Previous determinations

This determination relates to the authority’s decision to issue a dangerous building notice under section 124 arising from the use of the building and its fire safety features.

The determination considers the features of the building in relation to the dangerous building test under section 121(1)(b) and, as the historical decision to record a change of use is in dispute, the evidence the authority had in recording a change of use in 2011.

This determination considers an authority’s purported decision to refuse to issue a building consent for alterations and an addition to an existing building.

The matter turns on whether the proposed building work would have resulted in a change of use for the building and whether the building would have complied as nearly as reasonably practicable with clause C4.3 of the Building Code relating to means of escape from fire.

This determination considers whether the proposed installation of bedroom door locks at a residential housing facility, which alters the building’s means of escape from fire, complies with Building Code clause C4 Movement to a place of safety.

It also considers clause A1 Classified Uses to identify the extent to which the building must comply with C4.

This determination considers the decision by the authority to refuse to grant a building consent for work to disestablish an existing sprinkler system. The authority considered that there were outstanding issues regarding the fire load within the building, the proposed replacement warning system, and the fire rating requirements for the building. The determination discusses the outstanding issues at the time the building consent was refused, and the refusal letter issued by the authority.

This determinaton considers whether the authority was correct to refuse a building consent for alterations to an existing school building. It considers the reasons for refusing to grant a building consent under section 50 of the Building Act, and what is as nearly as is reasonably practicable under section 112 of the Building Act, specifically in relation to installing a fire sprinkler system.

Note: This determination was subject to appeal. The Determination was confirmed and the appeal was dismissed. Read the appeal judgement.

This determination considers the issue of a building consent and code compliance certificate for a motel in respect of a fire alarm system. The matter turns on whether the building work as approved in the building consent complied with Clauses C2 Means of escape from fire and F7 Warning systems, and whether the construction of the motel without a fire alarm system being installed met the performance requirements of those clauses when the code compliance certificate was issued.

This determination considers the granting of a building consent and whether a proposed three-storey apartment building with a common stairwell requires smoke lobbies in the ground floor apartments in order to comply with the Building Code by means of the Acceptable Solution C/AS2. The ground floor apartments have alternative egress routes and the common stairwell is the single escape route for the occupants of upper floors.

This determination concerns a new dwelling constructed at the rear of a site with an existing dwelling, and compliance of the new dwelling in relation to movement to a place of safety in the event of a fire.  The matter at issue is whether the escape route to a safe place for the occupants of the rear dwelling required a protected path past the existing dwelling.

This determination considers two dangerous building notices that were issued for a six-storey building in central Auckland.  The various levels of the building are fitted out for retail, offices, and sleeping accommodation.  The determination considers the authority’s decision to the second dangerous building notice restricting entry to part of the building, which meant part of the building could not be used for sleeping accommodation, and the authority’s decision to reissue that notice after thirty days.

This determination considers the authority’s refusal to amend a compliance schedule to remove the fire-rated mezzanine floor from the schedule for an early childhood centre.

The matter turns on whether the fire-rated floor is a “fire separation” as that term is used in relation to specified systems.