Previous determinations

This determination was sought by the building consent authority to reverse a code compliance certificate in order to address an administrative error. The authority had incorrectly issued the code compliance certificate specifically excluding an element of building work that had been approved in the building consent.

The determination considers whether zero pitch protected liquid-applied membrane roofs will comply in regards to weathertightness and durability if constructed as specified by the manufacturer. The determination provides analysis of the evidence in support of the membrane in this use, sets out the design parameters for buildings for which the waterproof membrane would be used, and discusses drainage, resistance to water, and whether there is reliance on other components of the roofing system.

This determination considers the authority’s decision to refuse to issue a certificate of acceptance for remedial work to a membrane roof and parapets. The determination reviews the reasons given for the refusal and discusses the lack of inspections, the information that was before the authority at the time of its decision, and whether the building work was exempt from the requirement to obtain a building consent.

This determination considers whether a lift is required to a mezzanine level of a gym as part of alterations to the existing building, and the compliance of the alterations in respect of Clause G1 Personal hygiene and D1 Access routes. The determination considers the weighing of the benefits and sacrifices as part of the section 112 requirement for compliance as nearly as is reasonably practicable, and also discusses the area and occupancy of the mezzanine level.

This determination considers the authority’s decision to refuse to issue a code compliance certificate: the grounds for the refusal were the authority’s concerns regarding the weathertightness and durability of the exterior envelope, the adequacey of barriers to a deck and stairs, surface water disposal, and a change of use. The determination reviewed the reasons given for the refusal and considered whether the items identified in the refusal comply with the Building Code.

This determination considers the authority’s decision to refuse to issue a code compliance certificate: the grounds for the refusal were the authority’s concerns regarding the weather-tightness given that the foam was installed through the cladding in some places rather than through the interior as approved. The determination reviewed the reasons given for the refusal and considered whether the external envelope complies with the Building Code.

This determination involves a number of small structures constructed on a rural property without building consent first being obtained; it was the owners’ understanding that the building work was exempt under Schedule 1. The determination discusses whether the two shepherd’s huts are buildings, and the clauses of the Building Code that apply in respect of the pit latrine, a latrine with a chemical toilet, the showering shed and the water supply system.

This determination considers the authority’s exercise of its powers of decision in issuing a notice to fix for a houseboat used as temporary accommodation. The determination turned on whether the houseboat is a building under the Building Act 2004 and provides for some guidance around when a boat falls within the building regulatory regime.

This determination involves building work that was carried out without consent to a double garage built across the boundary of two properties to install an ensuite, kitchen unit and bedrooms in each. The determination discusses the use under the Regulations before and after the building work and whether there was a change of use, the grounds for refusing to issue a certificate of acceptance, and the issuing of multiple notices to fix.

The building work involved alterations carried out without building consent being obtained to increase the number of bedrooms in a house to 13.  The intention was for the rooms to be individually let.  The determination considered whether there was a change of use for the purpose of sections 114 and 115, and it also discusses whether the building work required building consent.