Delft University of Technology
A new Dutch building control system Lessons to be learned from neighbours? Meijer, Frits; Visscher, Henk
Publication date 2016
Document Version Final published version Published in
Proceedings of the RICS COBRA 2016
Citation (APA)
Meijer, F., & Visscher, H. (2016). A new Dutch building control system: Lessons to be learned from neighbours? In Proceedings of the RICS COBRA 2016: The Construction, Building and Real Estate
Research Conference of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (pp. 1-10). London: Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors.
Important note
To cite this publication, please use the final published version (if applicable). Please check the document version above.
Copyright
Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download, forward or distribute the text or part of it, without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license such as Creative Commons. Takedown policy
Please contact us and provide details if you believe this document breaches copyrights. We will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.
This work is downloaded from Delft University of Technology.
COBRA 2016
Toronto, Canada
20 - 22 September 2016
Supported by:
RICS COBRA 2016
The Construction, Building and Real Estate Research Conference
of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors
Held in Toronto, Canada in association with George Brown College
20 - 22
September 2016
© RICS 2016
ISBN: 978-1-78321-160-9 ISSN: 2398-8614
Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors Parliament Square
London SW1P 3AD United Kingdom
www.rics.org/cobra
The papers in this proceeding are intended for knowledge sharing, stimulate debate, and research findings only. This publication does not necessarily represent the views of RICS or George Brown College.
A NEW DUTCH BUILDING CONTROL SYSTEM:
LESSONS TO BE LEARNED FROM NEIGHBOURS?
Frits Meijer1 & Henk Visscher
1
OTB Research for the Built Environment, TU Delft / Faculty of Architecture and the Built Environment Julianalaan 134, 2628 BL Delft, the Netherlands
ABSTRACT
Traditionally quality control of construction work in Europe was a governmental responsibil-ity. In most European countries local authority building control were responsible for the issu-ing of plannissu-ing or buildissu-ing permits and carried out plan approval, site-inspections and checks on completion of constructions. During the last decades however these building control tasks have been outsourced more and more to private parties. The main driving force behind this de-velopment has been the wish of governments to deregulate. The shift of responsibilities to the private/market parties should not only improve the quality of construction works but it could also streamline administrative procedures and processes. In the eyes of the policymakers this leads to a win-win situation: less regulation, leading to a qualitative better building stock through optimised (cheaper & faster) quality control procedures. It is exactly because of these reasons that the Dutch government is on the brink changing its quality control system of con-structions towards a more private model. An international comparison in England & Wales, Ireland, Germany, France, Norway and Sweden puts the Dutch policy plans in a European per-spective.
Keywords: building regulations, quality control, European Union, housing quality.
INTRODUCTION
It is expected that the Dutch Parliament will pass a new law on Quality Assurance of buildings before the end of 2016 (MBZK, 2015). This law will change the quality con-trol system of construction work in the Netherlands fundamentally. The concon-trol on compliance with the technical requirements will be transferred from public authorities to private parties. The main reasons to change the system are to improve both the qual-ity of the construction work as well as the qualqual-ity of the building control process (MBZK, 2015). The new system should optimise the control procedures and reduce the financial and administrative burden for applicants of a permit and other building professionals involved in the process. The construction industry is generally in favour of the proposed changes. Municipalities and consumer organisations however worry about the consequences for non-professional applicants, which is by far the largest group that submit applications for building work (IBK, 2014). Currently a non-professional with a building plan can call on his local municipality for information, support and if necessary apply for a permit. Consumer organisations and municipali-ties doubt if market parmunicipali-ties are going to fill in their role in the proposed system in the same way. They fear that these parties either are not interested in serving this ‘non-professional market’ or will offer their services a far higher prices than is customary at
the moment. Either way they fear that many non-professional builders will be left out in the cold in the new system.
RESEARCH APPROACH
Within this framework, the ministry responsible for the quality control system (Minis-try of Interior and Kingdom Relations) wanted to put the Dutch plans in a European perspective and compare the proposed Dutch system with those in some selected Eu-ropean countries. Main criterion for selection was that the countries should be interest-ing examples that could provide a better insight in the advantages and disadvantages of various quality control models. On the basis of this consideration the following countries were selected: England and Wales, France, Germany, Ireland, Norway and Sweden. In these countries the research focussed on the roles, tasks and responsibili-ties of public and private parresponsibili-ties in assuring and guaranteeing the technical quality of construction works. We updated our existing dataset on building regulatory systems in Europe with new and additional information via desktop research. Relevant regulatory documents and other sources were analysed. The project started in the fall of 2015 and was finished in the spring of 2016 (Meijer et al, 2016).Within the boundaries of this paper the highlights of the research are presented. In the next section the current and new situation in the Netherlands are sketched. Subsequently the quality control sys-tems in the other countries are summarised. The discussion and conclusion sections compare the various systems.
