Search

Note: to be read in conjunction with Determination 2017/008.

This determination considers a second refusal to issue a code compliance certificate for a now 17-year-old house with monolithic cladding that was the subject of a previous determination.  This determination discusses the validity of the refusal with regard to the time in which a building consent authority must make a decision, and the relationship between the requirement to give reasons for refusing to issue a code compliance certificate and the issue of a notice to fix.  The determination considers the information the authority had before it at the time it made its decision and whether the items identified by the authority are compliant with the Building Code.

This determination considers the authority's refusal to issue the code compliance certificate for a substantial addition to an existing studio building. The refusal arose from matters related to Building Code Clauses D1, E2, E3, and F4, but the principle issue was an ongoing dispute about the water from neighbouring properties and a small drain that has been installed to divert some of this water. The determination considers whether the drain formed part of the consented work or not.

This determination considers whether galvanised steel bearers used in subfloor framing to four houses meet the required minimum 50-year durability period described in Building Code Clause B2.3.1(a). The building consents for the houses were in respect of work described in national multiple-use approvals issued under section 30F of the Act. The houses have been built and the authority has refused to issue the code compliance certificates for the as-built work because it is of the view the bearers do not comply with Clause B2 Durability.