Previous determinations

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.

This determination discusses the assessment required under section 115 when there is a change of use to only part of a building, particularly how the phrase “the building, in its new use” in section 115 applies and in respect of Building Code clause B1 Structure. The discussion also considers information provided by way of an Initial Seismic Assessment (ISA) in relation to that assessment, and the separate functions performed by authorities under section 112 and section 115.

This determination considers the compliance of the building work in light of a refusal to issue a code compliance certificate; the refusal was primarily on the grounds of concerns regarding weathertightness and durability of the exterior cladding given the building’s age.

This determination considers whether the building is dangerous with regard to the building’s structure and the slope behind the building. The determination also discusses the application of sections 124 and 125, the subsection the notice was issued under, to whom the notice was served, and the content and wording of the notice.