Is the CDA scrapping privatization construction oversight?

On April 23, 2019, the Senate will consider the proposed Building Quality Assurance Act, followed by a vote. This historic construction law has received much attention after the terrible Grenfell Tower fire in London and the collapse of the parking garage at Eindhoven Airport. Opponents of privatization fear similar disasters as in England, where private construction supervision is in place. Proponents of privatization believe that in Eindhoven municipal construction supervision has failed.

Status of bill on Building Quality Assurance Act

Plans were developed more than 20 years ago to privatize construction supervision. The Lower House passed the bill by a large majority. However, at the request of former PvdA Minister Plasterk, the Senate held off voting on July 11, 2017. The CDA has doubts about the PvdA's amendments, and without the CDA, there is no majority in the Senate. After 658 days, the bill is back for a vote. Now with D66 minister Ollongren at the helm. The question is whether the CDA will vote down the bill that comes from coalition partner VVD.

The quality assurance system

First and foremost, the bill makes no changes to the municipality's enforcement powers. Building and housing supervision officials can supervise and, if necessary, enforce during construction.

In a debate with the House of Representatives on Dec. 6, 2018, Ollongren said, "the framing that construction supervision is being privatized is incorrect. Primarily, however, a new private quality assurance company supervises construction. Surely that suggests privatization.

Is this private assessor a butcher inspecting his own meat?

No, the quality assurance officer must be independent of the permit holder, architect and contractor. This quality assurance officer must declare whether the completed structure meets the building regulations. Without his positive declaration, the structure may not be put into use.

Current municipal construction supervision

Municipalities are now not required to check whether completed structures comply with building codes. They often don't. And all the while, the important thing is that what is built is safe, not the paper plan.

Currently, the municipality can grant the environmental permit (building permit) if it is only plausible that the paper building plan meets the building regulations. After permit issuance, the permit holder may still submit calculations up to three weeks prior to construction.

The choice of quality improvement

The fear of privatization is great. Privatization has a bad name in the Netherlands. However, various studies show that the smaller municipalities lack sufficient knowledge and expertise for adequate proper construction supervision.

Attempts to improve construction supervision have failed time and again. Raising fees to hire more officials is not an option. The dues are already very high. Another option is to bundle the work into environmental services. Officials can then share their knowledge and expertise. However, under the Environment Act to take effect on January 1, 2021, construction supervision is not part of the basic task package of the environmental services.

That leaves the choice of the quality assurance system. How can municipalities now outsource construction supervision? The answer is simple: they won't. An environmental permit from the municipality is still required. The municipality can also enforce it. It's just that the municipality no longer reviews building regulations in advance. Indeed, that is not privatization. Moreover, the municipalities get the required information to enforce. The VNG has made agreements on this with Minister Ollongren.

Apk inspection for structures

By the way, a private inspection need not be wrong. Consider the garage's MOT inspection of cars. A mandatory private final inspection is always better than no inspection at all.

Of course, municipalities can also perform this final check, but the financial resources are unfortunately not available to municipalities. Also, Minister Ollongren does not want a municipal final inspection, because that puts more responsibility on the municipalities. The municipalities have neither designed nor built the building plan. Then it is not primarily up to the municipality to judge whether the structure is safe. If a car accident occurs shortly after the apk inspection due to faulty brakes, the inspecting garage is held responsible - at least instinctively.

Incidentally, the bill also creates increased liability and warning obligations for contractors. Bouwend Nederland, among others, opposes this. More than half of construction errors are made in the design. The contractors should be prevented from paying for that.

Now or never

Politicians want improvements in building supervision to prevent accidents like the one in Eindhoven. The honest answer is that if the Senate votes down the bill nothing is likely to change for a long time. Minister Ollongren does not want to submit a novella to the Lower House to amend the original bill. With no alternative can all construction parties live. Moreover, the construction lobby is very strong. The bill before us is the compromise reached. Either way, soon all eyes will be on the CDA.