Previous determinations

This determination considers the decision by the authority to issue a building consent with a section 37 certificate attached.  The determination discusses what the section 37 test ‘will or may materially affect building work’ means.

This determination concerns an authority’s issue of five notices to fix for building work carried out on a rural property.  The determination considers the time the owner was given to respond to the notices, and the non-compliances identified in the notices against the compliance of the work concerned. The determination also discusses the limitation period in which an authority shall take enforcement action following the issue of a notice to fix.

This determination considers the decision by the authority to issue a code compliance certificate for building work when some of the work had not been completed. The determination discusses the authority's ability to reverse the code compliance certificate.

Note (added 11/08/2022): Please note that this determination incorrectly refers to section 450A of the Building Act 2004 as a compliance pathway for the pool barrier in this determination. The acceptable solution provided for in section 450A was revoked by way of Gazette notice on 27 April 2017. As the determination does not conclude that the pool barrier was compliant via the acceptable solution in section 450A, the outcome of the determination is not affected.

This determination considers the compliance of an indoor pool barrier to the extent required by section 162C of the Building Act.  The barrier incorporates bifold doors and a sliding door.  The determination discusses the compliance requirement in relation to an indoor pool that was exempt from having a barrier under the former Fencing of Swimming Pools Act and the means by which compliance can be established.

This determination considers an authority's refusal to consent to a change of use for an existing building intended to be used as seasonal worker accommodation, on the basis that the building does not make reasonable and adequate provision for access and facilities for people with disabilities. The determination considers the authority's reasons for the refusal and the interrelationship between the change of use provisions and the requirement to provide access and facilities for persons with disabilities to and within buildings.

Note: The decision of this Determination was upheld on appeal to the District Court. See: CIV-2019-070-001005 - Western BOP DC v Limmer & NZ Kiwifruit Growers Inc.pdf

This determination considers the issue of a notice to fix in regard to building work carried out to convert an existing shed and sleep-out into a self-contained unit. The determination considers whether the authority was correct to issue the notice to fix, and whether a change of use had occurred. 

This determination considers an authority’s refusal to issue a code compliance certificate for a 20-year-old house principally due to concerns about its compliance with Building Code Clause E2 External moisture. The determination considers the authority’s reasons for the refusal and whether the items identified by the authority are compliant with the Building Code.

This determination considers the authority’s refusal to issue a certificate of acceptance for plumbing and drainage work that was carried out without building consent.  The plumbing and drainage work was installed to convert the shipping container for use as a mortuary and connects to an existing foul water drainage system that services a dwelling on the property, which in turn connects to a septic tank and evapotranspiration bed. 

This determination considers a building consent authority’s exercise of its power of decision in issuing a notice to fix for the relocation of two buildings and the installation of a wastewater system.  The determination discusses the contraventions for which the notice was issued, who the notice was issued to, and how the provisions of the Building Act apply when a building is relocated.

This determination considers two dangerous building notices that were issued for a six-storey building in central Auckland.  The various levels of the building are fitted out for retail, offices, and sleeping accommodation.  The determination considers the authority’s decision to the second dangerous building notice restricting entry to part of the building, which meant part of the building could not be used for sleeping accommodation, and the authority’s decision to reissue that notice after thirty days.