate safety barriers (for example faulty gate lock, gate left propped open or door left open) between the child and the pool/spa. With the increasing numbers of pool/spa owners and the aging of existing pools/spas and their safety barriers there is the potential for a continued increase in pool/spa fatal and non-fatal drowning. In 2012/13 there were an additional 17 non-fatal drowning incidents in private pools in Victoria representing 39% of non-fatal drowning incidents in this age group. It is estimated that over the 10 years from 2002-2012 there were 138 non-fatal drowning incidents in this age group in home pools in Victoria.
A lack of a statewide registration system also means that there is no way of monitoring how many pools/spas exist and how many are compliant or not.
In addition a survey of pool owners conducted over two years (2013-2014) with a total sample of 80 respondents, revealed that:

• 
  60% of pool owners reported having a formal pool inspection
  
• 
  83% of pool owners would be prepared to submit a self-assessment to council as part of a pool registration system.
  

In addition, it is an important requirement of parents /carers of young children to know how to administer Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) in the case of a drowning emergency. Even those who have completed certification in a CPR course would still benefit from a prominent sign in the pool/spa area, explaining how to act in an emergency, as CPR without delay can often improve the health outcomes of a drowning victim.

Proposed changes and potential impacts

The Committee has essentially agreed in principle that a statewide registration system is required and that regular checks are necessary prior to the sale or lease of a property.

Particularly, it is suggested that:

• 
  A statewide home pool/spa registration system is adopted into legislation.
  
• 
  Legislation is adopted for a mandatory safety barrier inspections program (with licensed pool safety inspectors able to inspect pools, over a minimum inspection period every four years). A phase in period, to allow existing pool/spa owners to comply, is recommended whereby compliance should be required at point of sale or lease or within four years, whichever occurs first.
  
• 
  The introduction of a certificate of compliance prior to sale or lease of a property would ensure that any issues surrounding the pool barrier are rectified before transfer of the property. Home pool owners would be made responsible for ensuring pool safety barriers are compliant and would be motivated to do this so they can sell or lease their property.
  
• 
  Legislation is adopted requiring pool/spa owners display a cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) sign that reflects the current CPR method adopted by the Australian Resuscitation Council.
  

A cost-benefit analysis is required prior to setting up a Victorian home pool register. Options should be explored around who should collect and maintain the data and who should undertake inspections and enforcement.

Consideration should be given to including data collection in the Australian Census which may assist in scoping how many pools there are for any future pool safety programs.
The key potential impact of modification to the existing legislative framework is the reduction of drowning which would reduce the direct burden of injury by $5 million per year in Victoria.

3. Keeping of records – Regulation 324

Councils are required to keep documents in relation to building permits and applications for building permits within their municipality. The documents must be kept as follows –

1. 
   In their original form for not less than 10 years from the date of issue of the occupancy permit or certificate of final inspection; and
   
2. 
   After that period in their original form or in any other manner specified by the Keeper of Public Records (within the meaning of the Public Records Act 1973) until the building is demolished or removed from the allotment.
   

Where a building permit is created in hard copy (endorsed on paper as almost all are), the Building Regulations require council to keep a hard copy for 10 years. This is contrary to the Public Records Act 1973 and Electronic Transactions Act 2000 which allow Council to keep electronic copies of other documents.

Some Private Building Surveyors submit their permits to Council electronically (a scanned copy), but as council is required to keep a hard copy, these must be printed, a file created, and stored. This adds costs to councils in terms of resourcing and storage.
The cost of keeping records in this way has not been quantified but it is suggested that the burden on local government is significant.
Proposed changes and potential impacts

It is recommended that the Building Regulations be contemporised to align with other related legislation to allow councils to store electronic copies of building permits regardless of their original form, consistent with Electronic Transactions Act (Victoria) 2000, and the Public Records Act 1973.

4. Documents to be submitted to council – Regulation 319

The Building Act 1993 (section 30) requires the Relevant Building Surveyor (RBS) to submit building permit application documents and a comprehensive list of administrative documents to council. The original 1994 Act and Regulations did not require the RBS to forward these administrative documents to council and it is not clear why the requirement was introduced. The regulation causes unnecessary red-tape for the RBS and councils and storage issues.

Proposed changes and potential impacts

It is suggested that document submission process be reviewed and reinstated to the original arrangement where only the building permit application documents are provided to councils.

