Previous determinations

Discussed whether there were reasonable grounds for a code compliance certificate to be issued where some building elements were no longer visible and inspections during building work were carried out by parties other than the authority.

This determination covered technical issues about a proprietary system provider’s methodologies and technologies relating to liquid and foaming injection timber treatment systems used to slow the rate of decay. Discussed whether timber treatment process is building work, and whether targeted treatment can be exempt from building consent under Schedule 1 of the Act as maintenance. Discussed impacts on bracing capacity, air volatility, and the use of drying skirts. Also mentioned the provision of new plans as opposed to copied plans.

Discussed building work exempt under Schedule 1 for which building consent is not required, compliance of building work with the Building Code in force at the time of construction, and amendment to a building consent to modify the durability periods and remove building elements that no longer exist. Also discussed the need for a certificate of acceptance for alterations carried out without building consent when consent was required.

Discussed whether the authority was legally entitled to place conditions on a building consent, particularly regarding a “quality assurance plan” in respect of potential timber remediation.

Discussed issuing a code compliance certificate for a building consent where the as-built construction differs from that consented, or where there is conflicting or insufficient detail in the consent, and the importance of considering whether the completed building work complies with the Building Code. Also discussed amending the consent to include the manufacturer’s maintenance schedule.

Discussed whether the application for amendment to consent contained accurate and adequate information to demonstrate compliance with B1 Structure, B2 Durability and E2 External Moisture of the Building Code as an alternative solution.

Discussed issues relating to performance of building elements, including veneer walls, deck balustrades and deck overflow, exposed cedar rafter extensions and outriggers for compliance with B1 Structure, B2 Durability, E1 Surface Water and E2 External Moisture of the Building Code.

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.

Discussed whether masonry walls complied with Clause B1 of the Building Code that was in force at the time the consent was granted. Related to building work that was carried out without inspections, and whether there was sufficient evidence to establish compliance.