sign up log in
Want to go ad-free? Find out how, here.

One floor, three consents and a plasterboard shortage: this developer is walking away

Business / news
One floor, three consents and a plasterboard shortage: this developer is walking away
Apartment lounge setting looking out big windows at city scape with buildings.
A mockup of the planned apartments at 155 Queen Street.

It’s just too risky to build, Auckland developer Sandra Cornwell says.

Plasterboard shortages, battling to swap out Winstone Wallboards-branded GIB, and battling with council to get sign off on consents means for the Cornwells this development will be their last.

The Cornwells, Andrew and Sandra, are converting floors on a central Auckland office building at 155 Queen Street into apartments in what is a $4-5 million redevelopment.

Sandra Cornwell says the first consent, for four apartments on one title of the sixth floor, was straightforward.

But following consent applications in the same building for similar work to create new apartments — and even for work on the same floor — were much more difficult and time consuming, although Cornwell says the plans were the same, the architect used was the same and the developer had called on the same engineers, including fire and acoustic engineers, to draw up the plans.

For the second consent for new apartments on the sixth floor Cornwell says the council officer requested “something like” 30 requests for information, which was a shock after their first consent which was approved quickly.

By the third consent application for the final apartments on the sixth floor, Cornwell says she couldn’t believe it when a council consent officer hit her with about 50 requests for information, on top of all the documentation already provided up front.

“It was totally bizarre,” Cornwell says. “This was the same project … Based on who was processing them it was totally different.”

She says her experience with Auckland Council is a clear example of how the consenting process is inconsistent, and causes costly delays and distress to developers and their contractors.

“It’s obviously just a very human approach, and just no consistency, which makes it very hard. You just ask for consistency from council.”

Consenting numbers in Auckland have been hitting record highs. The latest data from Statistics NZ shows the council issued 21,463 consents for the year ended August 2022, which was an increase of 7.7% on 2021.

There was also a rise in the number of new homes completed in Auckland in August, with Auckland Council issuing Code Compliance Certificates (CCCs) for 1320 new dwellings.

Stats NZ says that was the seventh-highest number of CCCs issued for new dwellings in the Auckland region in any month of the year since current records began in January 2013.

The Ministry of Building, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) is undertaking a wide-ranging consenting review, looking at the regulatory institutions involved in the building industry, how they are regulating, and how the overall regulatory system is performing.

Public submissions closed in September. MBIE says 264 submissions were received from industry stakeholders including consent authorities, architects, engineers, industry bodies, and product manufacturers. A summary of the submissions will be published online in the coming months, an MBIE spokesperson says.

The Registered Master Builders Association, which represents more than 3000 commercial and residential builders, said in its submission New Zealand's consenting system is “plagued” by issues that result in significant delays and inexcusable inefficiencies, “escalating development costs to homeowners and the sector”.

Auckland Council says while the construction industry is currently operating at record levels, it "remains committed to enabling compliant development, and playing its part to keep the industry operating to support sustainable growth".

It says it works to process all building consent applications within 20-working days; however, it may require further information if an application does not contain all the necessary information and documentation.

"If we do require further information, the 20-day clock is stopped, and it does not start again until we receive the information we request. This means that incomplete applications will take longer to process ... We aim to simplify the application process as much as possible for our customers, providing an easy to follow 10-step guide and offering a range of support services including a 15-minute free advice meeting, pre-application guidance meetings, an online enquiry service and a helpdesk available by phoning 09 301 0101.”

The Cornwells were handling the consents themselves, and Sandra Cornwell says the process probably cost them under $10,000. But if they had used a professional like an architect she estimates, with the council delays, it may have cost up to $30,000 to get consent.

The GIB shortage

Which brings us to level ten on 155 Queen Street, the Cornwell's newest development in the former language school building which will boast eight apartments once its complete.

