Previous determinations

This determination is concerned with the compliance of discrete repairs proposed to the top levels of a multi-storey building. The determination considers whether the authority was correct to issue a building consent for that work, and whether the replacement of a related deck membrane was exempt from requiring a building consent.

This determination is concerned with the compliance of an 11 year old house. The determination considers the authority’s reasons for refusing to issue the code compliance certificate and whether the house complies with the requirements of the Building Code.

This determination is concerned with the compliance of a house and alterations that are, respectively, 21 and 9 years old. The determination considers the authority’s reasons for refusing the code compliance certificates, and whether the house currently complies with the requirements of the Building Code, particularly with respect to weathertightness and durability.

This determination is concerned with the compliance of cladding and timber framing in a 15-year-old house that had previously been subject to moisture ingress. The determination considers the authority’s reasons for refusing the code compliance certificate for alterations that involved recladding and over-cladding, and whether the house complies with the requirements of the Building Code, particularly with respect to weathertightness and durability.

This determination considers whether the authority was correct to refuse to issue a building consent on the grounds that it considered the proposed footing detail, which is an alternative solution, did not comply with Clause B1 of the Building Code. The determination compares the proposed footing detail with that set out in the Acceptable Solutions SH/AS1 and B1/AS1 in terms of its flexural and shear capacity.

Note: This determination is subject to clarification.

This determination discusses the assessment required under section 115 when there is a change of use to only part of a building, particularly in respect of Building Code clause B1 Structure and whether a detailed seismic assessment is required for the whole building.

This determination considers the authority’s reasons for refusing to issue a code compliance certificate for remedial work to an existing house; and whether the work concerned complied with Clause B1, B2, and E2 of the Building Code. The building consent had been issued with requirements for quality assurance in relation to construction monitoring which was also the subject of the dispute between the parties.

This determination is concerned with the compliance of a 12 to 15-year-old house. The determination considers the authority’s reasons for refusing the code compliance certificate, and whether the house complies with the requirements of the Building Code, particularly with respect to weathertightness and durability.

This determination considers the information required to establish on reasonable grounds that specific elements of building work complies with the relevant clauses of the Building Code.  At issue was the compatibility of plumbing fittings and pipes from different manufacturers, and whether evidence of construction monitoring was required.

This determination considers the compliance of an alternative solution using imported window and door joinery and the associated fixing and installation. The determination discusses the available technical information and the use of proposed testing to support the building consent amendment application.