Improved regulation of building and construction throughout Australia can help to unblock regulatory impediments to greater uptake of modern methods of construction (MMC), an industry forum has heard.

During a recent panel discussion that was held as part of the Building 4.0 CRC Annual Conference in Melbourne last month, leaders from industry, government and academia outlined several ways in which building regulation could be reformed to unlock greater potential for offsite construction.

Panellists included Alex Waldren, National Policy Director at Master Builders Australia, Gary Rake, CEO of the Australian Building Codes Board (ABCB), and Professor Perry Forsythe, a leading researcher at the University of Technology, Sydney and a project lead at the Building 4.0 CRC.

Otherwise known as industrialised construction, modern methods of construction or MMC aims to redefine traditional approaches to building and construction and instead adopt a way of operating that is more like that seen in the industrial or manufacturing landscape.

Key to this are offsite construction techniques, mass production and factory assembly, standardisation of processes and components, design for manufacture and assembly, prefabrication and offsite manufacture (including modular building) and on-site innovations such as 3D printing.

In short, MMC involves buildings and homes (or parts thereof) being mass produced in factories using standardised processes and components and then being assembled on-site using a kit-of-parts approach.

Proponents of this approach argue that compared with traditional construction, MMC offers benefits in terms of lower cost, reduced construction timeframes and improved quality and safety which arises out of work being performed in a controlled factory environment.

From a regulatory perspective, panellists expressed concern that current building codes and regulations are geared primarily toward traditional on-site construction.

For project delivery teams, this can create additional risk when using MMC or offsite construction in terms of building approvals and regulatory compliance. Such uncertainly acts as a potential impediment to greater offsite construction uptake.

In terms of solutions, Waldren and Rake would like to see reform at a national level.

On this score, both say that proposed reforms to the regulation of building products will be critical.

Under proposed reforms which are currently under consideration, the evidence of suitability requirements that are contained in the National Construction Code will be strengthened to require products which are used on construction projects to have: minimum information presented in a standardised format, labelling, and traceability through the supply chain via means such as QR codes or barcodes.

The reforms will also create a new national building product register – listing upon which will be mandatory for high-risk products.

If these changes are put into action, Waldren says that this will help to drive greater confidence and certainty around product compliance in general.

Whilst this will benefit construction overall, she says that the measures will help to remove uncertainty for approval and compliance which currently applies to MMC.

More broadly, Waldren would like the Commonwealth to play a more proactive role in harmonising building regulation and enforcement at a national level.

Rake adds that in addition to aforementioned reforms, it will be important to ensure that there is a sufficiently robust framework for product certification including for prefabricated systems. This will help building surveyors and certifiers to have confidence that prefabricated systems or parts are compliant and fit for purpose when they arrive on site.

Once this is in place, various participants who are involved in building related decisions should be brought into the ‘certainty net’. This would include parties such as insurers and project financiers.

Forsythe offers a slightly different perspective.

Delving further into the nature of the compliance risk involved in MMC, Forsythe highlights two specific challenges.

First, when it comes to offsite construction, existing deemed-to-satisfy provisions within the National Construction Code tend to focus on individual elements such as a wall, a floor or a roof.

When more complex construction forms are adopted (for example, where walls, floors and roofs are integrated into 3D boxes or where prefabricated offsite panels are installed onto an existing concrete slab), existing DTS solutions are more limited and a performance solution is usually required.  This adds additional time, cost and uncertainty to the design and approval process.

Another challenge involves the various mandatory inspection regimes which are in place across different states and territories. These require on-site inspection at various stages of construction.

Where construction or part thereof occurs offsite, certifiers face uncertainty about how these requirements need to be satisfied.

This, Forsythe says, is problematic. It would be no use gaining mass production and volume and economies of scale associated with MMC if an inspector ‘wants to come from the other side of Geelong to come in and look at your production line because they’ve been told they’re supposed to do an inspection on the waterproof membrane for the wet area pod’.

To solve these challenges, Forsyth suggests actions in two areas.

First, he would like to see the deemed-to-satisfy regime extend beyond simple building elements to also encompass more complex construction systems.

Take the example of a prefabricated 2D cross-laminated-timber panel coming on site to be assembled on top of an insitu poured concrete slab. For building surveyors and certifiers, this may create a concern about potential smoke and fire corridors which may arise as a result of a small tolerance that will occur where the wall sits on the concrete.

In such a situation, Perry says that you would have a DTS solution for the slab and a separate DTS solution for the CLT panel. Ideally, you would then have a third DTS solution which covers the interface between these.

As for inspections, Perry encourages states to amend regulation to give greater clarity for certifiers and building surveyors about requirements that may apply when offsite construction is used.

On this last point, however, Rake says that current aforementioned proposed reforms may offer a faster and more harmonised solution through the evidence of suitability requirements in National Construction Code.

This, he says, is largely due to pragmatic considerations. With limited parliamentary sitting days each year and differing legislative priorities, the prospect of states enacting legislative reform in a timely and harmonised way is unlikely.

By contrast, the clearer evidence of suitability requirements and the national building product registration scheme may deliver much of the certainty which is needed for certifiers without needing additional state legislation.

Rake says that challenges in relation to MMC and regulatory uncertainty can be overcome.

“There are literally a thousand reasons (for a certifier, insurer or other party) to say no to bringing in modular and prefab,” he said.

“And I think I’ve heard all thousand of those.

“None of them are unsolvable. Most of them are myths. Most of them would be fads.

“We need to bring in the insurers, bring in the financiers, bring in an assurance framework so that we can demonstrate suitability and quality (of products) through all supply chains and that those who do the right job in the factory have a guarantee of acceptance when it gets to site.

“I think that’s within reach. I think that’s within a very short single digit number of years to be able to put that into a regulatory system.”

Enjoying Sourceable articles? Subscribe for Free and receive daily updates of all articles which are published on our site

Want to grow your sales, reach more new clients and expand your client base across Australia’s design and construction sector?

Advertise on Sourceable and have your business seen by the thousands of architects, engineers, builders/construction contractors, subcontractors/trade contractors, property developers and building industry suppliers who read our stories across the civil, commercial and residential construction sector