Previous determinations

This determination considers an authority’s refusal to issue a code compliance certificate for a 20-year-old house principally due to concerns about its compliance with Building Code Clause E2 External moisture. 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 two dangerous building notices that were issued for a six-storey building in central Auckland.  The various levels of the building are fitted out for retail, offices, and sleeping accommodation.  The determination considers the authority’s decision to the second dangerous building notice restricting entry to part of the building, which meant part of the building could not be used for sleeping accommodation, and the authority’s decision to reissue that notice after thirty days.

This determination considers the compliance of a domestic garage and driveway with Building Code Clause D1 Access routes, including whether their dimensions are appropriate for the intended use. It also considers whether the building consent authority was correct to grant the building consent and code compliance certificate, and whether a proposal to widen the garage doorway (from 2.31 m to 2.8 m) would result in compliance.

This determination concerns whether a garage built over a boundary complies with Clause C3 (Spread of Fire) of the Building Code in place when the building consent was issued, and whether the authority was correct to issue a code compliance certificate for the work.

This determination considers whether a lift is required to an elevated viewing platform on a landscaped roof area of a building housing an arts centre in order to meet the requirements of the Building Act for reasonable and adequate access for people with disabilities.  The determination discusses the definition of “storey” for the purpose of Clause D1.3.4 of the Building Code and whether the cupola in which the viewing platform is housed is an “ancillary” building as defined in Clause A1 of the Building Code. 

This determination considers the authority’s refusal to amend a compliance schedule to remove the fire-rated mezzanine floor from the schedule for an early childhood centre.

The matter turns on whether the fire-rated floor is a “fire separation” as that term is used in relation to specified systems.

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 considers the compliance of a trellis fence with the provisions of the Building Act that require the restriction of access by unsupervised young children to the swimming pool or immediate pool area.  The trellis has gaps up to 45mm high x 40mm wide and...

This determination considers an authority’s refusal to issue a code compliance certificate for a 17-year-old house principally due to concerns about its compliance with Clause E2 External moisture.  The building owners had commissioned an assessment of the building’s performance which the authority had declined to accept.

This determination considers the authority’s refusal to issue a code compliance certificate where the building work was carried out without required inspections.  The determination considers the compliance of three areas identified by the authority in its refusal.

The determination considered whether the authority correctly exercised its powers of decision in refusing to issue a code compliance certificate. The determination considered the authority’s decision to refuse a code compliance certificate without inspecting the building.