Previous determinations

This determination considers whether the authority was correct to refuse to grant a building consent. The determination considers the authority's reasons for the refusal and whether sufficient information was included in the building consent application for the authority to be satisfied that the provisions of the Building Code would be met if the building work were properly completed in accordance with the plans and specifications under section 49 of the Building Act.

This determination considers whether building work to construct an extension to an existing deck, a new retaining wall, and other structures along a boundary between two properties, comply with Building Code Clauses B1 Structure and E1 Surface Water that provide for the protection of other property.

This determination considers whether two items of proposed building work comply with the relevant Acceptable Solutions. Item 1 concerns reinforcing bars to reinforce a concrete floor slab and whether the proposal complies with Acceptable Solution B1/AS1 for Building Code Clause B1 Structure. Item 2 concerns the use of a damp-proof membrane as waterproofing for a 1060mm high retaining wall and whether the proposal complies with Acceptable Solution E2/AS3 for Building Code Clause E2 External Moisture.

This determination considers whether the construction of timber retaining walls complies with Building Code clauses B1 Structure and F5 Construction and Demolition Hazards as they relate to the protection of other property.

This determination considers the authority's purported refusal to grant a building consent for proposed building work because the authority did not agree with the importance level proposed by the structural engineer. The determination discusses whether the subject building should be classified as Importance Level 2 or Importance Level 3 as set out in Australian/New Zealand Standard 1170.0. This standard is referenced by Verification Method B1/VM1, which is a means of compliance with Building Code Clause B1 Structure.

This determination considers the authority's decision to refuse to issue a code compliance certificate for a new dwelling because it was not satisfied that the completed work complied with the Building Code. The compliance decision rested on the authority's view it was unable to accept producer statements from an engineer who had inspected the completed work; the statements are in respect of the verification of the ground bearing and the completion of a surface water soakage trench.

This determination considers the stability of an existing slope after a dwelling was built along the top edge of the slope. The application for determination was sought by an owner of a property down-hill of the slope who considered the slope was unstable because the house had been built on fill material.

The determination considers whether the foundations to the dwelling comply with Clause B1 Structure with respect to the provisions that apply to the protection of other property.

This determination considers the authority's decision to issue a code compliance certificate in respect of a mechanical ventilation system for the fitout of a restaurant; the extract from the restaurant's kitchen exits the building via existing exhaust ductwork, and other building occupants consider the kitchen’s exhaust discharge to be a nuisance.

The determination considers the compliance of the kitchen ventilation system as designed and as built, and the compliance of the existing exhaust ductwork and discharge point.

This determination considers the compliance of a washing machine with Clause G13 Foul water of the Building Code. The determination also considers the compliance of an instantaneous water heater without a safe tray with Clauses E3 Internal water and G12 Water supplies.

This determination considers whether some of the fixings in the subfloor framing to a house meet Building Code Clause B1 Structure. The house was built under a building consent in respect of work described in a national multiple-use approval issued under section 30F of the Act. The matters in dispute arise from the on-site substitution of galvanised rolled steel bearers that have a different profile to that described in the building consent, and the location of bolt fixings that connect the steel bearers to the timber piles.