ac1827 (v.1) - façade compliance guide · architect, facade engineer, structural engineer, fire...
TRANSCRIPT
Page 1 of 24
Façade guidance Achieving compliance
Page 2 of 24 August 2019 AC1827 (v.1)
2
3
5
5
Table of Contents
Introduction
Why use this guide?
The Building Act 2004
New Zealand Building Code
Design phase 6
6
6
7
8
8
9
9
10
10
Plans
Compliance path report
Pre-application meeting
Quality assurance, inspections & observations
It’s not just all about keeping water out
Fire
Acoustic
Energy efficiency
Internal moisture
Maintenance 10
Construction phase 11
11
11
12
12
12
13
13
Site inspections and observations
Council inspections
Project team inspection
Producer statements PS3
PS4 and site observations
Peer review log
Site water testing
Substitutions/minor variations/amendments 13
Procurement of goods 15
Façade compliance path table 16
Additional Information 20
Definitions 21
Page 3 of 24 August 2019 AC1827 (v.1)
Introduction
Auckland is a rapidly growing city and we are seeing more
high-density developments being constructed. The Auckland
Unitary Plan has assisted in allowing what we would classify as
mid-rise buildings, hence the need for this guidance brochure.
The guide outlines compliance requirements for façades and
provides a compliance table outlining some of the possible
compliance pathways available for mid-rise construction from a
predominately weathertight perspective. By establishing these
compliance pathways, we hope to help applicants understand
their options and see how compliance requirements for the
external envelope systems may be presented.
These are not the only options available to achieve
compliance. All applications for consent will be assessed on a
case by case basis. By outlining these compliant pathways, we
aim to provide more clarity about the building consent process.
Page 4 of 24 August 2019 AC1827 (v.1)
Why use this guide?
The intention of this document is to provide assistance and guidance to designers, building
owners, developers and the like when considering the various external envelope options
available to them when building in the mid-rise area.
While there is a trend for these buildings to incorporate traditional
residential materials and methods of construction, when the
building height is over 10m it is outside the scope of the acceptable
solution of E2 (external moisture). By default anything above 10m
is deemed an alternative solution so demonstrating compliance is
more complex. It will require further documentation than if less than
10m and using the acceptable solution E2/AS1.
The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) have
information relating to alternative solutions on their website www.mbie.govt.nz
The way in which compliance is demonstrated is referred to as the “compliance path”.
Regardless of how you elect to demonstrate compliance, it is the compliance path that
forms the backbone of any building consent application. The compliance path is to be in
writing and referred to as a “compliance path report”. More on this later.
Whichever compliance path option is chosen, some basic information such as cladding
wind pressures, building deflections, test data, and structural design, will need to be
included in the compliance path report.
Early engagement with the various professionals and suppliers is highly recommended to
assist in negotiating the regulatory compliance path.
Page 5 of 24 August 2019 AC1827 (v.1)
The Building Act 2004
The Building Act 2004 (the Act) sets out the rules for the
construction, alteration, demolition and maintenance of
new and existing buildings in New Zealand. This is the
primary legislation this information booklet is based on.
There is one section of the Act we quote here for reference:
Section 49 ‘A building consent authority must grant a building consent if it
is satisfied on reasonable grounds that the provisions of the
building code would be met if the building work were properly
completed in accordance with the plans and specifications that
accompanied the application’
So what does this mean?
Put very simply, job specific material/systems construction details etc. are required prior to
issuing the building consent. Performance based specifications do not demonstrate
compliance.
This has been confirmed and upheld by the High Court.
In New Zealand, all information confirming compliance is required up front before the
building consent being issued. All inspections, observations and the like during
construction are to verify the work is being undertaken in accordance with the consented
building plans and supporting documents.
Prior to lodging a building consent application, designers need to specify the actual
products, systems and the like they intend to have installed in or on the building, along
with the various products, systems etc. and their respective compliance paths
demonstrating their compliance with the New Zealand Building Code. Without this
information applications cannot be approved. Hence the earlier statement about the
benefits of early engagement of suppliers.
