Previous determinations

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 the compliance with Building Code Clause G13 Foul water of an effluent field that is part of a domestic foul water treatment system. The determination discusses the slope, stability and size of the disposal field.

This determination concerns a refusal to issue a building consent for the construction of foundations for a relocated cabin and associated fixings and connections. The determination considers the reasons given for the refusal, which relate to establishing the Building Code compliance of the cabin itself. The determination also provides comment on the provisions relating to certificates of acceptance.

This determination discusses the correct interpretation of the natural hazards provisions in the Building Act (sections 71 to 74). It considers whether measures to mitigate a rockfall natural hazard constitute “adequate provision” to protect the land and buildings from the hazard.

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 whether a building consent authority was correct to propose to refuse an amendment to a building consent. This was due to a dispute with the owner over the maximum allowable area of an intermediate floor used for the storage of materials associated with a manufacturing, servicing and repair business. The determination considers the change in the intended use of the building during the course of the building work from a “warehouse” to a “workshop”, the means of compliance, and the area of the intermediate floor.

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.

Note: This determination is subject to appeal.

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 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 compliance of a soil fixture space which does not contain a hand basin. The determination discusses the term "immediately adjacent" and whether the soil fixture space without a hand basin complies with Building Code Clause G1 Personal hygiene by way of the Acceptable Solution G1/AS1 and if not whether the space complies with Clause G1 as an alternative solution.