Previous determinations

This determination considers whether a stormwater tank near a property boundary is required to comply with performance clauses C3.6 and C3.7 of Building Code Clause C3 Fire affecting areas beyond the fire source.  

This determination considers an authority's purported decision to refuse to grant a building consent for an alteration to an existing workshop on a residential property. The determination considers whether a change of use is occurring with the proposed building work to create a sleep-out.

This determination considers compliance of building work that encroached across the boundary between two properties with Building Code Clauses B1 Structure, B2 Durability and C3 Fire affecting areas beyond the fire source. The determination also considers the authority’s decisions to grant the original building consent, an amendment to that consent, and subsequent issue of the code compliance certificate, and the authority’s alleged failure to issue a notice to fix.

This determination concerns the authority's decision to refuse to issue a code compliance certificate for construction of an outbuilding that was later converted to a sleepout. The determination considers the compliance of the building work identified by the authority in its reasons for refusing to issue the code compliance certificate.

This determination considers whether a territorial authority was correct to issue a notice to fix for building works that involved the alterations and modifications of an existing specified system – an automatic sprinkler system – where a building consent was not obtained prior to the works commencing. The determination also considers if the building works could have been undertaken in accordance with clause 10 of Schedule 1 of the Building Act.

This determination concerns whether a garage built over a boundary complies with Clause C3 (Spread of Fire) of the Building Code in place when the building consent was issued, and whether the authority was correct to issue a code compliance certificate for the work.

Note: ​The decision in this determination was confirmed on appeal to the District Court. See Marlborough District Council v Bilsborough [2020] NZDC 9962.

Read the appeal judgment.

This determination concerns a notice to fix issued for two relocated units built on trailers that were relocated onto site and joined via a walkway constructed onsite.  The determination considers whether the structure is a building for the purposes of the Act and whether the units separately are vehicles and not buildings.  It also considers the particulars of contravention identified in the notice to fix and the persons to whom the notice was issued.

Note: The decisions in this Determination were confirmed on appeal to the District Court. See: Auckland Council v Jayashree Limited (District Court, Auckland, 14 February 2019, CIV-2018-004-00820).

Read appeal judgement [PDF 503KB].

This determination considers whether the authority was correct to issue a notice to fix in regard to unconsented building work and a change of use from a single house to sleeping accommodation. The determination also considers the authority’s decision regarding the certificate of acceptance.

This determination considers the compliance of a replacement façade system to an existing 5-storey building. The facade system incorporates high-pressure laminate panels fixed to an aluminium frame creating a 50mm wide cavity between the panels and the lined timber-framed wall behind. The authority has concerns about the facade system’s ability to perform with respect to preventing the spread of fire over the external cladding. The determination considers the compliance of the original facade system, and as modified in response to the determination’s initial findings.

This determination considers whether the structure without fire resistance complies with Clause C3 of the Building Code.  The determination discusses whether the structure as constructed satisfies C/AS1 and whether it complies as an alternative solution.