Previous determinations

This determination considers whether land adjacent a coastal estuary is subject to a natural hazard; the hazard being inundation by rising sea level and by surface water flooding.  The applicants have built a house on the land under a building consent issued with section 73 condition.  The house has been specifically designed to mitigate the potential effects of any flooding on the building and the land.

This determination considers whether a surface water drain complies with Building Code Clause E1 Surface water: the drain collects water from a roof and is connected to a kerb sump and not directly to a surface water drain.  The authority considers the connection to the sump was contrary to the means of compliance stated in the building consent, being the Acceptable Solution for Clause E1, and that approval should be sought for the work as a minor variation to the consent.

This determination considers whether a building consent issued to a previous owner for the construction of a new dwelling should have been issued subject to a section 73 condition requiring notification of a natural hazard to be placed on the land title.  The determination was sought by the current owner who believes the land is subject to inundation.  The determination considers whether the land is subject to a natural hazard and the information the authority relied upon in issuing the building consent.

This determination concerns sitework carried out by the applicant’s neighbour and whether this is likely to cause damage or nuisance to the applicant’s property in breach of Clause E1 Surface water.  The determination also considers whether the authority was correct to grant a building consent and a code compliance certificate for this work.

This determination considers the compliance of an as-built surface water drainage system to a new house.  The system as consented did not provide a compliant solution and the work as installed is not considered to be compliant by the building owner.

Note: This determination is subject to clarification

This determination considers the lifting of an insanitary building notice and whether the building in its current state is insanitary or dangerous.  The determination also considers whether two building consents should have been granted subject to notification of the natural hazard inundation, and whether a notice to rectify should have been for building work that was not compliant with the Building Code and for building work carried out without building consent.

This determination considers the issue of a code compliance certificate for alterations to a relocated house.  The determination discusses the compliance of the building work with the building consent and with relevant clauses of the Building Code

This determination considers two houses damaged in the Canterbury earthquake sequence and whether the information provided in support of the building consent for the repair of the buildings was sufficient for the authority to be able to grant the consent.  

This determination considers the authority's refusal to issue the code compliance certificate for a substantial addition to an existing studio building. The refusal arose from matters related to Building Code Clauses D1, E2, E3, and F4, but the principle issue was an ongoing dispute about the water from neighbouring properties and a small drain that has been installed to divert some of this water. The determination considers whether the drain formed part of the consented work or not.

This determination is concerned with the compliance of a 14-year-old house that had undergone repair works. 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.