QUALITY CONTROL SYSTEM IN THE NETHERLANDS
The Housing Act (2015) and the Building Decree (2012) provide the current frame-work for the Dutch building regulations and the quality control procedures for con-struction works. The rules generally apply to all types and categories of buildings. Some simple risk-free works however are exempt form a building permit and its con-trol procedures. For other works a permit is necessary, but the length of the procedure depends on the complexity, location and conformity with the zoning plan.. Local au-thority building control is responsible for issuing the building permit and carrying out plan approval and site inspections.
Discussions to change the quality control system have been going on for many years. The dominant line of policy of subsequent governments has been “privatise if possible and keep it public when necessary”. Eventually this led to the new bill on Quality As-surance of Buildings that was introduced in May 2016 into parliament (MBZK, 2015). Based on their risk profile and possible consequences in case of failure, the new sys-tem makes a distinction between simple (class 1) up to complex (class 3) construction works. Most of consequence class 1 will be exempt from technical building control. Private parties will be responsible for the technical control of all other construction works. An independent Admission Organisation is going to assess and certify these private quality controllers and their quality control instruments. Municipalities stay responsible for checking planning issues. In the new system the applicant has to notify the municipality about his plans and the way quality control is going to be arranged. The appointed private controller carries out plan approval, makes an inspection plan and takes care of inspections during construction. At the end of the process the quality controller declares that the building meets the technical demands (IBK, 2014)
According to the policymakers these changes will not only have a have a general posi-tive effect on the quality of the building stock. It will also streamline the building pro-cesses and diminish the administrative burden on all parties. The division of responsi-bilities will be clearer: building professionals will be responsible for their work and accountable for possible mistakes (MBZK, 2015). To strengthen the position of the ‘building consumers’ the liability of builders is going to be sharpened.
OUTLINES OF THE CONTROL SYSTEMS OF OTHER COUNTRIES
This section summarises the research results for the six European countries.
England & Wales
Only municipalities can grant planning permission for the construction or modifica-tions of new and existing buildings. Minor construction work is exempt from technical building control. For the construction of relatively simple work (e.g. a newly built dwelling or renovation of existing building) the application of a building notice is suf-ficient to get building regulation approval. All other construction plans are subject to a quality control procedure. For the quality control of these plans, applicants can choose between local authority building control (LABC) or a private Approved Inspector (Ecorys and Delft University of Technology, 2016). Approved Inspectors have to be certified and registered before they can act. There are no legal obligations concerning the way quality control should take place (e.g. concerning methods and giving an ac-count of the control results). Nonetheless both public, as well as private controllers, have voluntarily committed themselves to the Building Control Performance Stand-ards. These standards give guidelines how qualitative good building control should be performed (DCLG, website).
The quality control process has a clear beginning and ending. LABC has to give build-ing approval and issues a completion certificate at the end of the procedure. Approved Inspectors have to submit an initial notice to LABC at the beginning of the process and submit a final notice when the construction phase is finished (Meijer et al, 2016). Builders have to comply with the general rules concerning materials and workman-ship. There are no general recognition or certification schemes for contractors or builders. However specialist installers can join a Competent Person Scheme. When recognised or certified (depending on education and practical experience) these in-stallers can self-certify certain types of building work (e.g. glazing, heating systems), For these works building regulations approval is not needed, it is assumed that the work meets the requirements (Planning Portal, website)
In general all parties responsible for a construction project (e.g. owner/applicant, advi-sor, designer, builder or installer) must ensure that the work complies with all applica-ble requirements of the Building Regulations. Indemnity and warranty insurance schemes are installed to protect the building owner for financial risk in case of defects and failures.
France
In France, local and regional authorities are responsible for planning approval. For technical control a public-private construction supervision system has been in opera-tion for almost forty years. Three categories of construcopera-tion works are distinguished. Renovation activities and small risk-free works are exempt from any control proce-dure. Simple building activities (up to a certain floor area) have to be reported to the
municipality. Once the work is finished the municipality has to be notified, after which a completion certificate will be issued (Meijer et al, 2016).
