Search

Note (added 11/08/2022): Please note that this determination incorrectly refers to section 450A of the Building Act 2004 as a compliance pathway for the pool barrier in this determination. The acceptable solution provided for in section 450A was revoked by way of Gazette notice on 27 April 2017. As the determination does not conclude that the pool barrier was compliant via the acceptable solution in section 450A, the outcome of the determination is not affected.

This determination considers the compliance of a pool barrier made up of walls and doors of a building that was subject to an exemption under the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act. The determination considers whether the barrier complies to the extent required by section 162C of...

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 performance of a concrete floor slab and the subfloor space beneath with respect to structure 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.

Discussed the council’s refusal to issue of a code compliance certificate where the as-built work differs from that consented and was also not in accordance with the Acceptable Solution E2/AS1 or the manufacturer’s details, particularly relating to ridge flashings installed to a profiled metal roof. The determination reviewed the compliance of the as-built work against the performance requirements of the Building Code.

Note: The decisions in this determination were reversed on appeal to the District Court. See: Palmerston North City Council v Brian Green Properties (1971) Limited (District Court, Palmerston North, 12 February 2020, CIV-2018-054-000288).

Read the appeal judgment.

This determination considers whether the authority was correct to issue a notice to fix in respect of locks to doors that are providing the means of escape to a commercial building containing food and retail outlets.  The determination considers whether the locked doors provide adequate means of escape from fire when the building has no occupants.

Discussed as title and whether a comparison to the wharenui (marae buildings) exemption is appropriate. Also provides a general framework for modifications or waivers under section 67 of the Act, and methodology for deciding whether it is “reasonable” to grant a modification, for example, by reviewing the extent and possible consequence of the non-compliance with a specific performance clause, or reviewing for consistency with the purpose and principles of the Building Act.