Previous determinations

This determination considers the authority’s decision to refuse to issue a building consent for alterations to an existing earthquake-prone building.  The alterations were for an internal fitout on the ground floor of the three-storey commercial building.  The determination considers the authority’s policy on earthquake-prone buildings in relation to the proposed work, and some matters in relation to the policy itself.  Detailed discussion on the policy will follow in a further determination. 

This determination discusses considerations in granting building consent for an addition to an existing building where a change of use has occurred without approval and where building work had been carried out without consent when consent was required.

Discussed the meaning of ‘dangerous building’ in relation to rock fall and the assessment methodology; whether the modified definition introduced into section 121 by the 2011 Order was relevant at the time; the expiry of section 124 notices relying on said modified definition; and the approach to defining ‘relevant risk’.

Discussed the definition of “owner” for the purposes of section 75 and whether a section 75 certificate was required. The applicant, an owner of two allotments and cross leaser of one allotment had a building consent suspended for not supplying a section 75 certificate for building work to extend across the three allotments. Also discussed whether ‘part of a building’ is included in the interpretation of ‘building’ where the building work enlarges the building over allotment boundaries.

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 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 household units proposed had special features of being ‘retirement suites’ as ‘specialised accommodation’ under section 7 of the Act, and whether this qualified them to seek modification of Clause G6 under section 67 of the Act. At the request of the authority, discussion was broadened to provide comment on the interpretation of G6 for horizontal impact noise; diagonal, vertical and horizontal assemblies and ‘abutting’ units.

N/A

N/A

N/A