The administrative documents should be retained by the Relevant Building Surveyor for any audit purposes.

5. Fees – Regulation 312 and 320

Background and intent

1. 
   Lodgement of documents (320)
   

It is important that fees for the lodgement of documents by Private Building Surveyors have an evidentiary base and are as close as possible to cost recovery.
Currently, if building work is under $5000, a lodgement fee from a Private Building Surveyor is not required. For some councils’ this is a significant proportion of building permits lodged and the same amount of work is required by council in the keeping of these records. Costs are borne by council in accepting, lodging and storing of the permits and documents irrespective of the cost of works.
Data collected by Glen Eira show that in 2013 a total of 1,985 permits were lodged by a Private Building Surveyor, with 429 of those (21.6%) being for cost of works under $5000. Additional income of $15,315.30 would have been generated if the documents were accompanied by a lodgement fee.
Some clarification is also required for Private Building Surveyors that if an amended permit is issued or further documentation is lodged with Council under S30(1A), a further lodgement fee is payable under S30(2).

2. 
   Maximum fee for report and consent (312)
   

The advice given to councils, by the then Building Commission, in 2006 was that Regulation 312 can be (and should be) interpreted as setting a maximum fee for each report and consent as opposed to each building permit application. This regulation needs to be amended to reflect this advice.

3. 
   General
   

It is also important that indexation of the fees continues. The specifying of a dollar amount, however, causes consequential delays in the preparation of information material by councils. It would be better if the indexation were unit based along with most other fees set by regulation.
Proposed changes and potential impacts

The proposed changes are:

1. 
   Delete ‘for building work with a cost of $5000 or more’.
   

As the cost is relatively small, the proposed change will not have any significant impact on the individual permit applicant. For councils the impact will be positive and assist in the costs associated with the keeping of records.

2. 
   Amend Regulation 312 so that a maximum fee is set for each report and consent as opposed to each building permit application
   

This is the current practice despite the current wording of the Regulation. It seems sensible that the Regulation reflect current practice.

6. Infringements – Regulation 1703 and new regulation

Background and intent

There is significant scope to consider some change in this area. For many years local government has been asking for a review of penalty infringement notices and for a wider number of offences to apply.

Whilst notices and orders have their place and carry high penalties for non-compliance, the use of penalty infringement notices (PINs) can also be effective in achieving compliance.
The Planning and Environment Act 1987, for example, makes it an offence for an owner of land, or any person who uses or develops land, to contravene the planning scheme or a planning permit. Infringement penalties are set at five penalty units for an individual or 10 penalty units to a corporation. A breach of section 16(1) of the Building Act 1993 where there has been building work carried out without a permit is similar to a planning offence, but there is currently no mechanism for a PIN to be issued.
PINs are useful mechanisms as they can act as:

• 
  A further enforcement tool to choose from
  
• 
  An educative tool
  
• 
  An effective punitive measure
  
• 
  A deterrent.
  

Proposed changes and potential impacts

There will need to be additional work and consultation on what offences should be included in an expanded PIN scope. The applicable area in the Act that allows for PINs (Division 5 Part 13 sections 254-259) will also require review.

Additionally, Regulation 1702 should modified as only the Municipal Building Surveyor is an ‘authorised officer’ for the purpose of issuing PINs. Allowing the delegation of that authority to other practitioners such a Building Inspector or Building Surveryor Limited would be helpful administratively.

There are a number of potential impacts that may arise from the increase in scope of PINs including:

• 
  Possible increase in some revenue for councils
  
• 
  Reduction in court costs
  
• 
  A higher rate of compliance
  
• 
  Shorter compliance time frames
  

4Operational matters

Operational matters are those that impact the day to day administration of the Regulations. It is recommended that the outlined matters are revamped as part of the review process.

4. 
   
   

   1. Fire Performance Wording - Regulation 113 and 113A

Background and intent

These regulation were probably intended to apply to building surveyors issuing building permits, however, the wording means that they can also be applied to notices and orders issued for fire safety matters. Given that the fire safety thresholds for forming an opinion about safety will equate to fire safety performance measures of the Building Code of Australia, any response which is not a ‘deemed to satisfy’ method is arguably an 'alternative solution' . Many Municipal Building Surveryors do not hold the nominated fire performance qualifications. The current wording of the regulation raises liability implications.

