Jump to content

H2 rules height to boundary.....


Recommended Posts

Just ignore the council, I do, it works.

23 hours ago, lateral said:

Can anyone with the experience clarify whether under the 2.5m @45degree rule, is the soffit/eaves protuding thru the Rec plane at wall roof junction acceptable without RC?  ridge is well clear. Soffit is 600mm.

Not that I know but around us what is being built is pretty much to the boundary and 3 stories. One site that had a old 1950 brick 3 beddy on it now has 3 huge places only a 300 odd mm's apart and off the boundries. That would suggest the old 45 degree rule may not have the balls it once did.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 29
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Not completely true! There was nothing in the Building Act 1992 requiring a CCC.  This caused all sorts of problems in the early 2000s when it came to light that many houses were being bought and sold

Can relate to that; Not personally.

My  mate bought an " architectural"  house just recently WITH a CCC, but pre-purchase building inspect bought up a few warts

and no less than 8 offers fell over cos the banks wouldn't play ball. Knocked $350k off!

View to die for, esp if you're into base jumping, stella design, Kinda windy, haha, which goes with view. Rarely you get shelter  with 360°. I reckon he just won 2nd division.

Could do with a little more sub-floor bracing, but he's a sailor. 

So, your precious CCC sometimes isn't worth the paper.

Anyhow we can fix it and absolutely won't go near council. They had their chance and fucked it up.

Contrary to what it may seem , I try and stick to rules amap. Esp wrt to engineering specification.

Unless it comes from the type that are running from their own shadow.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, It Got said:

Just ignore the council, I do, it works.

Not that I know but around us what is being built is pretty much to the boundary and 3 stories. One site that had a old 1950 brick 3 beddy on it now has 3 huge places only a 300 odd mm's apart and off the boundries. That would suggest the old 45 degree rule may not have the balls it once did.

 

 

Yep, but not designated H2 aye?

"Rural & coastal settlement"

Link to post
Share on other sites

An update where soffit goes thru recession plane for anyone remotely interested.

From the duty planner: 

Unitary plan criteria on the HTB is not clear and often doesn't cover what is occurring requiring an RC. (His words)

Fill (another form) "Deemed Permitted Boundary Activity" out with approval signatures of

neighbours and submit with building consent appl at no extra charge. Will be rubber stamped.(Yeah?, hope so.)😌

I guess it it beats building the boundary up with 200mm of fill........... Maybe.

BUT, invites a quid pro quo with your neighbour on something (maybe nasty) that they want.

Been there , done that for a client. Ended up with fully notified RC's for us and we just signed theirs off without

a murmur. My client was in a hurry and couldn't wait for their plans to be finalised & they wouldn't pre sign ours.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, chariot said:

Nothing in the building Act 2004 that says you have to have a CCC unless it is a developers spec house, then they require a CCC.

Not completely true! There was nothing in the Building Act 1992 requiring a CCC.  This caused all sorts of problems in the early 2000s when it came to light that many houses were being bought and sold without CCC. Many of these houses wouldn't have got a CCC even if one had been applied for because they weren't finished.

s92 of the 2004 Act states an owner must apply to a building consent authority for a code compliance certificate. Must means it is not optional. A CCC must be applied for and the BCA must decide whether issue a CCC or not issue a CCC.

The BCA must also decide at the 2 year anniversary of the issue of any Building Consent whether to issue or not issue a CCC. This is enforced by all BCAs as it is something IANZ checks at the BCAs two yearly assessment.

So while you could argue you do not have to have a CCC you do have to have a failed final inspection once the Consent is two years old. 

 

      

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

My enterpretation of s92 of the building act is that it is the owners responsibility but not manditory to apply for the CCC. Unfortunately, when people have restricted building work done they wrongly assume that it is the contractors responsability to apply for the CCC. 

Commercial building works do normally require a CCC to be applied for before a compliance schedule can be issued or amended if the building has specified systems.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, chariot said:

My enterpretation of s92 of the building act is that it is the owners responsibility but not manditory to apply for the CCC. Unfortunately, when people have restricted building work done they wrongly assume that it is the contractors responsability to apply for the CCC. 

Commercial building works do normally require a CCC to be applied for before a compliance schedule can be issued or amended if the building has specified systems.

 

 

It is the owners responsibility and it is mandatory. The word in the Act is MUST. Must is not optional. Being restricted building work or not has nothing to do with it. There are plenty of consents required for work that is not restricted building work.  They still require a CCC. A lot of contracts now make the final payment contingent on CCC being issued which makes it the contractors problem.

Regardless, the BCA must and will request a final inspection be done on or before the two year anniversary of the issue of the consent. If the work is not complete obviously a CCC cannot be issued and the applicant will need to negotiate a extension of time with the BCA to complete the work. At the expiry of that extension, if a CCC has not been applied for, again the BCA must follow up and request another final  inspection and so it goes.

The 2004 Act recognized that, although the 1992 Act required a CCC to confirm the completed work complied with the Building Code, there was no mechanism of enforcement.  While the 2004 act requires the owner to apply it also requires the BCA to ensure this is done.     

All BCAs have to have a two yearly assessment by IANZ to ensure they are operating within the relevant regulations to the 2004 Act. Auckland Council is undergoing this currently. The Auckland assessment is scheduled to take 4 weeks and is an in depth look at every aspect of the BCAs operation. As part of this assessment IANZ will most definitely ensure the BCA has a system in place for requesting final inspections at the two year anniversary of the issue of Consent.

In the late 90s early 2000s the legal profession really had no idea about CCCs and was regularly completing sales on properties without CCC. This was highlighted to the lawyers with the leaky buildings when liability was trying to be established and, without a CCC, Council (no BCAs then) had not confirmed the building ever actually complied with the Building Code. So the lawyers, being lawyers, over reacted and started asking for a CCC even for work completed prior to 1992 under a Building Permit which didn't require a CCC and, in fact, didn't require any sort of formal completion sign off. They came to understand eventually and at least now won't generally approve a sale without ensuring a CCC has been issued for any Consents listed on the property file.

 

              

   

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...