Previous determinations

This determination considers a proposed bracing system designed by the applicant and whether the authority had sufficient information in order to establish on reasonable grounds that the building work would comply with the requirements of the Building Code.

This determination considers the authority’s decision to refuse to issue a certificate of acceptance for remedial work to a membrane roof and parapets. The determination reviews the reasons given for the refusal and discusses the lack of inspections, the information that was before the authority at the time of its decision, and whether the building work was exempt from the requirement to obtain a building consent.

This determination considers the compliance of particular external walls of the house with respect to weathertightness and durability.  The walls are not under eaves that would provide shelter from the weather, and the joinery is not installed in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions.

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.

This determination considers the authority’s decision to refuse to issue a code compliance certificate: the grounds for the refusal were the authority’s concerns regarding the weather-tightness and durability of the exterior envelope, and the structural performance of the foundation wall.  The determination reviewed the reasons given for the refusal and considered whether the items identified in the refusal comply with the Building Code.

This determination considers the authority’s decision to refuse to issue a building consent for alterations to an existing earthquake-prone building.  The alterations were for an internal fitout on the ground floor of the three-storey commercial building.  The determination considers the authority’s policy on earthquake-prone buildings in relation to the proposed work, and some matters in relation to the policy itself.  Detailed discussion on the policy will follow in a further determination. 

This determination considers the compliance of nailing to plywood cladding to a house located in a sea spray zone: galvanised mild steel nails had been installed instead of stainless steel nails.  The determination considers the compliance of the plywood in relation to Building Code Clauses B1 Structure and E2 External moisture, and the remedial work done to date by the owner.

This determination considers the authority’s decision to refuse to issue a code compliance certificate: the grounds for the refusal were the authority’s concerns regarding the weather-tightness and durability of the exterior envelope, and the performance of a concrete floor slab and the subfloor space beneath with respect to structure and durability.  The determination reviewed the reasons given for the refusal and considered whether the items identified in the refusal comply with the Building Code.

This determination considers whether the authority correctly issued an earthquake-prone building notice for a multi-storey unreinforced masonry building. The determination also discusses the relationship between the legal test under section 122 of the Building Act 2004, the authority’s earthquake-prone building policy and the engineering methodology used at the time the earthquake-prone building notice was issued.

Note: This determination is subject to appeal. 

This determination considers whether the authority correctly issued an earthquake-prone building notice. The determination also discusses the relationship between the legal test under section 122 of the Building Act 2004, the authority’s earthquake-prone building policy and the engineering methodology used at the time the earthquake-prone building notice was issued.