We don't use the term building surveyor here in the great white north.
I have heard the term before but always associated it with the term
"quantity surveyor" which we hear occasionally from Brits. What is a
building surveyor and what are his qualifications? You do distinguish
between an engineer and a building surveyor so what does the latter do?
TIA
Gary
Conrad Harrison wrote:
> Bill,
>
> In South Australia development approval comprises of two parts:
>
> 1) Provisional Development Plan consent
> 2) Provisional building Rules consent
>
> Only the local councils (AHJ) can grant development approval, and only once
> the two consents have been granted. The assessment of building rules is
> usually by building surveyors, a few are architects and a few are engineers,
> most are not.
>
> As I understand it, in the past people could simply go to local council and
> ask what was required and they would be told what to do. Not sure how far
> back that was, but the current development act was introduced in 1993, and I
> believe the prior act required submission of structural calculations. When
> it was introduced private certifiers were also introduced, and many councils
> now send applications out to private certifiers for assessment: building
> departments have shrunk in size. Private certifiers are registered building
> surveyors, and I believe they have to also be either architects or
> engineers. Private certifiers can only grant approval for building rules,
> and building permit is not issued until get full development approval.
>
> The building surveyor is not permitted to recommend design-solutions, they
> have to remain independent. I believe at some point in the past a few
> councils were sued because of faulty footings on reactive clay soils:
> council is always there, other parties aren't.
>
> What it means is if something is undersized the building surveyor cannot say
> what size will be approved: they can only reiterate the requirements of the
> building rules.
>
> Also the development regulations require that the structural provisions of
> the building code of Australia (BCA) are assessed by an independent
> technical expert. At present however the definition of such is simply a
> person with a 4 year B.Eng in Civil Engineering and a few years of
> experience: it doesn't require registration on the national professional
> engineers register (NPER). If the building surveyor is an engineer then they
> can assess the structural provisions. Most building surveyors are not
> engineers so most councils send development applications out to private
> consulting engineers for structural assessment. These consultants usually
> request the submission of engineering calculations. That is not really the
> intent of the act.
>
> A building surveyor is permitted to accept in good faith a certificate from
> an independent technical expert, and is also required to seek such
> certificates if aspects of a development proposal are beyond their scope of
> competence.
>
> So sometimes instead of asking for engineering calculations they will simply
> ask for a certificate of an independent technical expert. If an engineer
> specialises in a particular area of practice then they can simply look at
> something and say it is similar to a 100 other projects, and certify it. But
> if the proposal is deficient they cannot advise or specify the requirements
> to make it acceptable.
>
> In which case they remove the reference to independent technical expert and
> issue a certificate of structural adequacy with conditions. If it is simple
> the engineer representing the AHJ will accept that without calculations, if
> not simple then may request the calculations or other evidence to support.
> {On the other hand the AHJ's request for a certificate makes it sound like a
> simple exercise to the owner of the building.}
>
> The building code of Australia (BCA) requires evidence-of-suitability, but
> indicates that a certificate from a suitably qualified person is adequate
> evidence. (NPER is called up as one option of suitably qualified, but not
> necessary)
>
> To me it seems that in practice there are double standards. The building
> surveyors do a lot of the assessment themselves without calculations or
> other documentary evidence: access/egress requirements, fire rated
> construction, timber framing and more. Not all of this is simple
> prescriptive comparative checks, it requires some effort and justification.
> They do not ask designers to submit calculations for such things: the
> building surveyor does what ever is required.
>
> But structural even if building surveyor is an engineer and able to make the
> assessment, they still want some calculations submitted.
>
> The issue I have with that is: in many cases it is a waste of time and
> paper, and waste of space to store the paper, especially for those
> situations where the calculations are just tedious repetition to satisfy a
> paper trail. Further more the requirement is technical check: does the
> proposal comply with the code. According to some reports, often only an
> arithmetical check is carried out: relevance and deficiencies in the
> calculations not understood or recognised.
>
> If the technical experts were selected correctly, then they would have
> appropriate tools to review the proposals in the shortest time frame
> possible. Given such tools it is a waste of time to decipher hand written
> scribble, when can check the specification directly.
