The Resident Builder podcast: September 22, 2024

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:06):
You're listening to the Resident build Up podcast with Peter
Wolfcamp from News Talks at Bay.

Speaker 2 (00:13):
Even when it's dark, even when the grass is overgrown
in the yard, even when.

Speaker 1 (00:22):
The dog is too old to bar.

Speaker 2 (00:26):
And when you're sitting at the table trying not to
start have scissor hole, even when weave a band gone,
even when you're there alone, house is a hole.

Speaker 3 (00:52):
Even when there's ghost Even.

Speaker 2 (00:55):
When you got around from the world, you let your most.

Speaker 4 (01:00):
You scream those broken plaints feeling from the wood.

Speaker 2 (01:05):
Locals when they're gone, leaving them, even when we bene
even when you're in their alone.

Speaker 5 (01:27):
Well, a very good morning and welcome along to the
Resident Builder on Sunday. My name is Pete worf Camp,
the Resident Builder, and this is an opportunity to discuss, debate,
just have a good old chin wag really about all
things building and construction, which is pretty much what I've
been doing for the last a couple of days or so.
I've been in Wellington and as attending in fact MCing

(01:52):
the New Zealand Institute of Building annual conference happened to
be their thirtieth anniversary as well, so spending time with
their members and delegates at the conference, And obviously when
you go to a cons about building surveying, you tend
to talk a lot about building. So a whole bunch
of new ideas floating around inside the Noggan sort of

(02:14):
an opportunity to catch up with industry experts, and that's
what building surveyors are to talk about changes to the legislation,
things that they see. Had a chance to chat with
a gentleman by the name of Philo Sullivan, who if
you recall all of the discussion around the leaky buildings,
who and his company and his brothers who were very
much at the forefront of pointing out, hey, look these

(02:36):
things are going to be a problem. And you know,
now sort of in semi retirement and all, I don't
think you can quite let go of it. You know,
a wealth of information, a wealth of knowledge, a real
depth of perspective. If you've been engaged with us for
forty years, you've got sort of long term view of
what the industry looks like, what some of the challenges are.

(02:57):
So anyway, a great couple of days in well actually beautiful, beautiful,
beautiful day in Wellington yesterday. But we'll talk about Wellington
ter on right. So if you've got a question, because
I've now got a head full of new information, eight
hundred eighty ten eighty is the number to call anything
that relates to building construction, getting projects done. Projects perhaps

(03:21):
that didn't quite go the way that you were hoping
that they would go. We can talk about that on
the show this morning. Now a slightly different format to
the program this morning. I may have mentioned last week
that a couple of days prior to that, I had
the opportunity to spend an hour here in the studio
with the new Minister for Housing and Building and Construction,

(03:43):
the Honorable Chris Pink. I'd reached out to his office
to say, look, new minister, lots of new ideas, lots
of talk at the moment around building and construction. Could
I please get an interview with the minister? And their
response was yeah, sure, Chris, we'll come into the studio
on a Thursday afternoon and you guys can chat, which
is exactly what we did. So that interview that I
recorded last week i'll play after or between seven and

(04:07):
eight this morning. It's fairly lengthy. The intention for the
interview was that we had an opportunity to kind of
stretch our legs and talk about a whole number of issues,
and there are a lot I mentioned yesterday at the
conference that I genuinely can't think of a time in
the last ten certainly in the last ten years since

(04:27):
I've been doing this program where the political aspect of
building and building legislation has been as prominent as it
is at the moment. So lots of discussion around sixty
square meter granny flats without necessarily requiring a building consent,
talk about changing parts of the Building Act to allow

(04:49):
for We had a discussion around what's the difference between
minor variations, amended consents and now minor adjustments. I think
is a new thing that the Minister wants to introduce,
particularly for multiproof. We got on talking about councils. We
talked about joint and several liability. We talked about H
one changes. This is probably the most topical of all

(05:10):
of the discussion points that we wanted to touch on,
so that will be in the next hour of the program.
Which is also my way of suggesting that if you've
got a question, you better get your skates on. Give
me a call right now. Oh eight hundred and eighty
ten eighty will take calls this hour. We'll do the
interview with Chris Penk, the Minister, in the next hour,
and then we'll continue with calls until we talk to

(05:33):
climb Past. When I get here in the mornings, typically
I log into my email. I have to say that
the common theme and the emails for me this morning
getting in here is can you please send me some
plans for an oil box? Yes, I will work out
some way that I can do that. I might have
to redraw my hastily drawn sketch of what I ended
up building, but I will try and get that underway

(05:56):
and have those ready for you by next week. Righty oh,
it's your opportunity to talk about all things building construction
projects that have started that, like I say, I didn't
quite go the way that you wanted them to. My
thanks to a bunch of people that have emailed with
thoughts on a few topics that we had last week
around spouting and roofing and those sorts of things. Really

(06:16):
appreciate your emails, but right now it is time to talk.
Eight hundred eighty ten eighty is the number to call.
So eight hundred eighty ten eighty you can text as
well nine to nine two and if you'd like to
send me an email, it is Pete at newstalksb dot
co dot NZ. So Pete at newstalksb dot co dot
in said, Pete, did you watch the All Blacks? They

(06:39):
won again? Only just I didn't. Actually I don't have
Sky right, so I don't get to watch the games live.
But while I was cruising through the supermarket and starting
to cook dinner, I had iHeartRadio on so I could
listen to the game while I was circling through the
supermarket and cooking dinner, and thought, Oh, this is going
to be a regular old downtrow, isn't It didn't quite

(07:03):
end up that way when I checked the herall before
I went to bed, a little bit closer than we expected, right, Oat,
But we're not here to talk sport. I don't mind
talking sport, but no, we're not going to do that
today on the show. We are here to talk all
things building and construction. Be great to have your calls.
Let's do it now. Eight hundred and eighty ten eighty
is the number your new talks there'd be. Pete wolf Camp,

(07:23):
isn't builder with you this morning? Little bit Kroakie. It's
been a weekend of or week of conversation. So as
I mentioned in Wellington yesterday in the New Zealand Institute
of Building Surveys conference, so fairly extensive discussion. Well annual
general meeting yesterday. Conference on Friday with a bunch of speakers.

(07:44):
And the great thing with going to these types of
conferences this one other ones that I've been invited to
over the years, is the quality of the speakers. So
had some just outstanding presentations on Friday which was really
quite cool, including as it happens, Karen Reid, former All
Black Captain, came to talk and then had some panel

(08:07):
discussion with a couple of young people who are part
of the Keystone Trust, and we talk to them a
couple of weeks ago, so I kind of see the
sense in these things. I've never been part of a
corporate life, so I don't really do the whole going
to conference every year type thing. But when you get
an opportunity to sort of have a bit of a
refresh and the introduction of new ideas makes a lot

(08:27):
of sense. Oh eight hundred and eighty ten eight years
that I'm going to call Yes, I'll just deal with
this text quickly, Pete. The Minister is on record of
promoting BCA's building consent authorities no longer undertaking physical building inspections. Pete,
I've been building twenty years. There is no way complicated

(08:47):
elements can be illustrated in detail with photographs, physical inspections
and sure quality control and enables the BCA to identify
work that's non compliant or needs improvements. In some cases,
I take photographs of a few elements for a fire
engineer during big jobs where they have confidence based on
many site inspections. The Minister on TV has made it

(09:08):
clear that he thought this would be more efficient for
the BCA and for progress based on common sense and experience,
I believe another disaster if adopted. Great show, Pete, listen
every Sunday. Very nice of you to call. In fact,
we do talk about that with the Minister, so that'll
be in the next hour. I think it's going to
be maybe slightly more nuanced as it happens at the

(09:30):
conference over the weekend. I also hadn't chance to talk
to a couple of council building inspectors and lead building
inspectors and to get their take on it. As well,
and I'll unpack that a little bit more for you
in just a moment. Right now, it's your chance to
have your say and to ask questions. Eight hundred and
eighty ten eighties the number Joanna A very good morning,

(09:51):
Hello Joanna.

Speaker 6 (09:53):
Oh good morning, Yes, hello Pete. I have used a
rusing person to spray for like an and moss on
my concrete tiles over the years, and I had it

(10:13):
done recently and they are now telling me I have
cracks in the concrete joints along the ridge lines that
are holding me yes styles on And I'm just wondering
whether is that sort of work common. The house is

(10:39):
about twenty years old.

Speaker 5 (10:42):
Oh okay, yeah, because things move, right, Our houses move
and settle over time. Typically, mortar is not terribly flexible.
Saying that, yeah, I mean there is new additives that
are elements to mortar today that we might use for

(11:03):
what we call pointing of ridge caps and hip cat
caps pardon me, that are slightly more flexible, but it's
still reasonably rigid. Right, So if there's some settlement or
we've had a really big blow or something like that,
then you will get cracks. Now, individual cracks and the
pointing are probably not a concern in terms of weather tightness.

(11:24):
But if the individual cracks then mean that pieces of
the mortar fall out, excuse me, then that might be
a little bit of an issue. If pieces are falling
out but just cracks themselves, I don't know that I'd
be too concerned. Certainly, there's a couple of roofs on
houses that I look after where you know, the pointing

(11:45):
is probably fifty years old, right, and at this stage
I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that it's causing
any leaks. So something to be aware of, but I
don't know that it becomes an urgent repair.

Speaker 7 (11:59):
No, Okay, that's interesting saying that, you know, if you can,
if you trust the contractor, right, because I think the concern.

Speaker 5 (12:11):
That you might have, or if you don't have it
other people listening to the call would have, is that
you know, sometimes there are unscrupulous contractors who go turn
up and they go, oh my goodness, it's in terrible condition.
We've got here just in time, and for two thousand dollars,
we can fix that for you, And they end up
fixing something it's not really a problem. So you know,

(12:33):
if you think that it's a genuine concern. Maybe get
another contractor to give you a second opinion, and if
both of them agree that, hey, look this is necessary work,
I'd get it done because it can be a maintenance issue.
But in some case, if it's twenty years old and
unless pieces are falling out, I wouldn't be too concerned.

Speaker 6 (12:52):
No, there's nothing falling out. They've taken photos of the
whole route.

Speaker 3 (12:57):
Well that's good.

Speaker 6 (12:59):
Yes, but I think I will get another opinion.

Speaker 5 (13:04):
Yes, it'd be wise. Yes, nice to talk to you,
my pleasure. Take care. Jall. We one hundred and eighty
ten eighty from one roof to another. Actually, Colleen, good
morning to you.

Speaker 8 (13:16):
Oh hello, o pay. I have a nineteen thirty stucco house.
It's a Spanish mission style, so that's got a flat roof, yep.
And we'd had a leak in well water damage and
the ceiling in one room which had been there for
a long time, so we put on a whole We've
got a whole brand new roof done or the roofing company, yep.

(13:41):
I mean being in an old house. We thought that's
the best scenario anyway. But in the process of redoing
this ceiling inside the plasterers have said that there still
moisture coming through, right, and the fact that we've got
a whole brand new roof and guttering in this still moisture,
I'm we're sort of confused as to where this water

(14:04):
is coming from. We can get into the ceiling space,
but not to the rest of the house, but not
to this part of the house coming too, it's too low.
So I'm just wondering as our best option to try
and find this is to cut a hole in the
fibrous plaster in the ceiling and go up that way
and see if you can see where the water is

(14:25):
coming from, or what's the best way to find where
the water is actually coming from any ideas.

Speaker 5 (14:32):
The other challenge with this is defining, Like if the
contractors have said we've seen more there's moisture there, it
kind of depends a little bit on what they actually
mean by that.

