Previous determinations

This determination is concerned with the compliance of a panel facade cladding system used in the recladding of two apartments at the top of a multi-level building. Due to its height, the building fell outside the scope of the Accetable Solution and Verification Method, and the determination considered the effect of wind pressures likely to be imposed on the cladding system.

This determination is concerned with the compliance of an 11 year old house. The determination considers the authority’s reasons for refusing to issue the code compliance certificate and whether the house complies with the requirements of the Building Code.

This determination considers the compliance of the proposed building work with respect to durability. The determination includes the expert opinion of a specialist in corrosion engineering, and discusses the exposure and corrosion zones relevant to the site.

This determination is concerned with the compliance of the AAC cladding to a four year old house and the authority's refusal to issue an amendment for repairs and repainting. The determination discusses damage caused by thermal movement due to the dark paint colour, and the authority's request for a producer statement and warranty for the cladding.

This determination is concerned with the compliance of a house and alterations that are, respectively, 21 and 9 years old. The determination considers the authority’s reasons for refusing the code compliance certificates, and whether the house currently complies with the requirements of the Building Code, particularly with respect to weathertightness and durability.

This determination considers whether a balustrade handrail as constructed complies with Clause D1. The determination considers the use of the balustrade capping as a handrail and discusses the relevant width measurement and whether the capping is sufficient to provide a firm grasp in the event of a fall.

This determination is concerned with the compliance of cladding and timber framing in a 15-year-old house that had previously been subject to moisture ingress. The determination considers the authority’s reasons for refusing the code compliance certificate for alterations that involved recladding and over-cladding, and whether the house complies with the requirements of the Building Code, particularly with respect to weathertightness and durability.

This determination considers whether the authority was correct to refuse to issue a building consent on the grounds that it considered the proposed footing detail, which is an alternative solution, did not comply with Clause B1 of the Building Code. The determination compares the proposed footing detail with that set out in the Acceptable Solutions SH/AS1 and B1/AS1 in terms of its flexural and shear capacity.

Note: This determination is subject to clarification.

This determination discusses the assessment required under section 115 when there is a change of use to only part of a building, particularly in respect of Building Code clause B1 Structure and whether a detailed seismic assessment is required for the whole building.

This determination considers the authority’s reasons for refusing to issue a code compliance certificate for remedial work to an existing house; and whether the work concerned complied with Clause B1, B2, and E2 of the Building Code. The building consent had been issued with requirements for quality assurance in relation to construction monitoring which was also the subject of the dispute between the parties.