This consent application went in in 2020. This time Cornwell thought she would ask for a pre-planning meeting with a council officer. She says she sent the council everything from its level six developments (again, level ten was going to use the same plans, designer, engineer), all previous requests for information from level six, and asked if there was anything they needed to ensure they would be approved.

She says she was told “just to apply”.

“It wasn’t helpful at all.”

With consent for ten ticked off, 2021 was about lining up contracts and getting everything ready to kick off in January this year.

But now, Cornwell was up against a plasterboard shortage. She says her builder told her that GIB plasterboard, which was specified in the plans, wouldn’t be available until September.

So Cornwell decided to look for a workaround. She thought she had found a solution; a plasterboard product made by one of the largest plasterboard manufacturers in the world, USG Boral, imported to New Zealand by building supplies co-operative ITM, seemed to tick all the boxes.

She put in a minor variation application to have council approve the change.

Cornwell says she was told by Auckland Council it wouldn’t allow a swap for a USG Boral product because the GIB product was part of a “proprietary wall system”, meaning each component had to be as specified, even though Cornwell says what that amounts to is steel framing, one sheet of plasterboard on either side, and insulation.

She says after council raised queries, she then withdrew the application to swap to USG.

“It seems ridiculous,” she says, “why is this a proprietary wall system that can be approved only if it uses GIB-branded product, and GIB cannot be substituted with equivalent, certified product? It is widely used in Australia. Why can’t we use it?”

A New Zealand-based USG Boral spokesperson declined to comment.

Auckland Council says the information provided by Cornwell relating to the system change from GIB to USB Boral was insufficient.

In a statement, a council spokesperson says both GIB and USG Boral have proprietary wall systems “for a range of uses”.

“In some uses it is OK to product swap one lining for another if the wall system is not expected to copy a tested prototype for fire or acoustic protection, the wall assembly can then be considered largely generic in makeup. But where these systems are to be used for fire and acoustic protection each system has been tested and is reliant on the complete wall assembly being exactly to GIB and USG Borals specifications and installation instructions. In these situations, the prototype of the tested wall must be faithfully copied.”

This strict adherence to New Zealand specifications is considered one of the key issues with building supplies, and was highlighted in the Commerce Commission’s draft market study.

In June, after the widely publicised shortage of branded GIB plasterboard saw work grinding to a halt on some building sites, Building Minister Megan Woods announced she had set up a plasterboard taskforce to work out how the crisis could be solved.

As part of that work, in July Woods said four GIB alternatives were able to be used including to meet specifications for structural bracing, a peculiarity in New Zealand’s construction industry. Plasterboard is not considered a structural element anywhere else in the world.

MBIE also released a substitution guideline for GIB to help architects and builders swap out the Fletcher plasterboard product.

It says substituting plasterboard with “additional performance requirements” such as for a fire-protection system or a bracing system should, in a majority of cases, be approved through a minor variation to an already approved consent.

But its been too hard of an ask for the Cornwells, who in their latest council saga has failed a framing inspection on the basis they hadn't filed a drawing they weren't asked for in the consent application.

Sandra Cornwell says this development will be their last.

After building about ten new homes, and now two floors of apartments, it is now too risky, too slow, too uncertain, and too expensive to build.

“[Council] just don’t care. I think they are very concerned about butt-covering, and not adding any value. We want to build safely, and good quality. I just feel like it's a box ticking, butt-covering exercise for them.”

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.

63 Comments

Best to get out, Auckland property price all time high's won't be reached again until the decade 2050. Credit cycle now replaced by a grim multi decade economic cycle. Negative equity tsunami incoming. 

Up
29

It says it works to process all building consent applications within 20-working days; however, it may require further information if an application does not contain all the necessary information and documentation.

"If we do require further information, the 20-day clock is stopped, and it does not start again until we receive the information we request. This means that incomplete applications will take longer to process ...

A good way of delaying the back log and putting the onus on the developers rather than council being accountable for the delays in the first place?

