And a belated Happy New Year to you all, even if 2026 is already 25% through (with no chance of an Extension of Time).
Our apologies for the delay since the last issue of Communiqué, this is due to a change of editors and certainly not because of any lack of matters to discuss.
2026 was already shaping up to be a year of changes and developments in the risks of New Zealand architectural practice before recent global events. NZACS can’t do anything about the global events, but we can help you manage your everyday risks of practice as they evolve.
Hoping for readability, we deliberately keep Communiqué short and so we can get no more than one “long” article per issue. Most of the topics in this Communiqué deserve a much longer treatment and we hope to bring you more about several of them – and other topics - this year. In the meantime we have no long articles this issue but several short items which illustrate how much is going on.
But if there is one thing you can be sure of, it is that we will be reminding you that your NZACS insurance renewal has changed this year to September.
From 2026, NZACS insurance renewal is in September. Did we mention this already? Don’t worry, we will mention it again this year.
This year, the government intends to amend the Health & Safety at Work Act (HSWA). As small businesses most architectural practices are likely to have their legal Health & Safety obligation clarified, and possibly reduced.
However, part of that change to the HSWA will give prescriptive Approved Codes of Practice (ACOPs) “deemed to comply” status, with several new ACOPs under development. The key ACOP for most of our members will be Worksafe’s new Approved code of practice for roles and responsibilities in residential construction. This is likely to have implications for clients and architects as well as for building contractors.
Expect more on this during the year!
https://www.worksafe.govt.nz/topic-and-industry/construction/new-acop-residential-construction/
Schedule One of the Building Act has jumped up in complexity with new and revised exemptions from Building Consent: the sixth edition, version 2 of Exemptions Guidance for Schedule 1 of the Building Act 2004 (MBIE 15 January 2026) has swollen to 213 pages without covering the new “Granny Flats” (they’re Schedule 1A).
The rules for “detached standalone buildings” in particular have changed, some categories now requiring design by Licenced Building Practitioner.
We hope to bring you further comment on these changes in Communiqué.
In the meantime, we direct you to the extensive advice that MBIE publish concerning these new and changed exemptions.
A 30m2 sleepout that complies with the New Zealand Building Code will be a substantial investment. It is worth considering whether your client would be better served applying for Building Consent even if the building they want could be exempt.
The (up to) 70m2 Granny Flat – complete with plumbing - is now exempt from Building Consent via new clauses in the Building Act.
Other than a plethora of conditions the Granny Flat must meet, the main point to draw attention to is that the compliance risk is transferred from the BCA onto the owner, designer and builder.
Examination of the MBIE guidance shows that the designer is expected to have a role in construction observation and completion documents.
Architects as designers should consider carefully the extra risks that arise without council involved, and your need to observe the works if you are going to then prepare and submit completion documents.
If anything, without Council involved there is a stronger case for full traditional services – including not only construction observation but also contract administration!
Like the “Big Sleepout” but more so, the Granny Flat is a substantial investment, and it is worth considering whether your client might not be better seeking Building Consent for the work.
We have heard from a member who is already wrestling with some of these challenges and hope to have some lived advice to share soon.
After a year or so of price stability and sharpened pencils across the NZ construction industry, recent events in the Persian Gulf are hitting the price of oil.
Our modern buildings contain a lot of petroleum-derived materials (from paint and membrane roofs to vinyl and spouting) and even building materials that don’t contain oil, require energy to produce and transport them.
Inflation and perhaps even supply difficulties look set to return.
Now might be a good time to discuss with clients and contractors how to deal with price and supply shocks if - and when - they happen.
Since January this year the Disputes Tribunal can now consider claims up to $ 60,000. That’s double the previous limit of $ 30,000.
This makes more likely:
Claimants making more use of the Disputes Tribunal generally, as an economical way to recover their losses (or perceived losses).
Risks of “blowback” from seeking unpaid fees – your claim might be $5,000 in fees but the counter-claim could be ugly!
The Disputes Tribunal has some special attributes including that you can’t be represented by a lawyer and that decisions are based on “fairness” not contract – in some situations the Disputes Tribunal can even unpick a “full and final” settlement that is considered by the Tribunal to be unfair.
These attributes are not necessarily helpful to architects so kia tūpato, notify early and seek advice!
New changes in New Zealand court procedure as of January this year mean that it will be more important than ever to get rapid access to project documents in the case of a claim.
In summary, claimants will need to supply a complete claim package from day one, and the time that defendants have to assemble their case, supply their own evidence and join other parties will be very limited compared to the past (weeks not months).
The good news: our longstanding advice to practitioners doesn’t change:
Take steps to have all relevant correspondence available to you: for example, if the client or contractor is using a database tool such as Aconnex, Ineight or Procore to manage correspondence, do not rely on access to that tool at some future point when the claim arrives (maybe years later).
That way, you will already be working with the insurers and the NZACS Claims Committee if a claim is made against you in court.
That extra time may be even more important now.
Following our brief article on lifts last issue, an experienced member wrote in (thank you, Ron) to remind us that NZS 4121 is NOT the whole story for accessible lift dimensions.
Specifically, D2/AS2 calls up NZS 4334 (which is the standard for platform lifts and low-speed lifts) as an Acceptable Solution for platform lifts and low-speed lifts.
When designing passenger lifts, platform lifts and low-speed lifts, architects can therefore choose either NZS 4121 or the applicable NZS 4332 or NZS 4334 as their means of compliance.
For example, NZS 4334 allows a 1100mm x 1400mm configuration for a pass-through lift with entrances on opposite sides, with the shorter dimension being the sides with the entrances.
Not all BCAs are going to be familiar with this fact as MBIE Determination 2025-003 illustrates.
So, if venturing away from NZS 4121 for accessible lifts, it may be necessary to spell out your compliance pathway in the clearest of terms!