Editorial: Vital to stop rot speedily

It is not difficult to find an Auckland homeowner stricken by the consequences of building shortcomings and the region's moisture-laden atmosphere. The timber frames of too many new houses have rotted, some within months of construction.

If leaks have always been the bane of householders, never has the problem been so alarming as in the past decade. Almost two-thirds of the new homes surveyed in one Auckland study leaked. For the unfortunate homeowner, that can mean a repair bill measured in the thousands of dollars; for those in the construction industry, it is an issue they must confront.

Given the scope of the problem, it might be assumed the industry would have sought to put things right as soon as possible. It is, after all, expected to abide by a building code that requires houses to be constructed to resist moisture entering from the outside. Yet the industry's response has consisted of squabbling and little discernible sense of emergency. As the Weekend Herald reported, industry insiders have known about the problem of leaky, rotten buildings for years. Yet nothing was done and when the issue was publicised a year ago, the accent was on buck-passing. Some blamed the use since 1996 of untreated kiln-dried timber, some new "chilly-bin" cladding. Others pointed to design changes and the greater likelihood that Mediterranean-style houses, with their flat roofs, lack of eaves, and floor-level decks, would let in rain. Fingers were also pointed at falling standards of workmanship and inadequate local-body inspections.

Among all this quarrelling, most seemed more intent on protecting their own patches than fashioning a remedy. An industry-wide working group formed by the Building Research Association was the only worthwhile response. Perhaps most notably, the Building Industry Authority, the Government body responsible for building controls, remained silent. Finally, last month it stirred. It has set up an independent team to investigate the extent of the problem of leaking houses and to identify all likely causes.

It is stating the obvious, of course, to suggest that the authority's initiative comes at least a year too late. And that there is already enough evidence to conclude that the problem is widespread; and that the likely causes have been spelled out. The overriding need is for the authority, in conjunction with the research association, to quickly provide a solution. Indeed, that need is exacerbated by a housing market moving again into boom territory and an anti-sprawl policy in Auckland that promotes medium-density development.

The authority may opt for compulsory design features, such as the drainage planes - a gap between the stucco and the timber frame to allow water to escape - now obligatory in British Columbia. It may find shortcomings in the regulation and training of tradespeople. It may also conclude that local body inspection and certification systems are no longer adequate. Homeowners facing hefty bills will obviously feel their supposed custodian, the local-authority building inspector, failed to exercise proper oversight. Thus, some are suing not only the builder but their local body - a loss-loss equation for ratepayers.

If a solution is not found quickly, householder disquiet could soon promote a crisis of confidence in the building industry. In Vancouver, such a crisis resulted in plummeting house values and a sharp drop in building consents as people shunned new multi-storey housing. Here, the industry, working in an earthquake-prone environment and accustomed to rigorous standards, has built a commendable record. But that reputation is being jeopardised. The industry must place its customers first - and quickly.