Search

This determination considers the authority’s decision to refuse to grant a building
consent for alterations to an existing detached building. The determination considers
the authority’s reasons for refusal and whether sufficient information was included in
the building consent application for the authority to be satisfied that the provisions of
the Building Code would be met if the building work were properly completed in
accordance with the plans and specifications that accompanied the application.

This determination considers the compliance of a design to install insulation into a skillion roof and the authority's decisions to grant the building consent for that design and a code compliance certificate for the completed work. The determination considers whether the proposed building work would comply with Clause E3 Internal Moisture if the work was completed in accordance with the plans and specifications, and the performance of the building work as constructed with Clause E3.

This determination considers whether the authority was correct to refuse to issue a building consent on the grounds that it considered the proposed footing detail, which is an alternative solution, did not comply with Clause B1 of the Building Code. The determination compares the proposed footing detail with that set out in the Acceptable Solutions SH/AS1 and B1/AS1 in terms of its flexural and shear capacity.

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. 

Discussed the definition of “owner” for the purposes of section 75 and whether a section 75 certificate was required. The applicant, an owner of two allotments and cross leaser of one allotment had a building consent suspended for not supplying a section 75 certificate for building work to extend across the three allotments. Also discussed whether ‘part of a building’ is included in the interpretation of ‘building’ where the building work enlarges the building over allotment boundaries.

This determination considers whether the authority was correct to refuse to issue two amendments to the building consent regarding a pool barrier. The amendments were refused as compliance with Clause F9 of the Building Code, Means of restricting access to residential pools, had not been demonstrated. The determination considers whether a pavilion, patio and soft landscaping area can be considered part of the 'immediate pool area'.