Previous determinations

The determination considers whether zero pitch protected liquid-applied membrane roofs will comply in regards to weathertightness and durability if constructed as specified by the manufacturer. The determination provides analysis of the evidence in support of the membrane in this use, sets out the design parameters for buildings for which the waterproof membrane would be used, and discusses drainage, resistance to water, and whether there is reliance on other components of the roofing system.

This determination considers the authority’s decision to refuse to issue a certificate of acceptance for remedial work to a membrane roof and parapets. The determination reviews the reasons given for the refusal and discusses the lack of inspections, the information that was before the authority at the time of its decision, and whether the building work was exempt from the requirement to obtain a building consent.

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 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.