Search

This determination considers whether the weatherboard cladding to a house complies with Clauses E2 External moisture and B2 Durability. The vertical weatherboards were installed over a cavity but double-nailed. The authority refused to issue the code compliance certificate because of the double-nailing.

Discussed the nature and complexity of building work and the relative competencies of those carrying out the work in relation to whether an exemption for building consent should be granted under Schedule 1(2), and the need for independent quality assurance systems and checks against the Building Code.

Discussed the protection of “other property” in relation to Clause B1.3.6, and whether exempt building work is required to comply with the Building Code. Also discussed the compliance of the retaining wall with Clause B1.3.1, and the appropriate regulatory action in relation to the issue of a code compliance certificate for work found to be not compliant.

This determination discusses the pathway to establishing compliance with Clause B2.3.1 for laminated veneer lumber CCA treated in accordance with AS1604.4:2012 and used as structural framing members in situations where hazard class H3.2 or less would be used.

This determination discusses the Building Code obligations in Clause F4.3.5 for a proposed dwelling forming part of a pool barrier. The determination also considers the area enclosed by the proposed building work and an existing pool fence in respect of restricting access of children under the age of six to the immediate pool area as required by Clause F4.3.4

Discussed definition of a ‘building’ under section 9 and the meaning of ‘intended to be occupied’ in relation to an NUO (network utility operator). Also discussed the definition of a specified system in relation to smoke detectors connected to security systems, and the meaning of ‘contribute to the proper functioning of the building’ and ‘functional requirement’ in section 7.

This determination considers the authority’s decision to issue building consents and code compliance certificates for commercial buildings with pre-cast concrete panels,  and whether the building work complied with Clause B1 of the Building Code. The determination also discusses the difference between an alternative solution and industry practice.

This determination considers whether the authority correctly issued an earthquake-prone building notice. The determination also discusses the relationship between the legal test under section 122 of the Building Act 2004, the authority’s earthquake-prone building policy and the engineering methodology used at the time the earthquake-prone building notice was issued.

This determination considers the authority’s decision to refuse to issue a code compliance certificate; the authority’s concerns were largely to do with the weathertightness and durability of the exterior envelope.  The determination discusses the authority’s refusal to inspect the building work and whether there was sufficient evidence of compliance in order to issue a code compliance certificate.

This determination considers whether there was sufficient evidence provided in a building consent application for the authority to grant the consent under section 49 of the Act where half of a duplex is proposed to be demolished. The determination considered whether the proposed building work complies with Clauses B1, B2, C3, E2, and H1 of the Building Code.