Up
4

 in my experience half the RFI's are for information already contained in teh submission ---  and you end up sending back  referr to page 5 line XX for example -- and they start their 20 days all over again! --   total delaying action - unless you have a pet planner at the council  ! 

 

Up
6

Council will wait till day 19, then request additional information and reset the clock to day 1. My experience here on the plateau.

Up
6

It doesn’t reset the clock, it just pauses it. 

Up
1

Interesting article thanks. 
It is easy to make council the scapegoat, and they certainly have a lot of issues. However….. the quality of much consent documentation submitted by developers leaves a lot to be desired. Often there is omitted information, inconsistencies and inaccuracies. Not implying these developers were sloppy, I don’t know if they were or not - but many are. And that doesn’t help.

Up
7

What I'm finding now in almost every construction environment is the plans and specs are being made up as the job is proceeding. Even on commercial builds costing 10s of millions.

I put it down to an increase in complexity of builds, and a lack of experienced oversight.

A design and build used to take 6 weeks. Now it's closer to 6 months. 

Perfect storm for escalating costs. 

Up
2

Haha agreed, more and more I am being asked to price jobs from schedules without design drawings, or a partial design set where the final portion is issued via NTT 1 week before tender closing date and no EOT is provided.  This is in the civil infrastructure space.  

Never mind the huge amount of graduate level discrepancies on a set of design drawings that have been signed by half a dozen engineers through their "design review checklist".  

Up
3

Nothing like a good old box tick and pass along. Rely on the system and no one needs to take any form of ownership or responsibility.

It's surprising these things aren't falling down left right and centre. 

Up
2

A design and build used to take 6 weeks? Now thats a statement to show your ignorance.

Up
2

Early 90s. Everything done on a handshake.

It's been pants ever since leaky homes.

Up
3

Too much documentation, not enough quality building. Im sure it would be cheaper to over engineer to a standard spec and make a better quality building than to spend so much on plans to build the minimum possible. For example using proper bracing instead of calculating that Gib is enough, putting in a higher grade of insulation rather than calculating the minimum allowed. I’m thinking a standard that says if you build it to this over engineered spec you don’t need much plans or calcs. It kind of exists but not really. 

Up
2

100%. You can sort of do it with 3604 and the right architect.

Plus take your savings, put them in an account for insurance, and don't pay for insurance. 

Then if you need to (which you shouldn't), if your building is damaged for whatever reason, use your savings to rebuild an over engineered 'non compliant' replacement structure.

The FIRE & compliance sector adds no value to the common building owner, unless you are engaged in leveraged speculation. 

Up
0

The industry said it could govern itself. Unfortunately it could not, and neither could it stand behind its results, and the councils have built up regulation to try to prevent the industry saddling ratepayers and taxpayers with the clean-up cost ever since.

Up
2

Agree. Seems this small developer was trying to cut approval costs with DIY rather than using experienced professionals for submissions and approvals.  As a professional engineer working on large developments in many countries for 35 years I find this unbelievable in a multistorey multi-unit development.  Of course you can’t just substitute one component in a system associated with fire safety for another as you no longer have a tested and certified system.  This alone demonstrates uninformed and unprofessional approach…no wonder NZ is blighted with so many shoddy buildings

Up
3

I experienced a similar problem with additional requests for information for a straight forward rennovation/extension in 2017.  The council was too busy to process the consent themselves and farmed it out to a consultant planner.  Some of the questions were pretty silly or pedantic and there were delays that meant that they threatened to down tools and so forth.  Then we got their bill via the council.  So basically we ended up being milked by a consultant with no accountability for their hideous costs.  It's not as though we had any power to object.

Up
12

arent developers getting cold feet everywhere?any big development in todays climate could be your last if the bottom falls out after xmas.

Up
14

before xmas

Up
3

Consents are a much needed revenue stream for councils. They want it to be easy to get the ball rolling, but expensive and time consuming to complete.

