Search

N/A

Explanatory note

This determination contained an error when it was issued on 26 June 2019. At Paragraph 5.6.6 it read, “I note here the torch-on-membrane, which the authority issued a building consent for (refer paragraph 4.5.1), is permitted within the Acceptable Solution as a capping material to parapets".

To provide clarity paragraph 5.6.6 is now to be read as follows, “I note here metal, butyl or EPDM membranes are the materials specified in the Acceptable Solution as capping materials to parapets. The authority issued a building consent (refer paragraph 3.7) for the torch on membrane, which established that the authority was satisfied with the compliance of that material as a weathertightness system."

This determination considers the compliance of parapet and...

This determination considers whether a building consent authority was correct to propose to refuse an amendment to a building consent. This was due to a dispute with the owner over the maximum allowable area of an intermediate floor used for the storage of materials associated with a manufacturing, servicing and repair business. The determination considers the change in the intended use of the building during the course of the building work from a “warehouse” to a “workshop”, the means of compliance, and the area of the intermediate floor.

Note: The decisions in this Determination were confirmed on appeal to the High Court. See: Davidson v Palmerston North City Council (High Court, Palmerston North, 30 May 2008, CIV-2006-085-1462).

Appeal judgment [PDF 100 KB]

This determination considers the authority’s decision to refuse to issue a code compliance certificate; the grounds for the refusal were the authority’s concerns regarding the performance of the exterior cladding in terms of weathertightness and durability. The determination reviewed the reasons given for the refusal and considered whether the items identified in the refusal comply with the Building Code.

N/A