Opinion: The building consent process currently fills most people with dread. But a better way is within the country’s reach, writes architectural technology expert Sarosh Mulla.
The New Zealand building consent process can be a frustrating experience for architects, developers, and homeowners alike.
It’s slow, inconsistent, and costly. Depending on where you’re building, the time, effort, and fees involved can vary significantly.
We have the same set of building standards nationwide, yet 78 local authorities – including 11 regional councils and 67 territorial authorities – are all interpreting and applying them in different ways. This lack of consistency doesn’t just create headaches; it undermines efficiency and, in some cases, inflates costs.
Let’s take a closer look at how the system currently operates – and what we could do to improve it.
The lottery of location
It comes as the Government moves to streamline consenting rules. (Source: 1News)
Auckland’s building consent process is notoriously complex.
This isn’t just a result of the city’s size, but also a legacy of past issues like the leaky homes crisis. Auckland Council, understandably, wants to avoid repeating those costly mistakes, so they’ve implemented more thorough checks and a longer, more involved process.
But that diligence comes at a price. Projects, even straightforward ones, often face long delays and high fees.
Contrast this with smaller towns and districts. In some areas, the process is simpler, faster, and more affordable. For example, a home build in a smaller region could be approved with less fuss, saving time and money.
It’s great for those regions, but this regional variation means that depending on where you live, the same project can involve vastly different experiences. It’s hard to justify why a simple extension in Auckland should face more hurdles than the same project in, say, Invercargill.
For architects and developers, this variability creates a sense of unpredictability. It’s difficult to plan when you don’t know how long the local council will take or what questions might come up.
This unpredictability slows down the entire process and can increase project costs simply because you’re waiting on approvals.
Why not standardise the system?
Here’s where the question arises: why don’t we just standardise the building consent process nationwide?
After all, the Building Act 2004 and the Building Code are national regulations. So why should local councils interpret them in so many different ways?
In reality, the amount of discretion local authorities have is part of the problem. They are free to apply their own procedures and requirements, which can lead to delays, extra costs, and a whole lot of uncertainty.
A single, national consent process could eliminate much of this confusion. If every council followed the same procedures and timelines, we’d all know exactly what to expect, regardless of where we’re building. Predictable fees, streamlined processes, and uniform standards would remove a lot of the guesswork that currently exists in the system.
So, why haven’t we done this yet?
Well, local autonomy is a big factor. Councils are reluctant to give up control over their own processes, and the political will to make this kind of sweeping reform hasn’t materialised. However, as housing affordability and construction bottlenecks become more pressing, the case for reform is becoming clearer.
The fix: centralised and digital
To get the process working more efficiently, we need a national approach.
One way to achieve this is by creating a centralised, digital platform for building consents. Think of it like an online portal where you could submit plans, track the progress of your consent, and communicate with council officials all in one place.
A system like this would bring much-needed consistency. It would allow every council in the country to follow the same process, while still giving them room to address specific local needs – whether it’s earthquake-prone building standards in Wellington or coastal erosion concerns in areas like Christchurch.
But overall, it would mean that architects, developers, and homeowners could rely on a clear, predictable system with fewer surprises along the way.
This approach would likely reduce costs, too. By centralising the process and making it more efficient, councils could share the workload, which would bring down the cost of processing consents.
Currently, some councils have higher fees due to the complexity of their procedures or staffing shortages, but a more efficient system could ease those pressures and provide a more consistent fee structure.
This is about creating a system where there’s transparency and uniformity. A national system would help standardise fees across the country, making it easier for homeowners to budget and plan without the wide discrepancies we see now.
The Government has proposed self-certification by individual trades. While this potentially reduces some administrative burden, it carries inherent risks for the end consumer.
Without appropriate oversight, the quality and safety of construction can be compromised, leading to defects and costly rectifications down the line.
To address these risks, a balanced approach should involve randomised spot checks conducted by a third party to ensure compliance with building standards. Additionally, implementing substantial fines for non-compliance would reinforce accountability, deterring substandard work and maintaining quality.
However, these measures should not replace the need for a robust, well-functioning, council-operated consenting programme, which is essential for overarching oversight and consistent quality assurance across projects.
Balancing local needs with national standards
A centralised system doesn’t mean we’d lose local expertise.
Councils would still play an important role in managing specific environmental factors, such as flood zones or seismic activity. But those are exceptions, not the norm. Most projects don’t require reinventing the wheel, and for most building consents, a standardised approach would be more than sufficient.
The goal here is to streamline the process for most consents, while still giving councils the ability to address local concerns when necessary.
This balance between national consistency and local expertise is key to creating a more efficient system that works for everyone.
A path forward
Ultimately, the building consent process is just one part of a broader conversation about how we regulate growth and manage housing demand in New Zealand.
If we’re serious about addressing the housing crisis and improving productivity, we need to focus on making systems like building consents faster, cheaper, and more predictable.
Standardising the process doesn’t just make life easier for architects and builders; it would also help homeowners, developers, and councils themselves. A streamlined, digital platform for consents could reduce delays, lower costs, and improve the overall quality of our built environment.
New Zealand’s current system is fragmented, but it doesn’t have to stay that way. The tools to make it better are within reach. It’s time to move toward a future where building consents are simple, transparent, and efficient – benefiting everyone from the ground up.
– Sarosh Mulla is a senior lecturer in architectural technology at the University of Auckland.