Up
13

This is exactly right.  If you meet with them beforehand, it's all "Yeah great, go ahead, look forward to it."

And then the fun begins... the endless queries, objections, fees etc.

Up
8

I doubt they want that revenue stream, not worth the liability.

Up
1

Councils are the biggest impediment, they cause the problems and then you have to give them more money to fix their incompetence.

My last building consent was required because the council signed off the building without a structural member that was on the plans but not built. As the current owner I now have to pay consent fees to get this fixed.

Council are inept, this ineptness needs to be sheeted to where it belongs, the CEO and leadership team, but no, they are teflon coated.

Mayors and Councillors have no chance with these technocrats.

 

 

 

 

Up
14

A large proportion of consultants and designers are also incompetent, or at least quite sloppy.

Like many things, there are widespread systemic issues.

Up
6

75% of Architects I've encountered cost their clients significant unnecessary expenses. Probably because they're trying to push design envelopes with almost no consideration of how they are to be built or finished.

Up
15

Many are far too focussed on aesthetics, often at the expense of buildability and functionality.

Up
5

Surely not? Do you mean to say that people who are good at getting on with things will find better things to do than bugger about dealing with councils? Who would have thought?

 

Up
4

‘Good at getting on with things’?

They might be good at getting on with things, but are they good at the things they get on with?

The quality of work of builders and tradespeople in NZ would raise real questions about that…

 

Up
3

Exactly my point, Mr Mouse, at least the point I was trying to make but clearly didn't do a proper job of. The best people will leave an industry that involves banging your head against officialdom. They will change their life for the better and move on to something they are free to get on and do. Thus the entire industry becomes dumbed down. Eventually the entire country becomes dumbed down. Then along comes a crisis and the wheels fall off.

The long standing policy of running a current account deficit by flogging the country to others has ensured that we become a milking operation for foreign interests, whether through interest payments on our houses or through complex carbon taxation schemes. Productivity becomes a fools game and speculation is where the money is.

Up
7

Yeah nah. Don't blame Council for your contractor's shoddy QA. The fact that they're not building to the consented documents is no fault of Council

Up
3

You pay a fee to the council, the fee set by the council to ensure that the construction meets the rules, there is a process for changes to plans, however if changes are not notes in plans, then council is at fault. Council is the gate keeper. Council should not be held responsible for the building code, only ensure it is followed, if they don't then they should be liable.

Up
1

Council is a mix of issue. It's a fee gravy train, the more the merrier for council coffers. Secondly they keep employing people with no NZ building experience. The good ones get head hunted into consulting firms leaving the no good ones 

Then add the materials, trade shortages, bloated ponzi land prices and an inflation freight train driving asset prices down bearing down on the sector at great speed.

Summary. Developments VERY high risk currently.

Up
11

I think there needs to be a limit as to how accountable a council can be if something goes wrong. As I understand it they don’t write the building code but are held accountable if something wrong in their district. Ie leaky homes. 

In Queenstown a huge leaky building ( mainly used for short term visitor apartments)  claim has just gone through.  Every one of the 15000 rate payers now have to pay over $300 per year for the next 50 years just for this one claim.

To me this seems like the ultimate version of privatising the profits, but socialising the losses.

 With an unfair amount of liability can you really blame the council’s for being ultra careful and requesting all sorts of engineering reports etc just to shift some of the liability. 

Up
24

Privatise it out in competition with the councils.

we can build rockets, health care devices and formula one yachts but can’t build a house in NZ without the governments hand in your back pocket

completely broken

The country will go broke at this rate and cost

Up
18

Auckland Council are already outsourcing a ton of their RC and BC work.

Up
0

They did try that as part of the build-up to the leaky homes debacle. Didn't work well.

Ultimately, without responsibility being taken as well as profits the market only seems to incentivise shoddy work for wider profit margins and passing of the costs for shoddy work onto ratepayers and taxpayers.

