Tauranga City Council

Transcription

1 Tauranga City Council Producer Statement Policy For Structural, Fire and Geotechnical Design and Construction Page 1

2 Contents Contents Purpose Introduction Types of Producer Statements Conditions of Acceptance Verification of Design Drawings and Attachments Co-ordination of Various Design Disciplines Producer Statement Format Authors Responsibilities Construction Monitoring Site Observation Records Declining Applications Risk Assessment Design Professionals Low-Risk Designs: Medium-Risk Designs: High-Risk Designs: Seeking Approval for High-Risk Applications Purpose of a Peer Review or Regulatory Review Revision Number Reason for Issue Date Rev A Final Draft for Public Comment 18/11/2016 Rev B Updated Final Draft for Public Comment 06/12/2016 Page 2

3 1 Purpose 1.1 This document is Tauranga Councils (Council) policy for the acceptance and management of producer statements. Producer statements assist Council to establish that building projects comply with Schedule 1 of the New Zealand Building Regulations 1992, which incorporates the New Zealand Building Code (NZBC). 1.2 The purpose of this policy is to provide guidance so that authors can provide producer statements during the building consenting and inspection process. It sets out the conditions for the acceptance and management of producer statements by Council. 1.3 Council recognises that risks are present in everything it does. Effective risk management is an integral component of good governance. This policy establishes who is accountable and responsible for managing the risk associated with producer statements. 1.4 Council may amend this policy from time to time at its sole discretion. 1.5 Information and conditions on which producer statements are relied upon are contained within this policy and are subject to change. Authors must ensure they check the policy for changes to acceptance and management criteria. Page 3

4 2 Introduction 2.1 Under section 33(5) of the (now repealed) Building Act 1991, Council was entitled at its discretion, to accept producer statements submitted by or on behalf of the building consent applicant to establish compliance with all or any of the provisions of the NZBC. 2.2 A producer statement was defined in the Building Act 1991 as any statement supplied by or on behalf of an applicant for a building consent, or by or on behalf of a person who has been granted a building consent that certain work has been or will be carried out in accordance with certain technical specifications. Producer statements cover a wide range of design and construction. 2.3 The acceptance of producer statements was used to complement Council s processing and inspection process by utilising third party verification to determine compliance of the design or construction of certain building work. This mechanism enabled Council to be satisfied on reasonable grounds that the building work does or will comply with the provisions of the NZBC. 2.4 The Building Act 2004 does not refer to the use of producer statements; however, Council continues to use them as a mechanism for establishing compliance with the NZBC and they are widely accepted by the industry. 2.5 It is envisaged that memoranda (certificates of work and records of work) issued by Licensed Building Practitioners (LBPs), will eventually replace producer statements. Licensing of LBPs commenced in 2009 and became mandatory in March Page 4

5 3 Types of Producer Statements 3.1 Design professionals provide producer statements in good faith as recognised professionals in their fields of expertise in an effort to emphasise their specialist knowledge and involvement in a project. Readers should refer to IPENZ Practice Note 01 on the intended use of the IPENZ/ACENZ Producer Statements. 3.2 There are two categories of producer statement referred to in this document, design and construction. 3.3 Within the design category, there are two types of statement issued; producer statement design and producer statement design review. These statements are issued by design professionals confirming that in their professional view, part, or all of the building work as described on nominated plans and specifications has been designed in accordance with the performance requirements of the NZBC. Note the design professional can be either the designer or a design reviewer. a. Producer statement design (PS1) these statements are issued by design professionals as confirmation that the building work as designed and documented complies with the NZBC. b. Producer statement design review (PS2) these statements are issued by design professionals who have reviewed the work of the designer (sometimes on behalf of the Council) as confirmation that the building work that they have reviewed complies with the NZBC. c. Producer statement construction review (PS4) this statement is issued by the design professional 1 who has reviewed the work of the contractor as confirmation that the building work has been carried out in accordance with the consented plans and the NZBC and is issued where the design professional or Council has requested involvement or supervision by a suitably qualified person 2 for building work, such as pile driving, compaction of fill, placement of steel, etc. 3.4 If a design producer statement is provided at the building consent processing stage Council will only accept it if the author has been approved to do the work and is listed on the 1 Agreement reached prior to consent issue with consent owner / applicant 2 The PS4 is issued by the design professional who has reviewed the work completed by the contractor. The design professional can be the designer, peer reviewer or an independent suitably qualified person if prior agreement with Council has been obtained. Page 5

