Previous determinations

Discussed definition of a ‘building’ under section 9 and the meaning of ‘intended to be occupied’ in relation to an NUO (network utility operator). Also discussed the definition of a specified system in relation to smoke detectors connected to security systems, and the meaning of ‘contribute to the proper functioning of the building’ and ‘functional requirement’ in section 7.

Discussed the meaning of ‘dangerous building’ in relation to rock fall and the assessment methodology; whether the modified definition introduced into section 121 by the 2011 Order was relevant at the time; the expiry of section 124 notices relying on said modified definition; and the approach to defining ‘relevant risk’.

Discussed whether the external building envelop complies with Clause B2 Durability and Clause E2 External Moisture of the Building Code in force at the time consents were issued (under transitional provisions of the current Act section 436(3)(b)(i)).

Discussed whether the proposed pool barrier encompassing “the immediate pool area” complies with Clause F4 of the Building Code with regard to the size of the area and the activities that would take place within it. Other matters discussed whether the building consent would lapse two years after the date on which it was issued.

Discussed whether, given the age of the house, the authority could be satisfied that building work complied with the Building Code in relation to Clauses B1, B2 and E2 and modification of durability provisions to allow provisions to commence from the estimated date of substantial completion. Also that potential liability is not grounds for refusal to issue a code compliance certificate and modification of durability provisions.

Discussed the authority’s refusal to issue a building consent relating to compliance with Clause F4 of the Building Code for a proposed swimming pool and its barriers which included sliding doors and the use of security latches with lockable bolts.

Discussed the definition of “owner” for the purposes of section 75 and whether a section 75 certificate was required. The applicant, an owner of two allotments and cross leaser of one allotment had a building consent suspended for not supplying a section 75 certificate for building work to extend across the three allotments. Also discussed whether ‘part of a building’ is included in the interpretation of ‘building’ where the building work enlarges the building over allotment boundaries.

Discussed whether there were reasonable grounds for a code compliance certificate to be issued where some building elements were no longer visible and inspections during building work were carried out by parties other than the authority.

Discussed the council’s refusal to issue of a code compliance certificate where the as-built work differs from that consented and was also not in accordance with the Acceptable Solution E2/AS1 or the manufacturer’s details, particularly relating to ridge flashings installed to a profiled metal roof. The determination reviewed the compliance of the as-built work against the performance requirements of the Building Code.

Discussed the weathertightness and durability of proposed repairs that consisted of installing compressible seal strips to valley gutters beneath concrete roof tiles.