Speaker 8 (14:46):
So, for example, what happened was they'd put in the
process of doing the ceilings. I've done keep ceilings in
the house, and they've come to this part last. They'd
put the shore seal on. Yes, and he says it's
not drying out there and you can still see staining
coming through, and in the process of that day there

(15:08):
was more rain and it was getting more moisture coming through.
I see that it was darkening. You know that the
areas around there were all dark, where the rest of
the roof was ceiling was was dry. Okay, Yeah, so
it looks like water's coming through and it may be
pooling in that area. I don't know, yeap, that would.

Speaker 5 (15:25):
Make sense, Okay. Now, the reason that I wanted to
ask that is that in a roof like that, it's
potent potentially you have two sources of moisture, right. One
is obviously it rains and the roof's not completely weather
tight and the water gets inside. The other is, because
it's of the nature of the construction, you can get
moisture trapped in there through lack of ventilation insulation being

(15:49):
in the wrong place, right. So it's it's kind of
atmospheric moisture that develops in the essentially condensation.

Speaker 6 (15:56):
Right.

Speaker 8 (15:57):
So there's no there's no insulation in that part of
the ceiling because it's too it was too low for us, right,
So there is inlation other parts, but not there from
that area. Yeah, I mean, you can the area is
there is a space but it's just not space big
enough for anyone to get into there.

Speaker 5 (16:16):
And knowing that type of so I presume if you're
talking about nineteen thirty is house stucco, chances are your
exterior walls go up and then you've got effectively a
parapet maybe on two or three sides, and then the
roof is inside that minimal fall running to spouting at
one end right probably away from the road frontage. Okay,

(16:38):
the contractors that came to do the rear roof a
couple of things. One is did they offer any warranties
and realistically they should have done. Have you invited them
back to yes.

Speaker 8 (16:53):
I they supposedly came back this week. I've found them
and told them or explained their situation. But the reason
I'm ringing you is because we had a few other
issues with it as well, and so I haven't got
that much faith in them, although they are part of
the Roofing Association and they rate and they do have
a warranty. So I'm just trying to I thought, I'll

(17:14):
just call you to try and pre empty a few questions. Yeah,
sure this week and say, oh, this systems and the
other thing.

Speaker 9 (17:23):
I guess to another area.

Speaker 8 (17:25):
I don't know. I know it's hard with the flat
roof houses, but.

Speaker 5 (17:28):
They are, but there are ways around that, right, So
you know they're challenging if you don't detail them right
or if you don't use the right product. So was
there corrugated iron on there previously? Most likely? And do
you happen to know what the actual roof pitch is like?

(17:49):
Has anyone ever done a calculation said, oh, this roof
is If you feel like doing a bit of maths,
that would be quite interesting to figure that out. So,
for example, typically roofing corrugated iron is designed for roofs
with at least about a seven degree pitch on them.

Speaker 8 (18:07):
Now, if you use it, I would say, So, I've
been up on the road and there is definitely looking
some you know some there is definitely some fall.

Speaker 5 (18:17):
I suspect knowing those types of houses, that in fact
it's less than seven degrees, but it probably won't be
less than three degrees. And so ideally, if you're somewhere
in that spot between three degrees and seven degrees, you
want to use a profile of corrugated iron called true oak,
which has a taller profile. Right, So the distance from

(18:37):
the top of the iron, you know, the crinkle, let's
say from the bottom to the top is taller. It's
about twenty three millimeters, which doesn't sound like a lot,
but it's more than eighteen nineteen degrees, which is kind
of where modern corrigid iron gets to and so it
carries more water and it's more suited for that. So
it'll be interesting to ask the contractor what profile of

(18:58):
corrugated iron they use. The fact that they're a member
of the Roofing Association is good because it does give
you the opportunity if you're not confident about their ability
to solve the issue, and it should be theirs to solve, right,
is that you could then go to the Roofing Association
and go could I ask one of your supervisors or

(19:19):
assessors to come out and have a look at the
quality of the work done by one of your members.
And typically that way you'll get someone who's really, really experienced,
and I know some of them who will come out.
And if the original contractor is not able to determine
where the leak comes from, you can draw on the
experience of the association and they might be able to

(19:39):
help you. But I think it's not unreasonable for them.
If they've done the job and they've offered a warranty,
it should be where the type end of story. There
shouldn't be any expert.

Speaker 8 (19:51):
That's what I just wanted, some sort of a second option.

Speaker 5 (19:57):
And potentially what it is is it might not actually
be about the roofing. It might be about the flashing junction. Right,
So whether or not they've taken their flashings and gone
to the top of the parapet, did they potentially replace
the parapet flashings? Is that a source of leaks?

Speaker 8 (20:13):
Yeah, there was actually no fleshings along the parapets. Put
fleshings on them.

Speaker 5 (20:18):
Okay, well that's a good thing, all right.

Speaker 8 (20:21):
Look, I think joined in the fleshing though.

Speaker 5 (20:24):
Yeah, but that's not unexpected. And again, if we know,
typically would lap them one hundred and fifty mili, we'd
do two beads of silicon and then fix them down appropriately.
So you know, joins are okay, you just have to
detail and execute them correctly. So look, I have to
say having I was in a conversation earlier in the
week about roofing and about roofing contractors, and you know

(20:48):
the concern that a number of contractors are not part
of the Roofing Association, at which time if you have
a problem with them, you've kind of got nowhere to go, so,
you know, unless you've got contacts for contractors. I think
it's really important that people choosing contractors choose people who
are a license registered LBPS or members of associations. And

(21:10):
you've done that, which is great.

Speaker 6 (21:12):
Yeah.

Speaker 8 (21:13):
Yeah, well, actually from listening to your show, that's why
I chose to on.

Speaker 5 (21:16):
Well, thank you for saying that.

Speaker 8 (21:17):
Well, it's one from the roof Association. I mean I
didn't think I was going to need it, but now
I'm thinking, well, actually maybe I will need it. Depends
on what they say is when they come this week,
and hopefully they'll be able to sort of.

Speaker 5 (21:29):
Get them back. I think it's really important. Yeah, I
think it's really important. In fact, I think in consumer
law you have to give the original contractor the opportunity
to come and do the remediation. And if you're not
confident with that, or even if you just want a
second pair of eyes over it, contact the Roofing Association
get them to come out and do a site visit.

Speaker 8 (21:48):
Yeah, good luck, Okay, Well, thank you for your.

Speaker 5 (21:50):
Having all right, no trouble at all, Take care, all right,
all the best bar I think, oh eight one hundred
and eighty ten eighty is the number to call. Will
take a short break. I'll talk a little bit more about,
you know, contract the selection straight after the break back
in the my just quickly I can. The conversation I
had this week was about a contractor that I know
who rang me, who is acting on behalf of a

(22:12):
client who, it's greatst respect, was probably an older woman
on her own and had contracted someone to renovate the bathroom.
And so someone turned up. They said, ah, this is great, yep,
we can start sort of soon and I'll do everything.
I'll pull the old one out, I'll do the waterproofing
or i'll do the plumbing, I'll do the lining, I'll

(22:34):
do the I'll fit the shower, I'll do the tiling.
Da da da da da. Anyway, it's been a bit
of a disaster. They've got leaks, they've got tiles falling off.
It's been a really poor quality job all the way round.
But of course, because the person's not licensed, certainly not
licensed to be a plumber, and therefore they've broken the law.
There probably don't have any qualifications in terms of the waterproofing,

(22:57):
even you know, having attended a course on how to
install that particular waterproofing. They're not an LBP, they're not
part of any profit association, and so when you're looking
for redress, where do you go? You've got no support.
You can't go to an aid an organization and go look,
one of your members has done X, Y and Z.
So I'm really delighted to hear that, Colleen. In choosing

(23:21):
to have, you know, something as important as an expensive
as doing a reroof you look around for contractors who
are professional and maybe have some professional association. So roofing
is restricted building work, so someone should be an LBP,
a licensed building practitioner. But the fact that they've then
gone on to be part of an association, I think

(23:41):
gives you some surety and it gives you somewhere to
go when maybe things don't work out well. So that's
good to hear from Colleen. Oh, eight hundred and eighty
ten eighty is the number to call. Just a reminder,
will take calls this hour next hour. I had the
opportunity to do a fairly extensive interview with the Minister
for Building and Construction, the honorable Chris Penk. We will

(24:02):
have that interview for you after the seven o'clock news. Michelle,
good morning.

Speaker 10 (24:08):
Morning, I love your love listening to a little woman.
What we're about to get our deck be done. So
this is the question about what to do. So we've
currently got a queer deck. We have four decks around
the house. Yes, we're going to extend one, et cetera.

(24:28):
At the moment, you've got the ripped side up, and
the reason we want to redo it is because what
happens is it gets water in it, and then it
gets moss and then we're having to constantly paint it
and you know, like it grows.

Speaker 11 (24:44):
In the ale.

Speaker 10 (24:46):
So we've got bill designed that's going to start next week.
They said, because initially we thought we would just get
them play lift it, flip it over to its smooth side,
because we actually want to paint it gray. We don't
want to have that ground look the white the white house.
So one of the said, well, what you know was

(25:07):
been lifted up and then you know the flat side
and then you know, get the paint and painted. But
they also said there is a number of composite or
some sort of other product that we could look at.
So can you just advise because we're in a quandary

(25:30):
as to do we just chuck it away and put
a new product? If I do a lot of decks
and showing us Yeah, so what would you recon mean
is something that's gonna last that's not going to get
that old dollar?

Speaker 12 (25:48):
Yeah?

Speaker 5 (25:48):
Sure, yes, I guess there's a couple of different approaches here.
One is if I put my sustainability hat on, which
is pretty important to me, then I'd go. You know,
if you've got decking material that's durable and as well
within its lifespan, and you can extend that life span

(26:09):
by reusing it, that's a really good choice to make. Right,
So you're not wasting a resource that you've already spent
money on. You're not sending something to landfill, and I
hope you wouldn't do that. You'd send it off to
a recycling center. So if there was an opportunity, if
the boards are in reasonable condition, if they for example,
if they were screwed down rather than being nailed down.

(26:30):
So I'm being practical here lifting boards that have been
nailed down, you will get a bit of damage. If
the boards have been screwed down. You can back the
screws out, flip the boards over, you might even give
them a bit of individual attention before you relay them.
And so you know, cost wise and environmentally, that's a
really good choice. So that's something consider. The other option

(26:52):
is some of the composite boards, where there is a
range of colors. I've used a couple of them over
the years. The one that I've probably used the most
is one from a company called out Dure, and that
the benefits of that is that you will you will
get a concealed fixed system, which is kind of nice.

(27:15):
They have a slightly better slip resistance to them because
of the way that they're made. So you know, if
you take your queeler and flip it over and have
the smooth side up, that will have less slip resistance
than some of the composites. But if you know, if
you're doing four decks and you're throwing away four decks
worth of timber and then buying four decks worth of

(27:37):
new material and you don't need to, I guess my
heart would say do something to reuse what you've already got.
But then I'm coming very strongly from a point of
view where I don't like to see us waste resources,
and so I would favor reuse over purchasing you. But

(27:57):
that's more kind of a political decision than a practical one,
let's say. But yeah, some of some of the composites
are very good.

Speaker 10 (28:07):
Yeah, and which someone lasts the longest, Like the slip
thing has been an issue because these ridges, when they
get wet that it's actually not a you know what
I mean, that's why we're and isn't.

