Search

Note: The determination was subject to appeal but this was dismissed by the Court. See: H Davis v Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment [PDF 179 KB] (District Court, Auckland, 30 July 2015, CIV-2015-004-00009)

This determination considers an authority’s decisions to grant a building consent and issue a code compliance certificate for construction of a dwelling.

The determination turns on whether the design and construction of the timber pile foundations comply with Building Code Clause B1 Structure.

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.

This determination considers an authority’s decision not to grant building consent to a leaseholder for alterations to part of a building, based on the authority’s view that the seismic performance of the whole building was required to be upgraded. The determination discusses the requirement in section 115 for a building undergoing a change of use to comply, as nearly as is reasonably practicable, with the provisions of the Building Code relating to structural performance.

This determination considers whether the authority was correct to refuse to grant a building consent for the construction of a number of retaining walls on a site with respect to ground water collected by drainage installed behind the walls. The determination considers whether the ground water collected falls within the definition of 'surface water' as it applies to Building Code Clause E1 Surface water.

This determination considers the authority’s purported refusal to grant a building consent for seismic strengthening work because the authority did not agree with the importance level classification proposed by the structural engineer. The determination discusses whether the subject building should be classified as Importance Level 2 or Importance Level 3 as set out in AS/NZS 1170.0.  This standard is referenced by Verification Method B1/VM1, which is a means of compliance with Building Code Clause B1 Structure.