Conceptual Reference Database for Building Envelope Research |
Prev Next |
| Essay:Response to recommendations by Barrett reporthttp://www.udi.bc.ca/Files/Publications/Misc/Response%20to%20Barrett%20Recommendations.pdfUrban Development Institute, Pacific Region Recommendation #1: That the definition of "leaky condo" be expanded to include: A leaky building is any residential building within British Columbia, for which construction was completed in 1983 through 1998, and which experienced building envelope failures, requiring repairs in excess of $2,000 per unit, for multi-family construction, and $10,000 for single-family units or duplexes. We believe that the 1983-1998 period of application for the definition of "leaky condo" is unrealistically large, that $2,000 per unit is too low a figure, and that single detached houses and duplexes should be excluded from the definition. In contrast, we propose the dates 1987-1998 and a figure of $5,000.
Recommendation #2: That the provincial government introduce, as quickly as possible, legislation to establish the Homeowner Protection Act and create the Homeowner Protection Office to: strengthen consumer protection through implementing mandatory, private sector home warranty and statutory implied warranty for residential construction; improve the quality of residential construction by regulating and licensing the residential construction industry; undertake research and disseminate information; provide access to dispute resolution for issues concerning residential construction; and establish a reconstruction fund as a source of support for residential homeowners hardest hit by problems with construction quality. We do not support this recommendation for the following reasons: We believe that the additional bureaucracy created by the proposed H.P.O. will be counter productive and excessively costly. We prefer a self-financing, arms-length organization which will not divert remediation funding to pay for administration. Furthermore, a statutory implied warranty is not necessary if an expressed warranty under minimum standards is made mandatory. We also believe that much more work needs to be done to determine how the reconstruction fund will be applied, and who will qualify as "hardest hit".
Recommendation #3: That the role and responsibility of, what was formerly the Building Standards Branch, be reinstated under the proposed Homeowner Protection Office, as part of the Education and Research function of this new body, and that it provide guidance and direction on both the interpretation and enforcement of the building code. The Building Standards Branch applied the Code to all forms of construction, not just residential buildings. Therefore, the BSB should be revived in the form of a stand-alone the Ministry of Municipal Affairs to serve branch of all stakeholders and the general public, not as an arm of the proposed Homeowner Protection Office.
Recommendation #4: That the administration and interpretation of the Building Code be enhanced through the creation of provincial inspectors capable of undertaking onsite inspections. This will create another layer in the project approval process, creating additional costs for new housing; It will also duplicate and interfere with municipal responsibilities for inspection in the process. If the inspectors disagree with each other and cannot overcome their differences of opinion, what is the developer to do? Instead of creating an additional level of bureaucracy, municipalities should be granted funds specifically for hiring additional inspectors, who would seek further assistance from a reinstated Building Standards Branch. ¡¡¡¡¡¡ More info of this article can be found on the web at: http://www.udi.bc.ca/Files/Publications/Misc/Response%20to%20Barrett%20Recommendations.pdf Web Links:
|