Search

This determination considers the authority's purported refusal to grant a building consent for proposed building work because the authority did not agree with the importance level 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 Australian/New Zealand Standard 1170.0. This standard is referenced by Verification Method B1/VM1, which is a means of compliance with Building Code Clause B1 Structure.

This determination considers the compliance of consented alterations carried out on an existing building for which an earlier code compliance certificate also had not been issued and where a significant portion of the existing building remained unaltered. The determination considers the authority’s reasons for declining the code compliance certificate for the work, and the provisions of section 115 (change of use) in relation to the work.

Discussed the council’s refusal to issue of a code compliance certificate where the as-built work differs from that consented and was also not in accordance with the Acceptable Solution E2/AS1 or the manufacturer’s details, particularly relating to ridge flashings installed to a profiled metal roof. The determination reviewed the compliance of the as-built work against the performance requirements of the Building Code.

Note: This determination was subject to appeal to the District Court, where one conclusion was confirmed and one conclusion was overturned. Appeal judgment  [PDF 6.4MB].

This determination considers whether a structure that has some features of a vehicle is a "building" under section 8 of the Building Act, and therefore whether the authority can issue a notice to fix for construction of the unit without building consent. The determination discusses factors to consider when deciding if the unit is a "vehicle", and if it is "immovable" and "occupied on a permanent or long-term basis".

This determination considers an authority's refusal to consent to a change of use for an existing building intended to be used as seasonal worker accommodation, on the basis that the building does not make reasonable and adequate provision for access and facilities for people with disabilities. The determination considers the authority's reasons for the refusal and the interrelationship between the change of use provisions and the requirement to provide access and facilities for persons with disabilities to and within buildings.

Note: The decision of this Determination was upheld on appeal to the District Court. See: CIV-2019-070-001005 - Western BOP DC v Limmer & NZ Kiwifruit Growers Inc.pdf