Previous determinations

This determination is subject to appeal​.

The determination will consider whether the constructed head flashings to weatherboard claddings where the stop ends extend past the cladding line comply with E2.3.2 to prevent the penetration of water that could cause undue dampness and damage by way of an alternative solution. 

This determination considers the authority’s refusal to grant a building consent for alterations to an existing dwelling. The authority considered that the building consent could not be granted for a range of reasons, including a lack of documentation, construction details, and conflicting information in the plans. This determination considers the reasons for refusal set out by the authority in its letter.

This determination considers the decision of the authority to grant a building consent and issue a code compliance certificate for a dwelling. The owner is of the view that several aspects of both the design and as-built construction do not comply with various clauses of the Building Code. The main issues relate to the weathertightness and stability of the dwelling.

This determination considers whether the proposed direct-fixed version of the plywood cladding system complies with Building Code Clause E2.3.2, specifically when considering the use of BRANZ Appraisal no 765 (2017) as evidence to show compliance. The scope of the appraisal requires a risk score of 0-6, as calculated in acceptable solution E2/AS1, and this determination assesses whether the proposed application falls within those bounds.

This determination considers the authority's decision to refuse to issue a code compliance certificate for a building consent for a dwelling with monolithic cladding. The authority raised concerns including in regards to Building Code clauses E2 External Moisture and B2 Durability.

This determination arises from the authority's decision to refuse to issue a code compliance certificate for a 17-year-old dwelling. This determination considers whether there is sufficient compliance with clauses E2 and B2 of the New Zealand Building Code.

This determination considers whether the authority was correct to refuse to issue a code compliance certificate because it considers the stucco monolithic plaster applied to the external walls of an extension of an existing dwelling does not comply with clauses E2 External moisture and B2 Durability of the Building Code.

This determination considers whether pine vertical timber shiplap weatherboards, painted black, comply with the Building Code Clause B2 Durability, as it relates to Clause E2 External Moisture. The determination considers a number of factors that contribute to Building Code compliance.

This determination considers whether an authority was correct to refuse to issue a code compliance certificate for a building consent granted in 1998 under the former Building Act 1991. The determination will discuss the reasons given by the authority for the refusal, and how they relate to Building Code clauses B1 Structure, B2 Durability, E1 Surface Water, and E2 External Moisture that applied in 1998.

This determination considers an authority’s refusal to issue a code compliance certificate for 20-year-old additions and alterations due to concerns about compliance with the Building Code. The determination considers the authority’s reasons for refusal and whether those items identified by the authority are compliant with the Building Code.