Speaker 5 (28:18):
That curious because typically we flip the boards up to
have the rib side up because it helps stop slipping, right,
But your experiences they actually get more slippery as a result,
and doc to be fair, if I'm laying decking that
has the ribs on it, I would typically put those down,
but I often use I often flip them back up

(28:39):
again if they're on the nose of a stair, so
on the edge of a stair, just it helps with
a bit of slip resistance. And it's a visual queue
that there's a step here. So yeah, look, yeah, for
what it's worth, possibly i'd probably if I was looking
at it, i'd probably encourage you to reuse. But if

(29:02):
you didn't, then you know, get the builders to lift
it in such a way that potentially it could be
sold and someone else gets to buy it, which would
be great. And or you know, in the very worst case,
if you are sending that material away, make sure it's
going to a site that recycles it.

Speaker 10 (29:21):
Yeah, so just one more question mentioned they could put
you know, we've been discussing what to do about it,
but it's so much digging. If they also say, well
we could replace it with pine digging, yep, it gives
you you.

Speaker 13 (29:38):
Know, a because we do want to paint it the
beas and beans. We get a lot of sunshine, and
we in our last property we owned, we made a
couple of mistakes. We put black outside in the pool area,
which is we're going to be decking around this pool
as well, and we painted it too whiter dead and

(30:01):
it's got too hot.

Speaker 10 (30:02):
So we sort of want something that you.

Speaker 14 (30:05):
Know, there is flatness, move easier to just give it
a quick hose to keep it playing. We don't want
the moss as you yeah, and we don't want it
to be too hot for the green tests not to
be able to send or do you know what I mean?

Speaker 5 (30:19):
So again, look, I certainly don't have a problem recommending
soft woods like Pinus Radiata. I think it's really important
to seal it, as in put in a penetrating oil seal.
I certainly don't when you say paint, I presume that
what you mean is staining, right, You're not actually going.

Speaker 15 (30:38):
To paint it.

Speaker 5 (30:38):
If you start painting it, you're just creating a lot
of work for yourself and it'll be quite slippery. So again,
Pinus Radiator good quality. That it definitely becomes a question
if you get what you pay for right, So don't
you know if you're going to get a cheap product
or a cheaper or more cost effective product, make sure

(31:00):
you look at it first, because certainly I've been to
a job where the owner bought the decking themselves, thought
that they'd got a real deal and it was just
rubbish and we ended up having to send it back
and buy something decent. So make sure you get some
really good material. I've got to run, Michelle, But good
luck with all of those eight hundred eighty ten eighties
that I'm going to call Anthony, good morning.

Speaker 9 (31:20):
Good morning piece.

Speaker 5 (31:21):
Hey, how you doing.

Speaker 9 (31:23):
I've got a good I've got a question for you.
My daughter is looking around to buy her first house,
and we went to a few open houses. She found
one new bill and it's my question, is the laundry.
The laundry is a meet up by meta?

Speaker 5 (31:41):
Yep.

Speaker 9 (31:41):
It's got no it's got notub or not sink or
not provision for it yep. And is that okay? Is
how they build them these days or do you do
you have to.

Speaker 15 (31:53):
Have that in there?

Speaker 5 (31:55):
You don't have to have a laundry sink, right, They're
really good to have, obviously, and there's a practical reason
for having one. But you know, increasingly we're building more
and more compact house is right, So something's got to
give because we just don't have the floor space. So yeah,
it's not a requirement in the building code as far
as I'm concerned, or as far as I'm aware, to

(32:16):
have a laundry sink.

Speaker 9 (32:19):
The other thing is because the laundry is as usual
these days, it's under the stairs, yes, And it's got
no height to mount the dryer right wall itself. Yeah,
So what do you do with a dryer these days?
Just put it in the.

Speaker 5 (32:40):
Well?

Speaker 3 (32:41):
Yeah?

Speaker 5 (32:41):
And I mean there's probably other issues around, like, for example,
I would hope that in a space like that, it
has ventilation or extraction in it.

Speaker 16 (32:50):
They do.

Speaker 9 (32:51):
There's a little tiny thing other thing does bloody hell.
It's about two hundred by two hundred. Yeah.

Speaker 5 (33:01):
Look, if it's a one fifty and it's a reasonable run,
it'll be doing something and that's really important. Yeah, I mean, look,
this is this is just one of the challenges we
have with more compact living, right, And you know, you
might I do. You know, I have space where we've
got a bench and the appliances, and I can hang

(33:23):
the dryer on the wall and I conduct it out
through the wall to the outside. But in many modern
apartments you can't. So I guess if it's not there,
really hard to create it. But as best I understand it,
there's no requirement in the building code to develop houses
that allow for that. Yeah.

Speaker 9 (33:41):
Just one more thing. The switchboard. Electrical switchboard. I thought
they had to be on outside these days, but this
one is the inside the dining room.

Speaker 5 (33:51):
No much more common these days. And let's separate out
two things here. One is the meter, right, which is
where your man's run to, and it calculates how much
energy usage you've got. The other is the distribution board
increasingly distribution actually a meet yourself. No, it's not uncommon
for them to be inside. Typically, if for the projects

(34:12):
that I've been doing, I would try and put them
in the garage. But a lot of modern medium density
housing actually don't have a garage, in which case they
end up maybe close to the front door, and the
front door basically goes straight into the lounge, so you
end up with them in the lounge.

Speaker 9 (34:28):
Yeah, this doesn't have a garage, so that's that's why
it's not in the garage, I suppose, yep. Yeah, And
just one way question, if I can this unit? She
looked at she it's it's there's a five I think
in the block and hers her one is at the
highest point of the land, if you like, yes, now

(34:49):
at the back seemed to me like there could be
some water issues where the water is gonna, you know,
on a heavy range water the backyard, it's got to
go somewhere. It's obviously going to go down to the
other units. How does how do you sort it out?
And can they say, look, you have to keep your
water on your property or how does it work?

Speaker 5 (35:10):
I guess only water that lands on your roof. Do
you have to contain, right, So.

Speaker 9 (35:17):
That runs water on a grass or that's fine.

Speaker 5 (35:22):
Yeah, yes, as long as it's not set up in
such a way that it's an obvious nuisance. But in
the end, you know, you can't stop water going downhill, right,
So whether or not it's your property and or it's
you're adjoined to your neighbor because you're in a multi
unit development or something like that. So I think there's
kind of a reasonableness to it. But what, for example,

(35:43):
what you can't do is discharge your roof water in
such a way that it becomes a nuisance for a neighbor.
But if if and because chances are the water that
is on your the house that your daughter might end
up purchasing, that might come from the neighbor, right, So
it comes from the neighbor onto this property and then
goes to the next one. So as long as it's
not deliberate, I think you're okay. All right, nice to

(36:07):
talk to you, lovely to chat and good luck with
the house hunting. All right mate, all the us take
care bye bayh. We'll talk to Craig straight after the break.
Quick text. Is there anywhere that you can go to
check that the LBP is registered or do you just
ask the LBP or the builder if they are. One
of the best things about the LBP scheme is it's
completely open, right, So you simply go to building dot

(36:30):
gov dot nz forward slash LBP and then select search register,
type in the name or they really the name of
the person and it will come up. And if they're
not there, they are not an LBP. If they were
an LBP but have been deregistered for some reason, or
their name has been taken off the current list, that

(36:51):
will come up. And any other information about them like if,
for example, they had failed to get re license in time,
had their license suspended for a period of time but
then reinstated. All of that's there. So building dot gov,
dot nz forward slash LBP will give you all of
that information. Like I say, you're either on it or
you're not. I had to relicense the other day, so

(37:16):
before I expired, I've done that. It's been accepted. I'm
on the list. I'm number BP one two zero zero,
nine to eight. It's as simple as that. Craig, good morning,
good morning, haws a game, good things.

Speaker 15 (37:30):
It's bringing on Behalf a friend of mine who doesn't
like ring up radio station. He's a little bit shy.
He's old school. He's got a problem with this pool.
As far as the council goes. Their property is down
a right away down the bottom of a quite a
large steep hill with their houses. They are the only
one down there, and then it goes up a steep
driveway to the main road, and then their broad is

(37:52):
quite flat. But then all around the hill's feather about
an one hundred meters up the hill, about kway from
the house is the water reservoir. Right now, he's been
told they need his failed his compliants for his pool.
He's got a water meter, but they said he needs
a backflow valve and there to stop the water going
back into the system. And he's a little the confused
because being on the bottom of the hell, how's the water
supposed to go back up the hill to the reservoir.

Speaker 5 (38:15):
Yeah, okay, so I don't think council are concerned about
the water going back up the councilor concerned about the
water going down and through the main system. So if
there's a requirement to have backflow prevention, which is essentially
a device that stops water inadvertently being siphoned out of
the pool and returned to the main system. Now that's

(38:37):
and the principle behind it is reasonably sound, and we
have them inside our houses. So, for example, a shower
on a detachable hose right that you can handheld one
has to have a backflow prevention device included in it
because let's say you inadvertently lifted in at the bottom
of the shower and it's sucked up water, it would

(38:58):
siphon foul water back into the council line, into the
main line. So all of these regulations are around protecting
public safety by ensuring we don't have that. So that's
a reasonable request from counsel to us for a backflow
prevention device.

Speaker 15 (39:14):
Okay, I'll just excuse also been it's a bottom of
hell and matter the pressure and the pressure in the
water mains for how, I don't actually know how it
would go back up the hill.

Speaker 5 (39:23):
It's not about it going back up because in the
end that there are people downhill as well, right, and
it's protecting those.

Speaker 15 (39:29):
He's the only one of the bomb the hill, He's
the only one there.

Speaker 5 (39:31):
It wouldn't look if it needs backflow prevention, it needs
backflow prevention. It's in the regulation. He just needs to
go and do it, Okay.

Speaker 15 (39:40):
All right, it just doesn't make physical sense, that's all.

Speaker 5 (39:43):
It doesn't matter. It does despite the fact he's at
the bottom of the hill. It's it's all about protecting
public safety and I think it's important and if it's
part of the regulations, then just get on.

Speaker 3 (39:53):
And do it. You know.

Speaker 5 (39:55):
I understand him asking the question. I do, but at
a certain point it's it's there for a reason. Just
do it and get them to do it, and get
him to get on with it and get the Council
off his back would be my approach. Good luck with
all of that, mate, Oh eight, one hundred and eighty
ten eighty ah, we might have time for one call
after the break. We might do that. Then we've got
the Minister Chris Pink joining us for an extended interview

(40:18):
between seven and eight though looking forward to that. We're
back straight after news, sport and weather. If you'd like
to join us, stay tuned because we've got the Minister
Chris Pink after the news your news talks. Here be
just a very quick call before we go to the
interview with Chris Pink. The Minister for Building and Construction.

(40:39):
We'll have that interview in just a moment. Marie, Good
morning to you. Hello Marie Elly, Yes, hey there, how
are you doing?

Speaker 17 (40:48):
Good?

Speaker 9 (40:48):
Good?

Speaker 17 (40:49):
Just a quick question on a rural property in the
way kaddow. Yes, as the downpipe goes down and the
water just sits in a puddle at the bottom, it
doesn't go anywhere.

Speaker 5 (41:01):
Yep.

Speaker 17 (41:03):
Is that legal?

Speaker 5 (41:06):
I think it's probably not, because it's a house and
you need to contain the water. But then you also go, well,
hang on, who's that going to impact right only you.
What it's going to do is make the ground damper
and more saturated. It's a waste of resource if your
rural chances are you want to capture that. So it's

(41:28):
not great for the house. But in terms of its
impact on other people, if you don't have a close neighbor,
then it probably makes no difference at all to them,
in which case it's kind of nobody's business. But I
would still encourage you to collect that rain water, either
with a water tank because that's sensible resilient, or to
stop all of that water sitting around your house. I

(41:49):
would direct it away from the house as far as
possible without too close to the neighbor. Being too close
to the neighbor, yeah.

