Previous determinations

This determination considers whether the proposed deck construction would comply with Clause C3 of the Building Code. The determination discusses whether the timber slatted deck over a carport is a roof for the purpose of C/AS1 and whether the design is an alternative solution.

This determination concerns construction defects that were exposed during building work undertaken to remediate weathertightness issues. The determination considers the code-compliance of the use of intumescent sealant without plasterboard patches for penetrations in intertenancy walls, and discusses the application of section 112 of the Act in respect of the defects in existing construction including those not exposed as part of the proposed building work.

This determination considers the requirements under section 116A with respect to fire rating of an inter-tenancy wall. The determination discusses the relationship between the Building Act, the Resource Management Act and the Unit Titles Act in respect of unit title developments and subdivision.

Regarding the installation of a lift without building consent, and a request to remove the compliance schedule, for a multi-unit residential building.

This determination discusses the application of sections 17 and 112 in respect of an alteration to an existing building that has the effect of creating a larger firecell, and the Building Code obligations that are triggered by the increase in size. Also discussed is the fire service intervention time.

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.

The dispute turned on which Acceptable Solution (C/AS1 or C/AS2) applied to the proposed building work, depending on whether it fell within Risk Group SH or SM. Discussed the relationship between Uses as defined in the Regulations, Risk Groups in the Acceptable Solutions and Classified Uses in the Act. Also discussed “intended use”, and the Risk Groups in relation to household units located above car parks.

Discussed whether a modification of C3.4 is reasonable and the possible consequence of non-compliance with that clause. Also discussed the granting of waivers and modifications under section 67 of the Act.