Proposed changes and potential impacts

It is recommended that the wording of the two regulations be amended to replace 'a relevant building surveyor' with 'a building surveyor, in determining a building permit application...'

This will restrict the application of this regulation to building permit applications only and clarify the application of the regulation.

2. Minimum information - Regulation 302

Background and intent

This regulation sets the minimum information that must be provided with an application for a building permit, it identifies a series of documents and types of information to be either provided or shown on the plans provided.

All applicants are in breach of this clause if they do not provide all information as noted in the regulation, although in many cases this information (a report or computations) is not required, for example, for the construction of a verandah or carport.

Further Regulation 302(f) allows for information to be provided, if necessary, which is contrary to the first statement in the regulation.

Proposed change and potential impacts

By changing the emphasis from must to may, the surveyor can accept or request less or more information as needed to adequately address the requirements of the regulations.

After “a building” in R302(1) & R304(1) insert:- “may be accompanied by the following information or information as required by the relevant building surveyor-“

This change is required for the effective functioning of the building system and will reduce the ‘non-compliance’ element when applications are audited.

3. Permit details - Regulation 322

Background and intent

The wording of this regulation is incorrect. There is no such thing as ‘a relevant building surveyor’.

Proposed changes and potential

The regulation should be rephrased to: ‘within 7 days after the end of each month, details of.... must be forwarded by the relevant building surveyor to....

4. Request for information – Regulation 326

Background and intent

Regulation 326, requires that any current statement issued under Regulation 502 or 503 be provided in any request for information. This requirement that cannot be satisfied by any council as there is currently no requirement that statements under Regulation 502 or 503 be registered by council or that council be advised when a statement is no longer relevant. Councils cannot guarantee that any statements they may have are current.

Proposed changes and potential impacts

It is recommended that Regulation 326(b) ‘details of any current statement issued under regulation 502 or 503 of these Regulations’ be removed. It is not considered that the information would materially affect property purchase decisions.

5. Dependant persons units - Regulation 407

Background and intent

A specific definition in the Regulations for a Dependant Persons Unit does not exist. In the past, siting of these building was dealt with by a planning permit, however, Dependant Persons Units no longer require a planning permit and Regulation 407 is constrained to the construction of a single Class 1 building. As a result there are no requirement to comply with any siting provisions.

Without the constraints of the planning provisions or Regulation 407, buildings can be constructed without the consideration of any affect on the amenity of the site or any adjoining property. The buildings are becoming a common, inexpensive way of extending living accommodation on properties. They can cause issue with adjoining properties and are always an issue when the use is changed to accommodate either rental accommodation or subdivision of the property.
Councils are receiving an increasing number of complaints with no means of responding.

Proposed changes and potential impacts

It is recommended that a new definition be included in the Building Regulations. For example:

Dependant Persons Unit: a temporary fully self-contained dwelling used to provide accommodation for a person or persons who are dependent on the occupant of the main dwelling for physical, emotional or financial support.

Consideration should also be given to including Dependant Persons Units as a class 1a(iii) in the National Construction Code.

DPU’s should also be included in Part 4 provisions excluding R413, R421 and divisions 3 & 4.

6. Residential Standards – Part 4

Background and intent

There is some concern about the construct of Part 4.

• 
  There is no need to mention section 11 of the Act as Regulation 401 makes it irrelevant (through removing the need for a building regulation and a planning provision to be applied together).
  
• 
  A consent and report does not, in effect, result in a proposal (which has alternative measures to the ‘as of right’) ‘complying’ with the regulation – meaning that, under section 24 of the Building Act, despite consent and report being granted, the work will not comply and a permit cannot be issued. The logical fabric of these regulations needs to be re-constructed so that consent and report does cause compliance with the regulation. This problem is compounded by wording such as in regulation 410 “if a wall is constructed in accordance with regulation 415....” Does this mean the measure set in 415, or is it intended to also mean any consent and report granted under 415?
  

There are also some issues around the operation of the standards, these include:

• 
  Regulation 409(3) Minimum street setbacks - allows encroachment into the street setback including side street setback. What is the purpose of a 2.5m setback where a minimum setback of 2.0m exists for a side street? The regulation would permit a wall with a verandah right up to the street alignment.
  
• 
  Regulation 410 Building height (inter-alia 414 & 415) – 410(3) this is cumbersome to use and administer where all of these regulations apply.
  
