Search

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.

This determination considers the authority's proposed decision to refuse to issue a building consent for a pool house as compliance with clause F9 of the Building Code, Restricting access to residential pools, had not been demonstrated due to the lack of a barrier between the pool house and pool. The determination considers whether a pool house with bathroom, gym, changing facilities, kitchen/bar, lounge and roof deck, as well as rear patio area can be considered part of the immediate pool area.