Previous determinations

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.

This determination concerns the classified use of a building that is let out for public accommodation under Clause A1 Classified uses. The determination considers whether the classified use falls within “Detached dwellings” or “Community Service”. 

This determination considers the compliance of a domestic garage and driveway with Building Code Clause D1 Access routes, including whether their dimensions are appropriate for the intended use. It also considers whether the building consent authority was correct to grant the building consent and code compliance certificate, and whether a proposal to widen the garage doorway (from 2.31 m to 2.8 m) would result in compliance.

This determination considers whether a building consent authority correctly issued a notice to fix in relation to two relocated units. The units, which are on wheels, were built in another district and then transported to the applicant’s property. The determination looks at whether building work requiring a building consent was carried out at the property. 

This determination concerns whether a garage built over a boundary complies with Clause C3 (Spread of Fire) of the Building Code in place when the building consent was issued, and whether the authority was correct to issue a code compliance certificate for the work.

This determination considers whether a lift is required to an elevated viewing platform on a landscaped roof area of a building housing an arts centre in order to meet the requirements of the Building Act for reasonable and adequate access for people with disabilities.  The determination discusses the definition of “storey” for the purpose of Clause D1.3.4 of the Building Code and whether the cupola in which the viewing platform is housed is an “ancillary” building as defined in Clause A1 of the Building Code. 

This determination considers the authority’s refusal to amend a compliance schedule to remove the fire-rated mezzanine floor from the schedule for an early childhood centre.

The matter turns on whether the fire-rated floor is a “fire separation” as that term is used in relation to specified systems.