6 Chartered Professional Engineers Register administered by the Registration Authority/IPENZ (CPEng Register). 3.5 Council may at its discretion perform an audit; however, for the most part, sole reliance is placed on the producer statement offered. 3.6 If an applicant provides a producer statement and the author is not on the CPEng Register or refuses to provide a producer statement where this policy requires one, the applicant can choose to have the design reviewed by another person who is on the register; alternatively, Council will arrange to have the design reviewed. The cost of any review is borne by the building consent applicant. 3.7 If the author of the producer statement is working outside their field of expertise, or is not deemed competent for the scope of work, which is the subject of the producer statement, Council may at its discretion perform a review of the work or arrange to have the work reviewed. The cost of any review is borne by the building consent applicant. Page 6

7 4 Conditions of Acceptance 4.1 Although producer statements are not referred to in the Building Act 2004, Council has decided to continue with the practice of accepting producer statements on a project specific basis as a means of establishing that a building consent application complies with the requirements of the NZBC. Producer statements are subject to the following conditions: a. The decision whether to accept any producer statement is at the sole discretion of Council. b. All supporting information (engineering calculations, drawings, specifications, etc), must be provided when the building consent application is lodged. c. Design assumptions or limitations: If during processing, specialist inspections are identified as being necessary or design assumptions need to be verified, Council requires that agreement be reached before the building consent is issued. The need for inspections may be identified by either the design or design review professional or Council. Where a need for inspections is identified, an agreement between the owner / agent and the contractor and or design/design review professionals must be reached as to who will be responsible for this work. The agreement is provided to and serves as an advice note to Council. d. The producer statement author must hold appropriate insurance cover and provide evidence of this if requested (Council acknowledges the author s employer / company will hold the insurance cover). e. The producer statement must be completed in full, describing the precise elements of construction that are to be observed or performed. f. The producer statement must clearly describe (list) the building work, which is the subject of the producer statement; and: confirm compliance of the design work with the relevant clauses of the NZBC; or confirm satisfaction on reasonable grounds, that construction has been completed in accordance with the approved design and NZBC. g. The producer statement author must be a person who has met certain criteria 3 and is acceptable to Tauranga City Council. h. Council will only accept producer statements from authors who have applied and met that criterion and have current status on the CPEng Register. i. Only design professionals who have an appropriate Quality Assurance system in place and appropriate professional indemnity insurance cover will be considered for high-risk work. 3 Ethics, integrity, professional affiliations, qualifications, skills and expertise in the field competence is claimed Page 7

8 j. Producer statement design (PS1) cannot be submitted in lieu of a certificate of design work; certificates of design work must also be provided if required by the regulations for Restricted Building Work (RBW). k. Producer statements must be personally signed by the author; if there is any doubt as to the authenticity of the producer statement Council may require an original 4 copy to be provided. l. Design / design review producer statements must be no more than 90 days old. Construction / construction review statements may be dated older than 90 days as the author generally issues these at the time of construction; however, the author must have been an approved author on the date that the producer statement was issued. m. Authors of producer statements for specifically designed timber trusses or lintels (e.g. Mi-tek or Pryda trusses, proprietary lintels, flitch beams, posi-struts, etc) do not have to be listed on the CPEng Register. In this instance, producer statements may be signed by an employee on behalf of the company where the element has been designed using design software. The producer statement however, must reference the design software used. n. Producer statements must be site specific; except that generic producer statements may be acceptable in some cases for a proprietary product e.g. proprietary lintels, flitch beams, posi-struts, etc where the parameters of the design fall within the standard specifications referenced. In all cases, engineering calculations must be provided with the producer statement. o. Where the design / design review involves a generic design for a proprietary product (e.g. glass balustrades) and there is a demonstrable history of the product in the market with the designer, the producer statement must be no more than two years old. p. Producer statements should include B2 Durability. Where B2 is not included the author must include a statement of durability outlining how compliance with B2 of the NZBC has been achieved. Where the author is not responsible for the durability of all elements a coordination statement shall be supplied that outlines how the durability requirements of those specifically designed elements achieves the requirements of B2 and has been coordinated with the rest of the project design team documentation. q. In the case of a PS2, Council requires that the PS2 author provides to Council a completed checklist or comparable documentation 5. The checklist / documentation should identify the scope and extent of the review including drawings, which have been reviewed; copies of any information requested and the designer s responses. 4 Council has recently uncovered examples of photocopied documents, which have been altered fraudulently 5 Refer IPENZ Practice Note 02 Peer Review for further discussion on the purpose, scope and requirements of a peer review. Page 8

