Previous determinations

Note: to be read in conjunction with Determination 2017/008.

This determination considers a second refusal to issue a code compliance certificate for a now 17-year-old house with monolithic cladding that was the subject of a previous determination.  This determination discusses the validity of the refusal with regard to the time in which a building consent authority must make a decision, and the relationship between the requirement to give reasons for refusing to issue a code compliance certificate and the issue of a notice to fix.  The determination considers the information the authority had before it at the time it made its decision and whether the items identified by the authority are compliant with the Building Code.

N/A

This determination considers the performance of a proprietary aluminium barrier installed on a timber-framed veranda in an existing house.  The determination considers the performance of the barrier in respect of its strength, and the authority’s decision to refuse to issue a code compliance certificate in respect of the work.

This determination is concerned with the compliance of proposed barriers to a walkway. The determination considers whether the barrier satisfies the Acceptable Solution or complies as an alternative solution.

This determination considers whether a retaining wall without a barrier at the top complies with Clause F4 Safety from falling.  The determination also discusses the interpretation of section 42A(2)(c) of the Building Act and whether the building work to construct a retaining wall was exempt from the requirement to obtain a building consent.

This determination considers the compliance of a particular aspect of a pool with respect to Building Code Clause F4 Safety from falling. The determination also considers whether the authority was correct to refuse to issue a code compliance certificate for the work and whether a waiver or modification of Clause F4.3.1 should be granted.

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 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.

Note (added 11/08/2022): Please note that this determination incorrectly refers to section 450A of the Building Act 2004 as a compliance pathway for the pool barrier in this determination. The acceptable solution provided for in section 450A was revoked by way of Gazette notice on 27 April 2017. As the determination does not conclude that the pool barrier was compliant via the acceptable solution in section 450A, the outcome of the determination is not affected.

This determination is in relation to a pool barrier that has mature palm trees outside of and adjacent to it. The determination concerns the barrier’s compliance with the Building Code to the extent required by section 162C of the Building Act.