Search

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: Determination 2022/028 was modified under section 211(1)(a) of the Building Act 2004 by the District Court on 25 July 2023 in [2023] NZDC 15205. Read the judgement.

This determination considers whether the authority was correct in its exercise of powers of decision to refuse to grant a building consent for alterations to an existing detached dwelling, and its subsequent decision to issue a notice to fix. In deciding these matters, I have also considered whether the building work could have been carried out urgently in advance of obtaining a building consent, and whether the owners are now required to apply for a certificate of acceptance.

This determination considers completed remedial work to a house. The work was consented, but work that was intended to be done as an amendment to the consent was completed by the owner before the amendment was approved by the authority. The code compliance certificate issued by the authority excluded the amended work, which was regularised through the issue of a certificate of acceptance. The owner disputed the exclusion of the amended work from the code compliance certificate.