New Zealand Building Code
This document concentrates primarily on what keeps moisture out of the building: focusing on the
building code clause E2 (external moisture) as well as B1 (structure) and B2 (durability) as they
relate to E2. When considering the design of the building enclosure other code clauses must also
be considered. More on this later.
Page 6 of 24 August 2019 AC1827 (v.1)
Design phase
As with any building work getting the design right up-front is important. Designers in the
mid-rise space are generally relying on producer statements and peer reviews to fulfil the
compliance requirements, and this option is still
available and in fact is still required for tall buildings.
However, by the council providing a documented
approach, it is envisaged that the designer will within
set criteria (buildings less than 13m in height; cladding
pressures less than +/-2.5kPa) be able to put together a
proposal (a compliance path report) without necessarily
having to engage a third party to design or review the
proposal prior to lodging a building consent application.
Plans
The plans need to represent what will be built, showing exactly how things will be put
together. We accept things may change once on site (this is covered later). What this will
mean in reality is detail, detail, detail.
There needs to be sufficient information/detail to demonstrate to everyone what and how
to build is being proposed. In the case of proprietary systems, this may well mean shop
drawings, or at least sufficient detailing often from the systems supplier to demonstrate
compliance. Cut and paste of a supplier’s standard details on their own may not be
enough. Non-proprietary systems still need to be detailed sufficiently to demonstrate
compliance and enable everyone to understand how things will be built.
Compliance path report
The compliance path sets out how the proposal complies with the New Zealand Building
Code.
This must be provided in writing and include supporting documentation appropriate to
support the proposal. Basic information required in the compliance path report includes
(but not limited to): wind pressures, building deflections, and test data. Each appropriate
code clause needs to be identified and an explanation of how the proposal meets that
clause is required.
Page 7 of 24 August 2019 AC1827 (v.1)
The complexity of the external envelope will dictate what information needs to be provided
within the report, and the documentation supporting it. Please remember it is only the
information applicable to the proposed works that needs to be provided. More is not
always best and providing unnecessary information or generic data only slows down the
assessment process. The intention of the report is to demonstrate compliance and so
keeping it succinct and relevant is important.
Pre-application meeting
The biggest cause of frustration for both applicants and the council are “requests for
further information” or just simply RFI’s.
There are a number of reasons why an RFI is sent. The most common for external
envelopes is a lack of or incomplete
information. Inconsistent details and
information are also well up there in the RFI
league table. Lodging a building consent
application that is incomplete makes no
sense. RFI’s mean double handling for all
parties which is time consuming and
inefficient, often causing delays which will
then impact on critical path construction
timing but often worse still, money. The
council is introducing a new system
whereby incomplete applications will not be accepted on presentation.
Buildings outside the scope of the acceptable solution of E2 require a suitably qualified
and experienced person for review of the design proposal and supply a compliance path
report. When buildings fit the lower risk profile (refer to our table at the end of this
guidance) and when designers are both experienced and willing to supply their own
exterior envelope compliance report, the need for a design review may not always be
necessary.
It is recommended that the façade review requirement or otherwise, is discussed at your
initial pre-application meeting. We have also developed a compliance matrix which covers
four possible compliance paths which could be used to demonstrate compliance of the
building envelope. Option 1 is suitable for buildings only marginally outside the scope of
E2/AS1 (traditional residential construction methods). Options 3 and 4 address complex
designs likely incorporating bespoke facade elements.
Page 8 of 24 August 2019 AC1827 (v.1)
Quality assurance, inspections & observations
There are several options for how the inspection of the external
envelope construction and assembly can be managed. The
path chosen will depend on the complexity of the building, the
type of materials, products and systems used, and the
expertise of the project team and the council. The programme
for site visits must be submitted in the compliance path
documentation as part of the building consent application.
