Previous determinations

This determination considers whether galvanised steel bearers used in subfloor framing to four houses meet the required minimum 50-year durability period described in Building Code Clause B2.3.1(a). The building consents for the houses were in respect of work described in national multiple-use approvals issued under section 30F of the Act. The houses have been built and the authority has refused to issue the code compliance certificates for the as-built work because it is of the view the bearers do not comply with Clause B2 Durability.

This determination considers the compliance of a domestic garage and driveway with Building Code Clause D1 Access routes, including whether their dimensions are appropriate for the intended use. It also considers whether the building consent authority was correct to grant the building consent and code compliance certificate, and whether a proposal to widen the garage doorway (from 2.31 m to 2.8 m) would result in compliance.

This determination considers an authority’s refusal to issue a code compliance certificate for a 17-year-old house principally due to concerns about its compliance with Clause E2 External moisture.  The building owners had commissioned an assessment of the building’s performance which the authority had declined to accept.

This determination considers the authority’s refusal to issue a code compliance certificate where the building work was carried out without required inspections.  The determination considers the compliance of three areas identified by the authority in its refusal.

This determination is concerned with the compliance of a timber retaining wall with Building Code Clause B1 Structure. The determination considers whether the wall once completed will comply with Building Code Clause B1 Structure, and whether the authority was correct not to issue a notice to fix in relation to the retaining wall.

This determination concerns sitework carried out by the applicant’s neighbour and whether this is likely to cause damage or nuisance to the applicant’s property in breach of Clause E1 Surface water.  The determination also considers whether the authority was correct to grant a building consent and a code compliance certificate for this work.

This determination considers the compliance of an as-built surface water drainage system to a new house.  The system as consented did not provide a compliant solution and the work as installed is not considered to be compliant by the building owner.

This determination considers whether the weatherboard cladding to a house complies with Clauses E2 External moisture and B2 Durability. The vertical weatherboards were installed over a cavity but double-nailed. The authority refused to issue the code compliance certificate because of the double-nailing.

This determination considers the compliance of proposed carpet flooring to a laundry space within an attached garage. The authority refused to issue the building consent for the proposal because of concerns the use of carpet in a laundry does not prevent water from penetrating behind linings, and does not avoid the likelihood of fungal growth or the accumulation of contaminants.

This determination considers an authority’s refusal to issue a code compliance certificate for 18-year-old additions and alterations to an existing house.  The cladding had been changed from what was consented and the changed cladding had also been applied to the remainder of the existing building.  The determination considers the authority’s reasons for the refusal and whether the items identified by the authority are compliant with the Building Code.