Previous determinations

Discussed the weathertightness and durability of exterior wall cladding, including components of monolithic EIFS overlay wall cladding, the underlying original aluminium faced solid wall planks and the windows, as well how the components were installed and worked together.

Considered the application of sections 17 and 112 of the Act, and the compliance of the proposed fire alarm system. Discussed compliance of the building as a whole after the alterations ‘as nearly as is reasonably practicable’ with respect to means of escape, and how the approach involves the balancing of sacrifices and difficulties of upgrading against the advantages of upgrading. Discussed use of MBIE guidance and “gap assessment”.

Discussed the issue of a code compliance certificate without wording to record that a modification of Clause B2.3.1 had been made, and whether there is a requirement under the Act for modifications of the Building Code to be noted on the code compliance certificate.

Discussed whether the prefabricated unit is a vehicle, and whether it falls within the definition of a building under section 8 (1) (a) of the Building Act. Also discussed whether the relocation of the unit constituted building work and could be subject to a notice to fix.

Discussed whether the authority was legally entitled to place conditions on a building consent, particularly regarding a “quality assurance plan” in respect of potential timber remediation.

Discussed as title and whether a comparison to the wharenui (marae buildings) exemption is appropriate. Also provides a general framework for modifications or waivers under section 67 of the Act, and methodology for deciding whether it is “reasonable” to grant a modification, for example, by reviewing the extent and possible consequence of the non-compliance with a specific performance clause, or reviewing for consistency with the purpose and principles of the Building Act.

Discussed issuing a code compliance certificate for a building consent where the as-built construction differs from that consented, or where there is conflicting or insufficient detail in the consent, and the importance of considering whether the completed building work complies with the Building Code. Also discussed amending the consent to include the manufacturer’s maintenance schedule.

Discussed as title and whether a comparison to the wharenui (marae buildings) exemption is appropriate. Also provides a general framework for modifications or waivers under section 67 of the Act, and methodology for deciding whether it is “reasonable” to grant a modification, for example, by reviewing the extent and possible consequence of the non-compliance with a specific performance clause, or reviewing for consistency with the purpose and principles of the Building Act.

Discussed the nature and complexity of building work and the relative competencies of those carrying out the work in relation to whether an exemption for building consent should be granted under Schedule 1(2), and the need for independent quality assurance systems and checks against the Building Code.

Discussed whether the application for amendment to consent contained accurate and adequate information to demonstrate compliance with B1 Structure, B2 Durability and E2 External Moisture of the Building Code as an alternative solution.