Building Code Enforcement Proposals

The proposal for Risk-Based Targeted Third-Party Oversight has evolved through consultation with local government administrators and building officials. This paper presents more detail on the challenges facing the current system and an up-to-date description of this proposal.

The most obvious change is the replacement of the term “oversight” with “Building Code enforcement”—some people found the term “oversight” ambiguous. As the idea of risk-based enforcement continues to develop through discussion with stakeholders, there is now an emphasis on high-risk areas.


Updated Building Code Enforcement

While safe, healthy and accessible buildings are being built, the system for regulating construction faces many challenges—a construction boom and skilled trades shortage, rapidly changing technology and increased liability exposure. The system has not kept up with the shifts and emerging issues in the environment it regulates, or its participants’ needs. Change is required to improve how building safety is achieved.

The current system: Building Code enforcement:

The foundation for a discussion on improving how building safety is achieved is the understanding that compliance with the Building Code results in safer buildings. Review of building design and construction by an independent third party is a key factor in better code compliance.

The public expects buildings in British Columbia to be safe. The provincial government, local governments and the construction industry all have an interest in achieving building safety.

The current building regulatory system in BC is discretionary. The provincial government may establish a building code and local governments may regulate buildings (this is commonly interpreted to include enforcement of the code).

There are no explicit requirements or obligations. There is a longstanding history, however, of local government involvement in code enforcement.

Top

What are the problems in the current system?

During discussions with stakeholders, the Office of Housing and Construction Standards has heard that while some things in the current system are working well, there are some serious problems, both in the construction sector and with code enforcement.

To date, we have heard about:

  • Existing defects in buildings: Building failures may be rare (buildings are not falling down), but even in the post-leaky condo era, we are seeing buildings and designs with significant defects.
    • Example: A condo building in Kelowna was found to be unsafe due to structural problems—inadequate foundation and load-bearing walls. Its 236 owners were advised to move out pending repairs. Repairs are still not completed, almost one year later.
    • Example: The City of Vancouver annually reviews 10 to 15 of the structural designs submitted to its building department. It has found errors—often significant—in every design checked.
  • Shortage of skilled labour: During the current construction boom, industry is taking on more and more projects with no (or minimal) increase in the availability of skilled labour to do the work. Given the large number of projects, human resource constraints and time pressures, it is predictable that code compliance and quality of work will suffer.

Building defects can lead to more claims and increased liability exposure.

  • Lack of or limited code enforcement: Many local governments do an effective job of enforcing the code. In some jurisdictions, however, plan review and building inspection have been cut back or discontinued, or were never established. Some rural areas have no regime for regulating construction. As a result:
    • Public buildings—offices, lodges, ski resorts—are being built in some rural areas without a building permit or a building inspector ever walking on site.
    • Public buildings are also being built in some urban areas without any inspections by a third party that is independent of the project.
  • Lack of consistency and predictability: Plan review and inspection procedures can be very different from one jurisdiction to another. Jurisdictions can also differ in how much they focus on high-risk areas.
    • Example: In jurisdiction X, the building official may interpret a particular code provision prescribing rainscreen wall construction to mean that the work should be done in a particular way. In jurisdiction Y next door, the building official may interpret the same code provision to mean the work should be done in a very different way, and that it shouldn’t be done the way it is in jurisdiction X.
    • Example: More effort may go into plan review and site inspection for single-family houses, when large, complex buildings have more occupants and any defects create more safety risk.

Industry may avoid doing business in jurisdictions in which code enforcement is perceived to be inconsistent or inefficient.

  • Lack of coordination: The activities of building officials, fire officials, safety officers and warranty company inspectors may be poorly coordinated.
    • Example: Occupancy permits are sometimes issued before required safety inspections are completed.
  • Pressures on local governments: Problems with code enforcement can arise because of pressures related to:
    • Capacity
      • Some local governments just do not have the staff and/or resources to enforce the code effectively, especially with the increasing complexity of design and technology in large projects for buildings like hospitals
    • Liability
      • Some local governments may withdraw from code enforcement to reduce their chances of being sued if claims are made for building defects

These problems impact both building safety and economic development.