The inspection process will involve the council. The degree of involvement will vary on the
complexity and novelty of the façade being installed. Buildings using residential
construction methods, such as wraps, RABs and more traditional residential claddings, will
involve more council inspections. Possibly some PS3’s onsite testing and inspections by
the design team reviewer will also be required. Building envelopes which incorporate
specific design façade types such as curtain walls, will be largely directed by the specialist
façade designer/reviewer and supported with a PS4.
With some pathways the reviewer will need to complete site visits and observe the façade
installation is in accordance with the building consent documentation. In another option the
designer will fulfil this role. Checking the contractor's documentation and ensuring
appropriate records are being kept onsite is also a critical element of this role. Records of
site visits are to be left on site and made available to the council. Consistency of work is
important. Any corrective actions identified on site shall be signed off as being completed
by the same person who identified the issue to be remediated.
Some form of on-site water testing will almost always be required. The detail, such as type
and frequency, must be nominated within the compliance report. These test results will
form part of the onsite quality management system.
It’s not just all about keeping water out
The external envelope is not just about keeping moisture out of a building. There are many
other ways in which the building envelope contributes to making the building fit for purpose
and keeping the occupiers of the building healthy and safe. While this guidance focuses on
the E2 aspects of compliance, there are other code clauses that will need design input
when consenting the building envelope. For example:
Page 9 of 24 August 2019 AC1827 (v.1)
Fire
Careful consideration must be given to fire spread to the outside of the building. Building
cladding systems are very complex and may require a collaborative approach involving the
architect, facade engineer, structural engineer, fire engineer and material and product
suppliers. Engaging the relevant fire design professionals early in the design process is
highly recommended as this may have a major impact on the types of external envelope
systems that can be used.
Sadly, many parts of the world have experienced catastrophic external envelope (often
referred to as façade) fires. More recently in the United Kingdom that came with significant
loss to lives. New Zealand is very fortunate and has only experienced relatively minor
façade fires nevertheless our rules are tightening.
It is important that the fire engineer provide commentary on how the external wall cladding
system meets the building code requirements of C3.5 and C3.7 within the building consent
documentation.
The Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment have released a guidance document
“Fire Performance of External Wall Cladding Systems” which discusses how external wall
cladding systems can be tested to determine their fire performance:
Go to www.building.govt.nz and search “Fire performance of external wall cladding
systems” to find out more.
Acoustic
Reducing noise from sources outside the building is often
critical for the quality of life of the occupants. Being close to
such things as main arterial transport corridors or below
flight paths to airports can be an issue. Maximum noise
levels within the building can often be set by a condition in
the Resource Consent but then not addressed adequately
at building consent stage. The consequences can be very
expensive in both time and money.
Page 10 of 24 August 2019 AC1827 (v.1)
Energy efficiency
The efficient use of energy needs to be considered.
The building occupants’ comfort needs to be considered as well as the ongoing costs of
heating/cooling and its energy use; for example, the use of artificial lighting when natural
light may not be sufficient.
Internal moisture
The question how a building manages internal moisture is becoming more important as
our buildings become more airtight. The accumulation of condensation, moisture
movement in the air and its effect on the occupants’ health as well as the building fabric
needs to be considered. Understanding where dew points are occurring (e.g. not within the
wall cavity) will have an influence on the design of the external envelope.
Nothing should be considered in isolation but in this case by addressing internal moisture
you may likely impact energy efficiency and energy use.
Maintenance
No building is maintenance free, and no building product lasts forever. Once construction
is completed and the Code Compliance Certificate (CCC) has been issued, maintenance
should start. As part of the design phase, thought and care should be given to how the
external envelope is to be maintained and provision made for that. Given we are talking
about buildings over 10m tall this is likely to involve an access system such as fall arrest
anchors and abseil anchors, building maintenance units (BMU), building maintenance rails
or potentially the hire of temporary safety systems if the site allows. Whatever the system,
it needs to be detailed on the building consent application.
The council recommends that the designer provide information and documentation to the
owner(s) at the completion of the project outlining the maintenance requirements of the
materials and systems that have been installed in their building.
