Previous determinations

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 whether the authority were correct to issue a code compliance certificate for the building work to partially re-pile an existing house. The determination considers whether the building work can be considered as a minor variation.

This determination considers whether an authority was correct to refuse to issue a code compliance certificate for a building consent granted in 1998 under the former Building Act 1991. The determination will discuss the reasons given by the authority for the refusal, and how they relate to Building Code clauses B1 Structure, B2 Durability, E1 Surface Water, and E2 External Moisture that applied in 1998.

This determination considers whether an authority was correct to issue a code compliance certificate for a new dwelling. The determination considers whether the building is compliant, and whether the authority would have been aware of any non-compliance when issuing the code compliance certificate.

This determination considers the code compliance of a frameless cantilevered glass balustrade. The balustrade panels comprise a laminate of two toughened-glass panes with a plastic interlayer. Concerns about compliance of the balustrade were raised when the interlayer did not prevent a panel from collapsing when the glass was broken.

This determination considers an authority’s refusal to issue a code compliance certificate for 20-year-old additions and alterations due to concerns about compliance with the Building Code. The determination considers the authority’s reasons for refusal and whether those items identified by the authority are compliant with the Building Code.

This determination considers an authority’s decision not to grant building consent to a leaseholder for alterations to part of a building, based on the authority’s view that the seismic performance of the whole building was required to be upgraded. The determination discusses the requirement in section 115 for a building undergoing a change of use to comply, as nearly as is reasonably practicable, with the provisions of the Building Code relating to structural performance.

This determination concerns the authority's decision to refuse to issue a code compliance certificate for construction of an outbuilding that was later converted to a sleepout. The determination considers the compliance of the building work identified by the authority in its reasons for refusing to issue the code compliance certificate.

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.