Search

Determination arose from repairs carried out as exempt building work by the Project Management Office as established by the Earthquake Commission, and whether the repaired concrete floor slab on ground subject to liquefaction and categorised as Foundation Technical Category 2 (TC2) complies with the Building Code. Discussed whether the work required building consent or was exempt under Schedule 1 (a) and whether the repair work constitutes a “substantial” replacement.

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 the authority’s decision to issue building consents and code compliance certificates for commercial buildings with pre-cast concrete panels,  and whether the building work complied with Clause B1 of the Building Code. The determination also discusses the difference between an alternative solution and industry practice.

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 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.