Search

This determination considers whether a roof cladding system as installed on a house complies with Building Code Clause E2 External moisture.

Specifically, the determination considers how the perimeter edges of the profile metal cladding have been finished where it overhangs the gutters, along with the associated eaves flashing.

This determination looks at building work to construct a cable car building, two sets of stairs, and the installation of a toilet and shower building at the property.

The determination considers the authority’s proposed decision to issue a notice to fix and the compliance of the stairways with Building Code Clauses D1 – Access routes and F4 – Safety from falling.

It considers whether there was a requirement to obtain building consent for the work carried out as well as whether the stairways require handrails and/or a barrier.

This determination considers the authority's decision to issue a notice to fix for the construction of a retaining wall. The determination considers whether there were grounds to issue the notice to fix (including whether the building work was exempt from the requirement to obtain a consent), and the form and content of the notice to fix.

This determination considers the authority's decision to issue a notice to fix relating to a retaining wall surrounding a tennis court in a rural location. In making this decision the determination will consider the south and west sections of the retaining wall and whether the building work done to these sections falls under clause 41 of Schedule 1 of the Act.

This determination considers building work done without consent to an existing house: the building work included the replacement of insulation and external wall cladding, installation of jack trusses, and affixing cladding over an existing cladding. The determination discusses whether the building work was exempt from the need to obtain a building consent under Schedule 1 of the Building Act, the drafting of the notice to fix and the remedies, and whether a building consent authority can withdraw a notice to fix.

Note: The decisions in this Determination were confirmed on appeal to the District Court. See: Auckland Council v Jayashree Limited (District Court, Auckland, 14 February 2019, CIV-2018-004-00820).

Read appeal judgement [PDF 503KB].

This determination considers whether the authority was correct to issue a notice to fix in regard to unconsented building work and a change of use from a single house to sleeping accommodation. The determination also considers the authority’s decision regarding the certificate of acceptance.

This determination considers three cabins constructed for the use of sleeping accommodation at an ashram and whether the building work was exempt from the requirement to obtain building consent under Schedule 1. The determination discusses the definition of the term “dwelling” as it relates to Schedule 1(3)(d).

This determination considers three notices to fix for building work that was carried out without building consent.  The determination considers whether the building work was exempt under Schedule 1 of the Act.

It also considers the form and content of the notices to fix, including the particulars of the contraventions and who the notices were issued to.

This determination concerns two notices to fix: one issued in relation to foundations and flooring constructed for a shed without building consent and the other for work to reclad a relocated house. The determination discusses the scope of the building work covered by the building consent for the relocated house, the extent of compliance required by the Act, and whether the building work complies.

This determination considers a notice to fix alleging the owner has carried out building work without building consent in contravention of section 40 of the Building Act.

The determination considers the exemption contained in clause 7 of Schedule 1 of the Act, the evidential threshold required for a notice to fix to be issued, and the remedies in the notice.