9 5 Verification of Design Drawings and Attachments 5.1 Council requires an assurance that the author of the producer statement has been provided with the architectural drawings and checked that they are relevant to the design that the producer statement relates to. 5.2 One way of providing this assurance is for the PS1 author to stamp and sign all relevant copies of the design plans. Structural drawings prepared by the producer statement author, do not need to be stamped off. A PS2 author does not need to stamp and sign plans but must include reference to the design drawings in their producer statement. 5.3 Where the design incorporates a large number of design drawings, the author must provide a schedule listing the drawings. This schedule must be referenced in the producer statement and attached to it. The schedule must include reference to the drawing including a drawing number, revision number and description of the design elements. 5.4 Council will not under any circumstances accept a producer statement design or design review for preliminary designs or performance-based specifications for design and build. 5.5 Plans must be accompanied by a design brief (refer Structural Engineering Society standard template) design calculations, drawings and specifications, depicting the work, which is the subject of the design. 5.6 All documentation submitted by the design professional must be on the design professional s letterhead. Failure to submit documentation on letterhead will result in the producer statement being declined. Page 9

10 6 Co-ordination of Various Design Disciplines 6.1 Where various disciplines are involved and overlap, it is important that each discipline is coordinated and that the designers roles, responsibilities and expectations are understood by all parties including Council. 6.2 The designer must also provide site specific information relating to any specified systems going into a building including inspection, maintenance and reporting requirements. Page 10

11 7 Producer Statement Format 7.1 For members of Institute of Professional Engineers of NZ (IPENZ), NZ Institute of Architects (NZIA), or Association of Consulting Engineers of NZ (ACENZ) the format of the producer statement must be in accordance with their relevant association s format. Page 11

12 8 Authors Responsibilities 8.1 An author of a producer statement is responsible and accountable for its content. Authors accept that Council places reliance on their statement. For the avoidance of doubt this includes where an author signs a producer statement covering another person s design (PS2) or observation of construction (PS4). It is an author s responsibility to ensure that they are satisfied that the work is compliant. 8.2 If an author wishes to withdraw their services or they no longer have any involvement in a project (e.g. the owner has opted to use someone else), the author is responsible for notifying Council that they have withdrawn their involvement, within 10 working days to the Inspections Booking Team by phoning (07) so that Council records maybe updated. Page 12

13 9 Construction Monitoring 9.1 Construction monitoring is a service which is provided by a design professional and provides the Councils and the owner independent verification that the work has been completed in accordance with the approved consented plans and the NZBC. It must be appropriate to the scale and complexity of the project (refer 9.7, 9.8 & 9.9). 9.2 Construction monitoring is generally required where the building work: is outside the scope of non-specific design standards; or is complex in detail; or is substantial and of medium to high risk; and / or where Council does not have the in-house expertise or capacity to carry out the required inspections. 9.3 It is Council s preference that the design professional who carried out the design also conducts the construction monitoring. Where the construction monitoring works is to be carried out by a party who are independent of the design then approval must be sought from Council at the time of lodgement or prior to work commencing on site. Where a PS4 is required by a consent advice notice issued with the building consent the PS4 is to be signed by a CPEng (for building work) or a suitability accredited geo-professional (refer Tauranga IDC for geo-professional accreditation requirements) for geotechnical ground work or geo-technical structures. Whilst an author may at their discretion use others to conduct inspections on their behalf, Council will hold the author responsible for all monitoring and reporting requirements as if they had performed the work themselves. If the design professional requires that specific elements of construction be inspected then they must provide a list of the elements that require inspection and specify the level and frequency of construction monitoring and how remedial works will be monitored and cleared as the project progresses. 9.4 Council requires that a geo-professional will confirm ground conditions prior to any foundation work proceeding 6 (design parameters assumed in design shall be provided in a report submitted with the building consent application). 9.5 Design professionals must ensure that where applicable, the contractor understands that Council inspectors may also need to inspect the building work (for example engineers do not cover siting, plumbing, below ground water-proofing, etc.) also if RBW is involved, contractors must produce evidence of licensing at the time of an inspection. 9.6 Design professionals are not entitled to authorise construction to proceed; all work is subject to Council inspection unless otherwise agreed. This is particularly important where the work involves restricted building work or other aspects of construction are involved (e.g. plumbing, siting of the building, etc). If RBW work is involved the details of the contractor undertaking the work must be provided, preferably at the time of application or if not known at that time at the time of booking an inspection. Note that timber wall designs often rely on 6 Refer to TCC ground checks guidance document Page 13

