Previous determinations

This determination considers what is reasonable and adequate access for people with disabilities to three different pools in a proposed aquatic centre.  The determination discusses the intended use of the pools and the interrelationship with the design features of the pools, as well as the use of other countries guidance documents and standards to achieve compliance as an alternative solution.

This determination considers the authority’s decision to refuse to issue a code compliance certificate; the authority’s concerns were largely to do with the weathertightness and durability of the exterior envelope.  The determination discusses the authority’s refusal to inspect the building work and whether there was sufficient evidence of compliance in order to issue a code compliance certificate.

This determination considers the compliance of a substitute metal roofing material with respect to durability.  The determination includes the expert opinion of a specialist in corrosion engineering, and discusses the exposure and corrosion zones relevant to the site.

This determination considers the compliance of particular external walls of the house with respect to weathertightness and durability.  The walls are not under eaves that would provide shelter from the weather, and the joinery is not installed in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions.

This determination considers the authority’s decision to issue building consents and code compliance certificates for commercial buildings with pre-cast concrete panels,  and whether the building work complied with Clause B1 of the Building Code. The determination also discusses the difference between an alternative solution and industry practice.

This determination considers the authority’s decision to issue a dangerous building notice for a damaged shared driveway serving several residential properties.  The determination discusses whether the shared driveway is a building under the Building Act.

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 and durability of the exterior envelope, and the structural performance of the foundation wall.  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 building consent for alterations to an existing earthquake-prone building.  The alterations were for an internal fitout on the ground floor of the three-storey commercial building.  The determination considers the authority’s policy on earthquake-prone buildings in relation to the proposed work, and some matters in relation to the policy itself.  Detailed discussion on the policy will follow in a further determination. 

This determination considers the compliance of nailing to plywood cladding to a house located in a sea spray zone: galvanised mild steel nails had been installed instead of stainless steel nails.  The determination considers the compliance of the plywood in relation to Building Code Clauses B1 Structure and E2 External moisture, and the remedial work done to date by the owner.

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 and durability of the exterior envelope, and the performance of a concrete floor slab and the subfloor space beneath with respect to structure and durability.  The determination reviewed the reasons given for the refusal and considered whether the items identified in the refusal comply with the Building Code.