Search

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 concerns the authority’s refusal to extend the specified intended life of a straw-bale house.  It considers whether the authority had the power to consent to the extension when written notice from the owner proposing to extend the life of the building was not received until after the previous specified life had expired.  The determination discusses the conditions on the consent and the reasons for the specified intended life, the form in which the authority may choose to give consent to extend that life, and the evidence available on the building’s performance.