Previous determinations

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.

Explanatory note

This determination contained an error when it was issued on 26 June 2019. At Paragraph 5.6.6 it read, “I note here the torch-on-membrane, which the authority issued a building consent for (refer paragraph 4.5.1), is permitted within the Acceptable Solution as a capping material to parapets".

To provide clarity paragraph 5.6.6 is now to be read as follows, “I note here metal, butyl or EPDM membranes are the materials specified in the Acceptable Solution as capping materials to parapets. The authority issued a building consent (refer paragraph 3.7) for the torch on membrane, which established that the authority was satisfied with the compliance of that material as a weathertightness system."

This determination considers the compliance of parapet and post details without metal cap flashings to two membrane decks. The determination discusses the details and whether the building work complies with the Building Code in regard to Clause E2 External moisture.

This determination considers an authority’s refusal to issue a code compliance certificate for a 16-year-old house principally for reasons to do with the performance of the building envelope. 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 concerns the authority’s refusal to extend the specified intended life of a straw-bale house.  It considers whether the authority had the power to consent to the extension when written notice from the owner proposing to extend the life of the building was not received until after the previous specified life had expired.  The determination discusses the conditions on the consent and the reasons for the specified intended life, the form in which the authority may choose to give consent to extend that life, and the evidence available on the building’s performance.

This determination considers whether the weatherboard cladding to a house complies with Clauses E2 External moisture and B2 Durability. The vertical weatherboards were installed over a cavity but double-nailed. The authority refused to issue the code compliance certificate because of the double-nailing.

This determination considers the compliance of consented work for the relocation of an existing building onto a new site and alterations to the building.  The authority refused to issue the code compliance certificate for the work because of concerns over the performance of a membrane roof to a new extension built as part of the relocation consent.