Previous determinations

This determination considers the authority's decision to issue a dangerous and insanitary building notice and a certificate of acceptance in respect of a sleepout. The determination discusses whether the sleepout was dangerous or insanitary at the time, whether the authority was correct to include a 'restriction of usage' within the issued certificate of acceptance, and the classified use of the sleepout.

This determination considers whether alterations to a multi-level building on land subject to a natural hazard (flooding) are 'major alterations' in terms of section 71 of the Building Act. The authority was of the view that the alterations are major and granted building consent subject to a condition requiring notification on the property titles under section 73 of the Act. The determination discusses the relevant factors in assessing whether building work constitutes major alterations.

This determination considers the authority's decision to refuse to issue a code compliance certificate for a new dwelling because it was not satisfied that the completed work complied with the Building Code. The compliance decision rested on the authority's view it was unable to accept producer statements from an engineer who had inspected the completed work; the statements are in respect of the verification of the ground bearing and the completion of a surface water soakage trench.

This determination considers the stability of an existing slope after a dwelling was built along the top edge of the slope. The application for determination was sought by an owner of a property down-hill of the slope who considered the slope was unstable because the house had been built on fill material.

The determination considers whether the foundations to the dwelling comply with Clause B1 Structure with respect to the provisions that apply to the protection of other property.

This determination considers whether the changes to a decking system to an existing building in a retirement village constitute a minor variation to the building consent issued for remedial work to the building. The determination considers whether the as-built decking system is compliant and examines the variation against the guidance issued by the Ministry on minor variations.

This determination considers the decision of an authority to issue an earthquake-prone building notice for a building under the current provisions of the Act, but in doing so maintaining the deadline date by which the notice was to be complied with as described in the old notice issued under the former Act. The owners of the building had applied to have the deadline date extended which the authority had declined.

The determination considers whether the authority was correct to refuse the extension taking account of the transitional provisions of the Act and how the Act identifies and manages earthquake-prone buildings

Note: The decision in this determination was confirmed on appeal to the District Court. See Waikato Regional Council v Poseidon Holdings Ltd [2021] NZDC 6951.

Read the appeal judgment.

This determination considers the authority's decision to issue a notice to fix for an agricultural effluent storage pond to the current owner. The determination discusses the relationship of the previous owner and the current owner, and whether the current owner is a specified person for the purposes of section 163 and 164 of the Building Act.

This determination considers the authority's decision to grant a discretionary exemption from the requirement to obtain building consent for the construction of a section of pool barrier. The determination also considers the compliance of the new section of pool barrier with Clause F9 of the Building Code (Means of restricting access to residential pools).

This determination considers whether the authority was correct to issue a notice to fix in circumstances where the placement of a trailer near a timber wall might enable a young child to gain access to the neighbour's pool. The matter turns on the interpretation of section 116B(1)(a) of the Building Act, which provides that it is an offence to use a building for a use for which that building is not safe.

This determination considers the authority's decision to issue a code compliance certificate in respect of a mechanical ventilation system for the fitout of a restaurant; the extract from the restaurant's kitchen exits the building via existing exhaust ductwork, and other building occupants consider the kitchen’s exhaust discharge to be a nuisance.

The determination considers the compliance of the kitchen ventilation system as designed and as built, and the compliance of the existing exhaust ductwork and discharge point.