I spent a few hours in my workshop this weekend, indulging my current fascination with hand-cut dovetails—a laborious departure from my usual rush to get things done. As I sawed away, it took me back to when I built my own house about 20 years ago. Back then, the building process was far less intimidating. You could roll up your sleeves, get stuck in, and manage your own build without feeling bogged down by red tape. Building consents felt more like helpful guidance than an obstacle course, and councils offered support instead of endless oversight.
Things have changed. Since the infamous leaky building crisis, regulatory frameworks have tightened, and compliance has ballooned into a costly, time-consuming maze that’s hard for any individual builder to navigate.
The Fallout from the Leaky Building Crisis
The leaky building crisis of the 1990s and early 2000s hit New Zealand hard. Poor materials—think untreated timber, monolithic cladding, and no eaves—alongside lax industry oversight, created ticking time bombs disguised as homes. The government cracked down, and councils responded with strict inspections and higher standards to prevent a repeat of the crisis.
While the intentions were good, the fix was heavy-handed. Instead of a balanced approach, the rapid overhaul resulted in hefty compliance costs and requirements. Builders and homeowners alike found themselves burdened with new fees and piles of paperwork, creating a system where even the smallest build had to meet meticulous requirements. This “safety-first” approach is understandable, but the overcorrection has made building far less accessible for everyone.
Compliance Costs and the Housing Affordability Crunch
These compliance costs are now a significant driver of New Zealand’s housing affordability woes. Local councils, with their rigorous inspections and endless forms, have made building consents an expensive and time-consuming challenge. These extra costs don’t just affect big developments; they impact individual homeowners as well, pricing many out of building their own homes.
When I built my house, compliance was a manageable part of the budget. Most of my resources could go toward quality materials and practical designs, rather than thousands of dollars in regulatory fees. Today, that’s not the case. The system favors box-ticking over flexibility, leaving little room for customization or innovation. Instead of a streamlined, supportive process, builders and homeowners face layers of scrutiny, creating a system where trust in builders has been replaced by suspicion and scrutiny. While there’s no doubt that higher quality standards are important, this extreme approach has made building more difficult and costly.
Bigger Homes, Lower Quality
Adding to the problem is our national obsession with big homes. Notwithstanding the tiny-house movement, most new subdivisions come with minimum size requirements, pushing larger, sprawling designs over compact, efficient ones. The result? Houses that are impressive in size but often lack durability or quality.
Ironically, our preference for size over quality adds to the issues that strict regulations try to prevent. Rather than investing in compact homes with durable materials, we’re seeing an influx of large homes made with lower-quality products that pass inspections but won’t necessarily stand the test of time. Instead of fewer, well-made homes, we’re seeing bigger, more breakable ones.
Back in the 1950s, homes might have been smaller, simpler, and less glamorous, but they were built to last. Builders used quality materials, and designs emphasized longevity over luxury. In contrast, today’s houses may have all the bells and whistles, but many aren’t built to last, resulting in a continuous cycle of maintenance and repairs.
New Policies: Are We Opening the Floodgates?
To tackle the housing crisis and ease compliance costs, new policies have recently been introduced to streamline building consents, especially for high-density housing. In theory, these policies aim to reduce red tape, which could make housing more affordable. But there’s a risk here, too: loosening these standards too much could flood the market with hastily built homes and cut corners in quality.
It’s a familiar pattern: to address one problem, we sometimes create the conditions for the next. Without carefully balancing quality standards with efficiency, we risk inviting a new era of poorly constructed buildings, setting the stage for the next leaky building crisis.
The challenge is to find a middle ground—regulations that ensure safety without choking off the building process. Streamlining compliance doesn’t have to mean sacrificing quality; it should encourage good design and sturdy materials that meet long-term needs, even in high-density builds.
Striking the Right Balance
New Zealand’s building consent system needs a balanced approach. We don’t want to go back to the hands-off days that led to the leaky building crisis, but we also can’t afford the high costs and bottlenecks that make building inaccessible. Incentivizing builders who use quality materials and sustainable designs could be a step forward. A revised consent process, one that looks at the long-term durability of a building as much as its technical specs, might just bridge the gap between rigid oversight and flexible design.
My weekend with hand-cut dovetails reminded me that a slow, careful approach has its merits. Rushing to a finish line can lead to mistakes, but too much caution can halt progress. Perhaps we need a similar mindset with our building standards—a system that prioritizes quality and supports homeowners without driving costs through the roof.
