Previous determinations

This determination considers an authority’s refusal to issue a code compliance certificate for a 16-year-old house principally for reasons to do with the performance of the building envelope. The determination considers the authority’s reasons for the refusal and whether the items identified by the authority are compliant with the Building Code.

This determination considers the compliance of consented work for the relocation of an existing building onto a new site and alterations to the building.  The authority refused to issue the code compliance certificate for the work because of concerns over the performance of a membrane roof to a new extension built as part of the relocation consent. 

This determination considers the use of glue-laminated timber as framing to the walls and roof trusses of a house.  The glue-laminated framing was substituted during construction for solid timber described in the approved building consent without approval being sought.  The determination considers the compliance of the glue-laminated framing and whether the substitution could be considered a minor variation to the approved consent.

This determination considers the authority’s exercise of its powers of decision in relation to a notice to fix issued for a house with monolithic cladding.  The determination discusses the relevant standards at the time of construction and whether the notice to fix should have required replacement of the untreated timber framing used with treated timber.

This determination considers the compliance of a consented building where there was delay in completing the consented work.  The determination considers the authority’s reasons for declining to issue the code compliance certificate for the work; the authority’s reasons were principally concerned with the building’s compliance with Building Code Clause E2 — External moisture.

This determination considers the compliance of consented alterations carried out on an existing building for which an earlier code compliance certificate also had not been issued and where a significant portion of the existing building remained unaltered. The determination considers the authority’s reasons for declining the code compliance certificate for the work, and the provisions of section 115 (change of use) in relation to the work.

This determination considers the compliance of a viewing platform and associated parking with Clause D1 Access routes, and whether an access route to the platform for people with disabilities was needed. The determination also considers whether the gravel access track and car parking provide reasonable and adequate access in terms of Clauses D1 and B2 Durability.

This determination considers the compliance of a wall to floor junction in a shower with Clauses E3 Internal moisture and B2 Durability of the Building Code.

This determination considers the authority's refusal to issue the code compliance certificate for a substantial addition to an existing studio building. The refusal arose from matters related to Building Code Clauses D1, E2, E3, and F4, but the principle issue was an ongoing dispute about the water from neighbouring properties and a small drain that has been installed to divert some of this water. The determination considers whether the drain formed part of the consented work or not.

This determination considers the compliance of a 14-year-old building. The determination considers the authority’s reasons for refusing to issue the code compliance certificate and whether the building work complies with the requirements of the Building Code.