Speaker 17 (41:58):
Now just a little puddle formed.

Speaker 5 (42:02):
Which is not great.

Speaker 15 (42:03):
Right.

Speaker 5 (42:03):
We don't actually want standing water around our houses because
if it's outside you, away from the house, chances are
it's also going to saturate the ground underneath the house,
and that's not great in terms of trying to keep
our houses warm, dry and comfortable. But more importantly, I
think if you're rural and your depend are you on
main supply mains supply for water? No, okay, then you

(42:28):
know at some stage you're probably going to run out
of water, And if you've wasted it by dumping it
on the ground for all that time, go and grab
yourself a water tank and capture it would seem sensible
to me. Nice of you to call Marie all the
very best. I'm very tempted to read out this text.
I might save it for a bit longer. I don't

(42:49):
want to bring the tone of the conversation down right now, right.
It was my great pleasure last week to have an
opportunity to spend almost an hour with the new Minister
for Building and Construction, Chris Penk. He came into the
studio and I said to him, this is an opportunity
to kind of stretch our legs.

Speaker 7 (43:08):
Right.

Speaker 5 (43:08):
So most of the time when we do interviews, it's
all about quite quite quick. You know, we've going to
race through this. This wasn't so this is a conversation
that I recorded last week with the minister. We'll play
this straight after the break. Chris, Welcome to the studio
and thanks for taking the time to actually come in.
I really really appreciate it. Tell us a little bit

(43:29):
about I'm intrigued by this. So you spent some time
in the navy, including the Australian Navy on submarines obviously,
then there was a law career, entry into Parliament twenty seventeen.
Now you've got a number of portfolios. I saw you
at the Dutch Memorial as representing as Minister for Veterans Affairs.
You're also obviously Minister for Building and Construction. I kind

(43:51):
of feel like, how did you end up with that job?

Speaker 17 (43:53):
Yeah?

Speaker 4 (43:54):
I feel very fortunate for a start, and by the way,
great to have a chat with you here. I thank
you considerable audience, who I know hang on every word
that you say in relation to these matters. Look, it's
obviously a hugely important subject for the country. So from
my point of view, to to be fortunate enough to
be the minister as a great privilege. The short answer
is because the incoming Prime Minister asked me if I'd
like to do it, And there's only one answer to

(44:14):
that question. But right, you know, I'm really delighted to
have that. In terms of background, you know, I'm not
a technical guy. I don't pretend to be any better
than the average diy hack of a weekend. But having
said there a little bit of background in the law,
and particularly in relation to property law, and so having
experienced some of these issues in terms of how the
legislation the regulations are put together, including the costs and
certainty and all those difficulties and that clients used to

(44:38):
face in terms of you know, what it meant for
them not to have laws that enabled them to do
things quickly and easily and therefore more affordably.

Speaker 5 (44:44):
So in your practice law practice that was very much
focused on property.

Speaker 4 (44:49):
Yeah, it was actually and in a little bit of
accident of history in terms if that was work that
was available at that time, and certainly I enjoyed it
and I wasn't to know, of course, that all these
years later i'd have the opportunity within a political environment
to help, you know, maybe make the laws and shave
them a little bit. So, as I say, really pleased,
it's a little bit of a natural progression. But also
I'm humble enough to say that there's a lot that
I know that I don't know, and every willing and

(45:11):
keen in fact to ask questions of the people who
out there doing the work.

Speaker 5 (45:14):
And to be fair, one of the things that I
have noticed is that I've seen you at a number
of conferences. I also know that you've spent a fair
amount of time with different industry groups and seem to
be willing to listen, which is great.

Speaker 4 (45:28):
Yeah, I mean, I think any government minister would be
foolish not to frankly to be recognizing, you know, particularly
in building construction, that the people who are by their
nature very resourceful you used to come out with solutions
literally constructive in their approach, and I think if you
know you're smart as a policy maker, you get as
close to those people as possible because they will tell
you what's happening on the ground, sure where the barriers are,

(45:49):
and look it's not that we can provide the answers
that will please everyone all the time, of course not,
because even industry itself has a range of different views.
We might get into that in the discussion will certainly
by missing you know, if you weren't engaged closely, you'd
be missing as opportunities.

Speaker 5 (46:04):
Yeah, okay. The other thing that I really appreciate is
the fact that we can take some time because I
think that one of the challenges with discussing building and
construction issues is that we're looking for simple answers, and
to be fair, they're not there right. So anything that
you can summarize in a pithy headline is probably not
worth really discussing. So there's lots and lots of detail.

(46:28):
In preparing for this, I did a quick sort of
Google search and went basically Chris Minister and building changes,
and one of the things that popped up is something
that in fact I was talking with a builder today
about exactly this, clarifying the definition of a minor variation
and introducing this idea of minor customizations.

Speaker 3 (46:47):
You just walk me through that. Yeah, So the.

Speaker 4 (46:48):
Idea is really trying to get the best we can
out of the consent system as it currently exists, because
of course, the big picture is that it's a difficult,
expense of time consuming and uncertain to build in this country.
And part of that is around the processes with consents
of obviously need a building content in the first place,
and inspections as I think that we might get to

(47:09):
talk to certainly when there are changes along the way,
be it in relation to products, maybe a better or
a different products being found. Maybe you want the product
that's available now, you know, a little reference and footnote
to the plaster board shortagees COT of years ago, for example.
But even in a business as usual kind of way,
we want that flexibility because we reduce the delay, we
improve choice and competition and therefore affordability. And part of

(47:31):
the issue, it seems to me, is that when a
relatively small change needs to be happen, happen along the
way in terms of those products substitutions, you want that
mine of variation mechanism which does already exist to be
clear as q to predecessors of mine who worked with
mb in others to institute that. But it seems there's
not enough clarity of that for it to be used

(47:52):
as often as we want, and certainly in the case
of multiproofs, which you know, by their nature are a
consent that can be used many times over for the
same design, but you know a number of different times
in maybe slightly different ways. We want to unlock the
the potential of that and to be able to say, well,
you can do something that's relatively small. You know, it
might be substituting a product, as I've said, but also

(48:14):
maybe in terms of design, if you're swapping a window
for a door in a way that doesn't compromise the
structural integrity, or maybe even you know, the design is
the same but a mirror image, or might want to
be north facing, you know, to suit the particular location.
You know, we want to unlock all those opportunities without
having a burdens and process that is tough for you know,

(48:34):
the builder himself with herself in the consumer, but also
of course from a BC a point of view, the councils,
the building con sem authorities. You know, if we can
take a bit of workload off them and relatively mundane,
small scale, low risk stuff, then of course they've got
more resource to focus on that which they should genuinely
be engaged at okay.

Speaker 5 (48:50):
One of your other comments is that, look, currently it
can take six hundred days to go from consent to
code compliance certificate. That's too long. It adds costs. Broadly speaking,
what do you think can be done about that?

Speaker 4 (49:04):
Well, I think there are a few different opportunities. One
of them I just mentioned in Passing a minute ago,
which was in relation to inspections anecdotally at least, and
we're also trying to get the data to back this up.
But oftentimes an inspection is ready to be to take
place from the point of view of the person doing
the work, and they simply have delays in terms of
the inspection being able to take place because that's the

(49:26):
availability of the council officers in particularly. You know when
you're adding delays, because then the next part of the
work can't proceed until such time as the inspection takes place.
In passes, then you go, well, if you had a
more streamline version of the remote visual inspecting divisibility that
some bcas are already using, of course, then you can say, well,

(49:46):
you know, if you dial in provided this bit of
internet coverage at both ends, you can actually get a
really quick update. Yes, everything's okay, fine to proceed and
go ahead. So that's one little piece of the puzzle.
But more generally, the picture is to have processes that
allocate risk appropriately so that we don't have these undue delays,
which of course add costs, particularly in the highest interest
environments such as we've had the last year.

Speaker 5 (50:08):
Or Sure, just on the remote inspections. From what I've read,
it seems to be that you are instructing bcas to
take remote inspections as the standard method rather than the exceptions. Now,
over the years, I've done remote inspections, but it's tended
to be a rarity. So do you want to swap
that around?

Speaker 4 (50:26):
Yeah, very much.

Speaker 3 (50:27):
That very much a swapping around.

Speaker 4 (50:29):
And the word we've used as default, and we don't
know exactly what that means, and that's why we're consulting Sure,
you know, to make sure we get that detail right
and to recognize that in most cases we think it
will be suitable, but not all. So the question of
what default means, you know, what are the times that
we want to carve that out? In the three main
areas that occur to me is one, if you've got
a builder who's less experienced or you know, frankly, in

(50:51):
a couple of cases, SAD is trustworthy, so that that
might be a situation we might insist on on having
in person inspections, or if I have to flip that
around more positively, for those who are able to be trusted,
you know, the credible, respectable and so on, and I've
got a good track record, maybe you can take a
bit more liberty, so to speak, in terms of that.

Speaker 3 (51:08):
So that's one.

Speaker 4 (51:09):
And it might be that there's particular types of building
or stages in a building in which it's desirable to
have someone physically turn up in person and do the
moisture testing or whatever, or you know, poke around in
a way that isn't so easy in terms of you know,
that remote visual way. And then the final category, I suppose,
at the risk of standing obvious, is when the technology

(51:31):
isn't available builder himself or herself is not comfortable, you know,
for teaching old dogs nutrients, and that's tough in I
suppose in that same category as where there might be
limitations around internet coverage and so on.

Speaker 5 (51:42):
Right, one of the relatively early announcements from you and
from your office was to say we want to allow
for the importation of building products that come from similar
jurisdictions to ourselves, and they can come in and be
used in restricted building work as long as you can
prove that they come from a you know, have a
testing regime that's similar to ours. So rather than I've

(52:05):
said this on radio and of times, you know, I know,
you know European manufacturer that makes silicon that brings it
into New Zealand, then it has to go to brands
or to code mark for testing and they've got fifty
years of development. So is that the sort of thing
that you're looking at saying, look, you know a factory
in Belgium that's been manufacturing this for fifty years, they

(52:25):
probably know what they're doing. They should be able to
you should be able to use that product here.

Speaker 3 (52:29):
That's exactly what we're looking to do.

Speaker 4 (52:30):
Yeah, so I mean Belgium, I mean, I don't know,
and not to prejudge it, but let's just say for
arguments sake, we regard them as having a high standard
of building. Their particular standards in relation to you know,
whether it's waterproof, nature or strength or integrity are at
as higher standard or higher than those in New Zealand.
Then we say, well, there's no reason we shouldn't rely
on those. So there's two elements. One is credible and

(52:53):
that's what we've referred to in this case, and the
other one is comfortable. So is it also the case
that the jurisdiction, you know, the physical geography means that
we can compare like for like, do they have seismic
risk if we're talking about products that relate to structural
and are they coastal in the same way that New
Zealanders if we're relating to moisture in a way or

(53:14):
high wind zones, neither see and so on. So it
won't be uv absolutely good, good, good example. So that's
the work that's going on at the moment. And if
I had a dollar for every time that the devil
in the detail was used in relation to that, then
and we wouldn't need the building livery at all. But
you know, that's that's the kind of work that we
need to do at that detailed level to unlock you.

Speaker 3 (53:33):
Know, a whole heap of opportunity.

Speaker 5 (53:34):
So is that you can do that right now or
is this legislation in place but not hasn't become law yet.

Speaker 3 (53:40):
Well, the legislation exists.

