OPERATION JIGSAW

PIECING TOGETHER THE WHY

of the

Tauranga City Council Failed Subdivision

2018

27 June 2018

Tauranga City Council Failed Subdivision report assessment

This report is specific to 5 Aneta Way The Lakes, Tauranga

Rose McLaughlan report copied in black

Operation Jigsaw response in red

Beginning of Report

THE ROSE MCLAUGHLAN REPORTS STANDARD BLURB HAS NOT BEEN COPIED
[It seems the blub is repeated on all 21 reports]

Defects
1.27. There are six main areas in terms of defects, they are:
Done by others however can be
remedied with little effort.
All reports are
available, The Engineer has had all necessary reports done.
This is not a Ribraft
floor slab. Totally incorrect information. It is a standard floor slab.
ock walls; Tanking was done to a very
high standard, refer to pictures in report.
this statement applies to
other homes and not this one, defects are fixed under maintenance.
Proof of vehicle manoeuvring is on the plans for consent that council
stamped off and issued.

2. Failure to construct landscape retaining walls and land erosion

2.1. The properties are constructed on land which is not defined as good ground (refer Coffey
Geotechnics (NZ) Ltd GENZRAUC13086AP-AB 24 April 2015). The land has a lower bearing capacity than
normal; however, was defined as being suitable for RibRaft floor slabs and cautioned about the use of fill
and leaving exposed cuts. The reporting is wrong. This is not the same site.

1
Operation Jigsaw
BELOW: COFFEY GEOTECH REPORT REFERING TO LOTS 114, 115, 116
8.7, 8.7.3 and 8.7.4 is copied from the Coffeys Geotech report 2015.

__________________________________________________________________________________

2.2. Typically, on land such as this, once the earthworks are completed retaining walls are erected. For
whatever reason, the walls were not constructed and the damage that has occurred has been significant
with subsurface erosion and undermining of foundations occurring. There is no undermining of foundations
on this site, the site is completed.

2.3. Although this building is largely landscaped with permanent paving and gardens, a significant cut at the
back of the land is un-retained. This site needed no retaining walls. The site below 5 Aneta Way needed a
1 metre high retaining wall. The retaining wall was on the boundary between the two neighbours.

2.4. Uncontrolled surface water runoff has occurred which is clearly contrary to the Coffey report.
Uncontrolled water run off occurred after Bella Vista liquidation. Photos of the site can be supplied.

2.5. The extent of the earthworks undertaken was far greater than the consented plans allowed for.
Earth works were done according to the STAMPED CONSENTED plans but when BVHs discovered that
the garage level was too low by 1500mm and that the drive way to the garage would have been nearly 45
degrees, BVHs needed to act accordingly and rectify the problem. BVHs raised the FGL (finished ground
level) so the driveway would work. This is something council never picked up when they processed the
building consent plans.

2.6. The Coffey report also states that some buildings need to consider and allow for the collection and
disposal of storm water from the adjacent western batter (slope behind). The collection of storm water from
these batters would be taken care off when the owners landscaped their properties (Landscaping not in
Bella Vista Contract)

2.7. This land is also subject to a building restriction line (BRL) which precluded cutting and filling beyond
this line without specific input form a category 1 geotechnical engineer. CMW was engaged to review and
reports are available.

2.8. On the side of a sloping land one would expect a cut and fill operation be utilised to create a level
building platform. The cut soil is used to fill voids to create a flat surface. (Refer figure 1 below). This is the
opinion of the writer and should be disregarded. There was no filling needed on this site.

2
Operation Jigsaw
2.9. It is critical that a developer ensures that all earthworks are observed by a suitably qualified
geotechnical engineer to confirm the ground bearing capacity and compaction of the fill is suitable for the
proposed design. CMW was engaged, if the writer had looked at council files she would have known this.
The report states that the files were available but not considered in this reporting.

2.10. I could find no evidence that a geotechnical engineer had inspected the building platform.
Inspected by The Engineer limited.

Figure 1 showing how a sloping land is cut and filled to create a level building
Platform Figure 1 does not show how the site was cut. This diagram does not reflect this site. WRONG

Photo 2 showing the extent of the un-retained cut along the boundary between Aneta Way
And Lakes Boulevard. If the retaining wall is constructed this eliminates the problem.

