It’s been a while since we sent out a Communique: we have been busy making submissions to MBIE on the proposed changes to NZRAB, submissions to NZIA on the Draft SCC2023, and preparing and delivering our third NZIA webinar on Risk Management via the NZIA CPD process. We expect to be collaborating with NZIA on submissions to the Draft NZS3910 recently issued for comment. All of these are in the interests of risk management for architects in particular, but also for our architectural designer members.
The claim notifications continue to roll in, but you will be happy to learn that there have not been any unusual or remarkable changes to the reasons for them! Members can read an overview in the Annual Claims Report issued ahead of the recent AGM.
NZIA members will be able to access our recent webinar on the NZIA website. Non-NZIA members wishing to view it could email us editor.communique@gmail.com and we will approach NZIA to see how we can arrange access.
On 21 June the Board met and the AGM was held. Michael Davis and Matt Mitchell (existing Board members) were re-appointed as Directors, and John McDonald (existing co-opted) was appointed a full Director.
Deborah Cranko has retired after serving on the Board since 1998, but continues in practice as an architect in Wellington.
Deborah was the first woman on the NZACS Board and has championed the role of women in the profession throughout her past roles in the Wellington Architecture Centre, heritage issues, NZRAB, National Association of Women in Architecture, NZIOB, the Engineering Associates Registration Board, NZIA, the Plumbers and Drainlayer’s Board (currently) and many other advisory and committee roles. She has been a very active and effective NZACS board member, representing smaller practices and the increasing involvement of women in architecture and construction. She is an accomplished organiser, and in recent years our “governance guru”, bringing in organisational regimen and strategic planning from the Institute of Directors, maintaining an active focus on succession planning, and implementing the ethical principles for our investments.
The NZACS submission to NZIA on SCC2023
Our May 2023 submissions were focused on risk management matters.
Insurance: We were concerned about the provisions which appeared to place the architect in the role of approving or accepting contract insurances.
Health & safety: We consider that the architect should only be responsible for issues within their control, and should not be required to review approve and monitor the contractor’s safety plans on an ongoing basis.
Performance guarantees: We suggested these be explicitly dealt with, so that if necessary they can be actioned ahead of construction.
Retentions: This is a “live issue” yet to be addressed. We would not want to see the architect be saddled with approving and monitoring how retentions are managed. We understand that MBIE is soon to produce a guidance note: the debate can then start.
NZS3910: We would want consistency with SCC2023, so that the industry knows what to expect, and legal precedents can be acknowledged.
The NZACS submission to MBIE on occupational regulation of architects
NZACS responded in order to set out the risk management matters to consider when reviewing the relationship between the regulation of LBPs and architects. Our concern is that the regulatory scheme must recognise that the risk profile and professional roles of LBPs and architects are different.
In summary, NZACS’s views were:
• There is a continuing need to differentiate the competencies roles and professional expectations of architects from those of LBPs.
• There is a need to clarify and reinforce what an architect is and does, versus what an LBP is licensed to do.
• There is a need for architects to retain equivalency with overseas jurisdictions and mutual recognition.
• There is a risk of harm, and a cost, associated with conflating the term “architect” with an LBP.
• There are (or have been) shortcomings in the current NZRAB complaints process, and we have suggestions for improvement.
(Article contributed by Aon and several NZACS Board members)
The risks of working with engineered stone (not that shown above!) have been compared with asbestos risks. Whilst the current PI cover does not include asbestos risks, there is no such exclusion for engineered stone. But that might change in the future.
Engineered stone is widely used in benchtops, and usually machined off site, but there could also be some machining on site. The risks, as now known, are that the machining process produces a fine dust that contains high levels of silica crystals, and this can cause the deadly lung disease silicosis.
A competent architect is likely to be held to know of that problem, and thus to have a responsibility and duty of care to ensure safety measures are taken if the product is being used, as defined by accepted practice. Worksafe outlines such measures, so an architect has an obligation – to the extent within their control - to see that these are carried out.
https://www.worksafe.govt.nz/topic-and-industry/dust/accelerated-silicosis/engineered-stone-and-exposure-to-respirable-crystalline-silica/
Obviously an architectural practice has a responsibility to ensure that its employees are aware of the risks and take the necessary precautions on site. But in addition the architect is in a position to make clients aware of those risks: that may be relevant in both selecting the product and during its installation. Whilst the architect might not be able to control the off-site machining of the product, it would be good practice to select and specify it in a way which recognises the risks, and requires them to be addressed both on and off site.
NZACS suggests that engineered stone benchtops are fully pre-templated in MDF to avoid any site cutting; that all off-site manufacture has to use wet-cutting; and that a sticker is put on the product to identify the risks. It is known that some practices have put the product on their prohibited list.
Further information about fabrication guidelines is available at https://impac.co.nz/rcs-accreditation/home/
.
(Article and photo contributed by Deborah Cranko)
Do your current designs acknowledge future climate change risks? How have recent extreme weather events affected your view of meeting minimum code requirements? To what extent have you thought about how to maintain your architectural masterpiece?
Although your terms of service to your client will generally cease after the defects liability period has ended, becoming involved in resolving maintenance shortcomings could be an unwelcome drain on your energies.
In one recent notification, the gutter on a roof had become clogged with leaves, and water tracked down into the building. The owner claims that the design didn’t allow him any knowledge that the gutter should be cleaned regularly! In another notification, an internal gutter and its overflow were blocked with Eucalyptus tree leaves (a change from some kid’s lost ball!).
In the past we have also had problems with yard sumps becoming blocked and surcharging; leaves blocking up strip drains and allowing water to flow down the drive and into the garage; “bubble-up” stormwater drains becoming silted up; and external gutters surcharging into eaves soffits and eventually into the house walls. During the Leaky-Buildings “crisis” it was common for Assessors to report that the observed damage was the result of poor maintenance.
Of course water is not the only problem: chimney fires and fires inside commercial kitchen extract ducts are often the result of inadequate maintenance. Rodents, tree roots and unrepaired exterior damage also takes its toll. Sometimes the expected durability of exterior items falls short of expectations: recent examples have included insect infestation, and uncoated timber cladding which only rarely gets to dry out. Cleaning regimes for interior finishes may be problematic: an over-zealous owner destroyed wall linings by aggressive steam cleaning, the opposite resulted in a non-slip floor being anything but. All sorts of problems arise when holiday homes are shut up in adverse weather or for lengthy periods.
These are all issues which are within the control of the owner, but which require some thinking about in design. Surveys by BRANZ have established that Kiwi homeowners don’t always undertake the necessary maintenance: architects should be making it easier by design and material selection, and should educate their clients in how to care for their asset.
BRANZ has several useful maintenance resources on its website that you can refer your client to, and in February 2023 they updated Bulletin 632 “Planning for Maintenance” which can be downloaded free at https://www.bra nz.co.nz/pubs/bulletins/bu632/. It would be easy and useful to provide this to your clients: there’s no guarantee that you won’t get their call when the tui are roosting in the gutters, but it would be a quick and helpful way of focusing their attention in the right direction.
If you have specified an item, you should keep the trade data on file: it is not unusual for it to be updated later, and if strife emerges you need to be able to refer back to the information you relied on at the time, failing which you may be vulnerable to a claim based on current information. Some products – for example floor finishes and external cladding – may require specific maintenance in order to meet ongoing compliance or warranty cover; if so, hopefully you have verification that you provided the necessary information to the client at the relevant time.