Previous determinations

This determination considers the authority’s decision to refuse to issue a building consent for alterations to an existing earthquake-prone building.  The alterations were for an internal fitout on the ground floor of the three-storey commercial building.  The determination considers the authority’s policy on earthquake-prone buildings in relation to the proposed work, and some matters in relation to the policy itself.  Detailed discussion on the policy will follow in a further determination. 

This determination considers the compliance of nailing to plywood cladding to a house located in a sea spray zone: galvanised mild steel nails had been installed instead of stainless steel nails.  The determination considers the compliance of the plywood in relation to Building Code Clauses B1 Structure and E2 External moisture, and the remedial work done to date by the owner.

This determination considers the authority’s decision to refuse to issue a code compliance certificate: the grounds for the refusal were the authority’s concerns regarding the weather-tightness and durability of the exterior envelope, and the performance of a concrete floor slab and the subfloor space beneath with respect to structure and durability.  The determination reviewed the reasons given for the refusal and considered whether the items identified in the refusal comply with the Building Code.

This determination considers whether the authority correctly issued an earthquake-prone building notice for a multi-storey unreinforced masonry building. The determination also discusses the relationship between the legal test under section 122 of the Building Act 2004, the authority’s earthquake-prone building policy and the engineering methodology used at the time the earthquake-prone building notice was issued.

Note: This determination is subject to appeal. 

This determination considers whether the authority correctly issued an earthquake-prone building notice. The determination also discusses the relationship between the legal test under section 122 of the Building Act 2004, the authority’s earthquake-prone building policy and the engineering methodology used at the time the earthquake-prone building notice was issued.

This determination considers the authority’s decision to refuse to issue a code compliance certificate; the grounds for the refusal were the authority’s concerns regarding the performance of the exterior cladding in terms of weathertightness and durability. The determination reviewed the reasons given for the refusal and considered whether the items identified in the refusal comply with the Building Code.

This determination considers the authority’s decision to refuse to issue a code compliance certificate; the grounds for the refusal were the authority’s concerns regarding the performance of the exterior cladding in terms of weathertightness and durability. The determination reviewed the reasons given for the refusal and considered whether the items identified in the refusal comply with the Building Code.

This determination discusses who can be issued with a notice to fix, in particular when building work was undertaken by a previous owner without building consent having been obtained. It also considers the compliance of building work and discusses circumstances where building work departs from Acceptable Solutions or New Zealand Standards.

Note: This Determination was set aside by order by the District Court as a result of an appeal under section 208 of the Building Act. The Court order was made by consent of the parties after the respondent Council conceded it failed to comply with the statutory provisions governing notices to fix.

This determination considers the compliance of the building work carried out with Clauses B1 and B2, and discusses whether there is an obligation to comply with Clause E1.3.2 of the Building Code when repairs are carried out to foundations. The determination also discusses whether the building work carried out was exempt under Schedule 1.

This determination considers the compliance of the building work carried out with Clauses B1 and B2, and discusses whether there is an obligation to comply with Clause E1.3.2 of the Building Code when repairs are carried out to foundations. The determination also discusses whether the building work carried out was exempt under Schedule 1.