Costly Building Work Christchurch City Council Insisted On Isn't Necessary Says MBIE

A decision made by the Ministry of Building Innovation and Employment (MBIE), means costly building work Christchurch City Council insisted on, is not necessary.

A determination was sought from MBIE by a Christchurch man after council staff decided his two multi-unit buildings didn’t meet the building code.

David Townshend submitted an application to CCC in late May 2024, for a building consent to construct seven units in Riccarton. The council denied the consent.

Mr Townshend says the issue came down to how the council was interpreting an Acceptable Solution, which is a way of meeting the building code, relating to the fire rating of the building’s external walls. ([1]C/AS1:NZ Bldg. Code - Protection from Fire)

“They were wrong but they were not really open to that possibility. It seemed clear to me, to my fire expert and several other experts I contacted, including Wellington City Council consenting staff. This has gone on since last May and was entirely avoidable,” he says. “It’s wasted a lot of time and money.”

David says it was not a "close decision", as the CCC has described it. He adds that it was only a 10 page document, and complex issues can run into the hundreds.

"If you read the determnation, it's pretty clear that MBIE saw the matter to be determined as straightforward in dismissing the council's position."

The issue related to the interpretation of paragraph 5.1.1 of C/AS1 (Building Code - protection from fire). 

“The council's interpretation was confused and contradictory. It was clearly nonsense. One reason they gave to justify their interpretation was that other developers had raised the same issue in the past, but Council's opinion hadn't changed. This means other developers must have either accepted the increased costs Council were insisting on, or shelved their plans I guess. I wasn't prepared to do that.” he says.

David Townshend says another concerning aspect is that Fire and Emergency NZ (FENZ) was consulted as part of the determination and the council’s consenting process, and were supportive of CCC’s interpretation.

“If FENZ is to be relied on as a part of decision making, then they must have the capability to understand the building code and the documents that sit beneath it, which it appears in this case they don't,” says Mr Townshend.

He adds that this example of incorrect interpretation by the council, which has led to a failure to cost effectively meet the building code, is indicative of many other barriers I have encountered and heard of other people encountering when engaging with the CCC consents unit.

“I have no doubt there are good people in there but as a customer, the experience and how much this costs should not come down to who you get on your consent,” he says. “They stopped my building project for more than 6 months because they have a lack of knowledge, combined with bureaucracy and self-importance (because that played a part too), and I know I am not the only one who has experienced this.”

David Townshend is in the process of filing a complaint with the Council’s Chief Executive, Mary Richardson.

Ali Jones who has worked extensively with David Townshend on a number earthquake working groups for the last decade, says this is exactly the type of city council money wasting that has to stop. Jones sat on the Consents and Regulation Committee when she was a city councillor 2013-2016.

"Fortunately, we have people like David who know their stuff and have the tenacity to stay the distance to prove it. This decision will save thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars in the building of much needed homes across Christchurch. This is one example of where the city can save money and keep rates down without cutting basic services - what do these protracted issue cost consents in staff time and reporting bbecause I know there are many examples of examples like these," she says.

Jones says she will be interested to hear the outcome of the complaint to the CCC CE.

CCC has indicated they won't be appealing the MBIE decision.

-ENDS-

[1] Paragraph 5.1 requires all external walls within a certain distance and angle to a boundary to be fire rated depending on the layout of the household units within a multi-unit building. 

The determnation is HERE.