Speaker 4 (53:41):
So this this very week we have the opportunity, and
in fact it will be in the coming few weeks
that will have its first reading in Parliament, so the
public will have a chance to have their say on that.
And the idea of that legislation once it passes through
the parliament early or mid next year is to say,
now we've got a structure that says we can add
in for example, Belgium or wherever we can take our time.
Let's get the easy, low risk stuff across the line first.

(54:04):
Let's get best bang for buck. You know, in some
products will naturally be more able to be important. Just
the shaer size and scale and geography in relation to
supply chain issues will naturally lend the system to be
really helpful in some cases, less helpful in others. But
you know, we've got to do everything we can to
try and get things moving in a way as I say,

(54:24):
that doesn't compromise your safety, quality and sustainability.

Speaker 5 (54:28):
Right because you know we do. We don't have a
great record with innovation. Sometimes in New Zealand, as soon
as you start talking about it, people will talk about
the leaky building crisis. And I'm sure that people are
saying to you, hey, we don't want to go down
that track again.

Speaker 4 (54:40):
Yeah, one hundred percent, and that's a very fair consideration.
And of course without playing that off and saying for
a second that we want to reduce quality or for
that matter, sustainability or safety. We do also have an
issue with building affordability in this country, so we don't
have the luxury of saying everything's fine as it is,
with construction costs having increase forty one percent since twenty nineteen,

(55:03):
for example, and a whole range of other stats that
we could reduce, the fact of the.

Speaker 3 (55:08):
Matter is we do need to do something different.

Speaker 4 (55:09):
But the good news is I think we can actually
make some real productivity gains by opening up for competition
rather than by lowering the standards that exist here in
New Zealand.

Speaker 5 (55:18):
In terms of protecting the consumer, is the introduction of
the building Product Information requirements part of that process, so
that as a consumer I should be able to find
out exactly what this is and what it's supposed to
do easily.

Speaker 4 (55:31):
Yeah, I think that's very much the philosophy of that change.
And to give credit where it's due, that came in
prior to the current government and it's a good system
we think overall, albeit with some nuance that we need
to explore around the provenance of the materials. What I
mean by that is what we don't want to do
is have the unintended consequence whereby if a person we

(55:53):
know an entity spends their time, the energy, their money
investing and doing that due diligence to find a good
product from overseas bring it to the market here, and
if we require them to disclose that beyond obviously the
characteristics of that product in the way that the consumer
would want, then actually all you're doing is losing them
their competitive advantage of the commercial sense, and of course

(56:14):
the problem with that is then not going to be
incentivised to do that. So we're looking at that aspect,
and that was an issue that the National Paty and
Opposition identified. But we think overall, in the interest of
informed consent, a consumer choice, it's a good thing overall,
and we certainly think that will align quite nicely with
those opening up of competition and availability of the overseas

(56:37):
products too cool.

Speaker 5 (56:40):
This is probably the biggest topic that I wanted to
discuss with you. You have said, hey, I want MBI
to go and urgently investigate the cost of the changes
to H one of the Building Code, saying houses are
costing up to fifty thousand dollars extra the quotas builders
frequently raise concerns with me over the new requirements within

(57:01):
Clause H one of the Building Code that they're adding
tens of thousands of dollars onto the cost of a house.
Also frequent reports of moisture and overheating, which are leading
to increased energy uses, making these requirements counterproductive. Can we
take a deep dive into this? First up, what's the
thinking behind rolling back each one?

Speaker 4 (57:20):
Well, if you think about the purpose of what we're
trying to do, it's to maintain quality, sustainability and health
outcomes and so on.

Speaker 3 (57:29):
But also we need to have more affordable building.

Speaker 4 (57:31):
So it's a problem for me if I say that
we need affordable building, but I hear reports for those
who are intimately involved in the process, and as a
committed to earlier you know, I'm listening to the people
who are actually out there on the tools doing the
work who tell me that you know, multiples of tens
of thousands of dollars extra that you spend. And by
the way, of course, any dollar that you spend you
have to repay to the bank in a mortgage two

(57:54):
and a half times, let's say easily, So you know,
an additional twenty thousand dollars if it's as little as that,
is fifty k that you've got to repay.

Speaker 3 (58:01):
So you know, we've got to take this really seriously.

Speaker 5 (58:02):
Yep.

Speaker 4 (58:03):
So I can't in good conscience are those issues that
are raised with me, and including when you get to
you know, particularly further north in the warmer climbs, and
you get the moisture issues arising from the fact that
we've got insulation requirements out of step with ventilation requirements.
So it seems to me there's a problem. We're reviewing
that because we want to see exactly how beast we

(58:25):
should handle that, And look, I want to take a
nuanced approach. I don't want to be in a zone
where we have to take a binary approach of rolling
it back entirely and suddenly we're back when we were
late last year. And certainly there's no question that we
go all the way back to the mid nineteen seventies
when there's no requirement at all. So let's just you know,
not engage with that straw man. But you know, if
we say that, it might be that we need more

(58:45):
of a differentiation in New Zealand, so that in Northland,
for example, where the local mirror is rightly concerned about
the affordability and frankly the usefulness of the regulation, versus Southland,
you know, we need a nuanced approach. Geographically, it might
be that we need to point people more towards modeling
and calculation methods which allow more nuanced as opposed to
saying here's a schedule that means that the following boxes

(59:07):
must be ticked regardless of the additional cost, which is,
you know, at a quick and dirty route, but isn't
getting those good results. And then finally, the other sort
of exerc I suppose on which we could slide the
scale one way or the other is to say, well,
it might be within the schedule method where it says,
you know, literally, according to a matrix, this is the
family broken window, this is the concrete slab with insulation.

(59:28):
Then we say, well, maybe some of those are better
being for back than others. And so we're a bit
less prescriptive in terms of how those would be used.

Speaker 5 (59:35):
Because much of the response what I've found fascinating and
I really have enjoyed this. Part of the sort of
public discourse on this issue is that we've had lots
of groups come forward and kind of put their colors
to the mast. Right. They've gone, Hey, Green Building Council, brands,
News of Building Surveys, Passive House Institute, a whole bunch

(59:55):
of industry bodies have all come forward and said, we
don't think this is a good idea. There is no
need to wind back the H one regulations. But they
have also gone on to talk about exactly what you've
talked about. The schedule method is what I think has
kind of tripped everybody up, because suddenly outcomes you've got
to have R six point six in the ceilings everywhere

(01:00:16):
across the country, regardless of climatic zones. And you've got
trust manufacturers freaking out and building different trustes. You've got
developers thinking I can't make my house next one hundred
and fifty millimeters higher, and so on. I'm just wondering
whether some of the people that might have got in
urea about these changes to H one are also those
people who just want to use the schedule method. Why

(01:00:38):
don't we just ditch the schedule method and tell everyone
to use the calculation and modeling method.

Speaker 4 (01:00:42):
That's a option on the table, and we're viewing precisely
because we want to know the right approach, and it
might well be that that's the really straightforward method to
take forward.

Speaker 3 (01:00:51):
But having said that, I would just say, at the
risk of.

Speaker 4 (01:00:54):
Immediately undermining my own point, which is essentially endorsing yours,
is that we also have to think, then, well, you know,
does everyone have access to the calculation and modeling method.
The funny thing is I've sat down with the Green
Building Council and looked at that, and actually it's looks reasoningly.

Speaker 3 (01:01:10):
Straight, really be honest, but people don't know that and.

Speaker 4 (01:01:13):
Aren't prepared to use it, then we need to bring
them along with us, because come moment, it is just
a binary discussion, which is frankly unhelpful. And you know,
when people weigh in on one side or the other
and make inflammatory comments, then we're not going to get
a good public policy outcome. And I'm committed to that,
and I don't I'm not sort of going to resolve
from that.

Speaker 5 (01:01:30):
Yeah, And look, I would agree with you. I think
I can sort of understand and I like to try
and take a step back and go, you know, why
do we have the rules that we have?

Speaker 14 (01:01:38):
Right?

Speaker 5 (01:01:39):
And I've always taken that approach that, you know, as
someone who has to obey the rules in terms of building,
I'm always curious as to why do we have the
rule that we have most of the time and the
building X starts because we want to protect the people
that inhabit that space. So that's sort of where I
start from. And then I look at the schedule method
and go, well, I understand that we still want sort
of simplistic, in the best possible way approach to building.

(01:02:02):
Where we go you should be able to take three
six o four, open it up and build a house,
and we don't want to let go of that. But
maybe that's because we do need to build better than
you can just build by opening a book. So I
think the modeling and calculation method it's not as indecipherable
as it was years ago. I can almost understand it

(01:02:22):
to be.

Speaker 3 (01:02:23):
Blad Well, that's a ringing endorsement.

Speaker 4 (01:02:25):
So that's a point where I made thank you the Minister.

Speaker 5 (01:02:28):
Chris Pink with me in the studio today. Will be
back after the break. I want to just off the
back of something you mentioned there, the binary thing. One
of the things that I found fascinating, having been engaged
with the industry for as long and promoting discussion, is
that we do tend to have a real binary approach
that as soon as I say I've got an idea,

(01:02:50):
the instant response from another part of the sector is, yeah,
but I've got an idea, And because we've both got
an idea, one of them's got to be wrong. Are
you fighting your way through that? Are you finding that?

Speaker 3 (01:03:00):
Yeah, there's a little bit of that.

Speaker 4 (01:03:01):
You know, there's least of that with those who are
actively engaged in buildings find really interesting, you know, the commentariat,
and you know, frankly, those who approach these questions from
a political or an ideological lens, they are the ones
who are really binary because they've got some sort of
point to prove one way or the other. And actually,
the most helpful thing is to engage reasonably with people

(01:03:22):
who are in the game using these methods.

Speaker 3 (01:03:25):
In the case of the H one question, YEP to
be resolved.

Speaker 4 (01:03:28):
And actually, you know, I think there is a lot
of good will out there to do things better, but
no one wants to build a house that's leaky or
damp or cold and so on, you know, and it
amuses me when you know, I've received quite a lot
of quite shorty emails, as you can imagine. And you know,
one category was, oh, you know, I grew up in
the mid ninety seventies and it was under insulation. I said, well,
that's lovely, but with all due respect, that's not at

(01:03:50):
all on the table.

Speaker 3 (01:03:51):
At number two.

Speaker 4 (01:03:53):
You know, there was also the category that says, oh,
you know, I've lived in a house for the last
five years. That's really good because it's insulated and got
double glazing, and that's really important we retain that. And
I said, well, that's lovely, because actually that's the method
that's you know, at most we're going to particially go
back to. So, if anything, they've endorsed my approach, even
though they've come at it from quite an aggressive political
angle to to point out how how bad and wrong

(01:04:14):
I am in my thinking.

Speaker 3 (01:04:15):
So you know, I'm not bothered by that. I know
that we need great.

Speaker 4 (01:04:18):
Affordability as well as the sustainability et cetera, et cetera.
So I'm determined we can get there. And I really
think if we listen to the people who are engaged
in doing this work because they approach the question in
good faith, they know the costs involved will get to
a good place.

Speaker 5 (01:04:31):
So obviously, all of this discussion around H one and
any change that might be made, when what's the timeline
for that, well, the reviews.

Speaker 4 (01:04:38):
Taking place as we speak, and then after that depending
on what the result is, and and you know, the
political decision making, which I can't really prejudge in terms
of time frame or result. You know that that's a
little bit how long is a piece of string kind
of question, but it would it could be quite a
quite a quick change because it's such a regulation rather

(01:04:59):
than needing an active parliament, so it could be a
matter of months as opposed to you know years.

Speaker 5 (01:05:05):
Okay, your sense of where it might go at this stage.