14 timber grades, multiple layers of lagging and drainage, etc. These are not inspected by TCC and are the responsibility of the designer. 9.7 For residential construction design professionals must describe the work to be inspected e.g. raft floor, steelwork, retaining walls (ground and structural elements), retaining wall foundations; blockwork; etc. Note: in this instance, construction monitoring levels are not relevant as the design professional is observing all of the work not random samples. 9.8 For commercial construction design professionals must describe the level of construction monitoring e.g. CM 1-5 and identify the type and frequency of inspections that will be undertaken. 9.9 There are five construction monitoring levels defined by the Institute of Professional Engineers of NZ (IPENZ). The appropriate level of construction monitoring will be projectdependent and identified by the design professional and agreed to with the applicant and Council. When determining the level of construction monitoring the guidance provided in Tables 2 and 3 of the IPENZ document Construction Monitoring Services shall be followed. Page 14

15 Construction Monitoring Levels: Level Review CM1 CM2 CM3 CM4 CM5 Monitor the outputs from another party's quality assurance programme against the requirements of the plans and specifications. Visit the works at a frequency agreed with the client to review important materials of construction critical work procedures and/or completed plant or components. Be available to advise the constructor on the technical interpretation of the plans and specifications. Review, preferable at the earliest opportunity, a sample of each important work procedure, material of construction and component for compliance with the requirements of the plans and specifications and review a representative sample of each important completed work prior to enclosure or completion is appropriate. Be available to provide the constructor with technical interpretation of the plans and specification. Review, to an extent agreed with the client, random samples of important work procedures, for compliance with the requirements of the plans and specifications and review important completed work prior to enclosure or on completion as appropriate. Be available to provide the constructor with technical interpretation of the plans and specifications. Review, at a frequency agreed with the client, regular samples of work procedures, materials of construction and components for compliance with the requirements of the plans and specifications and review the majority of completed work prior to the enclosure or on completion as appropriate. Maintain personnel on site to constantly review work procedures, materials of construction and components for compliance with the requirements of the plans and specifications and review completed work prior to enclosure or on completion as appropriate. Page 15

16 10 Site Observation Records 10.1 If construction monitoring is required, the author must provide a site inspection record or leave a report on site. The record must accurately report the nature and detail of the inspection including any advice given to the contractor on site If a design change is made, a minor variation form shall be submitted or an amendment to the building consent must be applied for and approved. In any event, the change must be appropriately documented 7 on the project plans and be submitted to council Site inspection reports must be comprehensive and include the following information, as a minimum:- The name of the person inspecting the work The date and time of the inspection The type of inspection being observed The address and building consent number Details of the inspection Any instructions or advice given; and Details of any changes identified and follow up work required It is good practice to provide photographs within the site visit reports to support observations in the field Where required the PS4 must be submitted to Council when all work has been observed and be accompanied by other supporting documents (e.g. photos, site visit reports, contractor QA documentation, as-built plans/drawings, etc). Failure to provide information as required by the consent advice notice may result in the CCC being refused Site visit report must not include an instruction to proceed (refer 9.6). 7 All work performed must be in accordance with the building consent; design changes must be documented appropriately via minor variations or amendments so that Council records accurately reflect the work and in order for a code compliance certificate (CCC) to be issued. Page 16

17 11 Declining Applications 11.1 Applications maybe declined if the applicant cannot satisfy Council of their suitability or competence An author s approval once granted may also be rescinded at any time at Councils sole discretion If an application is refused or rescinded, the reasons for this decision will be provided to the applicant. Page 17

