Previous determinations

This determination considers whether a lift is required to the lower level of a proposed two-storey rowing club building. The determination considers compliance against the relevant Acceptable Solution and what constitutes reasonable and adequate access for people with disabilities to the lower level. The determination also considers access to areas adjacent the building.

This determinatin considers what constitutes reasonable and adequate access for people with disabilities to one of three different pools in a proposed aquatic centre. The determination considers the intended use of the pool, and discusses the functionality of the proposed platform lift in comparison to other means of providing access for people with disabilities.

This determination considers the authority’s decision to refuse to issue a code compliance certificate for a house; the authority’s concerns were chiefly to do with the weathertightness and durability of the exterior envelope. The determination discusses the authority’s reasons for the refusal, and whether there was sufficient evidence of compliance in order to issue a code compliance certificate.

This determination considers whether a lift is required to a mezzanine level of a gym as part of alterations to the existing building, and the compliance of the alterations in respect of Clause G1 Personal hygiene and D1 Access routes. The determination considers the weighing of the benefits and sacrifices as part of the section 112 requirement for compliance as nearly as is reasonably practicable, and also discusses the area and occupancy of the mezzanine level.

This determination considers what is reasonable and adequate access for people with disabilities to three different pools in a proposed aquatic centre.  The determination discusses the intended use of the pools and the interrelationship with the design features of the pools, as well as the use of other countries guidance documents and standards to achieve compliance as an alternative solution.

This determination considers the authority’s decision to refuse to issue a code compliance certificate; the grounds for the refusal were the authority’s concerns regarding the performance of the exterior cladding in terms of weathertightness and durability. The determination reviewed the reasons given for the refusal and considered whether the items identified in the refusal comply with the Building Code.

This determination considers the authority’s decision to refuse to issue a code compliance certificate; the grounds for the refusal were the authority’s concerns regarding the performance of the exterior cladding in terms of weathertightness and durability. The determination reviewed the reasons given for the refusal and considered whether the items identified in the refusal comply with the Building Code.

This determination confirms the extent of compliance required by the Act for a set of external concrete stairs that serve as the access route to a dwelling. The three flights of stairs were replaced due to damage caused by earthquake activity, and the majority of the building work was carried out as exempt building work under Schedule 1(2)(a). The determination discusses the term “apron or construction edge” as it is used in Clause D1.3.1(a) and as it applies in this case.

Discussed whether there were reasonable grounds for a code compliance certificate to be issued where some building elements were no longer visible and inspections during building work were carried out by parties other than the authority.