Previous determinations

This determination considers whether the authority was correct in requiring a building consent for the construction of a wind turbine, and its decision to issue a notice to fix for the construction of the supporting foundation without a building consent being obtained. In deciding these matters, I have considered whether the wind turbine is a building and whether the foundation was exempt from the requirement to obtain a building consent.

This determination considers whether the authority was correct to refuse to grant a building consent for the construction of a relocatable building. This determination considers the documentation requirements for a building consent application and reasons given by the authority when refusing the building consent.

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.