Search

This determination relates to an authority’s decision to issue a dangerous building notice for a building which the authority considers is dangerous in the event of a fire. The determination analyses the features of the building in relation to the dangerous building test under section 121(1)(b).  

It considers whether the authority had grounds to issue the dangerous building notice under section 124, and the authority’s power of decision in relation to whether the notice has subsequently been satisfied.

This determination considers whether a new retaining wall close to some existing retaining walls and the boundary between two properties complies with the provisions of Building Code Clause B1 Structure and the protection of other property.

The matter turns on whether the new retaining wall relies on the existing retaining walls located on other property for compliance, and whether the new retaining wall imposes a surcharge on the existing retaining walls and, if a surcharge is imposed, whether this affects the ongoing compliance of the existing retaining walls.

This determination looks at building work to construct a cable car building, two sets of stairs, and the installation of a toilet and shower building at the property.

The determination considers the authority’s proposed decision to issue a notice to fix and the compliance of the stairways with Building Code Clauses D1 – Access routes and F4 – Safety from falling.

It considers whether there was a requirement to obtain building consent for the work carried out as well as whether the stairways require handrails and/or a barrier.

This determination discusses the assessment required under section 115 when there is a change of use to only part of a building, particularly how the phrase “the building, in its new use” in section 115 applies and in respect of Building Code clause B1 Structure. The discussion also considers information provided by way of an Initial Seismic Assessment (ISA) in relation to that assessment, and the separate functions performed by authorities under section 112 and section 115.

Discussed whether a multi-unit dwelling had adequate fire safety features for the three residential units in the same dwelling, and whether the building was dangerous under section 121 (1)(b) of the Act. Discussed “occupancy” and whether a “change of use” had occurred. Also considered whether the building complied with the Building Code and the threshold at which at a building may be considered “dangerous” when it does not comply.

An appeal was lodged against this determination.

This determination is concerned primarily with the compliance of the building envelope to a 14-year-old house with autoclaved aerated concrete cladding. 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 that was in force at the time the building consent was issued.