Page 11 of 24 August 2019 AC1827 (v.1)
Construction phase
Demonstrating compliance continues once the building consent has been granted.
Ensuring the construction is in accordance with the building consent is just as important, if
not more so than the design phase. Site observation of the external envelope during
installation is critical. This should be carried out by someone who has been involved in the
design phase. Council inspections are required as well as and not in lieu of site
observations.
Site inspections and observations
The more complex the external envelope, the greater level of record keeping, quality
assurance, inspections and site observations are required.
Council inspections
Having issued the building consent, the council will
always be involved on site. This will include inspections.
The number and type will vary from one project to
another, but this will be identified at the time the building
consent is issued. Often it will not just be an inspection in
the traditional sense of the word but will include checking
that the QA programmes are being followed, and the
appropriate people outside of council have also been
fulfilling their obligations i.e The reviewer.
These requirements will be discussed in advance, at the pre construction meeting with the
applicant or their representative to ensure everyone has a good understanding of the
various roles and responsibilities.
Page 12 of 24 August 2019 AC1827 (v.1)
Project team inspection
As part of the onsite QA, the project team will need
to complete site visits and observe the façade
installation is taking place in accordance with the
building consent documentation. A Quality
Management System (QMS) is mandatory and the
project team will have responsibility to ensure the
contractors' documentation is accurate and to
maintain appropriate records onsite for the council.
Copies of all site visits, instructions and closure of
corrective actions are to available on site, then
collated into one document and provided to council
with application of the Code Compliance
certificate.
Producer statements PS3
Producer Statements are commonly used to help council in determining the construction
complies with the building consent. A PS3 is normally received from an installer/contractor
confirming their installation is in accordance with the building consent.
PS4 and site observations
In a medium to very high-risk construction project a peer reviewer will be engaged to
provide an independent review of the building envelope compliance at design stage. That
author may then be required to assist the council by undertaking site observations
ensuring the construction is as designed and by providing a PS4 at the completion of the
construction to enable issue of the CCC. Authors must be on council’s producer statement
authors register for issuing producer statements in relation to the external envelope.
It is important to understand that this peer reviewer is independent of the contractor, or any
construction contracts other than to review the façade and provide the appropriate advice
and producer statements. They are assisting the council in fulfilling their role and the
council will rely on them and their professionalism and integrity.
It is also important to understand that when engaging a person to undertake construction
observations and provide a PS4, council will rely on their integrity and professional
judgement to assist in its decision to issue the CCC. They must be independent of the
Page 13 of 24 August 2019 AC1827 (v.1)
contractor or any construction contracts other than to review the façade and provide the
appropriate producer statements.
The council’s current producer statement policy can be found at
www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz and search for Producer Statement Policy.
Peer review log
A log of queries/changes requested by peer reviewer to the designer with confirmation of
changes and closed off requests needs to be included within the compliance path report at
the time of lodging the building consent application.
Copies of plans or other documents with comments and questions on them in lieu of a log
is not required or desired. There can be many changes and amendments made between
the designer and reviewer which in some instances run into several hundred pages. The
council does not need these. It is only the final documents that are required.
Site water testing
During construction, site water testing will generally be required. It is expected the
programme for site testing will have been submitted in the compliance report as part of the
building consent application.
The tests are to be witnessed by the design reviewer or the designer if a reviewer is not
engaged. Documentation relating to the tests is to be provided to council as part of the
application for a CCC.
Substitutions/minor variations/amendments
As previously outlined, building work is to proceed in accordance with the building consent
but changes sometimes happen. Any changes need to be recorded and approved by the
council prior to the building work starting.
“Wash-up as-built drawings” of changes undertaken without council approval provided at
the conclusion of the project do not comply with the legislative requirements of the Building
Act.
Page 14 of 24 August 2019 AC1827 (v.1)
It is important to ensure all building work is undertaken in accordance with the consent and
that any product substitution is done by way of an amendment or, a minor variation if
applicable. Failure to properly address substitutions or amendments creates delay on site
and if compliance of a substituted product cannot be demonstrated then product
substitution without consent can prevent the CCC being issued. The council may decide to
take further regulatory action if building work is undertaken other than in accordance with
the consented building plans. This may include prosecution.