18 12 Risk Assessment Design Professionals 12.1 Council can only determine who it will accept a producer statement from, not who will or will not undertake the work The decision whether to accept any producer statement is at the sole discretion of Council If the author of a PS1 or PS2 (if required) is not on the CPEng Register, or producer statements are not supplied, Council will review the design 8 or engage specialist expertise to review the design on its behalf. The cost of any review is borne by the building consent applicant When receiving a producer statement, staff will check the Register to confirm status (registration is up-to-date). practice fields (speciality areas) In order to identify if a producer statement is required, who Council will accept a producer statement from and for what type of work, Council uses a risk-based approach The following factors impact on the risk profile: Quantum of people accommodated, working in, sleeping or using the building. Complexity of design. Building importance level (refer to NZBC clause A3 for Building importance levels). Estimated project value. New building or alteration/strengthening (alterations are often more complicated). Risk to life safety of building users. Compliance path (e.g. acceptable solution, alternative solution, specific design, innovative or new-edge technology) The above factors determine the 3 levels of risk:- Risk level Significance Level 1 Low Level 2 Medium Level 3 High The following examples listed within the three risk categories is not intended to be exhaustive but serves as a guide as to when producer statements may (and may not) be required. Final confirmation if producer statements are required will be provided by Council at time of lodgement or following a pre-application meeting (if held). For that reason for 8 Includes both design and construction Page 18

19 medium and high risk work it is strongly advised that applicants hold a pre-application meeting with council early in the design process and prior to submitting their application. The requirements of this document applies to structures (buildings) designed with the purpose of accommodating people (for the purpose of conducting work, or research or where people may reside etc). Or for geotechnical structures that buildings rely upon for safe bearing or support, or to facilitate the development of land for buildings. The review requirements for structures such as bridges, pump stations, tanks (i.e. infrastructure) and the like should be confirmed with the owners of those structures (typically Council and NZTA). The requirements for the producers statements and construction review of geotechnical investigation and design work is outlined as follows: A producer statement for geotechnical investigation, reporting and provision of design parameters that feed into the design is not required provided the design of the building/structure is covered by a producer statement provided by the design professional responsible for the design of relevant parts of the building. The provision of geotechnical opinions and advice relating to geotechnical hazards at a site and geotechnical design parameters must be in accordance with the requirements of TCC s geo-professional accreditation system. Where geotechnical design work is undertaken and those elements are independent of the building (i.e. independent retaining walls or deep ground improvement such as stone columns) producer statements and the level of review shall be provided appropriate to the risk classification outlined in the following sections. Low-Risk Designs: 12.8 Low risk work involves the design or construction of residential detached dwellings up to two storeys 9 in height in accordance with NZS3604 and NZS4229 or lightweight commercial structures covered by the above standards, and includes: Structural Design Simple structural elements such as post and beam components, raft floors, joists, etc (within the scope of non-specific design standards). Outbuildings, carports, garages, hay barns, sheds, etc. (within the scope of non-specific design standards). Conservatories forming part of a dwelling, or decks attached to a dwelling (within the scope of non-specific design standards). Bracing design in accordance with NZS3604 using proprietary products for which technical information is available on bracing capacities and installation requirements (eg GIB bracing manual). 9 Storeys means number of floors above the lowest ground level and includes ground floor. For example a two story building has a ground floor and a suspended first floor. Page 19

