Previous determinations

This determination concerns a notice to fix issued in respect of an existing pool barrier for a contravention of section 162C of the Building Act. The part of the barrier in dispute because of its height is located on the boundary of the property.

The determination considers the requirements of Building Code Clause F9 Means of restricting access to residential pools, and also discusses the form and content of the notice to fix.

This determination considers the compliance of a modular dwelling constructed partly offsite and partly at the owners’ property under two separate building consents granted by two authorities.

The determination discusses the compliance of the as-built work with several clauses of the Building Code, primarily relating to the dwelling’s structure, weathertightness, gutters, bathroom linings, and electrical fixtures.

This determination is subject to appeal.

This determination considers an authority’s decision to grant a building consent under section 72 resulting in an entry on the property title for the natural hazard of inundation.

It considers whether adequate provision was made to protect the land, building work and other property.

This determination considers the authority’s decision to issue a notice to fix for contravention of section 40 in respect of poles installed in the ground between a driveway and retaining wall.

The determination discusses whether the work to install the poles is building work regulated under the Building Act.

This determination considers an authority’s proposed decision to refuse to issue a building consent in relation to a residential pool barrier.

The determination considers whether the proposed barrier complies with Building Code clause F9 Means of restricting access to residential pools, which turns on whether the pool house and loggia can properly be considered part of the ‘immediate pool area’.

This determination considers an authority’s proposed decision to transfer a natural hazard entry onto a property’s record of title as a result of a subdivision.

The determination discusses the relevance of the location of the building work that gave rise to the entry in relation to the area of land proposed to be transferred.

This determination considers the authority’s purported decision to refuse to grant a building consent for the construction of a new outbuilding on a property that is subject to the natural hazard of inundation.

It considers whether the hazard is likely and whether adequate provision has been made to protect the land, building work and other property.

This determination considers whether a two-level Unit, in an existing commercial building, would comply with the Building Code without a Type 4 alarm system.

The existing alarm system was installed as part of a building consent application, after an intermediate floor in the unit was enlarged in area. The determination considers whether the evacuation time allows occupants to move to a place of safety in the event of fire.

This determination considers an authority’s decision to issue a notice to fix for alleged contravention of sections 105 and 108 of the Building Act.

The authority considered the owner’s building was being used for public accommodation and that the owner had not complied with their compliance schedule obligations, including the need to provide the authority with an annual building warrant of fitness.

In making the decision, the determination considers whether the building was used “wholly as a single household unit” at the time the notice to fix was issued.

This determination considers an authority’s decision to refuse to provide written notice for a change of use under section 115 of the Building Act.

The proposed change of use was refused because the authority considered a building consent application was required.

The determination also considers whether the installation of fire-rated linings and associated framing is exempt building work under Schedule 1 of the Act.