Determinations are made by MBIE on matters of doubt or dispute to do with building work. Rulings are legally binding, but only in relation to each case.
Previous determinations may provide some useful guidance for those faced with similar problems, but note that individual circumstances may vary.
You can also search for Determinations on Building CodeHub
Applying filters will narrow down your search results
This determination discusses the application of sections 17 and 112 in respect of an alteration to an existing building that has the effect of creating a larger firecell, and the Building Code obligations that are triggered by the increase in size. Also discussed is the fire service intervention time.
This determination discusses the compliance of a proposed block of apartments in a retirement village with respect to the limit provided for the numbers of people with disabilities likely to be present on any given floor when using the Acceptable Solution C/AS2. The determination sets out a method of calculating the numbers of people with disabilities for a known population by age.
Considered the application of sections 17 and 112 of the Act, and the compliance of the proposed fire alarm system. Discussed compliance of the building as a whole after the alterations ‘as nearly as is reasonably practicable’ with respect to means of escape, and how the approach involves the balancing of sacrifices and difficulties of upgrading against the advantages of upgrading. Discussed use of MBIE guidance and “gap assessment”.
Discussed as title and whether a comparison to the wharenui (marae buildings) exemption is appropriate. Also provides a general framework for modifications or waivers under section 67 of the Act, and methodology for deciding whether it is “reasonable” to grant a modification, for example, by reviewing the extent and possible consequence of the non-compliance with a specific performance clause, or reviewing for consistency with the purpose and principles of the Building Act.
Discussed whether a multi-unit dwelling had adequate fire safety features for the three residential units in the same dwelling, and whether the building was dangerous under section 121 (1)(b) of the Act. Discussed “occupancy” and whether a “change of use” had occurred. Also considered whether the building complied with the Building Code and the threshold at which at a building may be considered “dangerous” when it does not comply.
An appeal was lodged against this determination.
The dispute turned on which Acceptable Solution (C/AS1 or C/AS2) applied to the proposed building work, depending on whether it fell within Risk Group SH or SM. Discussed the relationship between Uses as defined in the Regulations, Risk Groups in the Acceptable Solutions and Classified Uses in the Act. Also discussed “intended use”, and the Risk Groups in relation to household units located above car parks.
Discussed whether a modification of C3.4 is reasonable and the possible consequence of non-compliance with that clause. Also discussed the granting of waivers and modifications under section 67 of the Act.
This information is published by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment’s Chief Executive. It is a general guide only and, if used, does not relieve any person of the obligation to consider any matter to which the information relates according to the circumstances of the particular case. Expert advice may be required in specific circumstances. Where this information relates to assisting people:
This will print only the current page of this guidance document.
Print this page
