Search

This determination considers the authority’s refusal to grant a building consent in relation to a structure that uses large building components prefabricated offshore. The determination discusses what is and is not “building work” in relation to the scope of building consents that use prefabricated components, as well as authority’s abilities to assess compliance of components that are prefabricated offshore.

Note: The decisions in this Determination were confirmed on appeal to the District Court. See: Auckland Council v S Liaw (District Court, Auckland, 30 June 2017, CIV-2016-004-001575).

Appeal judgment [PDF 188 KB]

This determination considers whether the authority has exercised its powers correctly in granting a building consent for a house design that had a national multiple-use approval and consisted of modules that were manufactured offshore. The determination considers the extent to which the Building Act and its Regulations apply to the prefabricated modules, and discusses the range of information Building Consent Authorities can seek to satisfy themselves that the construction of the prefabricated components will comply with the plans and specifications. 

Note: The decisions in this Determination were confirmed on appeal to the District Court. See: Auckland Council v S Liaw (District Court, Auckland, 30 June 2017, CIV-2016-004-001575).

Appeal judgment [PDF 188 KB]

This determination considers whether the authority has exercised its powers correctly in granting a building consent for a house design that had a national multiple-use approval and consisted of modules that were manufactured offshore. The determination considers the extent to which the Building Act and its Regulations apply to the prefabricated modules, and discusses the range of information Building Consent Authorities can seek to satisfy themselves that the construction of the prefabricated components will comply with the plans and specifications.  

Note: This determination was subject to appeal. The Determination was confirmed and the appeal was dismissed. Read the appeal judgement.

This determination considers the issue of a building consent and code compliance certificate for a motel in respect of a fire alarm system. The matter turns on whether the building work as approved in the building consent complied with Clauses C2 Means of escape from fire and F7 Warning systems, and whether the construction of the motel without a fire alarm system being installed met the performance requirements of those clauses when the code compliance certificate was issued.

This determination considers whether alterations to the walls and roof of a house comply with Building Code Clauses B1 Structure, E2 External moisture and F7 Warning systems. The determination also considers whether changes to the consented building work can be considered a minor variation to the building consent, and the issue of the code compliance certificate for the alterations.

This determination considers the authority’s decision to issue two notices to fix for building work to enclose an existing deck and whether the building work required building consent.