Previous determinations

This determination concerns alterations carried out without a building consent and considers the authority's decisions to refuse to issue a certificate of acceptance and to issue a notice to fix.  The determination considers whether the building work was exempt work or was subject to an existing building consent, and discusses the content of the notice to fix and of the notification of refusal.

This determination considers the authority's decision to issue a notice to fix relating to a retaining wall surrounding a tennis court in a rural location. In making this decision the determination will consider the south and west sections of the retaining wall and whether the building work done to these sections falls under clause 41 of Schedule 1 of the Act.

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 considers the issue of a dangerous building notice for an unreinforced masonry building, specifically in relation to the building work that was detailed in the notice as being required to reduce or remove the danger. The determination discusses whether the installation of hoarding and fencing meant the building was no longer dangerous, and what the Building Act requires of a dangerous building notice.

This determination considers the decision of an authority to issue an earthquake-prone building notice for a building under the current provisions of the Act, but in doing so maintaining the deadline date by which the notice was to be complied with as described in the old notice issued under the former Act. The owners of the building had applied to have the deadline date extended which the authority had declined.

The determination considers whether the authority was correct to refuse the extension taking account of the transitional provisions of the Act and how the Act identifies and manages earthquake-prone buildings

This determination considers the authority's refusal to issue a code compliance certificate due to building work to strengthen the existing roof of the house. The determination considers the as-built compliance of the building with Building Code Clause B1 Structure.

This determination considers an authority's refusal to issue a certificate of acceptance for internal work to construct two rooms inside a pole shed. The determination discusses the scope of the work covered by the application for a certificate of acceptance and the reasons given for the refusal.

This determination considers the reasons given by a building consent authority to issue a code compliance certificate for a 22-year-old house. The reasons for the refusal included the lack of energy works certificates for electrical and gas services. The house was the subject of significant consented alterations that are now 12 years old, and for which a code compliance certificate was issued.

This determination considers the authority's refusal to split a building consent, for building work to construct five townhouses that has already been completed, to allow one owner to pursue a code compliance certificate separately from the other owners.  The determination discusses the framework for considering an application to split a building consent issued under the Building Act 1991, and whether assessment for compliance occurs when the consent is split or when a code compliance certificate is applied for.

This determination considers the decision to issue a notice to fix for the construction of a storage building made up of relocated shipping containers and a roof. The authority is of the view that building work has been carried out which required building consent and therefore there has been a contravention of Section 40. As the building crosses a boundary into an adjacent allotment, the authority is also of the view there has been a contravention of section 75. This determination also discusses whether the containers have undergone a change of use.