All other construction is eligible for a regular procedure. The complexity of the plan defines the quality control procedure. For relative uncomplicated works (like a house) a registered architect has to declare that the plan meets the regulatory demands. When the building is completed a notification has to be sent to the municipality before it can be taken into use. In practice these works are hardly being controlled during construc-tion either by municipalities or private controllers (Deman, 2013). For complex con-struction works with a higher risk, quality control by private control organisations is obligatory. Control starts in the phase of plan approval and continues until completion. After plan approval the control organisation has to a deliver an initial technical report with his findings. Before construction starts an inspection plan has to be drawn up. Private controllers are legally liable to control the structural safety and the safety of persons. Site inspections are held at random. After completion the private controller has to deliver an end report on the technical control. Public and high-rise buildings must have a user permit before they can be used (MLHD, website).
The private control organisation has to be certified and accredited and must be inde-pendent of the applicant/building owner. Organisations can be certified for various control scopes (e.g. all regulations, only fire safety regulations, regulations for installa-tions etc.).
A decisive factor behind this system is the French insurance and guarantee system for building works (Meijer et al, 2016). The relevant law (dating from 1978) dictates that every building professional involved with a construction project must have appropriate guarantee insurances (e.g. covering professional indemnity). Builders and contractors have to be registered otherwise there is no certainty that they can meet the guarantee provisions.
Germany
To map the German situation we focussed on the regulation of North Rhine Westpha-lia. The German model can be best described as being a mix between public and pri-vate quality control. Municipalities are formally responsible for issuing the (building and completion) permits and for quality control. Recognised or registered building professionals however play an important role in the system. First of all certified and registered architects/engineers must submit the permit application and they usually take care of plan approval. In addition -– depending of the construction type and con-trol scope – state recognised experts (Prüfsachverständige) must be involved in the quality control process. They can be called in by both applicants as municipalities. State recognised experts have to be independent and comply with strict demands on education and practical experience (Building Code of NRW, 2015).
Germany distinguishes construction works that are exempt from building control, works that must follow a ‘simplified’ procedure and works that are eligible for the regular permit procedure. In the regular building permit procedure the building appli-cation (and the supporting documents) must be signed by a certified architect or engi-neer. Usually a state recognised expert verifies compliance with the technical require-ments (especially structural stability). During construction, building control is exer-cised by local building control and a site manager appointed by the applicant/owner. Building authorities usually delegate site inspections on structural stability to a state recognised expert. The completion of the shell and the completion of the building have to be reported to the local building control authorities so it can be checked. If satisfied local authority building control issues a completion certificate (Meijer et al, 2016).
Germany poses statutory insurance requirements on contractors and controllers regard-ing liability.
Ireland
Ireland has recently (2014) changed its system to an almost entirely private system of quality control. In the new system competent private building professionals are re-sponsible for the quality control of construction works. The system includes all kinds of new responsibilities and roles. Applicants for building approval must submit a Commencement Notice and ensure themselves that supervision during construction is carried out by a certified independent party: an Assigned Certifier. Some (simple) works are exempt from this obligation. This applies to construction works that do not need a planning permission or a fire safety certificate, like regular maintenance activi-ties and or the construction of small extensions. In all other cases the applicant or building owner has to submit a Commencement Notice. Besides the inclusion of a cer-tificate of design compliance, proof must be delivered that an Assigned Certifier has been hired in to inspect and certify the works and a builder has been assigned to carry out the works. Furthermore the certifier and the builder must declare that they will meet the regulations. Finally the Commencement Notice must be accompanied by an inspection notification framework and an inspection plan. After completion of the pro-ject, both the certifier as the builder must certify the completed construction complies with the demands of the Building Regulations (DECLG, 2014).
Shortly after the new regulations came in to force, it came apparent that for one-off dwellings and extensions on existing houses the costs of quality control were highly disproportionate. This led to an amendment to the system. The mandatory requirement for statutory certificates of compliance for these constructions was removed. Owners and self-builders have now the choice to opt-out of the statutory certification and are allowed to demonstrate by other means that the work is going to meet the demands. At the same time the government announced the development of a new local authority quality control process for single dwellings and residential and commercial buildings (Meijer et al, 2016). The effects of this change (on the number of applications or the construction quality) is yet unknown.
