Search

Note: The decisions in this determination were reversed on appeal to the District Court. See: Rangi and Richdale v Upper Hutt City Council (District Court, Wellington, 13 April 2010, CIV-2009-085-983).

Appeal judgment [PDF 256 KB]

This determination considers an authority’s decision to grant a building consent regarding building work associated with the relocation of an existing dwelling. The authority believes it granted the building consent in error, and that decision should be reversed, due to concerns that have subsequently arisen with the designs for the onsite surface water and foul water disposal systems.

This determination considers the authority’s decision to refuse to issue a certificate of acceptance for remedial work to a membrane roof and parapets. The determination reviews the reasons given for the refusal and discusses the lack of inspections, the information that was before the authority at the time of its decision, and whether the building work was exempt from the requirement to obtain a building consent.

This determination considers an authority’s decision to refuse to withdraw two notices to fix, which the owners believe had been satisfied by reverting to the building’s original use.

The determination turns on whether letting the house for short-term holiday accommodation to single groups constitutes a change of use from SH (Sleeping Single Home) to SA (Sleeping Accommodation).

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.

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 weather-tightness and durability of the exterior envelope, and the structural performance of the foundation wall.  The determination reviewed the reasons given for the refusal and considered whether the items identified in the refusal comply with the Building Code.