Previous determinations

This determination considers two dangerous building notices that were issued for a six-storey building in central Auckland.  The various levels of the building are fitted out for retail, offices, and sleeping accommodation.  The determination considers the authority’s decision to the second dangerous building notice restricting entry to part of the building, which meant part of the building could not be used for sleeping accommodation, and the authority’s decision to reissue that notice after thirty days.

This determination concerns whether a garage built over a boundary complies with Clause C3 (Spread of Fire) of the Building Code in place when the building consent was issued, and whether the authority was correct to issue a code compliance certificate for the work.

This determination considers the authority’s refusal to amend a compliance schedule to remove the fire-rated mezzanine floor from the schedule for an early childhood centre.

The matter turns on whether the fire-rated floor is a “fire separation” as that term is used in relation to specified systems.

Note: This determination is subject to clarification

This determination concerns an as-installed solid fuel heater installed without the clearance behind it that was described in the manufacturer’s installation instructions.  The determination considers the compliance of heater and a notice to fix issued in respect of this work.

This determination considers the fire safety design of a proposed tall building and whether compliance with Clauses C1-C6 has been established by means of Verification Method C/VM2.  The determination discusses the scope of the Verification Method, how compliance is established by way of the Verification Method, and the compliance of the proposed design – in particular the lack of isolated interconnection between the lobby containing the designated fire fighters lift and the stair that is the means of egress and which firefighters use to access the floor of fire origin.

Note: This determination is subject to clarification

This determination concerns a notice to fix issued by an authority in respect of the specified systems in a building, the compliance schedule, and the building warrant of fitness. The determination considers whether the notice to fix was correctly issued, the information to be provided in a compliance schedule, and the issue of the building warrant of fitness.

This determination considers the compliance of a warehouse fitout, comprising a storage racking system and a mezzanine floor, with the fire safety requirements of the Building Code. The determination considers whether the fitout was part of the original building as it was intended to be built, or whether it can be considered an alteration to an existing building.

This determination considers fire spread across a boundary in relation to an existing commercial building that is being altered. The determination considers how distance is measured to the relevant boundary for the purposes of considering fire spread to other property in order to satisfy the requirements of Building Code Clause C3—Fire affecting areas beyond the fire source.

Note: The decisions in this determination were reversed on appeal to the District Court. See: Palmerston North City Council v Brian Green Properties (1971) Limited (District Court, Palmerston North, 12 February 2020, CIV-2018-054-000288).

Read the appeal judgment.

This determination considers whether the authority was correct to issue a notice to fix in respect of locks to doors that are providing the means of escape to a commercial building containing food and retail outlets.  The determination considers whether the locked doors provide adequate means of escape from fire when the building has no occupants.

This determination considers the compliance of a replacement façade system to an existing 5-storey building. The facade system incorporates high-pressure laminate panels fixed to an aluminium frame creating a 50mm wide cavity between the panels and the lined timber-framed wall behind. The authority has concerns about the facade system’s ability to perform with respect to preventing the spread of fire over the external cladding. The determination considers the compliance of the original facade system, and as modified in response to the determination’s initial findings.