Previous determinations

This determination was sought by the owner of an adjacent property who was of the view that the retaining wall and site works did not comply with the Building Code.

This determination considers a proposed bracing system designed by the applicant and whether the authority had sufficient information in order to establish on reasonable grounds that the building work would comply with the requirements of the Building Code.

This determination considers the authority’s decision to issue building consents and code compliance certificates for commercial buildings with pre-cast concrete panels,  and whether the building work complied with Clause B1 of the Building Code. The determination also discusses the difference between an alternative solution and industry practice.

This determination discusses who can be issued with a notice to fix, in particular when building work was undertaken by a previous owner without building consent having been obtained. It also considers the compliance of building work and discusses circumstances where building work departs from Acceptable Solutions or New Zealand Standards.

Note: This Determination was set aside by order by the District Court as a result of an appeal under section 208 of the Building Act. The Court order was made by consent of the parties after the respondent Council conceded it failed to comply with the statutory provisions governing notices to fix.

This determination considers the compliance of the building work carried out with Clauses B1 and B2, and discusses whether there is an obligation to comply with Clause E1.3.2 of the Building Code when repairs are carried out to foundations. The determination also discusses whether the building work carried out was exempt under Schedule 1.

This determination discusses the assessment required under section 115 when there is a change of use to only part of a building, particularly how the phrase “the building, in its new use” in section 115 applies and in respect of Building Code clause B1 Structure. The discussion also considers information provided by way of an Initial Seismic Assessment (ISA) in relation to that assessment, and the separate functions performed by authorities under section 112 and section 115.

This determination discusses the approach to be taken in assessing documentation provided in support of a building consent application, and whether the documentation provided in this instance was adequate in terms of the decision to grant consent. The determination also addresses amendments to the consent and the compliance achieved.

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 masonry walls complied with Clause B1 of the Building Code that was in force at the time the consent was granted. Related to building work that was carried out without inspections, and whether there was sufficient evidence to establish compliance.