• 
  Regulation 416 Daylight to existing habitable room windows - the recent amendment to allow 3.2m high walls boundaries. The boundary wall now has to be offset a further 600mm from the boundary to comply with the current requirements, even if there is a clear 1.0m to the sky from an adjoining neighbouring window.
  
• 
  Regulation 420 Daylight to habitable room windows - Can impose an unnecessary burden for owners of buildings as this triggers a report and consent situation where it is primarily an issue covered by the Building Code of Australia and not affecting anyone external to the property.
  
• 
  Regulation 424 Front fence height – the meaning of ‘at the front of that allotment’ can be difficult on corner allotments.
  
• 
  Regulation 427 Fences on street alignments – 427(2) ‘barbed wire or other sharp protrusion is at a height of at least 2 m above’. Need to consider whether this should apply in rural settings where retention of livestock is required.
  

7. Combined allotments and subdivision of existing buildings – Regulations 502 and 503

Background and intent

Regulations 502 and 503 were were introduced in 1989 with the Subdivision Act. They are poorly constructed and require review. For example, a combined allotment statement made by a Private Building Surveyor can never be revoked under the wording. Also, the criteria for making a statement are difficult to apply.

Proposed changes and potential impacts

It is recommended that Regulations 502 and 503 be removed. There is no need for the regulations.

8. Footing adjoining boundaries – Regulation 514

Background and intent

A footing may support a party wall is a meaningless regulation that was made redundant with the advent of the Subdivision Act in 1989.

Proposed changes and potential impacts

Regulation 514 should be removed. As it is a redundant regulation there will be no impacts.

9. Protection works – Regulation 603

Background and intent

If no building work is to be carried out on, over, under or in the airspace of the adjoining property and two civil engineers certify that the building work complies with the Act and the Regulations and this information is given to the adjoining property owner prior to the issue of a building permit, the owner of the allotment is not required to provide protection work.

It follows from that that the owner is also not required to provide insurance or undertake a joint dilapidation survey.
We believe that compliance with the Act and Regulations does not necessarily diminish the risk to the adjoining property. For example, if a 5.0 metre vertical site cut was to be carried out on the boundary with the adjoining allotment having a dwelling 1.0 metre from that boundary, providing no work was to be carried out in over under or in the airspace of that adjoining property and the primary building work complies with the Act and the Regulations, double certification of that compliance can be obtained and provided to the adjoining owner.
Proposed changes and potential impacts

It is recommended that this regulation be revoked and guidance given to Building Surveyors and the industry in the form of a Practice Note.

10. Retaining walls - Regulation 606

Background and intent

The earliest version of this regulation (Statutory Rule 81/1994) gave power to the Municipal Building Surveyor to require a retaining wall where there was excavation or filling not associated with building work or protection work. A building, however, had to exist on one of the allotments. In these circumstances no other building surveyor than the Municipal Building Surveyor could be called on to exercise such a function (with no building or protection work, no Private Building Surveyor could exercise a power).

Amendment to the original wording, however, significantly changed the parameters of responsibility. The power to require a retaining wall was broadened to apply, for example, where there was building work with a private surveyor responsible for functions. The wording also removed the pre-requisite that a building or building work has to be on one of the allotments where the stability of ground is adversely affected, potentially making the municipal building surveyor responsible for stability of land on vacant allotments. These amendments were unnecessary and went through without consultation or research into the economic burden on councils for the broadened responsibilities.
Proposed changes and potential impacts

It is recommended that the review revise the wording of this regulation to the earliest version of the provision, Statutory Rule 81/1994.

11. Stormwater discharge - Regulation 610

Background and intent

With the advent of the Road Management Act, a stormwater drain may be regarded as ‘infrastructure’ which is managed (and owned) by the property owner beyond the allotment boundary. While nomination of the point of discharge to the property boundary may work for new subdivisions, in older areas the point can often be the kerb & channel which is beyond the title boundary. The point of discharge therefore need not be limited to the boundary of private property. Point of discharge is typically to a kerb or channel some distance from the allotment boundary and this should be reflected in the wording of the regulation.

Proposed changes and potential impacts

It is recommended that the wording of this regulation be changed to enable councils to be able to nominate the point of discharge to a location at which the drain under the management of the owner connects with a drain under control of the council.