In the new system municipalities are still responsible for planning approval. For the building professionals inclusion on statutory registers is the primary means of estab-lishing competency. For architects and engineers these registers already are in opera-tion. The register for builders should be in place shortly. Furthermore building profes-sionals must ensure that they are adequately covered for liabilities (DECGL, website).
Norway
In the 1990’s Norway (1997) changed its public quality control system drastically. The new system was largely based on self-certification by approved building professionals (architects, engineers and builders). They could self-certify their own construction works and that of others. In practice it quickly appeared that this new model was high-ly ineffective. The main problems were that self-certification was inadequate and that local authorities failed to supervise the private parties (World Bank Group, 2013). From 2012 on a new regulatory framework has come into force. The essence of the system (self-certification) has not changed, but the checks and balances to assure the quality of the quality control process have been sharpened considerably. The demands and supervision on both quality as independence of control have become stricter. Building professionals have to meet demands on education and practical experience.
For critical building elements (e.g. structural components, fire safety and the building envelope) independent private control is obligatory (Meijer et al, 2016).
Norway makes a distinction between construction works that need a permit and works that are exempt from a permit and a procedure. The latter rule applies to simple risk-free building activities like normal maintenance, small interior works and small exten-sions. The other projects require an application and building permission. However within this category a ‘light’ procedure is distinguished. For some minor projects the municipality has to give approval but the works can be carried out either by self-certification or by an approved builder. The other construction works are eligible for the quality control procedure (KoRD, 2015). All parties involved (applicants, design-ers, engineers and builders) must be approved by the central government as a respon-sible enterprise. All roles must be filled in properly before the authority issues a build-ing permission (DiBK, website). The process starts with an obligatory preliminary consultation meeting where the parties involved decide about an inspection plan. This inspection plan is used during the construction and completion phase. At the end of the construction process the controller/applicant has to deliver a completion report and file an application to the municipality for a completion certificate.
Sweden
The general rule in Sweden is that for a work needing building approval there must be at least one private person/party involved that controls the quality during construction. The demands on the private controller are established in the Law of Building and Planning 2010. The quality controllers must be certified before they can operate in practice (Boverket, website).
Sweden also recognises various categories of construction works. Besides construction works that are exempt, a category works is distinguished that in principle is exempt, but nonetheless has to be reported to the municipal building committee before con-struction work can start. In general this concerns the concon-struction of smaller risk-free buildings in areas where no zoning plan is in use. The same applies to building activi-ties in existing buildings that involves a change of use. For the construction and reno-vation/adaption of single single-family and semi-detached houses, the requirements are also generally less stringent (Deman, 2013).
When private quality control is necessary an inspection plan has to be made and a technical meeting has to be organised. All parties involved must attend this technical meeting. When the municipal building committee agrees with the inspection plan the building permit is issued. The municipality controls the essential elements (structural and fire safety, sustainability, insulation and health issues) of the intended construction plan during plan approval. During construction a certified independent quality control-ler takes care of inspections. The applicant/owner and the builder stay responsible for an adequate quality control process. After completion an end meeting is held that es-tablishes if all the agreements and commitments have been met that were stipulated in the approved inspection plan. If the municipal building committee is satisfied a written notice is issued to the applicant/owner. This written notice is comparable with a com-pletion certificate.
DISCUSSION
During the last decades countries have made efforts to streamline and simplify their quality control procedures for construction works. Without exception the countries studied, decided that privatisation was the way forward. In this section the systems are
looked upon in a in a more comparative way. We discuss briefly four interrelated es-sential parts of the systems.
Focus of quality control during the process
The main goal of a quality control system is to assure that buildings – after they have been constructed - meet the regulatory quality demands. Traditionally the Netherlands (but also many other countries) focussed their attention on the beginning of the pro-cess. Applicants had to submit a plan. During plan approval the drawings and calcula-tions were controlled by local authorities and after the issuing of building approval, construction could start. During construction and at completion the progress and end result was of course inspected, but emphasis laid on the building approval phase. The countries studied all have developed systems where the checks and balances have been more evenly distributed throughout the building process. During the process qualified architects (e.g. Germany and France), qualified builders (e.g. Norway, France, Ireland) and qualified controllers (all countries) have to make sure that the construction meets the demands. After completion the controllers (and sometimes builders too) have to report their experiences and the results of the inspections before the local authority issues a completion certificate. With these kind of procedures in place the chances are fair that buildings meet the intended quality.
