Rot-risk remains says campaigner

By WAYNE THOMPSON

A campaigner against moisture problems in houses says new requirements that permit untreated timber will leave a legacy of unsolved problems.

Auckland property consultant Philip O'Sullivan, who has campaigned on the issue since 1998, said the Building Industry Authority's changes, announced yesterday, gave consumers no guarantee that they would face repairs to rotten timber.

By deciding not to require that all framing timber be chemically treated, the authority was inviting mix-ups on building sites where untreated timber was used in the wrong place.

"The industry can't cope with mixing - it's been tried two or three years ago and failed," he said.

Council inspectors and building certifiers would find it impossible to check which timber was used if they could not see it for themselves.

Houses had few places which would be unaffected by leaks from plumbing, showers, water cylinders or fridges, so requiring treatment for all framing would have been a sensible solution.

Mr O'Sullivan said he hoped territorial councils would ignore the authority and say they required more treated timber before issuing a building code of compliance certificate.

Auckland City Council principal building officer Bob De Leur said inspectors would note how builders and timber manufacturers handled the mixing of treated and untreated timber on a site.

"We won't be faced with liability if the industry doesn't do its job. We will bounce a few jobs and it will cost someone some money but it needs to be clear to our inspector on the road what timber is treated or untreated."

Mr De Leur said inspectors might even require a statement from timber manufacturers saying all the timber on a site was treated and met all standards.

Consumers' Institute chief executive David Russell said the treated-timber changes were a rational approach to the problems and thought it was reasonable for the authority to soften its stance since original proposals were issued in June.

The changes meant consumers had to learn more about various levels of treated timber and to be more careful about which timber they requested for certain jobs about the house.

The additional cost of using treated timber was slight on an average house but further changes to come under the new Building Bill would add to costs on new homes.

Registered Master Builders Federation president John Marshall said it could cost $1000 to $2000 for an average house to meet changes in treated-timber regulations.

He personally had suggested to clients in the past 18 months that they consider use of treated timber. Clients seemed well aware of the advantages.

Mr De Leur said that for most people, a home was their biggest investment, and an extra $1000 for treated timber must be considered in light of the timber's longer life and the cost of replacing it if it rotted.

His advice was to pay the extra cost at the building stage rather than repairs five years later.

He agreed with the authority's decision to allow untreated timber in ventilated roof spaces.

Extra costs

The cost of treated timber changes:

* The Building Industry Authority says they will add about $500 to the cost of a typical new house.

* Combined with proposed measures for external moisture, the additional cost for an average house is $5000 or 2 to 3 per cent of its cost.

* Brick-veneer clad houses, about one-third of the market, will not be affected.