Determinations issued
Determination 2007/45
Refusal to issue a code compliance certificate for a garage workshop
The application arose from a dispute about whether a building, built under a 7-year-old building consent, complied with Clause B2 Durability of the Building Code.
The territorial authority refused to issue a code compliance certificate because, due to the age of the building consent, it was not satisfied that the building complied with Clause B2.
Background
The building consent was issued in August 2000 under the Building Act 1991. Construction appears to have started later in 2000 and extended over about 6 years until completion in late 2006. The inspection records were not submitted with the application but it appears the territorial authority carried out all necessary inspections of the building and undertook a final inspection on or about September 2006. The owners applied for a code compliance certificate in December 2006.
The building work comprises a single-storey garage workshop with a mezzanine floor. The building has a concrete floor slab, a timber-framed structure, aluminium window and door joinery, and is clad with battened-plywood and corrugated steel. The building is relatively simple in plan and form, with a double-pitched gable roof.
The submissions
The territorial authority said it had concerns about the building's durability given that the work began in 2000 but was not completed until late November 2006.
The territorial authority also said that agreement had been reached with the owners that a reasonable time for the building to have been regarded as completed was in January 2004. In a separate submission, the owners said the building was completed in 2006.
The determination
The determination considered a modification of the durability requirements of the Building Code, given the age of the building consent, and the age of the completed building.
The relevant provision of Clause B2 requires that building elements must, with only normal maintenance, continue to satisfy the performance requirements of the Building Code for certain durability periods from the time of issue of the applicable code compliance certificate.
These durability periods are:
- 5 years if the building elements are easy to access and replace, and failure of those elements would be easily detected during the normal use of the building
- 15 years if building elements are moderately difficult to access or replace, or failure of those elements would go undetected during normal use of the building, but would be easily detected during normal maintenance
- the life of the building, being not less than 50 years, if the building elements provide structural stability to the building, or are difficult to access or replace, or failure of those elements would go undetected during both normal use and maintenance.
If a modification of the durability provisions was to be considered, the durability periods specified above would be modified to commence from when the building was completed and when the code compliance certificate could have been issued, if it had been applied for, and not from the actual issue date.
However, in this instance, modifying the commencement of the durability period to 2006, or 2004 as proposed by the territorial authority, would have little effect on the commencement date of the durability provisions.
The view was taken that a modification of the durability provisions of the Building Code was not appropriate in this case, given the short time period between the building's completion in 2006 and the date when the code compliance certificate could have been issued.
The territorial authority's concern was acknowledged about the extended period of time between the issue of the building consent and completion of the work. However, a modification of the durability provisions cannot deal with this circumstance. A modification can only be used, where appropriate, to deal with excessive time gaps between completion of the work and the application for a code compliance certificate.
Had the building consent been issued under the Building Act 2004, the territorial authority would have been able to invoke section 93 to assist in these circumstances.
The decision
It was determined that the building work complied with all the relevant clauses of the Building Code, and reversed the territorial authority's decision not to issue a code compliance certificate.
Determination 2007/52
Refusal to issue a code compliance certificate because of concerns over internal moisture and durability for a 12-year-old earth brick and rammed earth house
The application arose from a dispute about whether:
- the interior wall surfaces of the house complied with Clause E3 Internal Moisture of the Building Code
- the 12-year-old building complied with Clause B2 Durability of the Building Code.
Because the territorial authority was not satisfied that the building complied with the two clauses, it refused to issue a code compliance certificate for the building.
Apart from the matter of the warranty period for the roof cladding (which was covered within the durability matters later in the determination), the repairs to the roof did not appear to be in dispute and were not considered further.
Background
The building consent was issued in 1994 under the Building Act 1991, and work completed early in 1995. The owner applied for a code compliance certificate in 2006. In support of that application the owner asked a consultant on earth-building to write to the territorial authority.
The building is a one-and-a-half-storey detached house of earth brick and rammed earth construction. The building work in dispute concerned the interior earth walls in the kitchen, bathroom, toilet and laundry area.
The kitchen is open plan to the living areas, and the bathroom accommodates a bath, shower and vanity unit. The toilet accommodates a toilet pan, cistern and wash hand basin. Glazed ceramic tiles are installed behind, and also extend past, the vanity unit. The shower area is fully tiled, and the tiles continue as a splashback behind the bathtub. The toilet has clear-finished timber boarding behind the pan and cistern. The laundry area is in a corner of the garage.
The submissions
The applicant noted that the matters for determination were the territorial authority's requirement to seal the earth walls in the service areas, and that the manufacturer's warranty for the butyl rubber roof was due to expire in 3 years' time.
The applicant provided a consultant's report on the condition of the internal walls of the service rooms in the house. The Chief Executive considered this consultant to be an expert in earth building construction.
Internal moisture
It was considered that the consultant's report established the good condition of the wall surfaces to the service areas of the house, and accepted that the surfaces currently achieve the objectives in Clause E3 in preventing moisture-related harm. There was no reason why the surfaces would not continue to meet the objectives of Clause E3.
The view was taken that adequate impervious surfaces were provided to areas adjacent to the sanitary fixtures and appliances. It was accepted that the impervious surfaces had proved effective in preventing moisture damage from water splash and, based on their current condition, the remaining walls showed that the earth surfaces did not require additional protection in order to prevent moisture damage.
It also noted the consultant's comments on the risks of sealing earth walls, and accepted that sealing this type of wall could result in condensation problems on the wall surface. It was considered that there were reasonable grounds to conclude that not all the interior surfaces of the service areas of this house were required to be made impervious in order to comply with Clause E3.
Durability
The final determination also discussed the issue of durability when considering the age of a building. The relevant provision of Clause B2 requires that building elements must, with only normal maintenance, continue to satisfy the performance requirements of the Building Code for certain durability periods from the time of issue of the applicable code compliance certificate.
A draft determination was sent to the parties for comment and for the parties to agree a date when the building was completed and could first have complied with the durability provisions of the Building Code. The parties agreed to a date in 1995.
It was concluded that:
- the territorial authority had the power to grant an appropriate modification of Clause B2 in respect of the building elements
- it was reasonable to grant such a modification, with appropriate notification, because in practical terms the building was no different from what it would have been if a code compliance certificate for the house had been issued in 1995.
It was strongly recommended that the territorial authority record the determination, and any modifications resulting from it, on the property file and also on any LIM issued for the property.
The decision
It was determined that the interior wall surfaces of the house complied with Clause E3 of the Building Code.
It was also determined that the building elements complied with Clause B2 on a specific date in 1995 instead of the date of issue of the code compliance certificate, and the original building consent was to be modified accordingly. The territorial authority was instructed to issue a code compliance certificate in respect of the building consent as amended.
To read all the determinations in summary or in full, go to: www.dbh.govt.nz/determinations