Previous determinations

This determination considers the refusal to issue a code compliance certificate for a 20-year-old house due to concerns about its compliance with Building Code Clause E2 External moisture. The determination considers the authority’s reasons for the refusal and performance of the building envelope with the requirements of the Building Code.

This determination considers whether alterations to the walls and roof of a house comply with Building Code Clauses B1 Structure, E2 External moisture and F7 Warning systems. The determination also considers whether changes to the consented building work can be considered a minor variation to the building consent, and the issue of the code compliance certificate for the alterations.

This determination considers whether galvanised steel bearers used in subfloor framing to four houses meet the required minimum 50-year durability period described in Building Code Clause B2.3.1(a). The building consents for the houses were in respect of work described in national multiple-use approvals issued under section 30F of the Act. The houses have been built and the authority has refused to issue the code compliance certificates for the as-built work because it is of the view the bearers do not comply with Clause B2 Durability.

This determination considers an authority’s refusal to issue a code compliance certificate for a 20-year-old house principally due to concerns about its compliance with Building Code Clause E2 External moisture. The determination considers the authority’s reasons for the refusal and whether the items identified by the authority are compliant with the Building Code.

This determination considers what is the appropriate exposure zone for a house located near a tidal estuary and the protection that is required to the brick ties used to secure the brick cladding.  The authority considered that the house was located in exposure Zone D which required stainless steel ties to be used.

This determination considers an authority’s refusal to issue a code compliance certificate for a 17-year-old house principally due to concerns about its compliance with Clause E2 External moisture.  The building owners had commissioned an assessment of the building’s performance which the authority had declined to accept.

Note: ​The decision in this determination was confirmed on appeal to the District Court. See Marlborough District Council v Bilsborough [2020] NZDC 9962.

Read the appeal judgment.

This determination concerns a notice to fix issued for two relocated units built on trailers that were relocated onto site and joined via a walkway constructed onsite.  The determination considers whether the structure is a building for the purposes of the Act and whether the units separately are vehicles and not buildings.  It also considers the particulars of contravention identified in the notice to fix and the persons to whom the notice was issued.

This determination considers the authority’s refusal to issue a code compliance certificate where the building work was carried out without required inspections.  The determination considers the compliance of three areas identified by the authority in its refusal.

The determination considered whether the authority correctly exercised its powers of decision in refusing to issue a code compliance certificate. The determination considered the authority’s decision to refuse a code compliance certificate without inspecting the building.

This determination considers the refusal to issue a building consent for investigation and subsequent reinstatement of concrete panels containing potentially corroded structural steel elements. The determination considers the authority’s reasons for refusing to issue the building consent.