Determinations issued

To date, 43 determinations have been issued this year. The following are summaries of two determinations issued recently. To read Determinations in full, see the register.

Determination 2005/29

Issued 11 March 2005

In this case the owner disputed the Council's decision not to issue a code compliance certificate and applied for a determination. The application was referred to the Chief Executive of the Department of Building and Housing to determine whether single sex toilets at a coeducational high school provide 'appropriate privacy' as required by Clause G1.3.2(d) of the Building Code (the First Schedule to the Building Regulations 1992).

Submissions/Reports

The parties supplied copies of correspondence between them, and each made specific submissions. In addition, reports were obtained from two independent experts.

The Council's submissions

The Council received an application for building consent for additions and alterations to the existing school buildings. They raised concerns that sanitary facilities permitted a direct line of sight from the general public area and would not comply with the Building Code or Acceptable Solution G2/AS1. Ultimately the consent was issued, on the basis that the applicant would use an obscure screen rather than mesh screen.

The Council was of the view that the screens, by then installed, for both male and female facilities failed to comply with both the Building Code and the Acceptable Solution as the screen did not prevent a direct line of sight between a general public area and a space containing toilet fixtures.

The applicant's submission

The applicant's submission contained correspondence between the parties, rather than a specific submission from the applicant.

The applicant noted that it was only when the students left the private cubicle and used the wash-hand basin that they could be observed. The behaviour of students in these areas is of great concern to all schools and staff need more visibility to observe any misbehaviour.

No urinals are used and the toilet doors have been taken down to floor level to accommodate the privacy issues. Over the past month the toilet block has been operating, the feedback has been positive from staff and students. A student survey found 'nobody felt their privacy was infringed' and 'the smoking has stopped', among other comments.

Decision

The Chief Executive found that two of the toilet blocks did not comply with the requirements of G1.3.2(d) of the Building Code. There is non-compliance with the provision that there must not be a line of sight between a general public area and a WC. A third toilet block was found to comply.
The territorial authority's decision to refuse to issue a code compliance certificate for two toilet blocks was confirmed and for the third it was reversed.

Determination 2005/43

House 37, Issued 12 April 2005

The owner of the property disputed the territorial authority's decision not to issue a code compliance certificate and applied for a determination. The application was referred to 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.

House Design

The building is a large 7-year-old threestorey, split-level house situated on an excavated sloping site in a very high wind zone. It has a very complex roof and shape, with some curved walls, and upper floor and window projections of varying profiles. The external walls of conventional light timber frame construction are built on concrete block foundation walls and are sheathed with two types of cladding. The majority of the eaves have 260 mm projections, including the gutter widths, but there are larger roof projections up to 2000 mm wide, generally extending over the balconies.

Submissions/Reports

Submissions were received from the TA and the owner. An independent expert was commissioned to report on the cladding.

The determination found that the building:

• has 260 mm wide eaves projections that provide little protection to the cladding under them. However, the various roof projections provide some additional protection.
• is in a very high wind zone
• is a maximum of three storeys high
• has exterior joinery units that have head and sill flashings, but no jamb flashings
• has an envelope that is very complex on plan, with a roof system having hip, valley and wall-to-roof junctions
• has six high-level balconies constructed either totally or partially over a habitable space
• has a circular colonnade and several pergolas
• has external walls constructed with timber that, in the absence of documentary evidence to the contrary, is considered to provide little resistance to decay if it gets wet and cannot dry out.

The expert took non-invasive readings at the interior linings of the external walls throughout the house and some 'off-thescale' readings were recorded. The expert also took invasive moisture readings through the exterior wall cladding and external soffits. Moisture readings of 19 percent (2), 20 percent, 22 percent (2), 23 percent, 24 percent (3), 28 percent (2), 32 percent (2), 33 percent, 38 percent, and 40 percent (16) were recorded in these instances at various locations throughout the building.

The expert noted that the recorded readings were taken after a long spell of fine weather and that the 40 percent readings registered were at the limit of the scale on the meter used to take the readings. Moisture levels above 18 percent recorded after cladding is in place generally indicate that external moisture is entering the structure.

Decision

It was determined that the monolithic cladding systems as installed do 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.