Previous determinations

This determinatino considers whether an accessible route is required for a deep water pool that is part of a public swimming pool facilties. The determination discusses the requirement for an accessible route, both in terms of the deep water pool only and also in terms of it being one of a number of pools within the facility, and the normal activities carried out in those pools.

This determination considers whether a balustrade handrail as constructed complies with Clause D1. The determination considers the use of the balustrade capping as a handrail and discusses the relevant width measurement and whether the capping is sufficient to provide a firm grasp in the event of a fall.

This determination considers the compliance of an alternative solution proposing the use of a single handrail on the inner face of a secondary private spiral stairway. The determination discusses the relative angle of the handrail and the pitch line of the stairs, and whether the handrail is graspable and would provide sufficient grip to arrest a fall.

This determination considers whether a lift is required to a three-level office building as part of alterations to the existing building. The determination discusses the requirements of section 118, the effect of unit titles, the performance requirements of Clause D1, and whether there is sufficient information on which to conclude that compliance to the extent required by section 112 is achieved in that it would not be reasonably practicable to install a lift.

This determination considers whether a lift is required to the lower level of a proposed two-storey rowing club building. The determination considers compliance against the relevant Acceptable Solution and what constitutes reasonable and adequate access for people with disabilities to the lower level. The determination also considers access to areas adjacent the building.

This determinatin considers what constitutes reasonable and adequate access for people with disabilities to one of three different pools in a proposed aquatic centre. The determination considers the intended use of the pool, and discusses the functionality of the proposed platform lift in comparison to other means of providing access for people with disabilities.

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.

This determination considers whether a lift is required to a mezzanine level of a gym as part of alterations to the existing building, and the compliance of the alterations in respect of Clause G1 Personal hygiene and D1 Access routes. The determination considers the weighing of the benefits and sacrifices as part of the section 112 requirement for compliance as nearly as is reasonably practicable, and also discusses the area and occupancy of the mezzanine level.

This determination considers what is reasonable and adequate access for people with disabilities to three different pools in a proposed aquatic centre.  The determination discusses the intended use of the pools and the interrelationship with the design features of the pools, as well as the use of other countries guidance documents and standards to achieve compliance as an alternative solution.

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.