Search

This determination considers the authority’s decision to refuse to issue a building consent for alterations to an existing earthquake-prone building.  The alterations were for an internal fitout on the ground floor of the three-storey commercial building.  The determination considers the authority’s policy on earthquake-prone buildings in relation to the proposed work, and some matters in relation to the policy itself.  Detailed discussion on the policy will follow in a further determination. 

This determination considers the authority's refusal to issue a certificate of acceptance for building work associated with a dwelling, that was carried out without building consent. The authority considered that Building Code clauses B1 Structure, B2 Durability, E2 External Moisture, G2 Laundering, G9 Electricity, G12 Water Supplies and H1 Energy Efficiency were not met. The determination considers the reasons for refusal set out in the authority’s refusal letter and subsequent report.

The matter to be determined, under section 177(1)(b) and (2)(f), is whether the authority was correct in its decision to issue a notice to fix for the owners’ structure. In deciding this matter, I must consider whether the structure was exempt from requiring a building consent under Schedule 1 of the Act, and whether the authority had sufficient evidence to consider on reasonable grounds that the building work did not comply with the Building Code.

This determination concerns the natural hazards provisions of the Act. The matter turned on whether the conditions under section 71(2) had been met and the consent could be issued without notification under section 73. Adequate provision had been made to protect the building work from the natural hazard (inundation) and the building work would not accelerate, worsen, or resulting in a natural hazard, but no provision had been made to protect the land.

This determination considers whether a depression on semi-rural property can be considered a suitable outfall for a surface water drainage system. The authority issued the notice to fix because it considered the drainage system had not been constructed in accordance with the consented plans. The determination considers the compliance of the outfall and whether the authority was correct to issue the notice to fix

This determination looks at building work to construct a cable car building, two sets of stairs, and the installation of a toilet and shower building at the property.

The determination considers the authority’s proposed decision to issue a notice to fix and the compliance of the stairways with Building Code Clauses D1 – Access routes and F4 – Safety from falling.

It considers whether there was a requirement to obtain building consent for the work carried out as well as whether the stairways require handrails and/or a barrier.

This determination considers the authority’s purported refusal to grant a building consent for seismic strengthening work because the authority did not agree with the importance level classification proposed by the structural engineer. The determination discusses whether the subject building should be classified as Importance Level 2 or Importance Level 3 as set out in AS/NZS 1170.0.  This standard is referenced by Verification Method B1/VM1, which is a means of compliance with Building Code Clause B1 Structure.