The effect on resale and the requirements from your insurer and banker should also be
considered.
Information regarding amendments and minor variations can be obtained at
www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz and search for amendments and minor variations.
Page 15 of 24 August 2019 AC1827 (v.1)
Procurement of goods
Ensuring goods and products selected for the project are fit for
purpose is essential. Whether goods are locally sourced or
imported it is important that the supply chain, manufacturing
processes and installation can be verified as appropriate.
When selecting products or system designers should ensure the
products and supply chains are supported by a strong QMS.
A QMS such as AS/NZS ISO 9001:2008 will demonstrate the
manufacturer is able to consistently meet customer, statutory and
regulatory requirements. Does the supplier QMS give you
confidence that they will consistently provide products that will do
what they say they will do while complying with applicable regulations?
During the manufacturing process the façade reviewer or their appointed agent on council’s behalf,
reserve the right to undertake their own audit of the supply and manufacturing process at any time.
The results of such an audit are to be provided to council with what, if any, corrective action was
required and confirmation that it has been done.
Prior to the issue of the CCC, a copy of the completed supplier/manufacturers QMS and Product
Quality Performance (PQP) for the job is required by council. We suggest that this is supplied as
soon as possible to avoid delaying the issue of the CCC.
Page 16 of 24 August 2019 AC1827 (v.1)
Façade compliance path table
Facade
Compliance
Path table
Option 1
(Mid-rise)
Option 2
(Mid-rise)
PS2
Option 3
(Mid-rise)
PS1
Option 4
(High-rise)
PS1 + PS2
Building Complexity
It is essential to align the complexity of the building with the skills of
the team
Height limit 13m 27m 27m No limit
(ULS)
This limit is
not hard and
fast but a
practical
guide
Cladding
pressure
+/- 2.5kPA
(ULS)
No limit
(ULS)
No limit
(ULS)
No limit
(ULS)
This limit is
not hard and
fast but a
practical
guide
Building
movements
Low High High High All
parameters
(e.g. applied
loads,
movements,
tolerances
e.t.c) must be
determined
and
summarised
but it is
important to
note that as
movements in
particular
increase so
too will
façade design
complexity
Features of the
design
● Cavity
Systems
● Tested
Proprietary
Systems (no
As for 1
plus minor
deviations
from
proprietary
As for 1 plus
deviation
from
proprietary
systems and
As for 3
plus
novel/bespo
ke systems
(including
Performance
Specifications
(promises
about future
processes or
Page 17 of 24 August 2019 AC1827 (v.1)
changes or
deviations)
● Rigid Air
Barrier
● Not many
systems
(max 3)
● Alternative
Solutions
through
comparison/e
xtrapolation
of
compliance
documents
systems good practice
first principles
façade
design
project
specific
testing)
deliverables)
are not
relevant as
consent/comp
liance
evidence
Features
unlikely to be
in the consent
design
● No Open
Jointed
Rainscreens
● No Specific
Engineering
Design
● No inferred
detail or
responsibiliti
es
● No E2-AS1or
E2-VM1,
● No Perfect
Barrier
Systems,
● No
Mass/Storag
e Systems,
● No Single
Skin
Blockwork
● No Open
Jointed
Rainscree
ns
● No
Specific
Engineerin
g Design
● No inferred
detail or
responsibil
ities
● No E2-
AS1 or E2-
VM1
● No Perfect
Barrier
Systems
● No
Mass/Stor
age
Systems
● No Single
Skin
Blockwork
● No inferred
detail or
responsibiliti
es
● No E2-AS1
● No E2-VM1
● No Single
Skin
Blockwork
● No inferred
detail or
responsibil
ities
● No E2-
AS1
● No E2-
VM1
● No Single
Skin
Blockwork
Performance
Specifications
(promises
about future
processes or
deliverables)
are not
relevant as
consent/
compliance
evidence
Consenting Requirements
Compliance
report
Unifying
Produced by
designer
