Previous determinations

This determination considers the compliance of an as-built surface water drainage system to a new house.  The system as consented did not provide a compliant solution and the work as installed is not considered to be compliant by the building owner.

Note: This determination is subject to clarification

This determination considers the lifting of an insanitary building notice and whether the building in its current state is insanitary or dangerous.  The determination also considers whether two building consents should have been granted subject to notification of the natural hazard inundation, and whether a notice to rectify should have been for building work that was not compliant with the Building Code and for building work carried out without building consent.

This determination considers the issue of a code compliance certificate for alterations to a relocated house.  The determination discusses the compliance of the building work with the building consent and with relevant clauses of the Building Code

This determination considers two houses damaged in the Canterbury earthquake sequence and whether the information provided in support of the building consent for the repair of the buildings was sufficient for the authority to be able to grant the consent.  

This determination considers the authority's refusal to issue the code compliance certificate for a substantial addition to an existing studio building. The refusal arose from matters related to Building Code Clauses D1, E2, E3, and F4, but the principle issue was an ongoing dispute about the water from neighbouring properties and a small drain that has been installed to divert some of this water. The determination considers whether the drain formed part of the consented work or not.

This determination is concerned with the compliance of a 14-year-old house that had undergone repair works. The determination considers the authority’s reasons for refusing to issue the code compliance certificate and whether the house complies with the requirements of the Building Code.

This determination concerns the natural hazards provisions of the Act. The matter turned on whether the building work constituted a major alteration and whether section 72 would apply even if the building work was not a major alteration. The determination also considered whether it was reasonable to grant a waiver of Clause E1.3.2.

This determination is concerned with the compliance of the building envelope to a 20-year-old house. The determination considers the authority’s reasons for refusing to issue the code compliance certificate and whether the house complies with the requirements of the Building Code.

This determination is concerned with the compliance of 11-year-old alterations to a house built in the 1960s. The determination considers the authority’s reasons for refusing to issue the code compliance certificate and whether the house complies with the requirements of the Building Code.

This determination is concerned primarily with the compliance of the building envelope to a 14-year-old house with autoclaved aerated concrete cladding. The determination considers the authority’s reasons for refusing to issue the code compliance certificate and whether the house complies with the requirements of the Building Code that was in force at the time the building consent was issued.