Search

This determination concerns the refusal to issue a code compliance certificate on the grounds that the authority could not be satisfied that the building work complied with Clause B1 Structure.  The as-built work differed from that described in the building consent, which been supported by the specifications and design documentation for a proprietary construction system that was not used in the construction of the building.

This determination considers whether a two-celled rammed earth building constructed without consent was exempt under Schedule 1 and whether the authority was correct to issue a notice to fix. The determination discusses the remedies provided for in the notice, and discusses issues relating to an application for a certificate of acceptance.

Discussed whether the proposed pool barrier encompassing “the immediate pool area” complies with Clause F4 of the Building Code with regard to the size of the area and the activities that would take place within it. Other matters discussed whether the building consent would lapse two years after the date on which it was issued.

This determination considers the compliance of alteration and additions to an existing two-storey house that was the subject of two building consents.  The determination considers the compliance of the as-built work and whether the authority was correct in declining to issue code compliance certificates for the work.

This determination considers the authority’s decision to issue building consents and code compliance certificates for commercial buildings with pre-cast concrete panels,  and whether the building work complied with Clause B1 of the Building Code. The determination also discusses the difference between an alternative solution and industry practice.

This determination involves a number of small structures constructed on a rural property without building consent first being obtained; it was the owners’ understanding that the building work was exempt under Schedule 1. The determination discusses whether the two shepherd’s huts are buildings, and the clauses of the Building Code that apply in respect of the pit latrine, a latrine with a chemical toilet, the showering shed and the water supply system.

Determination arose from repairs carried out as exempt building work by the Project Management Office as established by the Earthquake Commission, and whether the repaired concrete floor slab on ground subject to liquefaction and categorised as Foundation Technical Category 2 (TC2) complies with the Building Code. Discussed whether the work required building consent or was exempt under Schedule 1 (a) and whether the repair work constitutes a “substantial” replacement.