Compliance
Report from
designer
and/or a
A report from
Façade
Engineer on
the design
A report
from
Façade
Engineer on
The council
wants to see
one document
that explains
Page 18 of 24 August 2019 AC1827 (v.1)
Document
(the primary
document the
Council relies on
to summarise
compliance
pathways for the
whole façade)
PS2 report
from
Façade
Engineer
side i.e. a
PS1 report
the design
side i.e. a
PS1 report
the rational
basis for the
design and
compliance of
the whole
façade
Building
envelope
designer
Designer Designer Facade
Engineer
Facade
Engineer
Ensure
design
responsibilitie
s are clear
Other building
envelope
design Inputs
● Proprietary
Systems
Suppliers
● CPEng
Structural
Engineers
for Cladding
pressure &
building
movement
● ProprietarySystemsSuppliers
● CPEngStructuralEngineersforCladdingpressure &buildingmovement& misc bitsB1/B2
● Proprietary
System
Designers
● Specialist
Subcontract
ors
● CPEng
Structural
Engineers
for misc bits
B1/B2
● Façade
Engineer for
B1/B2/E2/F
2
● ProprietarySystemDesignersand/or
● SpecialistSubcontractors
● and/or● CPEng
StructuralEngineersfor miscbits B1/B2
● FaçadeEngineerforB1/B2/E2/F2 (andothers ifrequired)
Design
reviewer
Council Façade
Reviewer
(PS2)
Council Façade
Reviewer
(PS2)
The council
will require
the review to
be
outsourced
with complex
designs
Onsite Requirements
Producer
Statements
PS3 Construction supplied by all façade subcontractors
PS4 Façade
Review and
Site
Observations
PS4 Façade
Review and
Site
Observations
PS4 Façade
Review and
Site
Observations
Page 19 of 24 August 2019 AC1827 (v.1)
Inspections Council
Inspections
Limited
Council
Inspections
Limited
Council
Inspections
Limited
Council
Inspections
The council
will require
the
construction
observations
to be
outsourced
for complex
designs
Lead Designer may be required to undertake site observations as
part of their agreement with their facade reviewer/ facade designer
QA programme
and inspection
record
Applicants should identify where they think there are complicated
enclosure details and how their proposed QA system responds to the
challenges/risks inherent in those areas, the intent is to have QA
processes that demonstrate the efficiency of installed solutions. Site
QA should often/usually include some site water testing undertaken
to reputable standards and within the scope of the standards.
Methods like: field hose testing, internal pressure box testing with
external spray devices, external pressure box and external spray
devices, flood testing, EVFM testing, thermal imaging camera etc.
Applicants should identify the proposed regime in a project specific
outline QA Plan and explain how and why they have decided on the
QA methods.
Projects need
to explain
their
proposed
processes for
site QA with
consent
applications.
Evidence of
completion of
the proposed
QA is
required with
CCC
applications
The complexity of building features will determine the level of compliance documentation appropriate for the
building. A building with wind pressures of 2.8kPa will bump a building up to the next compliance option even if
the height of that building is only 13m.
Page 20 of 24 August 2019 AC1827 (v.1)
Additional Information
Build Magazine - Avoiding risky behaviour
A suggested risk matrix for steel and concrete buildings up to 15 storeys could inform
decision making in façade component choice and installation for some buildings that fall
outside the scope of E2/AS1.
Go to www.buildingmagazine.org.nz and search for “avoiding risky behaviour”
A Weatherproofing Risk Matrix for Multi-Storey Buildings.
“A Weatherproofing Risk Matrix for Multi-Storey Buildings” can be found at the bottom of
the above webpage “avoiding risky behaviour”.
Auckland Council Producer Statement Policy
A copy of the policy can be found at www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz and search for
Producer Statement Policy.
