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 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.

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.