Search

This determination considers the authority’s refusal to issue a code compliance certificate due to concerns that some of the building work does not comply with the building consent and the Building Code.

The determination considers whether the authority had grounds for refusing to issue the code compliance certificate, and the reasons given for the refusal as set out in its section 95A notice.

The granting of a building consent for alterations to an existing building subject to noficiation that the land is subject to a natural hazard at 102 Dillon Street, Waihi Beach

This determination considers an authority’s purported refusal to grant a building consent for a proposed skillion roof design on an extension to an existing dwelling. The roof design is intended to comply with E2.3.5 by way of acceptable solution E2/AS1 for ventilation to this roof space.

This determination considers an authority’s decision to refuse to grant an application for a building consent for the construction of a new dwelling. The determination considers the authority’s reasons for the refusal, and whether the proposed timber piled foundation design complies with Building Code Clause B1 Structure.

This determination considers an authority’s decision to issue a certificate of acceptance for building work in the roof space of a house. The determination considers whether building consent was required for the building work, as well as how the provisions relating to certificates of acceptance apply.

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 the authority’s proposal to issue a notice to fix for work that the authority considers constitutes building work that required building consent.  The issue concerns an abode that has been constructed using a trailer and that the owner contends is a vehicle and not a building.  The matter turns on whether the work carried out was work for or in connection with the construction of a building.

Explanatory note

This determination contained an error when it was issued on 26 June 2019. At Paragraph 5.6.6 it read, “I note here the torch-on-membrane, which the authority issued a building consent for (refer paragraph 4.5.1), is permitted within the Acceptable Solution as a capping material to parapets".

To provide clarity paragraph 5.6.6 is now to be read as follows, “I note here metal, butyl or EPDM membranes are the materials specified in the Acceptable Solution as capping materials to parapets. The authority issued a building consent (refer paragraph 3.7) for the torch on membrane, which established that the authority was satisfied with the compliance of that material as a weathertightness system."

This determination considers the compliance of parapet and...