Speaker 4 (01:05:09):
I'd be surprised if we end up with exactly what
we've got now, but I'd also be surprised if we
were to roll it back entirely. And you know, I've
got to be careful. I don't predge sure discussions by
the Manistereoc colleagues, so maybe I'm about out and know
them even expressing that expectation but we'll end that was something.

Speaker 3 (01:05:27):
I think it's going to keep everyone happy right now.

Speaker 5 (01:05:29):
This might be more in Chris Bishop's realm, but the
sixty square meter granny flat, and I don't find that
an offensive term. I think people the reason that they
were built in originally nineteen sixties and got that phrase
was because ideally they were a minor dwelling that allowed
family members to live there on the same property. So,

(01:05:50):
for want of a better term, let's still kill them
granny flats and not be upset about that. How much
of a difference do you think that might make in
terms of either supply, affordability and so on. There's obviously
been some research.

Speaker 4 (01:06:04):
Yeah, it'll make a difference in two ways. And by
the way, I've got to give credit to New Zealand first,
with whom when combustion this was an idea very much
pushed forward by them, and Chris Bishop and I are
both really keen on getting it, you know, into the
statute book the laws land as soon as possible, so
he owns the resource management side effectively and then the
building construction side relating to building consens is the bit

(01:06:25):
that I have, so you know, and it's a joint
venture obviously.

Speaker 3 (01:06:29):
Look, I think it'll make a difference in two ways.

Speaker 4 (01:06:30):
One is that it will provide a bit more housing
supply and therefore affordability. In a related point to that
is that it provides a bit of extra work for
a construction sector that is asking for a pipeline. It's
asking for some quick ones, and by quick I mean
by the way not having to wait for a resource
concent and the building consent.

Speaker 3 (01:06:47):
They'll be able to get on and.

Speaker 4 (01:06:49):
Do it, you know, the day after that law has passed,
or actually if the smart and working in an off
site kind of man, that could be doing it right now.
So it's a little bit of a quick and dirty
way of providing some assurance and frankly, some work to
a sector that's crying out for it right now. And
then the other category is actually I think more interesting
in a way because there's a bigger picture testing of

(01:07:09):
a hypothesis that says, if you've got a structure that
is relatively low risk because we're talking about a single story,
you know, relatively small, an existing parcel of land, so
it's not difficult from a development point of view, you know,
and hopefully not geotechnically either that actually you don't need
to have that sign off by way of either type
of consent. So it's a bit of a testing of
the model of a trusted provider being trusted and having

(01:07:33):
that qualification be it licensed building practitioner, plumber, guess for
a drain layer, eltrician and so on, doing that work,
simply providing the answer to council. And you know, look,
it's not gonna completely change the game in either of
those ways, but we think it's a step in the
right direction.

Speaker 5 (01:07:50):
Just in terms of council. One of the things that
may not necessarily it's not necessarily building in construction, but
it impacts on all of us who are building is
councils and the relationship that we have with counsel, either
through the consenting the inspection process. And again taking a
step back, what I've come to appreciate is that ultimately,
when things go wrong and the developer's gone and the

(01:08:12):
business has gone, and the product manufacturer has gone, it's
counsel that our last man standing. And that relates to
that whole thing around joined and several liability. So if
you were the person who's always going to hold the
can you would be incredibly cautious and that's what counsels are, right.
So is there a way forward that you were the

(01:08:35):
government of thinking about where maybe we change joint and
several liability?

Speaker 4 (01:08:41):
In short, yes, I don't think the system works well
as that is currently designed.

Speaker 3 (01:08:45):
And this is not a new idea, by the way.

Speaker 4 (01:08:46):
I think sure previous ministers have made noises in this
regard and haven't ultimately gone through and done that. And
you know, it's a government decision that I can't prejudge again,
but suffice to say, we do recognize the problem and
we're keen to do something about it. So if the
problem is a lack of certainty and consistency from the
point of view of those who are doing the building
and an in frustration of getting different interpretations of the

(01:09:07):
same building code according to which side of a council
boundary you're on, or if you take the point of
view of council as a building consent authority, as you
rightly point out, they have to be cautious, you know,
and as rate payers we should thank them for that
because to be the last man standing, which is to say,
to have joint and several liability, which could mean one
hundred percent of the cost of a defect in the
event that the developers pockets and the builders last seen

(01:09:30):
on the horizon in a puff.

Speaker 3 (01:09:32):
Of smoke with the ute and dog.

Speaker 4 (01:09:34):
Then actually, you know that there's a huge responsibility for
a council, and some councils well resourced to do that.
They might have a rate payer base and a staffing
resource that and therefore some specialization within that that supports it.

Speaker 3 (01:09:48):
Others much smaller.

Speaker 4 (01:09:50):
Frankly, it's a huge burden on them, and they would
rather be shot of it.

Speaker 3 (01:09:55):
I think, all of them, to be honest.

Speaker 4 (01:09:56):
And it's never the case that I meet with local
government and they don't raise this with me. So I think,
you know, there are other models we could explore. One
has been put out there as in sort of a
more of a national kind.

Speaker 3 (01:10:07):
Of consenting authority.

Speaker 4 (01:10:09):
Maybe is to sort of funnel applications and get the
certainty and consistency that way. Or it might be that
we have more of a market based system where the
private certifiers who already do the work as contracted by
the existing building content authorities might be able to be
approached directly. Now we've got to be careful of course,
whatever the system design is that we are providing a

(01:10:30):
genuine assurance on top of you know, the builder developer
marking their own homework.

Speaker 3 (01:10:37):
But by the time you add and you know, some
kind of.

Speaker 4 (01:10:41):
Disciplines around insurance, credibility, balance sheet that enable us to
trust some more than others. Maybe it's the case that
we can be a bit more forward looking in terms
of the way that we require things to be certified
by a council. Because you know, they hate this, you
know this is this is bad news for them. I've
got all the risk, none of the reward, and I

(01:11:02):
think they'll be you know, looking forward to conversation that
we're having, I think quite soon in the public's us.

Speaker 5 (01:11:06):
You know, we're not the other the only sort of
western first world nation that builds houses, right, So look
around the world and there's different models and a lot
of them seem to be focused on insurance.

Speaker 12 (01:11:16):
Right.

Speaker 5 (01:11:17):
So as a contractor, I can't build without insurance. If
I'm a designer, I can't do that without insurance. All
of the contractors are insured. If there's a problem, the
homeowner rings the insurance company and they chase the contractor.
Is that a way forward?

Speaker 3 (01:11:32):
It's a possible way forward.

Speaker 4 (01:11:33):
Yeah, I think the role of insurance is something we
need to think about as an exercise and risk galication.
And of course all these questions are the ones at
risk galication, so very fair to ask the question. I
think in terms of comparing that with some of the
systems overseas, we do have a smaller market in New Zealand,
so we're less attractive immediately to insurers. We're also very
hazard prone if you think about the direct relationship of

(01:11:57):
our earthquakes, floods, volcanoes, tsunamis and all that exposure that
you have in New Zealand, more so than in every
country in the.

Speaker 3 (01:12:04):
World other than Bangladesh.

Speaker 4 (01:12:05):
By the way, you know, from an assurance point of view,
we're not that attractive to ensure building works. So I
think it would need to be a nuanced conversation. But actually,
I mean I've been having it already with a number
of key players and excuse me, an insurance sector. Yeah,
because if they're not if they're not up for it,
then they ain't gonna work. But having said that, if
there's an assurance they can provide, you know, the professional

(01:12:26):
indemnity that you've already referenced that that some occupational licensing
goes along with then then yeah, let's let's think.

Speaker 5 (01:12:34):
About how that can fit in, because I think there's
another advantage that as well, which is also regulating the industry,
because if you are a person that does poor quality
work and you've had a number of claims, then maybe
you won't get licensed or you won't get insurance, and
therefore you won't be working. And you know, I'm sure
that you've seen shoddy work. I certainly have, and we
need to be able to get rid of people like

(01:12:55):
that from the industry.

Speaker 4 (01:12:56):
Absolutely, And I think that's a really good point to make,
because the quid pro quo of trusting those who are
credible and respectable is actually maybe we need to be
a lot harder on those that are use the shorthand
vernacular cowboys and who are ripping people off, who are
making us nervous from a whole system perspective, as well
as leaving people very vulnerable to do with the value

(01:13:17):
of their biggest asset they'll ever own, and know as
relatively unsophisticated people who need a roof to live under
the head, they've got to make a decision, and we've
got to provide some protection and actually a little bit
of that could be the stick as well as the carrot.

Speaker 3 (01:13:29):
In terms of those who are doing good work and
those who aren't. And you know, frankly, if we have
a situation at the.

Speaker 4 (01:13:35):
Moment where you have a couple of pretty poor practitioners
who are going around ruining various different building projects and
leaving a trail of heartache, you know we need.

Speaker 3 (01:13:44):
To weed them out.

Speaker 4 (01:13:45):
So I'm unreally keen to try and do that as
part of an overall reform that sees rusk allicated appropriately.

Speaker 5 (01:13:52):
The LBP scheme has been around since I got registered
in twenty twelve. It's probably around a little bit longer
than that. Do you see scope to extend or expand that?
Like one of the vision for it seemed to have
been that if you like myself, I've got a site
license and a carpentry license. Therefore I'm seen as responsible

(01:14:12):
and professional and all the rest of it. Hopefully, so
should I be able to take on more responsibility and
do more of my own inspections or have lesser inspections
to do? You know, is that something you'd look at
extending the LBP scheme.

Speaker 4 (01:14:28):
Potentially I think we need to make the system meaningful.
You know, there's got to be some reason to have
that status. And if it means, for example, in relation
to the Grandy Flat proposal, that it is LBPS as
opposed to anyone else who might rock up and fancy
their ability to whack a couple of bits of wore
by two together, then then we say, well, that's meaningful,
and therefore we need to check that we've got the

(01:14:48):
standards and the robustness of that certification. And so that's
an example of how I think we can actually force
people to take it seriously and then not saying it's
not taken seriously at the moment, but you know, it's
got to be meaningful. There's got to be some weight
attached to that sure, and because it seems to me
that there's a an amount of restricted building work quite
unquote that has actually undertaken under supervision in a way

(01:15:10):
that's not necessarily reflecting that.

Speaker 3 (01:15:13):
Kind of level of assurance we want. But I also
think this fits into a.

Speaker 4 (01:15:16):
Broader question that we're also looking at, which is self certification,
so that anomally, for example, that plumbers can't self certify.

Speaker 5 (01:15:23):
You know, I understand that's going to change though. Yeah,
and we've seen plumbers.

Speaker 4 (01:15:27):
We've said that openly, and you know, it does seem
an anomaly that they don't have that level of trust
competing with for example, electricians or a guess who have
done the same with trade who may be the same
person but doing network, you know, in that different place
on the site. So you know, we want to remove
those anomalies. We want to move in the direction of
trusting people who have proven through qualification and experience, professional

(01:15:49):
body membership and so on, that they can be trusted.

Speaker 5 (01:15:52):
It's fair to say, like every incoming government, people arrive
with a whole bunch of ideas, and it seems that
you and all of your colleagues have all come in
with things that they want to change. So you, for
your role, give me your top five things that you
want to change as Minister for Housing and Construction or
Building the construct.

Speaker 3 (01:16:13):
Yeah.

