Previous determinations

This determination covered technical issues about a proprietary system provider’s methodologies and technologies relating to liquid and foaming injection timber treatment systems used to slow the rate of decay. Discussed whether timber treatment process is building work, and whether targeted treatment can be exempt from building consent under Schedule 1 of the Act as maintenance. Discussed impacts on bracing capacity, air volatility, and the use of drying skirts. Also mentioned the provision of new plans as opposed to copied plans.

Discussed building work exempt under Schedule 1 for which building consent is not required, compliance of building work with the Building Code in force at the time of construction, and amendment to a building consent to modify the durability periods and remove building elements that no longer exist. Also discussed the need for a certificate of acceptance for alterations carried out without building consent when consent was required.

Discussed weathertightness of the external envelope, and transitional provisions around code compliance certificates for work completed under a building consent issued under the former Act.

Discussed the weathertightness and durability of exterior wall cladding, including components of monolithic EIFS overlay wall cladding, the underlying original aluminium faced solid wall planks and the windows, as well how the components were installed and worked together.

Considered the application of sections 17 and 112 of the Act, and the compliance of the proposed fire alarm system. Discussed compliance of the building as a whole after the alterations ‘as nearly as is reasonably practicable’ with respect to means of escape, and how the approach involves the balancing of sacrifices and difficulties of upgrading against the advantages of upgrading. Discussed use of MBIE guidance and “gap assessment”.

Discussed the issue of a code compliance certificate without wording to record that a modification of Clause B2.3.1 had been made, and whether there is a requirement under the Act for modifications of the Building Code to be noted on the code compliance certificate.

Discussed whether the prefabricated unit is a vehicle, and whether it falls within the definition of a building under section 8 (1) (a) of the Building Act. Also discussed whether the relocation of the unit constituted building work and could be subject to a notice to fix.

Discussed whether the authority was legally entitled to place conditions on a building consent, particularly regarding a “quality assurance plan” in respect of potential timber remediation.

Discussed as title and whether a comparison to the wharenui (marae buildings) exemption is appropriate. Also provides a general framework for modifications or waivers under section 67 of the Act, and methodology for deciding whether it is “reasonable” to grant a modification, for example, by reviewing the extent and possible consequence of the non-compliance with a specific performance clause, or reviewing for consistency with the purpose and principles of the Building Act.

Discussed issuing a code compliance certificate for a building consent where the as-built construction differs from that consented, or where there is conflicting or insufficient detail in the consent, and the importance of considering whether the completed building work complies with the Building Code. Also discussed amending the consent to include the manufacturer’s maintenance schedule.