Previous determinations

This determination considers whether a proposed pool barrier near a property boundary complies with Building Code Clause F9. The determination looks at the requirements of the Acceptable Solution F9/AS1 as it relates to pool barriers near property boundaries and whether future changes a neighbour maybe a factor when considering Building Code compliance of the pool barrier.

This determination considers elements of a pool barrier and their compliance with section 162C of the Building Act 2004. Those elements were constructed, installed, or erected prior to s162C coming into force, as part of a wider set of alterations at the property.

This determination considers whether the authority was correct to refuse to issue two amendments to the building consent regarding a pool barrier. The amendments were refused as compliance with Clause F9 of the Building Code, Means of restricting access to residential pools, had not been demonstrated. The determination considers whether a pavilion, patio and soft landscaping area can be considered part of the 'immediate pool area'.

This determination arises from the authority's decision to refuse to issue a code compliance certificate for a 17-year-old dwelling. This determination considers whether there is sufficient compliance with clauses E2 and B2 of the New Zealand Building Code.

Note: Determination 2022/028 was modified under section 211(1)(a) of the Building Act 2004 by the District Court on 25 July 2023 in [2023] NZDC 15205. Read the judgement.

This determination considers whether the authority was correct in its exercise of powers of decision to refuse to grant a building consent for alterations to an existing detached dwelling, and its subsequent decision to issue a notice to fix. In deciding these matters, I have also considered whether the building work could have been carried out urgently in advance of obtaining a building consent, and whether the owners are now required to apply for a certificate of acceptance.

This determination arises from the authority's decision to issue a notice to fix for work carried out to a large dam without a building consent for the contravention of section 40. The owner and the authority disagree on the scope of works that required building consent.

This determination concerns the issue of a notice to fix by an authority in relation to a retaining wall that had been built by a neighbour over the property boundary and then subsequently demolished by the neighbour. The determination considers whether the owners of the property were the "owner of a building" and therefore a "specified person" in terms of section 163 of the Building Act, such that a notice to fix could be issued to them.

This determination considers an existing swimming pool barrier, comprised partly of the south wall of a dwelling and a garage wall, and whether it complies with section 162C of the Building Act 2004. The determination also discusses whether the doors on the south wall of a dwelling were included in an exemption granted under the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987. The determination also considers whether the area encompassed by the south wall of a dwelling (the rear yard) can be considered to comprise the immediate pool area.

This determination considers the authority's decision to issue two notices to fix for a non-compliant pool barrier. The determination turns on whether the authority can issue a notice to fix to the current owners for a contravention of section 162C when they did not undertake the building work and when there is a code compliance certificate for that building work. The determination also considers the form and content of the notices that were issued.

This determination considers the decision making on two building consents and a code compliance certificate where the building work was carried out to the dwelling under separate building consents at the same time.