Speaker 4 (01:16:13):
Yeah, we've talked about a couple of them already and
I think you know, with as you could probably hear
in my voice and hopefully your listeners can too, some
passion around you know, reforming systems to make it easier
and more affordable to build. So part of that is
the product thing, and you know, if we elevate that
to high level, it's all about competition, as recommended by
the Commerce Commission. And then you talk about the Grani flax,

(01:16:34):
which I think is an interesting step in the right
direction that won't solve all the problems of the world,
is going to be a useful test case in terms
of some of those assurance mechanisms outside the consenting process.
Number three I think would be the consent system itself,
in the administration of the of the building consents and
cccs and in everything between. By the current structure sixty

(01:16:57):
seven different authorities to monitor compliance with the single code
simply doesn't make sense.

Speaker 15 (01:17:01):
There we go.

Speaker 3 (01:17:02):
I've said it, so I'd better change it now.

Speaker 4 (01:17:05):
And part of that, I think remote visual inspections strategically
are helpful because apart from providing some greater efficiency along
the ways and reducing those delays and frustration, you also say, well,
and if we're going to take that approach, then you
can have more of a regional model, maybe even a
national model that says work that's being done in a
particular part of New Zealand if it can be verified remotely,

(01:17:28):
then actually you can have a specialized building concent officer
who may not live in the same geographical area, who
may not be within driving distance, can actually monitor the
performance of that and so that degree of specialization as
well as general availability and efficiency resource as hopefully you
know part of that story about remote visual inspections. So
you've allowed me I think five, and I've got the

(01:17:49):
three to the other two I think would be in
relation to sustainability, and I know that you know, per
the H one conversation, that is controversial because because I'm
not prepared to recommend anything that would increase the cost
of construction and make it unaffordable for people to own
their home. And I know blatantly putting this in residential gyms.
And there's a commercial sector as well, be office, retail, industrial,

(01:18:12):
and then you've got the infrastructure. But you know, as shorthand,
if we want to have those good outcomes but can
achieve them in a way that's good for the environment,
good for the economic bottom line as well, then I
think we should be smart enough to try and achieve
that and then just surround it out with the final one.
But no less than the others, I suppose, because it
is a big question for New Zealand seismic risk you know,

(01:18:33):
earthquake praying buildings up and down the country, including in
some zones that are you know, we think, according to
the current science less seismically active, a huge opportunity cost
be it in the big cities, with Wellington being you know,
in danger of becoming a ghost town, but also you know,
smaller regional centers we're a very high proportion of buildings
are both heritage listed but also earthquake prain and which

(01:18:54):
is no realistic prospect on the current settings then anything
good will happen there. And we've got a tsunami fel
excuse me mixing my natural disaster metaphors of lack of
compliance in that space. So we're providing by way of
legislation and extra four years at least or you know,
four years and then possibility of extra two years for
people to get up to stand it. But in the

(01:19:15):
meantime we're also reviewing the rules to see if we
can make it a bit easier, a bit more practical,
and frankly again more affordable for people to be able
to comply in a way that recognizes life safety without
imposing extra additional cost.

Speaker 5 (01:19:26):
Which sounds risk based rather than just a blanket. Right,
You've all got to get to sixty seven percent of
new building code something like that, yeah, or new building
standing all right, thank you. Last question, Like, I've been
involved in the sector for a long time and one
of the things that I really enjoy about it is

(01:19:48):
that generally the people that are in it are often
really passionate, really engaged. How have you found sort of
this extra engagement with the building sector.

Speaker 3 (01:19:57):
Exhausting but good? No, I love it, I really do.

Speaker 4 (01:20:01):
And my diary is full of different meetings behind closes
or conferences with hundreds of people or more of a
retail environment I suppose if you want to put it
like that, like the home show recently in Auckland, that
was a great opportunity to wander around and see what's available,
see what people are thinking, and everyone from big you know,
really serious players who invest a huge amount of money

(01:20:25):
in make New Zealand a great built environment. And then
you know, just to resort to cliche. You know you've
allowed me granny flats. I'm going to go with number
DA as well. So you know, everyone's everyone's interested, and
everyone's got a stake in it.

Speaker 3 (01:20:37):
And if you talk about the.

Speaker 4 (01:20:39):
Number of people employed directly and directly GDP percentage likewise.
But then of course you say, well, we all have
gotten in trust because we all live in the built environment.
We work, live and play in places that people have built.
So it's easy to be passionate and it's easy to
get that from those who are doing the work. So
that's what I really enjoy about it.

Speaker 5 (01:20:57):
Mister Chris Pink, thank you very much for your time.
Thank you your news talk set. But you we're back
straight after News Sport and we're the top of the
hour at seven at eight o'clock. Oh maybe we have
to go for a little bit longer, so Chris Pink,
the minister was with us, and we'll take some calls
and some discussion on that straight after the news as well.

(01:21:21):
A couple of really good texts that have come in already.
Where have we got some? Oh and also, by the way,
all of this is available on the podcast or it
will be a little bit later on today. So if
there was something in my conversation with the Minister which
I'd said beforehand, you know, this is an opportunity to
sort of stretch our legs and discuss at some depth

(01:21:44):
and with a little bit of time some of these
really important issues, because I think one of the frustrations
with people in the building sector when we're involved in
sort of you know, public discussion about this, particularly around news,
there's no criticism of news. We're always trying to explain
something that's really really complicated in a very short period
of time and that's not that easy to do. So

(01:22:06):
I think in this instance here it was a great
opportunity to allow him the space to explain what they're
trying to do him as the minister, they as the government,
as the coalition government, and that was I found quite
useful and I was thinking, well, I was listening to
the interview, it might be an opportunity to also go
along and get Chrissip to join us on the show

(01:22:26):
at some stage as well. So I'll see if I
can organize that for you at some stage. But if
you'd like to listen back to that interview, it will
be available on the news Talk ZB website and the podcast,
or it will be available as on iHeartRadio as well,
but certainly it'll be up a little bit later on
Today Your News Talk ZEDB. We got news, sport and weather,

(01:22:49):
Your News Talk SB. Welcome back to the program. My
name's Pete wolf Camp, Resident Builder. This is a show
all about building and construction and projects that you might
get underway or that are underway that aren't going particularly well.
Possibly some issues, challenges, legislation, anything to do with building
and construction. We can talk about that on the show

(01:23:10):
for at least the next twenty two minutes. Then we're
going to jump into the garden with Rod climb Pasta
from eight thirty this morning. So if you've got any
gardening or entomological questions, anything about the wonderful world of bugs,
then we can talk to rud about that from eight
thirty this morning. But right now the lines are open.
The number to call eight hundred and eighty ten eighty.

(01:23:30):
In the last hour of the program, my apologies seem
to be a bit of a technical issue just right
at the end of the show. There I had the opportunity.
I reached out a little while ago to the Ministry
for Building Construction and to the Minister Chris Pink and said, look,
it'd be really nice to be able to get the

(01:23:50):
Minister to come in and have a bit of a chat,
and in the end their invitation was, well, look we
can the minister will come in come into the studio
on a Thursday, we had a conversation. Replayed that conversation
to you just a little while ago. If you want
to go back and listen to it, it will be
up as a podcast are in the day, because certainly
there was a lot of detail in it, and my
intention with the interview with the conversation was that we

(01:24:15):
would have time to discuss things that are not easily
dealt with in sound bites. Nothing wrong with sound bites,
they're really important, obviously, but sometimes these things take a
little bit of time to discuss. So a couple of
really interesting things for me that came out of it,
certainly the discussion around perhaps having a look at the
usefulness of the schedule method. Just if you're wondering what

(01:24:38):
that is all about. There is basically three ways to
prove compliance with the H one regulations. H one is
all about energy efficiency in our buildings, and the reason
that we want our buildings to be more energy efficient
is that it costs a lot to heat them and
it uses a great deal of energy. So if we
can make them more energy efficient, one of those ways

(01:24:59):
is by increasing the insulation standards and the performance level
of the houses, we will reduce energy costs in the future.
We're already in an energy crisis right now. Then you
can understand why that's actually a really important thing to do.
And then there are other benefits like warm, dry, comfortable.
That's a really good thing. And so if you're sitting
there designing house, you kind of have three broad options

(01:25:23):
to calculate the energy usage or the insulation requirements for
the house. So there is the schedule method, which is
essentially a tick box approach, right, and in the schedule
method it got changed recently. So the standard for ceiling
insulation across all of the country, every basically every type

(01:25:43):
of house is R six point six. Now that's about
almost three hundred millimeters of insulation that you need to
get into the ceiling. And then the walls changed marginally
to all around R two R two point zero. Now
R six point six is a lot of insulation. And
there is a law of diminishing returns in terms of insulation,

(01:26:05):
and I think it tops out around four point eight,
So anything above that is not actually giving you much benefit,
but for some reason it's there. In the schedule method
so if you just want to design a house using
just the schedule method, you end up with our six
point six and the ceiling. Now, if you go to
the calculation method, which is where you do calculation of

(01:26:25):
size of windows, type of walls, type of roof, insulation, orientation,
all of these sorts of things, you can arrive at
some different figures and you might find using the calculation
method that in fact you can comply with the code
and have ceiling insulation. Pick a number R four right now,
it's a lot different to our six point six. Then
the next step up is that you do modeling, which

(01:26:48):
is slightly more complicated and more involved. It'll give you
a much more nuanced look at the building, but it
is in terms of its success, accessibility, and its cost,
it is considerably more expensive and it's done by people
who are I suppose it's a higher level of analysis, right,
So not many peopeople will use the modeling method. Interestingly enough,

(01:27:09):
when I was at the conference New Zealand Institute of
Building Surveys Conference yesterday, I was in Wellington on Friday
and Saturday, I was chatting with someone who does this modeling. Right,
the modeling and the calculation and I had thought that.
You know that one of the reasons we kept the
schedule method is it made doing these calculations H one's

(01:27:30):
compliance accessible because the cost of doing either the calculation
or the modeling was prohibitive. Anyway, were chatting away, he goes,
we can do and we do the calculation method for
a new home six to seven hundred dollars. Now that's
in the scope of building a house and going through
design and compliance and all the rest of it. That's

(01:27:52):
not an unaffordable amount of money. And I think knowing
that adds weight to my suggestion than in fact the
schedule method. I it just dump it right, Just get
rid of the schedule method. Make sure that every single
house is calculated or modeled, and the calculation cost is
not that great, and it's not indecipherable, and it's not

(01:28:15):
hard to do. That's where I would come from. Oh,
eight hundred and eighty ten eighty is the number to call.
I got a bunch of texts about this. Let me
just read one, which was an interesting one. Here we
go listening to your interview with the building minister. My
question to you after that is ten he knows what

(01:28:37):
he's talking about. One, he's faking it till he makes
it from Lee. Look, I actually and I had had
this opinion prior to this, because I've met Chris Penk
at a couple of different events. I've listened to him
speak a few times. I think he's genuinely engaged in
the process. I think he's got a pretty good handle

(01:28:57):
on it. I thought that he spoke pretty well about,
you know, understanding the difference between the schedule method, the
calculation method, the modeling method. So yeah, I don't know
whether i'd give him a ranking, but I certainly wouldn't
say that he's faking it till he makes it. I
think he genuinely knows what he's talking about and is
more importantly engaged and wants to learn. And I know

(01:29:18):
from a number of other sources that he's actively been
engaged with sitting down with industry groups. Because I missed
him and I met him at the New Zealand Green
Building Council event at the beginning of the year, the
Housing Summit, and I said, look, so you're in you're
a new minister. People would be getting in your ear
every day. How do you know who to listen to?

(01:29:38):
That was anyway we've got a long and lengthy discussion
on exactly that RDIO. Let's get back amongst it. Oh,
eight hundred and eighty, ten eighty. We take building calls
until eight thirty. Then we're into the garden with redcloinb
passed Catherine, Good morning, Good.

