Previous determinations

This determination involves a number of small structures constructed on a rural property without building consent first being obtained; it was the owners’ understanding that the building work was exempt under Schedule 1. The determination discusses whether the two shepherd’s huts are buildings, and the clauses of the Building Code that apply in respect of the pit latrine, a latrine with a chemical toilet, the showering shed and the water supply system.

This determination considers the authority’s exercise of its powers of decision in issuing a notice to fix for a houseboat used as temporary accommodation. The determination turned on whether the houseboat is a building under the Building Act 2004 and provides for some guidance around when a boat falls within the building regulatory regime.

This determination involves building work that was carried out without consent to a double garage built across the boundary of two properties to install an ensuite, kitchen unit and bedrooms in each. The determination discusses the use under the Regulations before and after the building work and whether there was a change of use, the grounds for refusing to issue a certificate of acceptance, and the issuing of multiple notices to fix.

The building work involved alterations carried out without building consent being obtained to increase the number of bedrooms in a house to 13.  The intention was for the rooms to be individually let.  The determination considered whether there was a change of use for the purpose of sections 114 and 115, and it also discusses whether the building work required building consent.

This determination considers what is reasonable and adequate access for people with disabilities to three different pools in a proposed aquatic centre.  The determination discusses the intended use of the pools and the interrelationship with the design features of the pools, as well as the use of other countries guidance documents and standards to achieve compliance as an alternative solution.

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

This determination considers the compliance of a substitute metal roofing material with respect to durability.  The determination includes the expert opinion of a specialist in corrosion engineering, and discusses the exposure and corrosion zones relevant to the site.

This determination considers the compliance of particular external walls of the house with respect to weathertightness and durability.  The walls are not under eaves that would provide shelter from the weather, and the joinery is not installed in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions.

This determination considers the authority’s decision to issue building consents and code compliance certificates for commercial buildings with pre-cast concrete panels,  and whether the building work complied with Clause B1 of the Building Code. The determination also discusses the difference between an alternative solution and industry practice.

This determination considers the authority’s decision to issue a dangerous building notice for a damaged shared driveway serving several residential properties.  The determination discusses whether the shared driveway is a building under the Building Act.