20 Geotechnical Design Retaining walls that: retain no more than 1.5 metres depth of ground); and; do not support any surcharge or any load additional to the load of that ground (for example, the load of vehicles or adjacent structures, or TCC s minimum surcharges for walls near boundaries) 10 ; and: There is no other retaining wall upslope or downslope of the retaining wall, within twice the height of the larger of the walls; and; Does not have a toe slope that is steeper than 4 degrees and; Does not cut into a slope that is steeper than 4 degrees and; Can be easily accessed for repair / replacement once the land has been developed Sites with Very Low to Low Geotechnical Hazards in terms of the TCC Infrastructure Development Code (IDC) DS-10 Natural Hazards and Earthworks are considered low risk Complex elements such as sites with geotechnical issues; stability issues as in slopes steeper than 1 (vertical) 4 (horizontal) or significant excavations steeper than 1 (vertical) 2 (horizontal); excavations close to the boundary or other buildings are not considered lowrisk Residential construction which does not fit within the above parameters is considered medium or high risk as outlined below Fire designs are considered low-risk that: Are for a building of no more than 2 stories in height; and For new buildings; fully meet the Acceptable Solutions C/AS1, C/AS2, C/AS4, C/AS5, C/AS6 or C/AS7 [11] ; or For existing buildings; have no more than a minor [12] departure from any Acceptable Solution C/AS1, C/AS2, C/AS4, C/AS5, C/AS6, C/AS7, F6/AS1, F7/AS1 or F8/AS1 as relevant to means of escape form fire, and it has been demonstrated that the means of escape NZBC aspects comply as nearly as is reasonably practicable (ANARP) in accordance with Building Act S112. ANARP assessments would typically be on a qualitative basis in the form of a Statement of Change or Gap Assessment as explained in MBIE s guidance [13]. 10 Refer to the MBIE Guidance Document Building work that does not require a building consent, Schedule 1, Section 20 Retaining walls for guidance on additional loads or surcharges on retaining walls 11 As per the MBIE FAQs, it is possible to use the C/VM2 horizontal fire spread tables instead of the C/ASx tables. 12 An example of a minor departure would include a building with Fire Safety Precautions installed as prescribed in the relevant C/ASx, however escape route lengths are marginally greater than prescribed. 13 Requesting information about means of escape from fire for existing buildings - A guide for Building Consent Authorities and Territorial Authorities Page 20

21 12.13 A producer statement design (PS1) is not required for low risk work but can be provided if designers wish to use them to define the scope of their involvement in a project. Medium-Risk Designs: Medium risk involves design or construction of buildings that require specific engineering design and, in general, outside the scope of non-specific design standards and do not fall into the low or high risk categories: Structural Design Tents and marquees >100m2 in area. Detached residential buildings with specifically designed elements up to 3 storeys in height. Multi-unit residential developments or commercial buildings up to three storeys in height (refer max GFA trigger under high-risk category). Industrial warehouses. Foundations involving alternative solutions and / or requiring specific design. Seismic strengthening of buildings. Specific design of external facade systems 14 up to 6 storeys in height. Geotechnical Design Retaining walls not falling into low or high risk categories. Shallow ground improvements, such as earth rafts and geo-grids designed independently of the building structure and not covered by the building designers PS Sites with complex geotechnical or stability issues e.g. slopes steeper than 1 (vertical) 4 (horizontal) or significant excavations steeper than 1 (vertical) 2 (horizontal) Sites with Moderate Geotechnical and Other Hazards in terms of the TCC IDC DS-10 Natural Hazards and Earthworks are considered medium-risk Fire designs are considered medium-risk that: Are for a new building of more than 2 stories, but less than or equal to 7 stories in height and fully meet the Acceptable Solutions C/AS1, C/AS2, C/AS4, C/AS5, C/AS6 or C/AS7 [16] ; or Are for a new building of less than or equal to 2 stories in height that fully meets the Acceptable Solution C/AS3; or For existing buildings, have more than a minor [17] departure from any Acceptable Solution C/AS1, C/AS2, C/AS3, C/AS4, C/AS5, C/AS6, C/AS7, F6/AS1, F7/AS1 or 14 Quality assurance programme required 15 Must be designed with input from a CPEng with experience in geotechnical engineering 16 As per the MBIE FAQs, it is possible to use the C/VM2 horizontal fire spread tables instead of the C/ASx tables. 17 An example of a more than minor C/ASx departure would include a building with less Fire Safety Precautions than prescribed in the relevant C/ASx (eg: Type 2 instead of Type 3). Page 21