Speaker 11 (01:29:52):
Morning, Pete. I've got a situation where a builder has
built well, developer has built three houses next to mine. Yes,
and of four year years now without offense, he took
down the fence to develop his property. He keeps saying,

(01:30:14):
put it out, But it's been four years now, how
long can I go? Should I go without a fence?
And I'm totally exposed to the three property more than
lacking privacy now.

Speaker 5 (01:30:26):
Which is a bit frustrating. And I say this with
genuine kindness, I suppose, and hindsight's always twenty twenty, right.
What would have been quite good when the developer first
approached you is to get in writing a promise from
the developer to replace the fence by a certain date, right,

(01:30:48):
and then you could have you know, it's quite reasonable
in a development to maybe have to remove an existing
fence and possibly you'll get one that's better than the
old one. All of those sorts of things, you'd put
that down in writing. You'd have an agreement and the
developer would say, okay, well, look I expect to finish
most of my construction by this state. We'll be doing
landscaping here. The fence will be in by the state,

(01:31:11):
and then the day after that you can knock on
the door and go, hey, you promised that I would
have a new fence by the state. Here's the email
to back it up. When are you starting the fence?
The hard thing is, you know, it's difficult to get leverage. Now,
that's the tricky thing saying that. Do you have any
evidence of your conversation with the developer promising a new

(01:31:33):
fence at all that you could go back and remind
them of, Oh, well.

Speaker 10 (01:31:39):
He said it all along.

Speaker 11 (01:31:40):
Yeah, I know not Well do I have evidence, well.

Speaker 5 (01:31:45):
A text message or you know, did you write a
diary note for example, Hey, chatted with the developer and
he told me that it would be six months ago,
and if that's eighteen months ago, then you could go
back and remind I just think in these sorts of things, Unfortunately,
dealing with developers, you need to get in and writing.

Speaker 12 (01:32:04):
You need to.

Speaker 5 (01:32:07):
You know, have something that you can go back and
sort of provide evidence of.

Speaker 11 (01:32:10):
Really, but I mean it's four years surely a leg
to stand on over time.

Speaker 5 (01:32:17):
I'm just not sure where you would go legally, you know,
because if nothing was written down, if no promises were made,
I'm you know.

Speaker 11 (01:32:28):
But but you know, he has taken out my fense.
And it's about the trees that I said these are
to be left, but he took them out. But yeah, no, no,
I didn't get anything in writing. I trusted him. Well,
I wouldn't you.

Speaker 5 (01:32:42):
To be fair when it comes to construction. Have a
healthy skepticism, right, get everything in writing?

Speaker 11 (01:32:51):
Oh well I should have taken the advice of my mother.
Trust no one.

Speaker 5 (01:32:55):
It's not about not trusting people. It's just about being
a bit pragmatic, I guess, and a healthy skepticism of
human nature is the way that I put it. But look,
I think you know you might find you might find
that you have some redress under the Fencing Act, and
so that's probably your next best bet is to just

(01:33:17):
have a read through a little bit of this stuff
around the Fencing Act, write a letter saying, hey, look
you did on this date remove the fence you did
promise me under the Fencing Act. I'm now serving you
with a notice that you have this amount of time
to reinstate it, given that you removed it. Try that
so quote the Fencing Act. Quote the Fencing Act. See
if that gets some action. All the best you, Catherine,

(01:33:40):
You take care, all the very best. Hello Lucy.

Speaker 11 (01:33:44):
Hello.

Speaker 1 (01:33:46):
I have.

Speaker 16 (01:33:48):
Neighbors who have two downpipes from the guttering yep, going
straight down to the ground.

Speaker 5 (01:33:55):
Yep.

Speaker 16 (01:33:56):
There's no The water is not vented anywhere except to
the concrete, and of course it flows under the fence,
which the whole piece from the corner of their house
down towards their front lawn is concrete, right, And my concrete,

(01:34:16):
which is sort of laid in large squares, is now
sinking right right.

Speaker 5 (01:34:23):
In terms of the property law, it is the responsibility
of the homeowner to control stormwater discharge from their property. Right,
So they are technically in breach of that. And you
could go to council and ask counsel to come out
and have a look at that, and they may issue
a notice to fix.

Speaker 8 (01:34:45):
Yes.

Speaker 9 (01:34:47):
Yeah, so that's the best.

Speaker 16 (01:34:50):
When the extension was first done, there was a garden
along the side of their house right, and the original
owners put the gutter water down the pipe, there goes
the event to the toilet. Yeah, but they had to

(01:35:11):
change that when the house was sold, and that's why
for the last it's been years.

Speaker 12 (01:35:18):
But it's.

Speaker 16 (01:35:21):
Now I'm on my own. You notice the place is yeah.

Speaker 5 (01:35:25):
No, and no look at it. And it's really really
frustrating when a neighbor, you know, blatantly disregards the requirements
around stormwater and it becomes a nuisance to you. But
I would say, maybe if you've got the opportunity next
time we have some decent heavy rain and you see
that flooding coming to your place, just take a quick
photograph of that and then.

Speaker 15 (01:35:45):
Go to the.

Speaker 16 (01:35:49):
But I've deleted them, okay because I spoke. I did
speak to him, yeah and oh yeah, yeah, okay, but
nothing's happened.

Speaker 5 (01:36:00):
Yeah. No time to get counsel involved, Lucy, Yes, time
to get counsel. Let us, let us show how you
get on and hopefully counsel will be helpful in this
particular instance. Good luck with that. It is eight twenty
here at news Stalk SB. There's never been a more
affordable time to invest in solar power for your home,

(01:36:21):
get the solar power that you want in a bundle
that you need from light Force Solar. Our Silver Savior
Solar bundle offers a superior fourteen panel system, six kilowatt
good we inverter plus full installation plus EARN one hundred
and seventy three air points dollars all for twelve nine
nine five plus your choice of a free upgrade to

(01:36:43):
get the right solar for you. Lightforce Solars expert installation
team and high quality products will make sure that they're
with you every step of the way so you can
get on with slashing your electricity bills from day one.
Lightforce Solar is proudly New Zealand owned and operated and
has you covered with a ten year workmanship warranty, twenty

(01:37:04):
five year panel warranty and a ten year battery warranty.
Head to Life for Soolar dot co dot nz to
find out more. Tea's and c's apply right o your
news stork ZB We're a couple more calls before we
go to the garden and we'll jump in with redclimb pass.
But Cindy, you've got a bit of an issue with

(01:37:24):
an LBP.

Speaker 12 (01:37:26):
Yeah, so we've had a bit of a journey with
an LPP builder, and we contracted this guy to build
a minor dwelling on our property. And he came in
and he started building, and we got to the cloding
stage and the claud my husband sort of looked at

(01:37:48):
the clouding and thought, that doesn't look right. And interestingly,
their clouding came with a full booklet on how it
needed to be, how it needed to be put up. Anyway,
my husband called the council, he killed it, called another
builder and the architect, and they all came up and said, no,
this is cowboy, and it got a complete fail. So

(01:38:12):
we went back to the builder and said, you know,
we need all new cludding. It's going to be all
put up, and he basically said, I'm not coming back.
Find another builder. But you know, interestingly, at the very beginning,
we had signed a contract, we had done all the
right things, and we were giving him, you know, gradual
payment throughout the project. And what ended up happening and

(01:38:36):
this is what I don't understand, Like, you know, you
get to this point and it feels like there's no
recourse because he didn't come back. We had to find
another builder and he owed us seventy thousand dollars, and
you know, in the end, we went to a solicitor
who drew up, well, his solicitor actually drew up a

(01:38:59):
settlement that we were meant to be paid the money
by December last year. But nothing. It's like he knows
now we've gone to a deck collector and he's paying
house fifty dollars a week. I mean, you know, it's
just there just doesn't seem to be like, even when

(01:39:20):
you've done the right thing, it doesn't feel like there's
anywhere to turn.

Speaker 5 (01:39:24):
Yeah, so the mind of dwelling that you got this
LBP to do, did that have a building consent? Did
it require a building consent?

Speaker 3 (01:39:33):
Okay?

Speaker 5 (01:39:33):
So it did require a building consent? Okay, that's interesting.
The other thing is have you gone to the disciplinary
board of the Licensed Building Practitioner scheme?

Speaker 12 (01:39:44):
Well, that's the interesting thing. And what we found out
later that this guy had done this before, right, And
so what happened was when his solicitor drew up the
settlement saying that we'd get all our money by December
last year, they had a confidentiality clause in there that
we weren't to talk to anybody about it. So sphin king. Oh, well,

(01:40:07):
you know we're going to get our money, so maybe
that's okay. Well, I mean, now we're ten months down
the track and we still haven't Yeah.

Speaker 5 (01:40:15):
Okay, Well, now I wonder do we do that? Yeah,
I'm wondering whether because you know, look, lbp's like that
really really annoy me, and they bring the entire system
into disrepute, right, And so I think name and shame
is a good thing. So I don't want you to
breach your agreement, but I would go back to your
lawyer and maybe say, look, given that no payment or

(01:40:36):
very little payment has been made, we are not going
to abide by that non disclosure, and we are going
to go to the Licensed Practitioner Board and make a claim.
And and I think they would probably uphold it, in
which case either he would have his license suspended or
would be struck off in some cases. But it will
also then become a matter of public record, which I

(01:40:58):
think is really good, so that someone else searching that
person's name later will be aware of their pass performance
and be warned. Great, but it still leaves you in
a really really awkward situation, which is terrible. And you know,
I suppose ideally, we'd hope that the LBP registration scheme

(01:41:20):
would prevent this type of thing. That's probably a little
bit naive, and in your situation it hasn't, which is
really really unfortunate. But look, I think that you should
go and take them to the LBP disciplinary board, but
you would need to then make sure that you're not
getting yourself in legal trouble by doing so.

Speaker 15 (01:41:41):
Yeah, yeah, yeah, And look, maybe.

Speaker 5 (01:41:46):
You know, and now, in the conversation with Chris Pink
that we had in the last hour, one of the
things that we started to talk about is, you know,
should we move away from counsel being responsible right for
all of this to a more insurance based one, because
if it was in your instance right, and if the
LBP had have had proper insurance to cover that work

(01:42:09):
and the work was poor, you could have gone to
the insurer and the insurer would have gone, yep, I
understand the claim, he is the money up front, right,
and then chase the builder for it later. But at
least you would get redress and allow you to move
on rather than this nonsense of fifty dollars a week.

Speaker 12 (01:42:25):
Absolutely, I mean, we you know, we did look at
the insurance options right now everything, and it was like no,
just a complete dead end.

Speaker 5 (01:42:34):
Yeah, okay, hey, thanks for bringing that to our attention,
and please let me know how you get on. And
I really do think if you can take it to
the disciplinary board, I think it's a really good idea. Right,
we're going to jump into the garden now. Just before
I do, I got this lovely text from Marie earlier
on Dear mister Wolfcamp, my husband Ray, it's his sixty
fifth birthday today. Could you please send out a greeting.

(01:42:57):
He's a huge fan of News Talks dB, especially as
it happens myself and Rudd. And then she says, tod
sense from Marie. So Ray, very very happy sixty fifth birthday.
Enjoy that, Buddy Gold card mate.

Speaker 1 (01:43:12):
For more from the Resident Builder with Peter Wolfcamp, listen
live to News Talks' b on Sunday mornings from six,
or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

40s and Free Agents: NFL Draft Season

Dateline NBC

Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}The Resident Builder podcast: September 22, 2024

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}40s and Free Agents: NFL Draft Season

Dateline NBC

Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang

All Episodes

The Resident Builder podcast: September 22, 2024

40s and Free Agents: NFL Draft Season