Planning and Environmental Regulation Assignment PDF

Running Head: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION
Name of the Student:
Name of the University:
Author note:

1PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION
Introduction
The Building Act has been amended in the year 2002 in order to necessitate budget
accommodation construction and building which has been constructed, permitted or because
of which a specific purpose or application has been formulated in the early 1990s in order to
comply with an approved fire safeguard principles and standards. Furthermore, the approved
set of standards stated by the Standard Building Regulation (SBR) in 1993 has been regarded
as Part 14 of the Queensland Development Code (QDC) whereby an expansion function or
purpose is to be evaluated for the acquiescence with the Fire Safety Standard; specifically the
local government can utilize the accessibility of the budget and investment accommodation
construction for compliance (Miller et al., 2014). However, if the private certifier is appealed
to evaluate construction as well as building projects based on a financial plan housing
building, it has been recognized that the private certified can only evaluation construction
projects and assignments related to compliance along with the Building Code of Australia
(BCA) despite of buildings constructed in early 1990s must further conform with the
standards set by Fire Safety Standard (Ruming & Goodman, 2016). The following report will
evaluate the role of private certifiers in the development in NSW, Australia by focusing on
the building compliance and construction supervision as well as complying expansion. In
addition to this, the paper will further highlight the advantages and disadvantages of private
certification of development further by examine the significance of private certifiers in
expansion or growth assessment.
Discussion
Role of Private Certifiers in Development Evaluation in NSW

2PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION
The significant role of private certifiers in Australia must be taken into recognition in
order to explore the varied approach they obtain to execute their work with cliental base.
However their efficient and proactive advancement further intends to avoid certain budget
and resources quench or time impediment by ensuring the level of obedience towards the
clients (Piracha, 2015). Accredited private certifiers are accountable to issue several
certification applications related to building approval or construction supervision in order to
corroborate or substantiate their level of contentment with the accomplishment of growth
towards legislation demands and necessities. Certain aspects related to their role and
responsibilities depend on the supervision and assessment of construction and subdivision
projects at significant and decisive stages which vary in accordance to the type of
development (Munsami, Prasad & Ding, 2017). Though majority of the states in Australia
certifies private building surveyors, NSW ‘building surveyor’ primarily referred to the subset
of several segments of certifiers. Furthermore, certifiers are regulated by the Building
Professionals Board and are further subjected to the stringent authorization or certification
criteria as well as legislative demands and requirements. It is important to recognize that
certifiers primarily concentrate on influencing as well as determining sanctions related to the
construction credentials and may be chosen as the major certifying power for the progress the
certifiers are able to maintain the appropriate accreditation principles (Røttingen et al., 2013).
However, the most significant certifying ability or other accredited certifier possess the
competence of executing decisive stages of assessment during stages of building and
construction in order to guarantee the building approval is related to approval of development
and expansion along with other legislative demands. However, during completion,
proprietors must adhere to the guidelines and principles approved for the sanction of
occupation documentations. However, the significant certifying authority is responsible to

3PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION
perform a final assessment and further document such certifications if contented that the
construction is appropriate for employment or utilization (Lytton, 2014).
There is an obligation on the standards of construction of building certifier in order to
perform responsible decision making procedures in order to recognize both the
implementation as well as operation of an housing construction prior to the assessment of a
developmental purpose and application as both sets of legislation establish various
obligations and commitment towards the progress of application process (Gulbrandsen,
2014). The certain sets of roles and responsibilities of private certifiers along with local
government can be taken into consideration in order to observe the various developmental
applications related to accommodation and construction work based on budget residential
service construction as well as accommodation building.
 Application for an accommodation services construction in particular, either
accessible or new
One of the significant roles of private certifiers depends on their potentiality to assess
and further evaluate building projects for the effective agreement with the BCA but must not
provide any authorization or sanction to construction applications without any prior
documented consent and approval from local government. However, if the building exertion
has been exercised, the premises would have to abide by the standards set by Part 20 of the
QDC (Tran et al., 2013). However, a local administration must assess the planned and already
projected construction work for agreement with the BCA as well as the Part 20 of the QDC.
 Application for the financial plan specifically to the accommodation building,
constructed or sanctioned prior to 1992

4PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION
Private certifier can further assess the already projected building assignments for the
compliance with the BCA. However, a construction proprietor can further self-evaluate for
the agreement with Section 14 of the QDC for fire protection regulations (Yang & Zou,
2014). Furthermore, a local government would execute the process of assessment of the
proposed construction assignments with adhering to the principles of BCA with the exception
related to fire safeguard standards along with Part 14 of the Queensland Development Code
(Gulbrandsen, 2014).
 Claim for the budget accommodation construction in particular, built or
sanctioned after 1992
It is important to note that both the private certifier as well as the local government has the
authorization to review the proposed construction projects and assignments for the
compliance with the standards set by BCA (Miller & Lutzkendorf, 2016). Furthermore, a
private certifier can effectively evaluate the proposed construction projects in relation to the
agreement with the BCA, but must not engage into executing any approvals to the sanction
unless any documentation received from the local government.
Advantages and Disadvantages of Private Certification of Development
The role of private certification as a means of risk regulation as well as quality
assurance is extensive. Private entities or certifiers in Australia provides greater assurance
and dedication that building works they sanction accomplish the standards specified by the
authorized associations, principal organizations as well as governmental entities
(Gulbrandsen, 2014). Furthermore, private sanction and certification develops to professional
services and institutions whereby clients rely on these sanction while purchasing their
services related to accommodation building (Goedhuys & Sleuwaegen, 2013). However,
there are certain instances, whereby private certification transcends its boundaries that would

5PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION
influence government regulation. An effective explanation to the concept of private
certification’s achievement is dependent on the needs and demands of the market (Røttingen
et al., 2013). Furthermore, industries which pose resistance or oppose the government
supervision often seek to contribute towards private sanction to improve the value of their
services. Furthermore, while the local government often lacks investment and resources to
expand, utilize and exercise principles and regulations, private certifiers can generate the
expenditure to fulfil these costs (Building Professionals Board, 2018). A significant benefit of
private certifiers is that they have improved level of competence. However in terms of
complying development and building construction private certifiers tend to demonstrate
enhanced rate of technical expertise and their commercial utilization. Private certifiers
frequently serve enhanced supervision and monitoring exposure of regulated exposure
institutions related to administrative regulators, assessment and scrutinizing strain agency
financial statements and plans (Walfish, Zimmerman & Nordal, 2016). However,
construction monitoring and supervision for private certifiers generate costs and expenditures
whereby the revenues obtained from supervision and monitoring services prompts
Underwriter Laboratories, recognized as the reliable source for compliance to monitor
facilitates at the minimum rate of four times per year which is considered to be beyond of
most of the government programs and services (Gulbrandsen, 2014).
The role of private certifiers is considered to be more efficient and prospective in
comparison to government guidelines. Moreover, private building safety certifiers seek to
execute action in expectancy of issues, while government directives are considered to be
more imprudent in terms of these issues (Røttingen et al., 2013). For instance, private
certifiers are witnessed to take actions on issues prior to the affect caused to the clients and
are responsible in establishing new policies and regulations in order to avoid nuisances
(Buckley & Narang, 2014). It has been noted that private certifiers tend to be more receptive

6PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION
and approachable to both regulated industries as well as the clients they deal with thereby
frequently assessing and modifying their principles and standards by focusing on industry
experience and grievances stated by clients. It is significant to recognize that private certifiers
do not always reveal consistency because of the critical market competition existing within
certifiers at times result to lower the standards and principles to condense building
development expenditures and the accessibility towards the demands imposed on their
cliental base (Warner & Sullivan, 2017). On the other hand, directives and guidance
exercised by private certifiers facilitates collaboration by regulated institutes. The persistent
private agency-client association, companies express their willingness to accomplish the
demands of private certifiers on a dependable base for marketability of their construction
services.
Several motivational factors play critical role in the regulation of private certifiers
which results to the lower rate of possibilities to establish standards whereby the expenditures
to industry surpass the beneficial chances to clients. However, by extensively focusing on the
advantageous factors of private certifiers over state as well as local governments, it is
important not to generalize the diversity of potential associations between the government
and private certifiers. Private certifiers at times are considered to cover up the gaps to the
places where the government is unresponsive or incompetent to exercise any regulations and
many a times, mitigates areas where administrative directives function but fails to be
comprehensive. One of the most critical limitations of the involvement of private sector is the
strains and demands on the private certifiers. Furthermore, the perceived beneficial factor of
an association that private certifiers establish with clients might pose certain level of
disadvantages in building work (Kerzner & Kerzner, 2017). Private certifiers may reveal
tendencies of showing high level of dependencies on a single client or on limited numbers of
clients or to sustain the cliental base; private certifiers tend to choose to reduce its

7PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION
expenditures. It must further be noted that client possess the tendency to establish contracts
that further creates coercion between clients and private certifiers, thereby raising questions
regarding the biasness of private certifiers on their process of functioning. Furthermore,
private certifiers might experience situations related to the increasing rate of conflict and
inconsistent of interest, whereby on one hand they are purposed to serve to the demands of
public demands and on the other hand, they seek to sustain the proper functioning of their
operations.
Another significant factor of constraint and limitation related to the role of private
certifiers in building developments relies on minor difference situated between the efficiency
related between controlling and consulting on the process of development. Even though it has
been identified that private certifiers are statutorily not permitted to act in the role of a
consultant, thus private certifiers are often regarded to act in similar approach, thereby the
threat lies that private certifiers has to evaluate their own counsel. Another significant
limitation factor related to the role of private certifiers in development lies on the act of
enforcement (Muller, 2017). It has been noted that private certifiers who are actively
exercising in NSW have the compulsion or commitment to implement non-compliers who
possess the potentialities to be their clients. However, such factors of obligation can result in
causing the non-compliers to indulge in illegal activities. The act of private certification also
results in creating loss of assessments and feedbacks as private certifiers might feel a
requisition to report about the complexities and problems experienced with the actions related
to construction directives to government entities than the Councils (Bush et al., 2013).
Another factor of disadvantage which has been related to the level of performance
establishment of the jurisdiction’s accommodation building directives is that private certifiers
have the inclination towards low level threats and challenges considered to accomplish the
solutions, rather than preferring innovative or substitute explanations since the

8PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION
responsibilities of private certifiers generally comprise either balanced or cooperative
approaches or various accountability for functions executed that is depended on the level of
engagement in the construction projects (Maund, Sher & Naughton, 2014). Furthermore,
shortcomings or defects in construction or building sanctions can further be associated to the
private certifiers’ contribution or involvement in construction which might further lead to
impose penalty or a rise in insurance costs.
Lesser Role of Private Certifiers on Development Assessment
Several building and construction enterprises have expressed their level of
inclination and preference towards private certifiers of complying progress whereby it would
further facilitate Councils to concentrate on policy issues instead of insignificant complying
growth and development (Lytton, 2014). It is further to note that Councils had unstable or
varying numbers of applications lodged for the guidelines of Provisional Building Rules
sanction with private certifiers. However, some of the Councils who revealed incompetence
to act responsive to the queries posed in order to signify that Councils involved 20-25% of
purposes and applications sanctioned with private certifiers in south eastern region of
Australia (Ruming & Goodman, 2016). The approaches towards conforming development
evaluation and private certification vary among various Councils. However, the Councils of
NSW suggested their employees to be supportive towards private certifiers for adhering to
development assessment. However, few of the Australian councils have further signified that
this is specifically for ‘minor’ developments and those fundamental concerns with private
certification recount to the conditions which have not been conformed within the cases
whereby sanctions have been given private certification (Miller et al., 2014).
Furthermore, certain external suburban Council recommended that they are having the
willingness to pose competition on similar industry with private certifiers and further

9PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION
underpin actions of private certification of observing development evaluation strategies
(Munsami, Prasad & Ding, 2017). It has been witnessed that private certifiers often deem
inquiries on subjects which are further followed up by several Council officers whereby they
expressed their concerns related to the decision making procedures of the private certifiers
which are anticipated to be involved with the Council (Lytton, 2014). Furthermore, several
unconstructive as well as errors of private certifiers have been associated with Construction
and Development Assessment. For instance, it has been noted that private certifiers are often
perceived as being unresponsive or negligent related to the consistency of building strategies
and plans (Carmody, 2013). As a result, these lead to an unconstructive improvement for the
strategies and approaches formulated by private certifiers as the Councils appeal to obtain
detailed information that involves reliable plans which are needed to be proposed (Ruming &
Goodman, 2016). Furthermore, several other issues emerged involved certain in regards to
the frequently biased or subjective characteristic of influencing whether a purpose or
application is observed or compliant towards the directives.
Conclusion
Therefore, from the above discussion it can be concluded that private certifiers have
lesser yet significant role to play in the development evaluation in North South Wales. The
proactive as well as constructive development role purposes to avoid various financial
settlements as well as resources quench whereby they guarantee certain level of adherence
and conformation applications associated to the sanctions formulated for accommodation
building supervision. The report has effectively evaluated the role of private certifiers in the
process of development evaluation in NSW by further concentrating on building sanctions
and construction supervision. In addition to this, the paper has observed certain factors
related to the advantages and disadvantages of private certification of development.

10PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION
References
Buckley, I. A., & Narang, H. (2014, January). Exploring the Requirements and Infrastructure
to Develop Online Degree Programs. In Proceedings of the International Conference
on e-Learning, e-Business, Enterprise Information Systems, and e-Government
(EEE) (p. 1). The Steering Committee of The World Congress in Computer Science,
Computer Engineering and Applied Computing (WorldComp).
Bush, S. R., Belton, B., Hall, D., Vandergeest, P., Murray, F. J., Ponte, S., ... & Kruijssen, F.
(2013). Certify sustainable aquaculture?. Science, 341(6150), 1067-1068.
Carmody, J. (2013). Intensive tour guide training in regional Australia: an analysis of the
Savannah Guides organisation and professional development schools. Journal of
Sustainable Tourism, 21(5), 679-694.Goedhuys, M., & Sleuwaegen, L. (2013). The
impact of international standards certification on the performance of firms in less
developed countries. World Development, 47, 87-101.
Gulbrandsen, L. H. (2014). Dynamic governance interactions: Evolutionary effects of state
responses to non‐state certification programs. Regulation & Governance, 8(1), 74-92.
Kerzner, H., & Kerzner, H. R. (2017). Project management: a systems approach to planning,
scheduling, and controlling. John Wiley & Sons.
Lytton, T. D. (2014). Competitive third-party regulation: How private certification can
overcome constraints that frustrate government regulation. Theoretical Inquiries in
Law, 15(2), 539-572.
Maund, K., Sher, W., & Naughton, R. (2014, April). Understanding the Building
Certification System: A Need for Accreditation Reform. In Australasian Journal of
Construction Economics and Building-Conference Series (Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 64-71).

11PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION
Miller, W., & Lutzkendorf, T. (2016). Capturing sustainable housing characteristics through
Electronic Building Files: The Australian Experience. In Sustainable Built
Environment Conference 2016 in Hamburg: Strategies, Stakeholders, Success factors,
7th-11th March 2016; Conference Proceedings (pp. 190-199). Karlsruhe Institute of
Technology; ZEBAU-Centre for Energy, Construction, Architecture and the
Environment GmbH.
Miller, W., Stenton, J., Worsley, H., & Wuersching, T. (2014). Strategies and solutions for
housing sustainability: building information files and performance certificates.
Muller, R. (2017). Project governance. Routledge.
Munsami, K., Prasad, D., & Ding, L. (2017). The role of post occupation evaluation in
achieving high performance buildings through diagnostics. Procedia
engineering, 180, 356-364.
Obligations for certifiers | Building Professionals Board. (2018). Retrieved from
http://bpb.nsw.gov.au/certifiers-role/obligations-certifiers
Piracha, A. (2015). eDevelopment-assessment as “smart ePlanning” for New South Wales
(NSW) Australia. In Planning Support Systems and Smart Cities: Proceedings of
CUPUM 2015: The 14th International Conference on Computers in Urban Planning
and Urban Management, MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts USA, July 7-10, 2015 (pp.
273-1).
Røttingen, J. A., Regmi, S., Eide, M., Young, A. J., Viergever, R. F., Årdal, C., ... & Terry,
R. F. (2013). Mapping of available health research and development data: what's
there, what's missing, and what role is there for a global observatory?. The
Lancet, 382(9900), 1286-1307.

12PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION
Ruming, K., & Goodman, R. (2016). Planning system reform and economic development:
Unpacking policy rhetoric and trajectories in Victoria and New South Wales. Built
Environment, 42(1), 72-89.
Tran, N., Bailey, C., Wilson, N., & Phillips, M. (2013). Governance of global value chains in
response to food safety and certification standards: the case of shrimp from
Vietnam. World development, 45, 325-336.
Walfish, S., Zimmerman, J., & Nordal, K. C. (2016). Building and Managing a Private
Practice. APA handbook of clinical psychology, 5.
Warner, M., & Sullivan, R. (Eds.). (2017). Putting partnerships to work: Strategic alliances
for development between government, the private sector and civil society. Routledge.
Yang, R. J., & Zou, P. X. (2014). Stakeholder-associated risks and their interactions in
complex green building projects: A social network model. Building and
Environment, 73, 208-222.