Determinations issued
Determination 2006/50
Disposal of free water overflow
The matter for determination
The application arose from a dispute about the means of disposing of free water overflow from kitchen sinks in an apartment complex.
The Acceptable Solution, E3/AS1, requires containment and a floor waste. The owner proposed not to install floor wastes and associated pipework in the apartment kitchens, but instead to provide kitchen sinks with internal overflows designed to deliver any high-level water back into the outlet pipe and so prevent the water from overtopping the rim of the sink. Accordingly, the plans submitted for building consent were annotated: 'All kitchen sinks shall have integral overflows built into the inserts.'
The territorial authority refused to grant the building consent, saying: 'Alternative solutions will only be accepted after a positive peer review of supporting documentation/tests or a positive determination issued by the DBH.'
The owner, acting through a firm of hydraulics consultants, applied for the determination.
The submissions
The owner's submissions to the Chief Executive said:
'Our solution is to match the capacity of the fixture outflow against the faucet inflow. If necessary, we would install ...water flow regulators that guarantee water delivery from the faucet will not exceed [the rate that] the overflow outlet can accommodate.
'[Table 3 of G12/AS1] suggests that an acceptable flow rate (not maximum or minimum) for a sink could be 0.2 litres per second, or 12 litres per minute.
'Most territorial authorities and water providers would suggest that in these days of water and energy conservation, this flow rate is too high
' a sink fixture flow rate of 9.0 litres per minute would be more than sufficient and we would specify installation of flow regulating devices that guarantee that level of performance. We would then request that the fixture overflow be capable of accepting that flow rate continuously.'
The territorial authority's submissions said:
'The [owner] needs to provide, the amount of free space/orifice size of the overflow protection aperture in the fixture, the size of the overflow discharge pipe and the exact location and size of the connection to the fixture discharge pipe.'
The draft determination
The Chief Executive sent the parties a draft determination to the effect that:
- in Clause E3.3.2 of the Building Code, the term 'accidental overflow' when applied to a kitchen sink means an overflow caused by a plug-hole blockage as distinct from a blockage further downstream such as might be caused by lack of maintenance
- in the absence of any justification for the proposed faucet flow rate of 9 l/min, particularly as to the effect on amenity, the faucet flow rate should be 11 l/min as specified in G12/AS1
- the annotation on the plans, even when supplemented by the owner's submissions, was not sufficient for building consent purposes. Both the builder and the territorial authority were entitled to know exactly what was to be installed, including details of the sink overflows and the flow regulators, including regulator settings
- those details should be supported by hydraulic calculations to establish, for each kitchen, that the maximum flow delivered when both faucets (with regulators if necessary) are fully open was less than the maximum rate of overflow that the sink can accommodate.
In response to the draft, the owner supplied the following for inclusion in the plans and specifications.
- Specific requirements for the installation of either of two proprietary integral overflows supported by manufacturers' data as to the capacity of those overflows.
- Specific requirements for pressure-limiting valves supported by a manufacturer's guarantee as to the inflow rate to the sinks.
The final determination
There was some further discussion between the owner and the territorial authority, but in the end the Chief Executive considered that:
- in this case, the manufacturers' data and guarantee were adequate to establish overflow capacity and inflow limitations
- it was sufficient for the overflow to have no less capacity than the maximum likely inflow
- the amendments to the plans and specifications, supported by the information supplied by the owner, complied with the requirement of Clause E3.3.2 of the Building Code for overflows to dispose of 'accidental overflow... in a way that avoids loss of amenity or damage...'.
Accordingly, subject to the proposed amendments being made to the plans and specifications submitted for building consent, the Chief Executive reversed the territorial authority's decision not to grant the building consent.
Determination 2006/51
Access and facilities for use by people with disabilities in a residential building development associated with rest home and hospital facilities.
The matter for determination
The application arose from a dispute about whether a development of up to 90 residential buildings, on the same overall site as a rest home and hospital facility operated by the same owner, was required to comply with the provisions of the Building Code for access and facilities for use by people with disabilities.
In effect, the owner disputed the territorial authority's decision that the buildings came within the classified use of Community Service as defined in Clause A1 of the Building Code, and that therefore a certain proportion of the units should have features to permit use by people with disabilities ('be accessible').
The Chief Executive took the view that the matter for determination was whether section 118 applied to the development, so that at least some of the buildings were required to be accessible.
The Department consulted with the Ministry of Social Development, the department responsible for disability issues in terms of section 170(b).
The 'license to occupy' buildings were intended for '55-70 year age bracket... people who are in good health and with good mobility' and had been designed to facilitate future alterations that would make them fully accessible if the occupiers so desired.
The draft determination
The Chief Executive prepared a draft determination which was to the effect that:
- whether section 118 applied depends on the use to which the buildings were put, not on the legal arrangement under which they were occupied
- residents would not purchase a licence to occupy the building to be given nursing care but in order to live in a private home
- in terms of section 118, therefore, the buildings were private homes and not buildings to which the public were to be admitted
- the buildings did not come within any of the paragraphs of Schedule 2.
The territorial authority and the owner accepted the draft subject to certain non-contentious amendments.
The Ministry took the view that, contrary to what was said in the draft, the development was 'directly covered by paragraph (j) of Schedule 2...[as] "a group of pensioner flats"'.
The final determination
The final determination took account of the non-contentious amendments requested by the owner, and expanded on the reasons why the Chief Executive took the view that the development did not come within paragraph (j) of Schedule 2, in particular:
- before the Building Act 1991, the term 'pensioner flats' had been used in building bylaws based on NZS 1900, but the term no longer had a generally accepted meaning
- in this case, there was no provision to the effect that only pensioners could purchase a licence to occupy a building, nor that at least one occupant must be a pensioner
- in paragraph (j), the term 'providing accommodation for the public' implied short-term occupation rather than permanent residence.
The Chief Executive therefore determined that section 118 did not apply to the development and that therefore none of the buildings were required to be accessible.
The Chief Executive also recorded that the owner had taken a commendable approach to good design by facilitating future alterations to make the buildings fully accessible.
To read all the Determinations in summary or in full, go to: www.dbh.govt.nz/determinations-view-past-determinations