Previous determinations

The matter to be determined, under section 177(1)(b) and (2)(f), is whether the authority was correct in its decision to issue a notice to fix for the owners’ structure. In deciding this matter, I must consider whether the structure was exempt from requiring a building consent under Schedule 1 of the Act, and whether the authority had sufficient evidence to consider on reasonable grounds that the building work did not comply with the Building Code.

This determination considers whether the authority was correct to refuse to grant a building consent for the construction of a relocatable building. This determination considers the documentation requirements for a building consent application and reasons given by the authority when refusing the building consent.

Note: Determination 2022/028 was modified under section 211(1)(a) of the Building Act 2004 by the District Court on 25 July 2023 in [2023] NZDC 15205. Read the judgement.

This determination considers whether the authority was correct in its exercise of powers of decision to refuse to grant a building consent for alterations to an existing detached dwelling, and its subsequent decision to issue a notice to fix. In deciding these matters, I have also considered whether the building work could have been carried out urgently in advance of obtaining a building consent, and whether the owners are now required to apply for a certificate of acceptance.

This determination considers the decision making on two building consents and a code compliance certificate where the building work was carried out to the dwelling under separate building consents at the same time.

This determination considers whether the authority was correct to refuse to issue a notice to fix for site works that occurred over a period of years. The determination also considers the compliance of the work and status of the developer as a specified person.

This determination considers whether the authority was correct to refuse to grant a building consent. The determination considers whether sufficient information was included in the building consent application.

This determination considers building work that was carried out to a boarding house in 1997 and how the transitional provisions of the Building Act 2004 apply to building work that differed from the approved plans.

This determination considers an authority's exercise of decision to propose or purport to refuse to issue two code compliance certificates and grant two certificates of acceptance, related to the construction of several retaining walls and remedial work to the underside of a timber deck. The building work is the subject of various specialist reports from a number of different geotechnical and structural chartered professional engineers. The determination discusses the reasons given by the authority for the refusals.

This determination considers whether the authority was correct in its purported refusal of three building consent applications for proposed dwellings under sections 49 and 50 of the Building Act 2004. The determination discusses the authority's reasons for refusal, and whether the authority was correct to refuse the applications for the reasons given.

This determination considers an authority's purported exercise of decision not to grant a building consent on the basis that a producer statement design, related to the design of new timber retaining walls, which has not been signed by a registered Chartered Professional Engineer. The determination will discuss the status of a producer statement, some factors for an authority to consider when assessing a producer statement, and how these apply in this case.