22 F8/AS1 as relevant to means of escape form fire. ANARP assessments would typically be on a qualitative basis however may require quantitative assessment in order to demonstrate that the means of escape NZBC aspects comply with Building Act S112; or Involve a Change in Use, with a departure from any Acceptable Solutions C/AS1, C/AS2, C/AS4, C/AS5, C/AS6, C/AS7, F6/AS1, F7/AS1 or F8/AS1 as relevant to means of escape form fire, protection of other property or fire rating performance. ANARP assessments would typically require a quantitative assessment in order to demonstrate compliance with Building Act S A producer statement design (PS1) is required for medium risk work The author of the PS1 must be on the CPEng Register, the application is checked as follows: The completeness of the producer statement (the nature, scope and any limitations of design work covered by the producer statement and any relevant code clauses have been appropriately referenced) Specific engineering calculations have been provided and are set out in a manner that clearly identifies the work covered All specific design elements are included in the design drawings and have been correctly interpreted by the designer; and Construction monitoring is specified in accordance with IPENZ guidelines For designs where a PS1 is submitted council may elect to undertake a regulatory review. The cost of the regulatory review including the cost of any external experts is to be borne by the applicant for building consent. High-Risk Designs: High risk work involves design or construction of complex buildings that require specific, specialised engineering input; or where those buildings are of significant value to the community or of significant scale. Importance level 3; 4 and 5 (as defined in AS/NZS ) buildings Multi-storey 18 buildings Complex specific design 19 Envelope (façade) design for buildings of 6 or more stories ; Seismic strengthening of buildings of 3 or more storeys; Geotechnical Design Deep ground improvements (e.g stone columns) Underpinning of existing buildings 18 All buildings of 4 or more stories or 3 story multi-unit residential and commercial buildings with a gross floor area exceeding 2000m 2 19 Structural design using alternative solutions such as carbon fibre strengthening of existing concrete structures or requiring specialised, complex engineering design such as large atriums within the floor plate, horizontal transfer diaphragms, basements more than two levels deep. Page 22

23 Basements affecting adjacent properties (and those within a 45 recession plan measured at the boundary from existing ground level) Independent retaining structures (including terraced or stacked walls, tied-back walls) over 3m in height; or; those supporting a public road or rail carriageway; or; Wall has a toe slope steeper than 1V:3H (Cat 2) or 1V:2H (Cat 1) or; Wall is to be cut into a slope steeper than 1V:3H (Cat 2) or 1V:2H (Cat 1) or; The wall is located within a building restriction zone (either upslope or downslope instability) or; Geotechnical investigation, GCR or council s GIS Hazard mapping indicates conditions that require a Cat 1 or Cat 2 geotechnical engineer Sites with High or Very High Geotechnical and Other Hazards in terms of the TCC IDC DS- 10 Natural Hazards and Earthworks are considered high-risk Fire designs are considered high-risk that: Are for a new building of more than 7 stories in height and fully meet the Acceptable Solutions C/AS1, C/AS2, C/AS4, C/AS5, C/AS6 or C/AS7 [20] ; or Involve the Verification Method C/VM2; or Involve an Alternative Solution; or For existing buildings, have significant [21] departures from the Acceptable Solutions C/AS1 to C/AS7, F6/AS1, F7/AS1 or F8/AS1 as relevant to means of escape form fire. ANARP assessments would typically require a quantitative assessment in order to demonstrate that the means of escape NZBC aspects comply with Building Act S112; or Involve a Change in Use, with significant departures from the Acceptable Solutions C/AS1, C/AS2, C/AS4, C/AS5, C/AS6, C/AS7, F6/AS1, F7/AS1 or F8/AS1 as relevant to means of escape form fire, protection of other property or fire rating performance. ANARP assessments would typically require a quantitative assessment in order to demonstrate compliance with Building Act S115; or Involve a Change in Use of any C/AS3 building with departures from C/AS3; or Importance level 3; 4 and 5 (as defined in NZBC Clause A3) buildings; or Any other scenarios not addressed in low to medium risk levels, unless specifically agreed with TCC in a pre-application meeting High-risk design work is subject to a peer review High-risk reviews are performed either by: a suitably qualified expert appointed by Council; or a suitably qualified expert proposed by the applicant and agreed to by Council prior to lodging the application. 20 As per the MBIE FAQs, it is possible to use the C/VM2 horizontal fire spread tables instead of the C/ASx tables. 21 Examples of significant C/ASx departures would include over 1000 occupants in a firecell without a Type 7 system; or an intermediate floor in a C/AS6 storage building without sprinklers; or no automatic smoke detection and alarm system for sleeping occupies where prescribed in C/ASx. Page 23

