Previous determinations

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 the nature and complexity of building work and the relative competencies of those carrying out the work in relation to whether an exemption for building consent should be granted under Schedule 1(2), and the need for independent quality assurance systems and checks against the Building Code.

Discussed whether the application for amendment to consent contained accurate and adequate information to demonstrate compliance with B1 Structure, B2 Durability and E2 External Moisture of the Building Code as an alternative solution.

Discussed issues relating to performance of building elements, including veneer walls, deck balustrades and deck overflow, exposed cedar rafter extensions and outriggers for compliance with B1 Structure, B2 Durability, E1 Surface Water and E2 External Moisture of the Building Code.

Discussed whether adequate provision was proposed to protect the building work from inundation and whether periodic flooding would affect building elements in relation to Clauses B1 and B2 of the Building Code.

Discussed whether the stucco wall cladding as installed complies with Clause B2 and E2 of the Building Code. Also discussed whether a modification of durability provisions is appropriate.

Determination arose from repairs carried out as exempt building work by the Project Management Office as established by the Earthquake Commission, and whether the repaired concrete floor slab on ground subject to liquefaction and categorised as Foundation Technical Category 2 (TC2) complies with the Building Code. Discussed whether the work required building consent or was exempt under Schedule 1 (a) and whether the repair work constitutes a “substantial” replacement.

Discussed whether the building work complied with the Building Code current at the time the consent was issued and whether a code compliance certificate should be issued. Also discussed requirements for energy work certificates under section 94(3) of the Act, and producer statements.

Discussed whether a multi-unit dwelling had adequate fire safety features for the three residential units in the same dwelling, and whether the building was dangerous under section 121 (1)(b) of the Act. Discussed “occupancy” and whether a “change of use” had occurred. Also considered whether the building complied with the Building Code and the threshold at which at a building may be considered “dangerous” when it does not comply.

An appeal was lodged against this determination.

The dispute turned on which Acceptable Solution (C/AS1 or C/AS2) applied to the proposed building work, depending on whether it fell within Risk Group SH or SM. Discussed the relationship between Uses as defined in the Regulations, Risk Groups in the Acceptable Solutions and Classified Uses in the Act. Also discussed “intended use”, and the Risk Groups in relation to household units located above car parks.