The over-regulation of today is a response to the catastrophic failure of the building industry that was the leaky buildings crisis, founded on the ease with which many could privatise their profits while leaving the cost of their failures for taxpayers to cover.

Up
0

The main problem reported here was inconsistency with no apparent cause.  The council savages some consent requests with endless questions and lets others slide through fairly easily.  Do they purposely take a sort of random sampling/auditing approach, or is it just a rubbish process (grey areas, poor training and monitoring)?

Up
1

I think that these days there is a wide variety of competencies in the design, the consent, the construction and the building inspector fields.

So for any individual project you will be lucky beyond words if you have competency in all 4 fields.

In my recent project some useless f'ker when wheelbarrowing in the concrete footing concrete pushed the reinforcing cage sideways. So the reinforcing was right at the edge of the block wall to be built above it. Cue clouds of concrete dust damaging all my window hardware as the blocklayers had to chew out the insides of all the blocks so the reinforcing is internal not external to the block wall. Once done this way it was not possible to recover from this. The Council was not happy. (Understandably but they begrudgingly let it go). As the owner I was not happy (Insufficient cover over the reinforcing at exactly the place where it will get wet every winter from now on).

That was drama 1. There were others. Currently the CCC inspection is throwing up some really really stupid things. Grit teeth.

Hopefully no further projects in my lifetime.

Up
9

Good post. Points to both council and non Council problems. As I said further up, the problems are system-wide.

Up
1

"The Cornwells were handling the consents themselves, and Sandra Cornwell says the process probably cost them under $10,000. But if they had used a professional like an architect she estimates, with the council delays, it may have cost up to $30,000 to get consent."

Using an architect, cheap at the price to get it through quickly.

GIB. Too easy for architects including architectural designers to specify GIB. Not their problem if there's a shortage. There'll be other products to satisfy fire and acoustic requirements. Maybe more expensive but the developer will go for cheap as chips.

Up
3

Box ticking is the only thing the council know. 

You can only hope they tick the right boxes.

Up
2

Councils, the last stop on the employment train for the unemployable. Planners aside. 

Up
1

OMG no.  Planners are the real problem.  I've never met a more entitled, arrogant bunch of people in my life.  I will never ever deal with a council planner again.

Up
8

Rosemary of the old North Shore Council was helpful every single time I saw her and it didn't cost a cent.

Up
2

In a way I agree with this. It's definitely worse dealing with an unreasonable planning department than it is dealing with an unreasonable building consent authority. If there is a disagreement with a building code matter it can be escalated to an mbie determination. If you disagree with an unreasonable planning department the escalation seems to be to environment court. Probably more cost effective to just comply with the unreasonable requests than go to environment court.

Up
1

We gave up on redeveloping a site in Mission Bay for the same reasons. Questions as bizarre as 'Please confirm who owns the site' ~ which we were charged for ~ just illustrated how f*/king clueless the planners are regarding a commercial outlook. Another was 'Please detail the storm water outflow' when there were two gigantic storm drains running under the road immediately outside the property.

Slight digression, having a place refitted with insulation and the installer was telling me the new homes standard will require R6.5 in all new roofs from 2023. Even in Northland where we barely get a winter ! Those kiwibuilds sure gonna be snug if they ever get built.

 

Up
6

Auckland Council has been wasteful and dodgy AF for years. Let's see if Wayne can fix it!

Up
6

The whole country has got dodgy.

we don’t know where we are heading 

Up
7

With how much interest property article get on this site, I'm surprised how few comments there are on this. 

I've been involved in numerous developments and agree how inconsistent RFIs can be for similar projects.

Dealing with councils is often the least enjoyable part. Some RFIs that come to mind:

-Request for waterproofing membrane and waterproofing installer for a slatted composite deck.

-request for credentials of landscaper to prove they are suitably qualified to provide a landscaping plan.

