Previous determinations

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 weathertightness and durability of the exterior envelope, the adequacey of barriers to a deck and stairs, surface water disposal, and a change of use. 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 weather-tightness given that the foam was installed through the cladding in some places rather than through the interior as approved. The determination reviewed the reasons given for the refusal and considered whether the external envelope complies with the Building Code.

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

This determination considers the compliance of a substitute metal roofing material with respect to durability.  The determination includes the expert opinion of a specialist in corrosion engineering, and discusses the exposure and corrosion zones relevant to the site.

This determination considers the compliance of particular external walls of the house with respect to weathertightness and durability.  The walls are not under eaves that would provide shelter from the weather, and the joinery is not installed in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions.

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 structural performance of the foundation wall.  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 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 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 the pathway to establishing compliance with Clause B2.3.1 for laminated veneer lumber CCA treated in accordance with AS1604.4:2012 and used as structural framing members in situations where hazard class H3.2 or less would be used.