3
Operation Jigsaw
2.11. A Producer Statement construction review (PS4) was issued by a structural engineer on 17 August
2016 for ‘Building foundation ground preparation construction investigation and certification’.
As per council requirements.

2.12. The land inspection record also dated 17 August 2016 that accompanied the PS4 stated ground
conditions were good. Scala penetrometer tests were noted as being undertaken in two corners (NW at the
top of the slope and SE at the bottom of the slope).
As per council requirements.

2.13. The land inspection record also noted:

Land observation of

Land slip / surface creep ×

2.14. The land inspection record does not indicate that any observation or testing of fill has occurred.
This was undertaken by The Engineer Limited, records available.

Implication of non-compliance
2.15. I conclude that ground conditions (bearing capacity and fill):

The Rose McLaughlan report concludes that the ground conditions are not in accordance with the Coffeys
report however it is clear the Coffey’s report was not read properly, because this is wrong.

3. Engineer inspections
3.1. The developer was also responsible for engaging a structural engineer to inspect the footings under
the block wall and the construction of the block wall itself. This was under taken by The Engineer Limited -
records available.

3.2. A Producer Statement construction review (PS4) was provided for ‘Building foundation ground
preparation construction investigation and certification’ (sic) to the Council on 17 August 2016 with an
attached land inspection record advising it was ‘OK to proceed with construction’. This was under taken by
The Engineer Limited - records available.

3.3. A second Producer Statement construction review (PS4) was provided for ‘Inter-level block wall,
upper level granular fill foundation ground construction and investigation and certification’ (sic) to
the Council on 14 November 2016. This was under taken by The Engineer Limited, records available.

3.4. The attached land inspection record (undated); with a plan attached showing the extend of the work
inspected, states:
Block infill foundation
Ground:

Random testing as filling progressed

Ult. bearing >300kPa
OK to proceed with floor. This was under taken by The Engineer Limited, records available.

3.5. As filling was progressing (i.e. compaction to the area under the garage and bedroom floor slab at the
front of the building) it is unclear how the engineer could have certified the inter-level block walls. There are
no other Producer Statement statements or land inspection records for this building on file. This was under
taken by The Engineer Limited, records available.

4
Operation Jigsaw
 Photo 2 showing the
inter-level block walls that the engineer certified; also certified compaction of hard fill under the floor slab (on same
day) The reports were obviously done on the same day as they were not needed until the end of the job. The testing
and viewing of the works in progress was done on the day the engineer was booked in for.

3.6. Further, the land inspection record shows that pumice/sand was used for compacted fill under the
RaftRib floor slab; this is contrary to the approved building consent. The building consent shows compacted
hard fill. The definition of hard fill is “fill compacted hard” the plans do not state what material is to be used.
Hard fill - means that the clean hard fill material is not contaminated by solid wastes, infectious
wastes, hazardous wastes, or construction and demolition debris.

3.7. I have also noted on the consent drawings that the block wall between the single and double storeys
was to be tanked. Although a Producer Statement construction (PS3) has been provided by the applicator,
there has been no inspection of the tanking membrane.

5
Operation Jigsaw
3.8. Throughout construction of this development, I have observed many footings that have been
undermined because of erosion and/or earthworks. Does not apply to this home.

Photo 3 showing a footing which has been

undermined (Photo not this building)

Does not apply to this home.

Photo 4 showing construction debris behind the block

retaining wall (Photo not this building)

Does not apply to this home.

6
Operation Jigsaw
3.9. There are also concerns about the amount of uncertified fill that has been placed behind the block
walls (external walls of building) which are outside the original design parameters. In some instances, the
block walls were designed to retain 1.2m of fill whereas on site the height retained is often much greater.
Does not apply to this home.

3.10. The fill that has been used is also contrary to the design engineers’ requirements2; where the design
engineer specified free draining metal behind the walls, uncertified fill contaminated with construction debris
has been used. Does not apply to this home.

3.11. The developer was warned at the first footing inspection 24.08.16 that ‘Concrete can be poured at
own risk. There seems to be a height difference as Wall 1 slab location appears well above what is detailed
on plans. This may require wall starters to be added. If so an amended detail will be required.’ This was
under taken by The Engineer Limited, records available.

