Opposition Leader Steven Marshall last week announced the Liberal Party wanted to give the state Planning Minister the power to override the Building Code of Australia to encourage redevelopment of old and vacant buildings.

Marshall said this would “greatly reduce the red-tape burden associated with repurposing an old office building” and help to reduce record vacancy rates in D-Grade and C-Grade city buildings.

However, Master Builders Association of SA Director of Policy and Communications Russell Emmerson told InDaily this morning it would be a “brave minister” that uses such a power.

“The concern is you want to make sure [buildings] are safe for people,” Emmerson said.

He told InDaily it would only be appropriate for a minister to override the Building Code on a particular project if the exception to the rules was small and necessary to ensure activation of unused spaces.

But he said a minister would have to exercise great caution overriding technical specifications, particularly when they concern fire safety, earthquake and disability access requirements.

“You wouldn’t want the earthquake provisions or the [disability] access provisions overlooked,” he said.

“Any time there the minister uses that power there under a fairly big [obligation] that they’re doing it for the right purposes.

“It’s fine for the minister to have the power, but it has to be used wisely …

“It would be, at best, a power that’s rarely used.”

But Marshall rejected any safety concerns.

Asked if he thought there was a risk ministerial discretion over the Building Code would pose any risk to safety standards, Marshall told InDaily there was “none at all”.

He said that there was already flexibility in the way that new buildings were regulated under the building code, and that the proposal would simply extend that to older buildings.

“These buildings are already in use – it’s not like they’re going to become less safe,” he said.

Emmerson said there was “already a fair amount of flexibility in the system” and introducing “layers and layers of exception” risked “diluting” the code.

“We have a code that’s clear for industry,” he said.

“If you’re are going to start diluting it there needs to be a strong case for that.”

He said that surveyors were often willing to sign off on small variations to building code specifications provided they did not compromise the purposes of the code – especially safety – and the argument not not yet been made convincingly that ministerial intervention was required.

For example, he said, a doorway that should be 1.3 metres wide but is 1.2 metres wide would likely be signed off.

However, Emmerson said the association was interested in any ideas that may increase activation of city buildings, and it was keen to see the detail of the Bill.

Experienced heritage architect and doctoral candidate working on the adaptive reuse of buildings at the University of Adelaide Carolyn Wigg told InDaily that the Building Code was designed to cater for new buildings, and owners of buildings constructed before its introduction often struggle to meet its specifications.

“It’s very often the difference between keeping a building and demolishing it,” she said.

“Sometimes the owner finds it too difficult or too expensive to upgrade [buildings in compliance with the Code].”

Wigg gave the example of the second storey of buildings on Rundle Street, where she said upgrades had been prevented because they only contained one stairway, where the Building Code requires them to have two.

InDaily understands the Liberal Party has draft legislation prepared and that it will release further information on the policy this week.