12. Inspection - Regulation 904 and 905 (also s216B)

These regulations require that the Relevant Building Surveyor must inspect the works prior to issuing a Building Notice or Order. In many cases Surveyors have staff inspectors or hire independent inspectors to undertake inspections on their behalf.

Section 216B partly restricts delegation by a Municipal Building Surveyor except for smaller building that may be delegated to a Building Surveyor (unlimited).

Proposed changes and potential impacts

It is recommended that review consider whether the current wording around delegation and site inspections and whether:

• 
  a delegate is enabled to carry out the inspections required for the issuing and follow up of notices and orders; and
  
• 
  in the event the instrument is issued by a delegate, whether the follow up inspections can be done by a separate delegate.
  

13. Prescribed temporary structures - Regulation 1104

Background and intent

The Building (Amendment) Regulations 1996 inserted into Regulation 1104 ‘if those structures do not form part of any other building other than a temporary structure or temporary building’. There are situations where a prescribed temporary structure will form part of another building and the current wording poses difficulty in administeration and enforcement.

Proposed changes and potential impacts

It is recommended that the wording included in 1996 be removed.

14. Certificates of compliance – building work - Regulation 1506

Background and intent

The listing of matters for which a certificate of compliance may be provided excludes a certificate for commercial work. There seems no logical reason why such a certificate should not be available, especially as commercial work tends to be more rigorously controlled when compared with domestic work (which is allowed to be certified).

Proposed changes and potential impacts

That a certificate of compliance be permitted for commercial work.

15. Maintenance of buildings and places of public entertainment - Part 12

Background and intent

It is considered that the application of requirements relating to the maintainance of buildings and places of public entertainment should be based on risk rather than applying to all Class 2 – 9 buildings.

Proposed changes and potential impacts.

It is recommended that lesser maintenance requirements apply to lower risk buildings.

The impact of this would potentially be reduced administration and enforcement responsibilities and costs for councils as well as cost savings for building owners/occupiers.

16. Exemptions from permits and regulations - Schedule 8

Background and intent

As with any regulations, there needs to be review of exemptions to ensure the regulations are functioning as they should. There are a number of matters that require new exemptions or clarification.

Proposed changes and potential impacts

Schedule 8 to be updated and give consideration to the following:

• 
  Clarify if a permit is required for structural repair works (replacing damaged verandah post, damaged studs, deck etc). Clause 3(a)(iii) of schedule 8 does not apply to removal/alteration of loadbearing element.
  
• 
  Increased exemptions for building on land of a certain size (similar to application of regulation 408). The building permit process does not often add a lot of value to small building projects in rural areas (for example decks, shed, etc.)
  
• 
  Temporary structures definition to be refined in section 3 of the Act to assist with interpreting clause 7 exemption.
  
• 
  Clause 10 and 11 to be combined. In industrial areas building permit are rarely issued for chain wires fences more than 1.5 in height. Building permits not issued for farm fencing when adjacent to street alignment
  
• 
  Clause 12 to be amended to better describe the type of signs.
  
• 
  Retaining wall definition to be clarified as whether it applies to ‘landscaping’, how it applies to stepped retaining walls and what is meant by protection of adjoining property, that is does a 300 mm high retaining wall on boundary require a building permit?
  
• 
  Clarify if building permits require to animal housing for example stables, etc.
  

17. Road Management Act

Background and intent

We suspect that the introduction of the Road Management Act may not have been fully integrated with the Building Regulations.

Proposed changes and potential impacts

A review of the consequential impact on Building Regulations is necessary. Potential affected areas are Protection of the public, Protection of adjoining property where it is a street, External street hydrants where there are in the street, Projections beyond the street alignment and Building over or below public facilities, etc.

5Conclusions/Findings

The Building Regulations have functioned reasonably well since 2006 with some minor adjustments needed.
The more substantive policy issues requiring review are:

• 
  The residential standards
  
• 
  Swimming pools and spas
  
• 
  The keeping of records
  
• 
  The fees
  
• 
  The scope of Penalty Infringement Notices
  

As indicated, there are also a range of operational matters that require adjustment or clarification.

Technical knowledge and practical experience are critical to good Regulations. We (the MAV and the VMBSG) would be pleased to assist in any way we can with research, drafting or testing of new regulations. In this way we can ensure the new Regulations will be workable in the field.