Over the years, I’ve seen vetting practices range from the sublime to the ridiculous — from a quick once-over to a full-on technical processing exercise. In the world of building consents, "vetting" means carefully checking if an application meets the basic requirements. Yet, many Building Consent Authorities (BCAs) seem to tie themselves in knots, issuing Vetting Requests for Further Information (RFIs) when the answer should be simple: reject incomplete applications outright, and let applicants try again when they have everything in order.
Wouldn't it be simpler to follow a straightforward checklist? For example, if you’re applying for a commercial building consent, here's what could be asked to provide:
- A fully completed Form 2, including proof of ownership details.
- A one-page design summary, with reference numbers for key documents.
- Plans and specifications that cover all aspects of the proposed works.
- An accessibility report to demonstrate compliance.
- A fire report, detailing fire safety measures.
- A draft compliance schedule, listing the specified systems (e.g., fire alarms, sprinklers) along with performance standards and their Inspection, Maintenance, and Reporting (IMR) requirements.
From here, the vetting person can simply check that all the required information is attached. It shouldn't be overly complicated.
When you apply for a passport, for example, the first person receiving your application doesn’t dive into details — they check whether you’ve provided the required documents, such as photos and proof of identity. If you're missing something, you don’t get an RFI, you get a firm “No, your application is incomplete.” Only when you pass this stage does the next person examine your application in detail, potentially asking further questions about the quality of your photo or the legitimacy of your ID.
Building consents should follow the same principle. Instead of making things harder with RFIs at every stage, let’s apply the KISS principle — instead of the MIHOO principle (Make It Hard on Ourselves and Others). Why not have a clear, firm vetting process and reject incomplete applications, rather than dragging the process out with endless RFIs?