To date, 59 determinations have been issued this year. The following are summaries of two determinations issued recently. To read Determinations in full, see the register.
Issued 15 April 2005
In this case the owner disputed the council's decision not to issue a building consent. The owner applied for a determination by the Chief Executive of the Department of Building and Housing to determine whether the supermarket building, as proposed, without lift access for people with disabilities to upper floor areas, would comply with Clause D1.3.4(c) of the Building Code (the First Schedule to the Building Regulations 1992).
The council did not make a specific submission, but copies of previous correspondence to the owners were supplied. The owner made specific submissions and commented on information supplied by the council.
The Chief Executive considered the following.
- Is the building two or three storeys high?
- What is the design occupancy and the gross floor area of each mezzanine floor?
- Are the three mezzanine floors to be considered individually or in combination?
The Chief Executive concluded that the building was to be treated as a twostorey building. In combination, the office mezzanine floor and the staff mezzanine floor have an aggregate design occupancy of 58 people and an aggregate gross floor area of 636 m2. Therefore, lift access to each of those floors is required for compliance with both the Building Code and NZS 4121.
Lift access to the plant room mezzanine floor is not required. The Chief Executive noted that it is not for the Department to decide how the building is to be brought into compliance with the provisions of Clause D1.3.4( c) of the Building Code and in particular whether that is to be achieved by separate lifts to the office mezzanine floor and to the staff mezzanine floor, or by providing a single lift to either with an accessible route between them.
The Chief Executive found that lift access is required to the office mezzanine floor and to the staff mezzanine floor, but not to the plant room mezzanine floor. The territorial authority's decision to refuse to issue a building consent was confirmed.
House 51, Issued 28 April 2005
The owner of the property disputed the territorial authority's decision not to issue a code compliance certificate. The owner applied for a determination by the Chief Executive of the Department of Building and Housing to determine whether the monolithic cladding on the house would comply with the external moisture requirements (E2) and durability requirements (B2) of the Building Code.
The building is a three-year-old, two-storey house situated on a level site in a high wind zone. The house is of a relatively simple shape, but the pitched and lowpitched roofs are set at varying levels with hip, valley and wall-to-roof junctions. The house is of conventional light timber frame construction on a piled concrete beam and slab foundation. There are no eaves and verge projections. The timber used in the construction of the exterior walls is H3 LOSP treated.
Submissions were received from the territorial authority and the owner. An independent expert was commissioned to report on the cladding.
The determination found that the building:
- has no eaves and verge projections to provide protection to the cladding areas below them. However, there are some balcony and floor projections that afford additional protection.
- is in a high wind zone
- is two storeys high
- is of a relatively simple shape on plan, with roofs that have hip, valley and wall-to-roof junctions
- has two balconies, one of which is constructed over a habitable space
- has fully flashed external windows and doors
- has lower-level roof spaces that assist in the ventilation of the external wall cavities above them
- has external wall framing that is treated to a level that would help prevent decay if it absorbs and retains moisture
- the cladding generally appears to have been installed according to good trade practice
- the house has fully flashed external windows and doors
- the moisture ingress is entirely related to the balcony balustrades.
It was determined that the monolithic cladding system as installed does not comply with Clauses B2 and E2 of the Building Code. The territorial authority's decision to refuse to issue the code compliance certificate was confirmed.