Previous determinations

This determination is concerned with the compliance of a 19-year-old brick veneer house.  This determination considers the authority’s reasons for refusing the code compliance certificate, and whether the house complies with the requirements of the Building Code.

This determination considers the authority’s refusal to grant a waiver under section 72 of the Act for two proposed buildings which are situated on land subject to a debris flow hazard.  The determination considers the risk to occupants from debris flow events, and the extent to which the proposed work will mitigate this risk.

This determination was sought by the owner of an adjacent property who was of the view that the retaining wall and site works did not comply with the Building Code.

This determination is concerned with the compliance of 14-year-old additions to a plastered brick veneer house. This determination considers the authority’s reasons for refusing the code compliance certificate, and whether the alterations comply with the requirements of the Building Code.

This determination is concerned with the design of a proposed pool building that is an outbuilding to a dwelling. The determination considers what Building Code clauses apply to pool building, and whether the information provided with the application for building consent demonstrates that the proposed work will comply with the requirements of the Building Code.

This determination discusses the compliance with Clause B2.3.1 of European oak grown in New Zealand and used as structural framing members.

This determination considers the authority’s decision to refuse to issue a code compliance certificate based onits concerns regarding the weathertightness and durability of the exterior envelope. The determination reviewed the reasons given for the refusal and the authority's actions in regards to its inspection, and considered whether the building work complies with the Building Code.

This determination considers the authority’s decision to refuse to issue a code compliance certificate for a house; the authority’s concerns were chiefly to do with the weathertightness and durability of the exterior envelope. The determination discusses the authority’s reasons for the refusal, and whether there was sufficient evidence of compliance in order to issue a code compliance certificate.

The determination considers whether zero pitch protected liquid-applied membrane roofs will comply in regards to weathertightness and durability if constructed as specified by the manufacturer. The determination provides analysis of the evidence in support of the membrane in this use, sets out the design parameters for buildings for which the waterproof membrane would be used, and discusses drainage, resistance to water, and whether there is reliance on other components of the roofing system.

This determination considers the authority’s decision to refuse to issue a certificate of acceptance for remedial work to a membrane roof and parapets. The determination reviews the reasons given for the refusal and discusses the lack of inspections, the information that was before the authority at the time of its decision, and whether the building work was exempt from the requirement to obtain a building consent.