Search

This determination considers an authority’s decision to refuse to grant a building consent subject to a waiver from Building Code clause D1.3.3(i) for the proposed construction of isolated steps between multiple bedrooms and prefabricated ‘pods’ containing sanitary fixtures at a multi-storey university student accommodation building.

The determination considers the intended use of the building and whether the steps are on access routes. 

This determination covered technical issues about a proprietary system provider’s methodologies and technologies relating to liquid and foaming injection timber treatment systems used to slow the rate of decay. Discussed whether timber treatment process is building work, and whether targeted treatment can be exempt from building consent under Schedule 1 of the Act as maintenance. Discussed impacts on bracing capacity, air volatility, and the use of drying skirts. Also mentioned the provision of new plans as opposed to copied plans.

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 decision to issue a notice to fix for the construction of a storage building made up of relocated shipping containers and a roof. The authority is of the view that building work has been carried out which required building consent and therefore there has been a contravention of Section 40. As the building crosses a boundary into an adjacent allotment, the authority is also of the view there has been a contravention of section 75. This determination also discusses whether the containers have undergone a change of use.

This determination considers an authority’s purported decision to refuse to issue a building consent for alterations and an addition to an existing building.

The matter turns on whether the proposed building work would have resulted in a change of use for the building and whether the building would have complied as nearly as reasonably practicable with clause C4.3 of the Building Code relating to means of escape from fire.