>
> The intent of the 1993 development act was to speed up approval. My view is
> that the designer only needs to submit their calculations, when the checker
> considers there is a non-compliance, and the designer wants to argue the
> point. Further the councils and other AHJ should select independent
> technical experts appropriate to the project, rather than have an on going
> contract with a local consultant.
>
> The development court has apparently ruled in various cases: expertise to
> the extent necessary to make an assessment, it doesn't require
> specialisation. That may be fine on the AHJ's side, but the industry is
> always complaining about how long it takes to get approval.
>
> My view is that it is the industries own fault. The builders and building
> designers could simply choose a private certifier with the appropriate
> specialisation, there is no need to go through council for building rules,
> when seeking development approval they simply advise council who the private
> certifier is. Once appointed they cannot change the certifier.
>
> More importantly they could get engineering done before seeking development
> approval, that way they would avoid the delay when a request for engineering
> is issued. If the work is of a simple nature then the engineer can act as
> independent technical expert and simply certify the structure. If the work
> is of a more complex nature, then the engineer acts as designer. To save
> time the design engineer can then seek another engineer to act as
> independent technical expert. There then should be two sets of calculations,
> but only the independent technical expert's certificate needs to be
> submitted for approval: the AHJ accepts that on good faith. The benefit is
> that the two independent engineers can be selected on basis of experience
> and specialisation. Calculations for the project can be minimised whilst a
> wealth of calculations are produced for an industry.
>
> The requirement for independence doesn't allow a senior engineer in the same
> company to act as technical expert; they have to find an external
> consultant. But there are exceptions for very specialised areas, but even
> then may still impose external assessment to the extent possible.
>
> Older engineers close to retirement can benefit. For example permissible
> stress codes are now obsolete, we only have limit state design. Building
> surveyors will reject calculations in permissible stress format, but the
> design engineer can get an independent technical expert to certify the
> design after checking to the limit states codes. If non-compliant the
> design-engineer can go away find design-solution using permissible stress,
> then get it checked for compliance with limit state.
>
> Whilst people complain about slowness of getting approval, it is the way
> most people operate within the system which is inefficient not entirely the
> system itself.
>
> Though licensing/registration of the engineers acting as independent
> technical experts would seem a beneficial addition: to improve consistency
> in what gets approved.
>
>
> Well that's not exactly brief. Hope it helps anyway.
>
>
>
> Some useful links:
>
>
>
> Planning Department:
>
> http://www.planning.sa.gov.au/
>
>
> The advisory notices:
>
> http://www.planning.sa.gov.au/index.cfm?objectId=D2206794-96B8-CC2B-6A72A074
> 741455CB
>
>
>
> The development Act:
>
> http://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/LZ/C/A/DEVELOPMENT%20ACT%201993.aspx
>
>
> The development Regulations:
>
> http://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/LZ/C/R/DEVELOPMENT%20REGULATIONS%201993.asp
> x
>
>
> Roof Truss Issues:
>
> http://www.planning.sa.gov.au/go/building/latest-building-policy-news/roof-t
> russes-ministerial-taskforce
>
> Faulty Trusses:
>
> http://www.planning.sa.gov.au/go/roof-check
>
> Simplified Wind Speed Maps:
>
> http://www.planning.sa.gov.au/go/building/technical-information/maps/design-
> wind-speeds/wind-speed-maps
>
>
>
> National Professional Engineers Register (NPER):
>
> http://www.engineersaustralia.org.au/nerb/
>
>
>
> Regards
> Conrad Harrison
> B.Tech (mfg & mech), MIIE, gradTIEAust
> mailto:sch.tectonic@bigpond.com
> Adelaide
> South Australia
>
>
>
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> * Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
> *
> * This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
> * Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
> * subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
> *
> * http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
> *
> * Questions to seaint-ad@seaint.org. Remember, any email you
> * send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
> * without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
> * site at: http://www.seaint.org
> ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
>
>
******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
* Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
*
* This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
* Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
* subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*
* http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
*
* Questions to seaint-ad@seaint.org. Remember, any email you
* send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
* without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
* site at: http://www.seaint.org
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********