Impacts on building safety: There is a longstanding history of local government involvement in code enforcement that is generally positively viewed by the construction industry. Many stakeholders in the construction industry, as well as building officials, believe that loss of review by an independent third party means that mistakes that impact building safety can go undetected.

Impacts on economic development: Industry stakeholders have told us that while local government’s role in code enforcement is valued, inconsistency in how individual local governments enforce the code creates uncertainty, slows building projects down and can increase construction costs, making it harder to do business. More consistency in this area can support the economic development that construction brings to local governments.
Top

What are we proposing?

Code enforcement throughout the province, which includes:

  • review of building design and construction to assess code compliance, and
  • steps taken to correct non-compliance,

by a third party independent of the building project.

The independent third party may be a local government, the BC Safety Authority (BCSA) a certified private-sector agency. Design professionals (architects and engineers) may assist with some aspects of oversight; for example, review of structural designs.

Review of code compliance takes place through plan review and inspection of buildings under construction, with an emphasis on high-risk areas.

Local governments will continue to have a choice whether to enforce the code. In jurisdictions that choose to enforce, new tools will be available to support enforcement, including:

  • Access to authoritative responses to questions on the meaning of code provisions from the Province of British Columbia
  • A program modelled on the Certified Professional program1 that local governments can use to get assistance with some aspects of enforcement
  • Detailed guidance for applying code requirements to existing buildings
  • New processes to assist local governments in the evaluation of new, non-standard ways of meeting code requirements

[1] The “Certified Professional” program is an alternate building permit approval stream in which a specially trained design professional provides liaison between the local government and the building project, assuming some oversight functions. This process is currently in place in the City of Vancouver, and is well received by industry.

In jurisdictions in which the local government chooses not to enforce the code, another third party, such as the BCSA or a private-sector agency, will step in and do so.

Code enforcement will emphasize high-risk areas. High-risk means that non-compliance could have a major negative impact on building safety. High-risk areas could include:

  • Automatic sprinkler systems and fire exits in complex buildings
  • Structural design of complex buildings
  • Rainscreen wall systems

A multi-stakeholder group, including local government administrators and building officials, will be established to help determine the areas of high risk and the details of how code enforcement throughout the province will be implemented.

Local governments that issue building and occupancy permits will continue to do so.

What is not being proposed?

This proposal focuses on how the construction process is regulated. It does not address land use planning. Local governments’ broad powers in relation to land use planning do not change.

Top

Benefits to local governments

The proposal for code enforcement throughout the province is expected to:

  • Clearly define who is doing what
  • Give local governments access to code-related expertise and assistance with code application and enforcement
  • Make more efficient use of limited staff and resources
  • Enable all local governments, including those that do not choose to enforce the code, to attend to building safety

Safety and economic benefits

The proposal is expected to:

  • Increase code compliance and reduce safety risk
  • Achieve more consistent safety outcomes across British Columbia
  • Help remove unnecessary barriers to economic development

How would this proposal be implemented?

There are two possible approaches to implementation:

  • Local governments choose whether or not to enforce the code. If a local government chooses not to enforce, the provincial government arranges for another third party (e.g., the BCSA) to enforce.

OR

  • Local governments are responsible for code enforcement and can delegate this responsibility (and associated liability) to a
    provincially-approved third party.

For local governments that enforce the code, a model bylaw could be developed for adoption. (This would be similar to the existing concurrent authority for buildings under the Community Charter). The bylaw could include defined high-risk areas and a range of possible enforcement options (e.g., the Certified Professionals program).

What about costs?

Local government fees for building and occupancy permits may need to be
re-examined if another third party enforces the code.

For example, if a local government chooses not to enforce and the provincial government arranges for another third party to enforce within that jurisdiction, permit fees may need to be reduced to accommodate the fees the other third party charges building projects for plan review and inspections.

If a local government itself delegates responsibility for code enforcement to another third party, the local government will need to pay that third party. In this case, permit fees could also need adjustment.