🤩 🥳 How a Court Case Precedent Saved My Reclad: 12 Months Later, We Have Consent 🎊 🏘️

Occasionally, I post about my Takanini development. It is a long story, and an arduous one, so continuing on from previous posts:

A key ‘LEARNING’.

My development achieved a CCC (it should not have).

Also, there were unforeseen problems getting the new building consent.

The reclad team determined that some non-defect related issues were now NOT now compliant:

🪟 one was to do with window heights (I raised this)
🌧️ and a channel drain (a surprise)

⚡ Section 112 of the Building Code protects existing consented building elements during remedial work. The Bianco Apartments court decision (NZHC 3034) established a precedent for building owners undertaking reclad work.

Ref: BODY CORPORATE 406198 v ARGON CONSTRUCTION LIMITED: CIV-2017-404-001772, [2023] NZHC 3034

Paragraph [202] – Building Act Principle:

“The Building Act does not require existing buildings to be upgraded to comply with the Code (other than in relation to fire and accessibility, and in other certain circumstances), even if existing buildings are altered.”

How did this apply to my reclad?

WINDOW HEIGHTS (fire / accessibility)

(1). A design change slipped through the consenting process in 2021. I found it in the post construction issues and confronted someone about it. I was kicked to touch (in writing): they adamantly claimed that the building was compliant, supported by the signed off the variation and issued CCC.

I raised this ‘defect’ direct to my engineers and Council — I was RIGHT (I love it when that happens)… and yes, with no issue whatsoever, the cost of that part of remediation is assigned to thise involved. The previous person who ignored me is long gone.

This needed to be upgraded — it should not have been consented and I should not have been brushed off!

(2) The last hurdle were the channel drains where a small overhead canopy discharged into a channel drain.

The remediation for this was a nightmare and directly led to tension (I was livid again 😡 ). I could not see why I had to do a redesign for a design that had been approved. My professionals were left head scratching at its relevance too … it added a significant delay.

And this means what?

It had been consented by Council, it still complied with that consent (section 112) but out of an ‘abundance of caution’ we are popping a spreader to the base of a downpipe…

SO all problems solved and we have our CONSENT TECHNICALLY APPROVED.

The consent process took 12 months, yes folks, 12 months… but not because anyone was being troublesome, it was merely detailed and tough.

Fantastic that the council’s reclad team are thorough… a brand new CCC and the knowledge that my builds are what I originally envisaged.