Previous determinations

This determination considers whether some of the fixings in the subfloor framing to a house meet Building Code Clause B1 Structure. The house was built under a building consent in respect of work described in a national multiple-use approval issued under section 30F of the Act. The matters in dispute arise from the on-site substitution of galvanised rolled steel bearers that have a different profile to that described in the building consent, and the location of bolt fixings that connect the steel bearers to the timber piles.

This determination considers whether the authority was correct to grant a building consent where the submitted plans were inaccurate. The determination also considers the role of the authority in keeping building related records.

This determination considers the reasons given by a building consent authority to issue a code compliance certificate for a 22-year-old house. The reasons for the refusal included the lack of energy works certificates for electrical and gas services. The house was the subject of significant consented alterations that are now 12 years old, and for which a code compliance certificate was issued.

Note (added 11/08/2022): Please note that this determination incorrectly refers to section 450A of the Building Act 2004 as a compliance pathway for the pool barrier in this determination. The acceptable solution provided for in section 450A was revoked by way of Gazette notice on 27 April 2017. As the determination does not conclude that the pool barrier was compliant via the acceptable solution in section 450A, the outcome of the determination is not affected.

This determination considers the authority’s decision to issue a code compliance certificate for an automatic pool cover as a pool barrier. The determination discusses whether a special exemption was granted under the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987 and the compliance of the automatic pool cover as a pool barrier with Clause F4 Safety from falling as the relevant Building Code clause at the time the building consent was issued.

This determination considers the granting of a building consent and whether a proposed three-storey apartment building with a common stairwell requires smoke lobbies in the ground floor apartments in order to comply with the Building Code by means of the Acceptable Solution C/AS2. The ground floor apartments have alternative egress routes and the common stairwell is the single escape route for the occupants of upper floors.

This determination considers whether alterations to the walls and roof of a house comply with Building Code Clauses B1 Structure, E2 External moisture and F7 Warning systems. The determination also considers whether changes to the consented building work can be considered a minor variation to the building consent, and the issue of the code compliance certificate for the alterations.

Note (added 11/08/2022): Please note that this determination incorrectly refers to section 450A of the Building Act 2004 as a compliance pathway for the pool barrier in this determination. The acceptable solution provided for in section 450A was revoked by way of Gazette notice on 27 April 2017. As the determination does not conclude that the pool barrier was compliant via the acceptable solution in section 450A, the outcome of the determination is not affected.

This determination considers the compliance of an existing pool barrier to the extent required under section 162C of the Building Act. The matter turns on whether the area enclosed by the pool barrier can properly be considered the "immediate pool area" and whether the doors opening into the immediate pool area comply.

This determination considers the authority's refusal to split a building consent, for building work to construct five townhouses that has already been completed, to allow one owner to pursue a code compliance certificate separately from the other owners.  The determination discusses the framework for considering an application to split a building consent issued under the Building Act 1991, and whether assessment for compliance occurs when the consent is split or when a code compliance certificate is applied for.

Note: The decision in this determination was confirmed on appeal to the District Court. See Ford v Auckland Council [2020] NZDC 22162.

Read the appeal judgment.

This determination considers whether the owner of a cable car built in 2000 (servicing the owner’s house) was required to obtain a compliance schedule for the cable car, given there was no such requirement when the cable car was built. The determination also considers how to interpret the requirement for the compliance schedule to include performance standards for the cable car. 

This determination considers the issue of an earthquake-prone building notice for a six storey reinforced concrete residential building.  The determination considers the process the authority followed in issuing the notice, and process as prescribed in the legislation and the earthquake-prone building methodology.