3.12. Throughout construction of this development, I have observed that some of the block walls have been
poorly laid; mortar joints are inconsistent, and in some cases, joints have not been tooled or sealed. Does
not apply to this home.

3.13. Further, some of the block walls have not been laid in accordance with the consent drawings, for
example, the block face does not align with the edge of the footing and in one instance, the face of a block
has broken away and the bond beam3 has not been filled. In other instances, walls are offset possibly due
to the footings being incorrectly set out. The report personnel must have x-ray vision, as the footings are
under the ground and the base blocks are 400mm below the ground level.

3.14. It is not possible to see the footings for the block walls for this building as they are either buried
beneath paving or backfilled soil. However, I did note on the block wall adjacent to the driveway that the top
two rows of blocks were cut down. 3.13 The report personnel states the “blocks have not been laid in
accordance with the consent drawings” and in 3.14 states that “It is not possible to see the footings for the
block walls.” 3.13 And 3.14 are a complete contradiction.

Photo 5 Size of block units reduced on top two row Size of blocks show the same as consented plans

Consented plans show the same as on site.

7
Operation Jigsaw
Implication of non-compliance
3.15. I conclude that footings and blockwork:

3.16. Further, there are questions regarding exactly what the engineer observed at the building and
possible amendments, therefore further testing may be required. This reports conclusions are unfounded
and wrong.

3A bond beam is a critical element of construction in a block wall. It contains the horizontal reinforcing steel, which is tied to
vertical reinforcing steel and is typically provided at mid-height and at the top of the block wall to tie wall systems together. (E.g.
connect one wall to another).

4. RibRaft floor slab(STANDARD CONCRETE FLOOR SLAB, NOT RIBRAFT)

4.1. It is critical that the preparation of the floor slab follows the manufacturer’s specifications. Failure to
follow these specifications will invalidate the CodeMark Certificate. A CodeMark Certificate 4 is a compliance
document and can be relied upon by the Council for verifying compliance. The Rose McLaughlan report
has obviously missed consented plans, it would have found out that this home does not have a Ribraft
floor.

4.2. The Firth RibRaft Floor System is a reinforced concrete waffle RibRaft floor slab-on-ground. It consists
of an 85mm thick slab supported by a grid of ribs normally 100mm wide at 1200mm x 1200mm centres.
The overall depth of the slab is 305mm. Edge beams and ribs under load bearing walls are 300mm wide to
provide for the extra load carried by these members. N/A

4.3. Firth RibRaft polystyrene pods 1100mm square and 220mm thick should be placed directly on levelled
ground and are arranged in such a way as to form a reinforced concrete floor slab with a grid of reinforced
concrete ribs and edge beams when concrete is placed onto them. N/A

4.4. Before construction commences all topsoil and vegetation must be removed and a compacted building
platform created which extends 1.0m out from the building platform. N/A

N/A

4.5. In all instances that I have observed on site, the compacted platform has not been created. N/A

4 refer s.19 of the Building Act 2004, which can be viewed at www.legilation.govt.nz

8
Operation Jigsaw
Photo 6 The RibRaft floor slab on the left does not have a compacted platform and the safe
slope (refer figure 3 below), has not been achieved N/A

9
Operation Jigsaw
Photo 7 The edge of the slope in front of the building is delineated by the construction fence (refer also photo 6)

4.6. It is also critical that a safe slope is created beyond the 1.0m perimeter as can be seen in the diagram
below. This safe slope has also not been created. Further, any surface water from the land must not fall
across the slab platform. This is especially so on platforms that have been cut and filled. Again, this has
not occurred (refer photo 7). N/A

10
Operation Jigsaw
4.7. The use of pumice/sand used as hard fill under the floor slab is also outside the scope of the
CodeMark certificate. (Note this was accepted by the engineer). N/A

4.8. The type of pump mix used in the construction of the floor slab is also critical. Firth advised that their
pump mix is a wetter mix and higher mPa than normal concrete and must be used as part of the CodeMark
system. There is no evidence on file to confirm the type of concrete used for this slab.
Implication of non-compliance
4.9. I conclude that the RibRaft floor slab: N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
meet the requirements of clauses B1 Structure and B2 Durability of the NZ Building Code5. N/A

5. Tanking membrane
5.1. Tanking refers to the practice of waterproofing any area below ground; it must withstand constant
hydrostatic pressure without failure. The tanking membrane is applied to the back face (exterior) of the
basement retaining walls and is designed to keep moisture out of and away from the interior of the building.

