Building a deck - Consents

Forums › Home Workshop DIY › Building a deck - Consents

1 | 2

mattwnz

20520 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4797

#1045198 14-May-2014 23:06

skewt: My Mother is putting a deck on her house at the moment,
The council originally declined the application because the architect used incorrect figures so always confirm he is correct if you get declined or have any issues

Also, the architect submitted the deck plans to an engineer who proceeded to charge 9 hours for checking everything
After it was signed off, Their builder took it to place makers and the computer said you cant build this! it will fall down! Some structural beams were not large enough

How would placemakers know though? The architect would have used nzs3604, and if checked by an engineer, they should have checked them all.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#1045206 14-May-2014 23:35

driller2000: civil engineer here with 20+ years exp - and with all due respect to your builder - he ain't no geotech engineer

the foundation tests make sense for something 3.2m up - esp seeing as you said some of it is on uncompacted fill - hence the need for a geotech engineer and specific design

failing to do so can often end up with sh&t falling down and people can get seriously injured from 3.2m

as to the compliance costs, yep it aint cheap ......senior geo engs often charge out at $160/hr + as do senior structural engineers - and council would need specialist advice to review what your designers come up + site inspections + sign-off - as they also bear responsibility - so it doesn't take long to burn through $6k - sucks when it comes out of your own pocket (i know i had my house built 5 years ago...)

The existing deck had been in place for >50 years, the failure of the deck wasn't because of failure of the footings in EQs, the original build wouldn't have involved an engineer, and with respect - design is never quite as assuring as "proven". The plans met NZS3604, and although the possible fall distance is 3.2m max, the deck isn't 3.2m above ground level.

As I said - you sure don't want a deck to fall down.

In my example, the compliance cost isn't out of my pocket. It's an EQ repair to be paid for by my insurer. Their engineers and QSs also didn't allow for those costs, and neither did an engineer I employed (at my cost) to run through the insurer's "DRA" with me, and carry out a site inspection - looking specifically at foundations, footings etc.

So summarising, at least 2 chartered structural engineers have seen the deck. A registered independent QS has costed full "like for like" replacement (ie in R/C). My LBP designer, and an LPB builder. Nobody anticipated that shallow bearing tests would be needed. The geotechnical engineer (my wife's cousin) did the auger and scala tests, and prepared the report. He was staggered that CCC were requiring those tests.

I'm very confident that if I'd taken 1/2 of the extra compliance costs, given that $3000 as an "extra" to my builder, and said "build me the strongest deck you can" with it, I'd have ended up with something stronger and safer than I'm going to get at the end of all this.

eracode

Smpl Mnmlst
9334 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6203

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1045252 15-May-2014 03:34

bagheera: last building consent we did, every thing was itemised - there was $30 charge for paying the bill in there..........

and the wait 1 month then oh crap time up let ask for something so the clock stop again on the consent is standard.

What?

Sometimes I just sit and think. Other times I just sit.

driller2000

936 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 374

ID Verified

#1045270 15-May-2014 07:33

Fred99:
driller2000: civil engineer here with 20+ years exp - and with all due respect to your builder - he ain't no geotech engineer

the foundation tests make sense for something 3.2m up - esp seeing as you said some of it is on uncompacted fill - hence the need for a geotech engineer and specific design

failing to do so can often end up with sh&t falling down and people can get seriously injured from 3.2m

as to the compliance costs, yep it aint cheap ......senior geo engs often charge out at $160/hr + as do senior structural engineers - and council would need specialist advice to review what your designers come up + site inspections + sign-off - as they also bear responsibility - so it doesn't take long to burn through $6k - sucks when it comes out of your own pocket (i know i had my house built 5 years ago...)

The existing deck had been in place for >50 years, the failure of the deck wasn't because of failure of the footings in EQs, the original build wouldn't have involved an engineer, and with respect - design is never quite as assuring as "proven". The plans met NZS3604, and although the possible fall distance is 3.2m max, the deck isn't 3.2m above ground level.

As I said - you sure don't want a deck to fall down.

In my example, the compliance cost isn't out of my pocket. It's an EQ repair to be paid for by my insurer. Their engineers and QSs also didn't allow for those costs, and neither did an engineer I employed (at my cost) to run through the insurer's "DRA" with me, and carry out a site inspection - looking specifically at foundations, footings etc.

So summarising, at least 2 chartered structural engineers have seen the deck. A registered independent QS has costed full "like for like" replacement (ie in R/C). My LBP designer, and an LPB builder. Nobody anticipated that shallow bearing tests would be needed. The geotechnical engineer (my wife's cousin) did the auger and scala tests, and prepared the report. He was staggered that CCC were requiring those tests.