Simplification of the construction and control process
In the countries studied simplification of the process has always been one of the main goals to change the system. The obvious question is if this goal has been realised. To get a reliable answer one should of course make an inventory of the practical experi-ences of all parties involved. Although that has not been done in this project, some ob-servation can be made. The choices made in France look favourable from a ‘simplifi-cation’ point of view. In general there is a safety net based on insurance and guarantee regulations. Builders and architects have to be registered. Large private organisations take care of quality control of more complex constructions. On the downside it ap-pears that smaller works are hardly controlled at all. Nonetheless there are no indica-tions (complaints, construction faults, etc.) that the system has its failures (World Bank Group, 2013). Systems in other countries look somewhat more complicated. In the English model several choices are possible. In principle this is a positive asset of the system, however it seems that quite some paperwork is involved. Various certifica-tion schemes are in place and one wonders how competent persons are fitted in smoothly within the rest of the construction process. Germany has a quality control process that looks complicated. The precise division of tasks and responsibilities be-tween certified architects and engineers, state recognised experts, site managers of the builder and local authorities does not seem to be very clear. The same applies to the Norwegian system where building professionals can certify and declare themselves as approved building enterprises to take up different responsibilities during the control process. It appears that currently some 15,000 firms have been approved in Norway, while another 30.000 small firms have not been approved. The first group of builders focusses on the more complex construction works, while the second group is mainly involved with smaller building work. It is not clear though how this functions in prac-tice. A general observation to conclude is that simplification of the procedure does not automatically mean that it is also more profitable for all parties involved. For instance the new Irish system looks clear and simple, but in practice it appeared that the result-ing quality control cost costs were disproportionally high for some applicants (Meijer et al, 2016).
Responsibility of the constructor/builder
The principle seems to be straightforward. The construction should meet the demands and when builders fail to do so (by any reason) they are liable and accountable for the damages and repair. Nonetheless the countries have incorporated all kind of guaran-tees in their systems to make sure that builders and controllers deliver what they are supposed to do. In England individual installers can certify their own work when they are recognised as competent persons. In Germany architects and engineers can be rec-ognised to play a role in the quality control process. In France builders have to be reg-istered before they can be qualified for insurance and thus can operate in practice. Ire-land is working on a register of builders. In Norway building professionals who want to perform building control tasks can be approved and in all cases have to declare that they are fit for the task. In Sweden the builder must appoint a certified site manager who is responsible for the quality control. On top of this, all countries have strict rules for building defects insurances.
Having certification, licensing and recognition schemes in place that impose demands on education, practical experience, liability and indemnity insurances is one thing. It is however not a guarantee that all works out fine in practice. As experiences show in Ireland and Norway it is essential that these schemes are administered and supervised closely. This could be done by organisations of building professionals (e.g. Germany and Ireland), certification organisations (England, France and Sweden) or governmen-tal organisations (e.g. Norway).
Promotion/protection of the consumer interest
Last but not least the consumer: are their interests sufficiently protected? The essence of a quality control system is to protect the interest, safety and health of consumers (building owners, occupants, visitors, neighbours). All certification, licensing and in-surance schemes incorporated in the quality control systems mentioned in this paper have the goal to protect these interests. So that is not really the issue. What could be interesting however is to have a closer look at the non-professional applicant: the av-erage citizen. These applicants lack the knowledge and experience building profes-sionals have. Besides that the lion share of the permit applications is submitted by these non-professionals. In the Netherlands (under the current system) around 80% of all permits is issued for simple construction activities usually applied for by non-professional applicants. In England local authority building control has a market share of about 75% and this usually involves small-scale and cheaper (re) construction pro-jects. Are the systems adequately and sufficiently geared towards the needs of these non-professional applicants? In the Netherlands the criticism on the new system of municipalities and consumer organisations precisely focus on this aspect. There is fear that this group will have difficulties finding sufficient information about the new sys-tem and will not be able to find affordable control organisations. The recent experi-ences in Ireland highlights the fact that this fear is not inconceivable. A system, as in England, where certified competent persons can be hired for frequently occurring building activities could be a solution that can also be adopted in the Netherlands and other countries.
CONCLUSION
It is impossible to say what quality control system is the best. Every national system is deeply imbedded in the societal, political and economic structure of that country. Quality control systems cannot easily be transferred from one country to another. Nonetheless we can identify a few– sometimes rather obvious - building blocks from the various systems that could be used constructing an ‘ideal’ quality control system:
Make the regulations and rules as simple and clear as possible and focus the control process on the end result: the as built situation.
