Search

The authority has refused to issue a code compliance certificate for building work carried out pursuant to building consent because it is not satisfied that the cladding system that formed part of the building work complied with clauses B2 and E2 of the Building Code at the time it was constructed.

The authority’s formal refusal letter, when read together with an accompanying email referring to the reasons for refusal, had provided sufficient reasons for refusing to issue the code compliance certificate. 

This determination considers the authority's refusal to issue the code compliance certificate for a substantial addition to an existing studio building. The refusal arose from matters related to Building Code Clauses D1, E2, E3, and F4, but the principle issue was an ongoing dispute about the water from neighbouring properties and a small drain that has been installed to divert some of this water. The determination considers whether the drain formed part of the consented work or not.

This determination considers the authority's proposed decision to refuse to issue a building consent for a pool house as compliance with clause F9 of the Building Code, Restricting access to residential pools, had not been demonstrated due to the lack of a barrier between the pool house and pool. The determination considers whether a pool house with bathroom, gym, changing facilities, kitchen/bar, lounge and roof deck, as well as rear patio area can be considered part of the immediate pool area.

This determination considers an authority’s refusal to issue a code compliance certificate for 18-year-old additions and alterations to an existing house.  The cladding had been changed from what was consented and the changed cladding had also been applied to the remainder of the existing building.  The determination considers the authority’s reasons for the refusal and whether the items identified by the authority are compliant with the Building Code.

This determination considers the issue of a notice to fix for building work associated with a two storey sleepout building with sanitary fixtures. The determination considers whether the building work was exempt from the requirement to obtain a building consent under Schedule 1, and whether adequate particulars were set out in the notice to fix (in regards to both section 40 and section 17). It also discusses several issues relating to the notice to fix framework.