I'm very confident that if I'd taken 1/2 of the extra compliance costs, given that $3000 as an "extra" to my builder, and said "build me the strongest deck you can" with it, I'd have ended up with something stronger and safer than I'm going to get at the end of all this.

cheers for the additional info

i will however take issue with "design is never quite as assuring as "proven"."

the deck was proven to stand up in the EQ events and loads exp at your place and was damaged by the chimney - and so did not fail in of itself - i get that

this however doesn't mean it would have stood up to the current design loads should they have actually been FULLY applied to the structure - this is what specific design must allow for

bagheera

544 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 189

#1045295 15-May-2014 08:27

eracode:
bagheera: last building consent we did, every thing was itemised - there was $30 charge for paying the bill in there..........

and the wait 1 month then oh crap time up let ask for something so the clock stop again on the consent is standard.

What?

The council have a time frame to do all consent by - what normal happen is it sits on a desk for 29 day and then a flag go off saying time almost up, person assign to the consent go "oh crap", have a quick look at it and then ask for something from the customer - at which point the clock stop on the consent till the person get the info back to them, giving the person more time to look at the consent in more detail, and keep in all consent approved in 30 day SLA

skewt

752 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 215

#1045354 15-May-2014 09:52

mattwnz:
skewt: My Mother is putting a deck on her house at the moment,
The council originally declined the application because the architect used incorrect figures so always confirm he is correct if you get declined or have any issues

Also, the architect submitted the deck plans to an engineer who proceeded to charge 9 hours for checking everything
After it was signed off, Their builder took it to place makers and the computer said you cant build this! it will fall down! Some structural beams were not large enough

How would placemakers know though? The architect would have used nzs3604, and if checked by an engineer, they should have checked them all.

Not sure on the details but I know the builder put all the plans into the system at placemakers and it said you cant then the architect had to redesign some of it.
either way the architect and engineer from this firm were rather incompetent

Lenovo

Shop now for Lenovo laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

E3xtc

782 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 164

#1045516 15-May-2014 12:55

bagheera:
eracode:
bagheera: last building consent we did, every thing was itemised - there was $30 charge for paying the bill in there..........

and the wait 1 month then oh crap time up let ask for something so the clock stop again on the consent is standard.

What?

The council have a time frame to do all consent by - what normal happen is it sits on a desk for 29 day and then a flag go off saying time almost up, person assign to the consent go "oh crap", have a quick look at it and then ask for something from the customer - at which point the clock stop on the consent till the person get the info back to them, giving the person more time to look at the consent in more detail, and keep in all consent approved in 30 day SLA

This happens...real annoying....but yeah, just them taking advantage of the required process and buying some time...grrrr

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#1045693 15-May-2014 17:51

E3xtc:
bagheera:
eracode:
bagheera: last building consent we did, every thing was itemised - there was $30 charge for paying the bill in there..........

and the wait 1 month then oh crap time up let ask for something so the clock stop again on the consent is standard.

What?

The council have a time frame to do all consent by - what normal happen is it sits on a desk for 29 day and then a flag go off saying time almost up, person assign to the consent go "oh crap", have a quick look at it and then ask for something from the customer - at which point the clock stop on the consent till the person get the info back to them, giving the person more time to look at the consent in more detail, and keep in all consent approved in 30 day SLA

This happens...real annoying....but yeah, just them taking advantage of the required process and buying some time...grrrr

That is how it seems to be...
The RFI for geotech survey added an extra problem. There is a serious shortage of both geotechnical engineers and chartered structural engineers in Chch. You can expect a delay of up to 3 months for an initial site visit/survey. I'm going to have scaffolding up, and contract works insurance in place, combined about $500/week. I will also have trades - who I want to be able to give a clean interruption-free site "ready to go".
Council did call me back this morning to clarify inspections required - as it was a little vague on their consent documents, the builder and I weren't sure. That's now all good- building inspector visits shouldn't be a problem. I do need to be very careful with engineering inspections - I know they're busy, so need to give them plenty of lead time.
It was doing my head in yesterday. Today I'm feeling a bit better about it. I am getting some french doors made - this is not EQ repairs, but part of the project. These have to be on site ready to be installed before the cladding starts. And yes - there's a shortage of joiners in Chch to make the timber doors, and long delays for delivery.

When this project is finished, I'm going to have a party, go sailing for a week with my cellphone turned off, and hopefully recover my sanity.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#1075497 27-Jun-2014 12:32

I have had the old concrete deck demolished over the past week. It was a bit of a major exercise - the concrete was very dense, and there was masses of 3/4" rebar spaced at about 100mm. I expected it would be pretty strong, as the deck took a direct hit from the entire chimney falling from above roof level - over three tonnes falling from 3m in one piece. This deflected the deck - dished down about 20mm around point of impact. There is corrosion on the rebar in the photo - the concrete above the beams was split, water was running though and forming rust-coloured stalactites underneath. Despite this - EQC loss adjusters "thought it could be fixed". Fortunately even their own engineer did not agree. The beams had 4 x 1" rebar. I suspect that the house foundation has similar reinforcing, as it survived remarkably well - cracks were minor.

1 | 2