Previous determinations

This determination considers an authority’s decision to issue a dangerous and affected building notice for a dwelling. The determination considers whether the identified 'defects' meant the dwelling was a dangerous or affected building at the time the notice was issued. This decision takes into account all the information that is now available.

This determination considers an authority’s decision to refuse to grant an application for a building consent for the construction of a new dwelling. The determination considers the authority’s reasons for the refusal, and whether the proposed timber piled foundation design complies with Building Code Clause B1 Structure.

This determination considers the exercise of power of decision by an authority to issue a code compliance certificate for building work to construct a foundation system and floor slab for a new vehicle storage and maintenance shed. The determination will consider whether the building work complies with the building consent and Building Code, taking into account all the information now available.

This determination considers whether the bracing design for two external walls of a
single-storey timber-framed dwelling complied with the Building Code. In deciding this
matter, I have considered whether the bracing design complied with the means of
compliance stated in the building consent application, which was New Zealand
Standard NZS 3604:2011 Timber-framed buildings.

This determination considers the use of glue-laminated timber as framing to the walls and roof trusses of a house.  The glue-laminated framing was substituted during construction for solid timber described in the approved building consent without approval being sought.  The determination considers the compliance of the glue-laminated framing and whether the substitution could be considered a minor variation to the approved consent.

Note: This determination is subject to clarification

This determination considers the ground preparation to a site before a house with a proprietary foundation had been constructed. The site was in the Canterbury region and had been classified as TC2. The determination considers whether the site and its preparation meet Clause B1 Structure, and whether the authority was correct to issue the code compliance certificate in respect of this work.

This determination considers two houses damaged in the Canterbury earthquake sequence and whether the information provided in support of the building consent for the repair of the buildings was sufficient for the authority to be able to grant the consent.  

This determination considers whether the authority was correct to refuse to issue a building consent on the grounds that it considered the proposed footing detail, which is an alternative solution, did not comply with Clause B1 of the Building Code. The determination compares the proposed footing detail with that set out in the Acceptable Solutions SH/AS1 and B1/AS1 in terms of its flexural and shear capacity.

This determination considers the compliance of a substituted uPVC joinery product that is the subject of an application to amend a building consent. The determination discusses the evidence base and consequences of failure.

This determination concerns the refusal to issue a code compliance certificate on the grounds that the authority could not be satisfied that the building work complied with Clause B1 Structure.  The as-built work differed from that described in the building consent, which been supported by the specifications and design documentation for a proprietary construction system that was not used in the construction of the building.