-council planner claiming external water storage tanks count towards floor area of buildings on the site and max floor area exceeded

-requests for liquefaction testing and foundation design for housing in upper central north island, no where near any water body.

-requests for obscure details to be copied from a building code document into architectural plans, such as hot water cylinder vavle diagrams.

I could go on for days.

I have found the planner or building consent review officer you initially get may be fresh out of study or a recent immigrant with no practical experience. Rather than get frustrated with queries, I try to recognise the query as a genuine question that I answer as if I'm explaining to a junior work colleague (careful not to be condescending).

In an ideal world the whole building process would be completely different, but we don't live in an ideal world.

Imagine if house building companies competed with each other like car manufacturers. No council liability. We'd see some innovation then.

 

 

Up
7

You think that's bad? Try Wellington council. Useless.

Up
2

It's funny that when we were discussing Three Water the councils were perfect and doing a fantastic job. Now suddenly they are completely useless.

Looking at the number of leaky homers in NZ I think its the developers who are useless.

 

Up
2

Every leaky home was signed off by a qualified Council inspector.

Up
3

It's impossible to check every single component of the build process. Even thing's like using seal tape in butynol joints you can't check after the process. Leaky homes were caused by builders and designers incompetence.

Up
2

Blame the government...they failed to spot every way in which the building industry could deliver shoddy product and workmanship, therefore it's the govt's fault not private industry.

Up
0

In concerns I'm hearing about three waters reforms, never have I heard about how great council have been at it. Most concerns I hear are about addition bureaucracy. Examples from government websites : "Local opportunities – Economic analysis projects that the reforms will create 6,000 to 9,000 jobs over the next 30 years and that reforms will grow GDP by $14 billion to $23 billion over the next 30 years. Iwi/Māori will have the ability to participate in delivery of this investment in local infrastructure."

Up
0

Same in QT. We won't be doing any more here. Seems Auckland is crossed off too.

Up
1

Typically I'm a contrarian but in this case I'm not tempted at all to get back into property. Until inflation substantially subsides it's just too risky.

Up
1

Me too.  And I would not be too surprised if the US Bond market pops and the Fed goes Brrrrrr to prop it up (temporarily), which will of course give inflation another push down the track.  Years of bad shite ahead as the wealth destruction gets shunted around. 

I planted more nut trees this last winter.

Up
2

The fact that we're listening to moaning speculator/developers,  as if they have a God given right to make a profit, means the bubble still hasn't popped properly yet. Until I hear of a former property spruiker living in a tent on a roundabout (or this decade's equivalent), I say we're still bubbly.

Up
0

When they stop building houses it usually isn't the builders who wind up in tents

Up
0

Compliance is a crusher. If you want, you could spend 30% of your project budget and not have anything to show for it, it would be a rare occasion but possible. 

As a nation it should be our goal to have projects spending 50% of their budget before you get to anything resembling someone setting foot on site to do some actual work. 

/s

Up
1

Have you ever build a house?

Up
0

“[Council] just don’t care. I think they are very concerned about butt-covering, and not adding any value. We want to build safely, and good quality. I just feel like it's a box ticking, butt-covering exercise for them.”

Of course it is. It's trying to cover ratepayers and taxpayers from being made to pay for more shoddy work being delivered by the building industry.

The better route would be to increase the ways in which the industry can be held responsible for what it delivers, rather than using regulation to try to stop all the ways in which it might deliver shoddy products.

Up
0

 

"The better route would be to increase the ways in which the industry can be held responsible for what it delivers"

This, and incentivize better quality.

I'd prefer if there was no council or government involvement at the start of a building process, but there was thorough performance testing and rating after completion and at a 5 and 15 year interval or at sale or rental time. Unacceptable results require remediation. Providing test results at sale or rental are mandatory.

There's plenty of checks we are capable of now like internal air quality, thermal performance, air leakage, power and water consumption, internal moisture of building components etc. 

Up
1