Previous determinations

This determination considers whether the authority was correct in the exercise of its power of decision to issue a notice to fix for what the authority considers is building work that required a building consent. In order to make this determination I have considered whether a unit is a 'building' under section 8 of the Building Act 2004. The determination also considers whether the notice to fix was defective.

This determination considers whether a unit is a building that is subject to the Building Act. It discusses the tests of 'immovability' and 'permanent or long-term occupation' in relation to a vehicle, and the requirements for a notice to fix.

This determination considers an authority's proposed decision to require a building consent for prefabrication of a unit intended to be moved to another site. The determination discusses whether the unit is a 'building' in terms of the Building Act, the definition of 'building work' in the Act, and the exemption from the requirement to obtain building consent contained in clause 43 of Schedule 1 of the Act.

This determination considers whether the authority was correct in its decision to refuse to grant an extension of time to issue a code compliance certificate for alterations and additions to an existing dwelling. The determination discusses the process of considering an extension of the time in which to issue a code compliance certificate including sections 92, 93 and 94 and 95A of the Act.

Note: This determination was subject to appeal to the District Court, where one conclusion was confirmed and one conclusion was overturned. Appeal judgment  [PDF 6.4MB].

This determination considers whether a structure that has some features of a vehicle is a "building" under section 8 of the Building Act, and therefore whether the authority can issue a notice to fix for construction of the unit without building consent. The determination discusses factors to consider when deciding if the unit is a "vehicle", and if it is "immovable" and "occupied on a permanent or long-term basis".

This determination considers the issue of notices to fix for construction of something that the owner claims is not a building. The determination considers whether the construction was of a vehicle, as the owner claimed, rather than a building. The determination also sets out the approach taken in High Court and District Court decisions that have considered the question of whether something with the characteristics of a vehicle were buildings.

Note: The decision in this determination was confirmed on appeal to the District Court. See Waikato Regional Council v Poseidon Holdings Ltd [2021] NZDC 6951.

Read the appeal judgment.

This determination considers the authority's decision to issue a notice to fix for an agricultural effluent storage pond to the current owner. The determination discusses the relationship of the previous owner and the current owner, and whether the current owner is a specified person for the purposes of section 163 and 164 of the Building Act.

This determination considers whether the authority was correct to issue a notice to fix in circumstances where the placement of a trailer near a timber wall might enable a young child to gain access to the neighbour's pool. The matter turns on the interpretation of section 116B(1)(a) of the Building Act, which provides that it is an offence to use a building for a use for which that building is not safe.

Note: The decision in this determination was confirmed on appeal to the District Court. See Ford v Auckland Council [2020] NZDC 22162.

Read the appeal judgment.

This determination considers whether the owner of a cable car built in 2000 (servicing the owner’s house) was required to obtain a compliance schedule for the cable car, given there was no such requirement when the cable car was built. The determination also considers how to interpret the requirement for the compliance schedule to include performance standards for the cable car. 

This determination considers the authority’s proposal to issue a notice to fix for work that the authority considers constitutes building work that required building consent.  The issue concerns an abode that has been constructed using a trailer and that the owner contends is a vehicle and not a building.  The matter turns on whether the work carried out was work for or in connection with the construction of a building.