24 12.26 In all cases a PS1 and a PS2 is required; both authors must be on the CPEng Register, the application is checked as follows: The completeness of the producer statement (the nature, scope and any limitations of design work covered by the producer statement and any relevant code clauses have been appropriately referenced) Specific engineering calculations have been provided and are set out in a manner that clearly identifies the work covered All specific design elements are included in the design drawings and have been correctly interpreted by the designer; and Construction monitoring is specified in accordance with IPENZ guidelines Only CPEng with: a base degree in the field of engineering they claim competence for significant experience (10+ years); and who have a Quality Assurance system in place and appropriate insurance cover will be considered for high-risk design work CPEng must provide evidence that they hold an appropriate amount of insurance for each high-risk project together with a completed copy of the project risk estimator (refer ACENZ website) to show that they have considered all relevant aspects of the design. This tool ensures an appropriate amount of insurance is held for the project for which producer statements are offered If an applicant chooses to submit a design review for a high-risk structure and Council has not agreed beforehand to the Design Reviewer providing the PS2, Council may engage the necessary expertise and conduct a regulatory review. The cost of the regulatory review including the cost of any external experts is to be borne by the applicant for building consent If Council does not have the in-house expertise to review specialist design work and the applicant has not provided an acceptable producer statement; Council may engage a suitably qualified expert on its behalf, to review the design. The cost of the review including the cost of any external experts is to be borne by the applicant for building consent. Page 24

25 13 Seeking Approval for High-Risk Applications 13.1 Applicants must apply for permission to issue producer statements for high risk work using unless they have already registered to perform high-risk work Written requests should be accompanied by a design brief and concept plans 22 ; this information should be forwarded to the Manager, Building Control for approval. The Manager Building Services Tauranga City Council Private Bag Tauranga Applicants should allow at least twenty (20) working days for this process to be completed Only CPEng who have a Quality Management System (QMS) in place will be considered for high-risk work QMS requirements:- Council preference is that the producer statement author s organisation has a QMS in line with ISO and has been certified by a JAS-ANZ accredited third party organisation such as Bureau Veritas, Telarc, SGS or other similar organisations. At the Council s discretion, this requirement may be waived; however the producer statement author will then be required to provide evidence, acceptable to Council, of an alternative appropriate QMS or project specific quality plan system, which provides evidence of effective implementation with regard to: A clear description of personnel roles and responsibilities within the organisation Project planning and development Design review, verification and validation Control of design changes Planning performing and recording inspections Control of documents and documentation Critical stage verification points and acceptance sign off For some projects, generally, those that are high-risk, the Council may itself engage a suitably competent person to review the design or construction on behalf of the Council; the cost of this service shall be borne by the applicant. 22 Concept plans are only permissible when seeking approval as an author but are not acceptable for building consent Page 25

26 14 Purpose of a Peer Review or Regulatory Review 14.1 There are two types of design review performed; a peer review and a regulatory review. Both reviews entail checking the design to ensure that it complies with the intent of the NZBC. Refer to IPENZ Practice Note 02 for further discussion on the definition and requirements of peer and regulatory reviews A peer review is a review by a peer who must be quite independent of the designer23. In most instances, the client who commissioned the work or design will appoint the peer reviewer, since the client has a vested interest in getting the work/design completed satisfactorily The purpose of a peer review is to confirm and / or comment some or all of the following: whether the design has met the objectives set out for it other options that could have been included in the preliminary design whether the evaluation of options is rigorous and fair the validity of the assumptions the validity of the conclusions the process towards completion of the work the validity of the recommendations the objectives set out for the work adherence to relevant regulations and codes of practice the fitness for purpose of the work A regulatory review is performed by or on behalf of Council The purpose of a Regulatory Review is to assess whether the design complies with pertinent regulations, consent requirements and laws The Reviewer does not assess the design objectives, process, options, assumptions or method, only the submitted design, testing the outcome against regulatory parameters The Regulatory Review may be conducted by Council, or an independent designer engaged to carry out the Regulatory Review and report to Council. 23 Council will only place reliance on a PS2 from the peer reviewer if this person is independent of the designer. Independence is defined as the reviewer must not work for the same company or a related company and be able to offer impartial advice. Refer IPENZ Practice Note 01 and 02 for further discussion. Page 26