Previous determinations

This determinatin considers what constitutes reasonable and adequate access for people with disabilities to one of three different pools in a proposed aquatic centre. The determination considers the intended use of the pool, and discusses the functionality of the proposed platform lift in comparison to other means of providing access for people with disabilities.

This determination considers the authority’s decision to refuse to issue a code compliance certificate for a house; the authority’s concerns were chiefly to do with the weathertightness and durability of the exterior envelope. The determination discusses the authority’s reasons for the refusal, and whether there was sufficient evidence of compliance in order to issue a code compliance certificate.

This determination discusses the definitions of building and vehicle under section 8, and whether a shed on wheels that is registered as a vehicle under the Land Transport Act is a building for the purposes of the Building Act. The determination also considers whether the building work was exempt under Schedule 1, the compliance of the shed with Clauses C and E1 in relation to other property.

This determination considers whether a two-celled rammed earth building constructed without consent was exempt under Schedule 1 and whether the authority was correct to issue a notice to fix. The determination discusses the remedies provided for in the notice, and discusses issues relating to an application for a certificate of acceptance.

This determination was sought by the building consent authority to reverse a code compliance certificate in order to address an administrative error. The authority had incorrectly issued the code compliance certificate specifically excluding an element of building work that had been approved in the building consent.

The determination considers whether zero pitch protected liquid-applied membrane roofs will comply in regards to weathertightness and durability if constructed as specified by the manufacturer. The determination provides analysis of the evidence in support of the membrane in this use, sets out the design parameters for buildings for which the waterproof membrane would be used, and discusses drainage, resistance to water, and whether there is reliance on other components of the roofing system.

This determination considers the authority’s decision to refuse to issue a certificate of acceptance for remedial work to a membrane roof and parapets. The determination reviews the reasons given for the refusal and discusses the lack of inspections, the information that was before the authority at the time of its decision, and whether the building work was exempt from the requirement to obtain a building consent.

This determination considers whether a lift is required to a mezzanine level of a gym as part of alterations to the existing building, and the compliance of the alterations in respect of Clause G1 Personal hygiene and D1 Access routes. The determination considers the weighing of the benefits and sacrifices as part of the section 112 requirement for compliance as nearly as is reasonably practicable, and also discusses the area and occupancy of the mezzanine level.

This determination considers the authority’s decision to refuse to issue a code compliance certificate: the grounds for the refusal were the authority’s concerns regarding the weathertightness and durability of the exterior envelope, the adequacey of barriers to a deck and stairs, surface water disposal, and a change of use. The determination reviewed the reasons given for the refusal and considered whether the items identified in the refusal comply with the Building Code.

This determination considers the authority’s decision to refuse to issue a code compliance certificate: the grounds for the refusal were the authority’s concerns regarding the weather-tightness given that the foam was installed through the cladding in some places rather than through the interior as approved. The determination reviewed the reasons given for the refusal and considered whether the external envelope complies with the Building Code.