Previous determinations

This determination considers the authority’s decision to refuse to issue a code compliance certificate for a house; the authority’s concerns were chiefly to do with the weathertightness and durability of the exterior envelope. The determination discusses the authority’s reasons for the refusal, and whether there was sufficient evidence of compliance in order to issue a code compliance certificate.

This determination considers what is reasonable and adequate access for people with disabilities to three different pools in a proposed aquatic centre.  The determination discusses the intended use of the pools and the interrelationship with the design features of the pools, as well as the use of other countries guidance documents and standards to achieve compliance as an alternative solution.

This determination discusses the Building Code obligations in Clause F4.3.5 for a proposed dwelling forming part of a pool barrier. The determination also considers the area enclosed by the proposed building work and an existing pool fence in respect of restricting access of children under the age of six to the immediate pool area as required by Clause F4.3.4

Discussed whether the proposed pool barrier encompassing “the immediate pool area” complies with Clause F4 of the Building Code with regard to the size of the area and the activities that would take place within it. Other matters discussed whether the building consent would lapse two years after the date on which it was issued.

Discussed the authority’s refusal to issue a building consent relating to compliance with Clause F4 of the Building Code for a proposed swimming pool and its barriers which included sliding doors and the use of security latches with lockable bolts.

Discussed the definition of ‘immediate pool area’ and the ‘immediate pool surround’ and the potential for unacceptable lapses of pool security due to doors, gates and pedestrian access.

N/A