Make a distinction between categories of construction works but also between pro-fessional and non-propro-fessional applicants. Generally these two are heavily interre-lated.
Pay attention to the position of the non-professional in the quality control process. See to it that the information about the process and the possible process partners are easily available (e.g. via electronic applications and/or a local authority inquiry counter).
Certification of frequently occurring construction works (e.g. competent persons) could be a means to realise the intended quality as well as making the process more accessible to non-professional applicants.
Define the responsibilities for the quality of construction works for all parties in an unambiguous way. In general, building professionals (e.g. architects, engineers, builders and installers) bear the overall responsibly to design and build a construc-tion that meet the regulaconstruc-tions. The quality control system is the main instrument to regulate this. In most countries statutory demands on professional insurances to cover defects and professional indemnity are installed as a safety net. By setting di-rect demands on the quality (e.g. education, experience, past performance, respon-sibilities, accountabilities and liabilities) of architects, engineers, builders, installers and quality controllers a step forward could be made to a further professionalization of the construction industry. In some countries these demands are already set on building professionals who want to perform building control tasks. To avoid possi-ble conflicts the regulation and supervision of these schemes should be organised by an independent body on the national level.
In the end however it is not about the system as it is put down in on paper in the regu-lations. It is about the question how the systems function in practice. Only then a more definite and more balanced judgement can be made about the quality control systems for constructions systems in the various countries.
REFERENCES
Boverket, website of the National Board, for Housing, Building, and Planning. Avail-able at: www.boverket.se. (accessed 15-12-2016).
Building Code of NRW Bauordnung fur das land Nordrhein-Westfalen (2015). Avail-able at: http://www.bauordnungen.de/html/nrw.html (accessed 15-12-2016).
DCLG Department for Communities and Local Government, website provides rele-vant regulations, guidelines, reports, etc. Available at:
www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-communities-and-local-government (accessed 23-2-2016).
DECLG Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government (2014) Code of Practice for Inspecting and Certifying Building and Works, February. DECLG Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government, website
contains all relevant codes and regulations; Available at: (accessed 23-01-2016).
www.environ.ie/en/DevelopmentHousing/BuildingStandards/.
Deman, Jonas. (2013) Building control systems and technical control activities in Bel-gium, the Netherlands, Sweden and France (dissertation for Master Science degree civil engineering) Técnico Lisboa.
DiBK Direktoratet for byggkvalitet, website of the Norwegian Authority for Building Quality. Available at: http://www.dibk.no/ (accessed 04-02-2016).
Ecorys & Delft University of Technology (2016), 2015, Simplification and mutual recognition in the construction sector under the Services Directive (Markt/2014/087/E) Final report, (ISBN: 978-92-79-51535-4).
IBK Instituut voor Bouwkwaliteit/Institute for Building Quality (2014) Rapportage Verkenningsfase; op weg naar een toelatingsorganisatie/ Reconnaissance report; on the road towards an Admittance Organisation, The Hague.
KoRD Kommunal og Regionaldepartemente/Ministry of Local Government and Re-gional Development, Housing and building department (2010) Regulations relating to building applications, Oslo, 26th of March.
MBZK Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken en Koninkrijksrelaties Ministry of Interior and Kingdom Relations. (2015) Ontwerp wetsvoorstel kwaliteitsborging voor het bouwen (Bill on Quality Control for Construction Works), The Hague.
Meijer, Frits & Henk Visscher,2016, QuickScan van buitenlandse stelsels van kwaliteitsborging in Engeland, Ierland, Duitsland, Frankrijk, Noorwegen, Zweden en Australië, (Quick scan of quality control systems for building in Germany, England & Wales, France, Ireland, Norway, Sweden and Australia) Delft: Technische Universiteit Delft, Faculteit Bouwkunde, OTB(Ecorys and Delft University of Technology, 2016).
MLHD Ministère du Logement et de l’Habitat Durable /Ministry of Housing and Sus-tainable Environment, website provides current laws and other legislation. Availa-ble at: http://www.territoires.gouv.fr/ministere (accessed: 24-2-2016).
Planning Portal, the online website for planning and building regulations in the UK. Available at: www.planningportal.gov.uk (accessed: 21-02-2016).
World Bank Group (2013) Investment Climate; good practices for construction regu-lation and enforcement reform (guidelines for reformers), January, Washington.
