Previous determinations

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 The acceptable solution provided for in section 450A was revoked by way of Gazette notice on 27 April 2017.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 whether automatic pool covers that comply with the ASTM Standard F1346-91 comply with Clause F9 (Restricting access to residential pools) of the Building Code and section 162C of the Building Act. The determination also discusses waivers and modifications, and exemptions that have been granted under the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987 to allow the use of pool covers.

This determination is concerned with the compliance of an 11-year-old house.  The determination considers the authority’s reasons for refusing to issue the code compliance certificate and whether the building work complies with the requirements of the Building Code.

This determination is concerned with the compliance of an 11-year-old house. The determination considers the authority’s reasons for refusing to issue the code compliance certificate and whether the building work complies with the requirements of the Building Code.

This determination considers whether a retaining wall without a barrier at the top complies with Clause F4 Safety from falling.  The determination also discusses the interpretation of section 42A(2)(c) of the Building Act and whether the building work to construct a retaining wall was exempt from the requirement to obtain a building consent.

The determination considers whether a unit relocated onto a residential property is a building for the purposes of the Building Act, and whether the authority was correct to issue a notice to fix in relation to this.  The determination discusses the definitions of building and vehicle under section 8 of the Building Act.

This determination considers the compliance of a replacement façade system to an existing 5-storey building. The facade system incorporates high-pressure laminate panels fixed to an aluminium frame creating a 50mm wide cavity between the panels and the lined timber-framed wall behind. The authority has concerns about the facade system’s ability to perform with respect to preventing the spread of fire over the external cladding. The determination considers the compliance of the original facade system, and as modified in response to the determination’s initial findings.

This determination is concerned with the compliance of a 19-year-old house. The determination considers the authority’s reasons for refusing to issue a code compliance certificate, and whether the house complies with the requirements of the Building Code, particularly with respect to weathertightness and durability.

This determination considers whether the authority was correct to refuse to grant an exemption under Schedule 1(2) for work to reclad a house. The determination also discusses whether the cladding was likely to be exempt from the requirement for a building consent under Schedule 1(1).

This determination considers the authority's decision to issue a code compliance certificate for alterations to an existing house and whether the building work complied with the building consent and the Building Code at the time of that decision.

This determination considers whether a new two-storey building without a lift to the upper level bar/restaurant complies with Clause D1. The determination also discusses the relationship between the criteria in the Building Code and the New Zealand Standard NZS 4121: Design for Access and Mobility in relation to buildings requiring a lift.