Search

The dispute turned on which Acceptable Solution (C/AS1 or C/AS2) applied to the proposed building work, depending on whether it fell within Risk Group SH or SM. Discussed the relationship between Uses as defined in the Regulations, Risk Groups in the Acceptable Solutions and Classified Uses in the Act. Also discussed “intended use”, and the Risk Groups in relation to household units located above car parks.

This determination considers the authority’s decisions to issue two notices to fix to the owner. The notices were issued in relation to several structures at the owner’s property, as well as sanitary fixtures located in the garage and carport, and for a change of use of the garage. The determination considers whether there were grounds to issue the notices to fix, the form and content of the notices (including the remedies), and the application of section 167 of the Building Act 2004.

This determination considers compliance of building work that encroached across the boundary between two properties with Building Code Clauses B1 Structure, B2 Durability and C3 Fire affecting areas beyond the fire source. The determination also considers the authority’s decisions to grant the original building consent, an amendment to that consent, and subsequent issue of the code compliance certificate, and the authority’s alleged failure to issue a notice to fix.

This determination concerns an authority’s decision to refuse to grant an application for a building consent to install a new lift into an existing two‐storey commercial building.

The determination considers the authority’s reasons for the refusal and whether the new lift complies with the Building Code clause D2 if required by clause D1.3.4. The determination will also consider whether to grant a waiver or modification in respect of those clauses.