Previous determinations

This determination considers the decision by the authority to issue a building consent with a section 37 certificate attached.  The determination discusses what the section 37 test ‘will or may materially affect building work’ means.

This determination considers whether a building consent authority correctly issued a notice to fix in relation to two relocated units. The units, which are on wheels, were built in another district and then transported to the applicant’s property. The determination looks at whether building work requiring a building consent was carried out at the property. 

Note: ​The decision in this determination was confirmed on appeal to the District Court. See Marlborough District Council v Bilsborough [2020] NZDC 9962.

Read the appeal judgment.

This determination concerns a notice to fix issued for two relocated units built on trailers that were relocated onto site and joined via a walkway constructed onsite.  The determination considers whether the structure is a building for the purposes of the Act and whether the units separately are vehicles and not buildings.  It also considers the particulars of contravention identified in the notice to fix and the persons to whom the notice was issued.

This determination considers whether a proposed horse shelter was exempt from the need for a building consent under Schedule 1 of the Act and also whether the authority was correct to refuse to issue an exemption under Schedule 1(2).  The determination discusses what an authority can consider when considering whether to grant a discretionary exemption under Schedule 1(2).

This determination considers the refusal to issue a building consent for investigation and subsequent reinstatement of concrete panels containing potentially corroded structural steel elements. The determination considers the authority’s reasons for refusing to issue the building consent.

Note: The decisions in this determination were reversed on appeal to the District Court. See: Alan Dall v MBIE (District Court, Christchurch, 19 February 2020, CIV-2019-085-000404).

Read the appeal judgment.

This determination considers whether a unit on a trailer is a building for the purposes of the Building Act, and whether the authority was correct to issue a notice to fix in relation to this. The determination discusses the definitions of building and vehicle under section 8 of the Building Act. 

This determination concerns the authority’s refusal to extend the specified intended life of a straw-bale house.  It considers whether the authority had the power to consent to the extension when written notice from the owner proposing to extend the life of the building was not received until after the previous specified life had expired.  The determination discusses the conditions on the consent and the reasons for the specified intended life, the form in which the authority may choose to give consent to extend that life, and the evidence available on the building’s performance.

This determination considers the authority’s refusal to accept a building consent application. The determination considers whether sufficient information was provided to the authority as required by section 45 of the Building Act.

This determination considers whether the authority correctly exercised its powers in refusing to issue a building consent for a new house with a fixed glazing system.

This determination considers the authority’s decision to issue notices to fix for demolition work carried out without building consent.  The determination turns on whether the building is 'detached' and accordingly whether demolition of the building is exempt building work under Schedule 1.