Page 21 of 24 August 2019 AC1827 (v.1)
Definitions
Building Movements
The building structural design and resulting deflections influence the façade and affect
the detailing required. The structural engineer may be able to provide the actual
deflections to allow the facade designer to provide a more accurate design.
Cladding Pressure
Cladding wind pressures are the loads from wind acting on the façade systems. They
include factors the shape multipliers and local pressure factors. They are usually
determined by an engineer experienced in the use of AS/NZS1170.2 or through wind
tunnel studies.
Compliance Report
This is the primary document the Council relies on to summarise compliance pathways
for the façade as a whole. For low-risk applications, this document is expected to be
produced by the designer and then reviewed by Council. The compliance table within this
guide provides an expectation for what constitutes a low-risk application. When a facade
engineer is engaged there is discretion for the compliance report to be produced by
either the facade engineer or designer.
The compliance report will be made up of a Project description, Designer Memorandum
and Compliance Pathway. The compliance pathway is best presented by using a table of
building envelope components, showing on the table how test reports, compliance
certificates etc. have been used to ensure the cladding system achieves compliance with
the NZBC.
The compliance report will also outline how the construction will be monitored and will
include a quality assurance programme nominating the onsite testing requirements and
the onsite observations. While these can be carried out by a third party the party will
need to be nominated and agreed to at building consent stage.
Page 22 of 24 August 2019 AC1827 (v.1)
Compliance Pathway
Used by BCAs to evaluate how proposed building work will comply with the performance
requirements in the Building Code. Using these compliance paths will help designers to
demonstrate compliance. A clear compliance path will be established using a comparison
between building factors (height, cladding pressures, building movement) with an
Acceptable Solution or Verification Method, Product certification and citing relevant
testing
Designer Memorandum
Designers memorandum is a declaration that the design professional has applied the skill
and care in carrying out or supervising the building envelope design. It should state that
the building envelope if constructed in accordance with the drawings, specifications, and
other documents provided, will comply with the relevant provisions of the Building Code.
Project Description
Forms part of the external envelope compliance report. This will outline the engineering
requirement.
Onsite QA Programme
Includes designers’ nominated process for inspections and a completed agreement to
supply producer statements. Applicants should identify where they think there are
complicated enclosure details and how their proposed QA system responds to that in
order to demonstrate the efficiency of installed solutions. Site QA should often include
some site water testing undertaken to reputable standards and within the scope of the
standards. Methods like: field hose testing, internal pressure box testing with external
spray devices, external pressure box and external spray devices, flood testing, EVFM
testing, thermal
Facade System, Cladding system, Building Envelope (for weathertightness) AS/VM
E2
The outside or exterior weather-resistant surface of a building; including roof cladding and
roof underlays, wall cladding and wall underlays, and cavity components, roof lights,
windows, doors and all penetrations, flashings, seals, joints and junctions.
Page 23 of 24 August 2019 AC1827 (v.1)
Site Inspections
The programme for site inspections will be submitted in the compliance report with the
Façade documentation lodged for building consent. When a façade engineer has been
engaged the weight of the inspections process will be directed by that specialist façade
engineer. It is the council’s expectation that the façade engineer will complete site visits
and check the façade installation is in accordance with the consent documentation. The
façade engineer will ensure any changes have been addressed by way of Minor Variation
or Amendment. The façade engineer will check the contractor's documentation and ensure
appropriate records are being kept onsite.
Copies of site records and instructions and close-offs are to be made available to the
council inspectors and shall be provided to council at the conclusion of the project prior to
the issue of the Code Compliance Certificate.
The facade engineer will need to ensure all deficiencies are closed out prior to the issue of
PS4.
Peer Review
The council will require the facade review to be outsourced to an independent façade
reviewer where the design complexity fits within either options 2,3 or 4 in the Façade
Compliance Path table.
All peer reviews should include review of the project plans and specifications including
facade compliance report, site observation methodology and a Peer Review Log
documenting the review process with the supporting PS2.
Page 24 of 24 August 2019 AC1827 (v.1)
Find out more: phone 09 301 0101 or visit aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/