5.2. Application and protection of the tanking membranes are critical during the construction process as you
generally only get one chance to get it right. It is almost impossible to stop moisture penetrating the
envelope of a building from the interior. Tanking was done by a licenced applicator. But tanking isn’t
required on the exterior of the block work on this site.

5.3. The tanking system is designed to shed water away from the building, the system comprises:
Tanking was done by a licenced applicator to the requird standard
Tanking was done by a licenced
applicator.
Tanking was done by a licenced applicator.
Tanking was
done by a licenced applicator.
-draining metal back fill protected with geotextile fabric before topsoil is placed at landscaping stage
Tanking was done by a licenced applicator.
11
Operation Jigsaw
N/A - Pictures are not this home

5.4. It is critical that each stage of the process is carefully managed, and the membrane protected; there is
no evidence to show that any care or attention has been taken of the membrane. The report has not
provided evidence that the membrane has not been protected in the building process. The polystyrene
protects the membrane during the building process.

5.5. The tanking membrane in most instances is too low and is often at or below ground level whereas it
should extend 300mm above finished ground. The part left exposed above ground needs to be protected
from UV and sunlight to meet its warranty. On most of the buildings, the membrane is exposed. The ground
levels are adjusted when the building work is finished, this does not relate to this site.

Photo 10 the tanking membrane on the side of the house does not extend the full length of the retained ground; is
exposed to sunlight and has started to fail, The water proofing has been ripped off to make the pictures more
dramatic.
12
Operation Jigsaw
5.6. At the time the product was applied, it may well have complied. However, during construction the
product was not adequately protected and has been backfilled with soil, as a result moisture will be
penetrating the building envelope. The report cannot make a statement like this unless it proves this is the
case.

5.7. The soil used as backfill comprises pumice and sand which washes away if exposed to heavy rainfall
but also compacts and becomes quite Cementous making it difficult for water to filter through it into the
drain coil at the base of the wall. The engineer noted that pumice / sand had been used for back fill.

“Pumice is well known as a porous rock light enough to float on water. Pumice and ash
cover a large part of the central North Island, forming sandy, free-draining soils that
easily erode if the surface vegetation and thin topsoil are removed. This profile, in the
Taupō–upper Waikato basin, shows typically black topsoil that has developed under
native shrub and fernland vegetation, and porous subsoil.”
5.8. In many instances in the subdivision, the drain coil located at the base of retaining walls is unprotected
and not connected to a sump. Many of the sumps have pipes coming in to the sump but nothing going out,
were blocked or not installed at all. N/A to this site

Photo 11 the ground is retained on the left of this photo but is not tanked, or the tanking membrane is below
ground. If the report is talking about the foundations then all foundations need to be tanked, this means most
buildings in the north island are non-compliant.

13
Operation Jigsaw
Photo 12 The tanking membrane is exposed and not fully protected on the western side of
the building, The owners who landscaped this have had other thoughts.

Implication of non-compliance
5.9. I conclude that the tanking system:
this was done by the
manufacturer.
, this does comply with the building consent.

External Moisture of the NZ Building Code. Proof has not been established.

6. General construction issues

6.1. I observed multiple construction defects in three houses under construction in this development. A
large number of structural connections were found to be missing and defects observed. I understand that
Council has since opened some of the other houses and found fixings were inadequate; this house has not
been inspected. N/A

14
Operation Jigsaw
6.2. Photos 13-21 are indicative of some of these issues.

Photo 13 Failure to adequately attach 1st floor framing Photo 14 Failure to tighten bolts
members to basement level, NOT THIS HOME NOT THIS HOME

Photo 15 Failure to fit bolts where required on engineer Photo

Photo 16 Failure
Failuretotoinstall
installbuilding
building paper
paper behind
behind framed
designed beams NOT THIS HOME walls walls NOT THIS HOME
framed

15
Operation Jigsaw
Photo 17 Failure to fit joist hangers where Photo 18 Failure to ensure top plates are continuous and fit top plate
required and lateral support over load-bearing walls plate connections (nail plates) NOT THIS HOME
NOT THIS HOME

6.3. Apart from the structural issues noted above; other construction defects include failing to install
building paper behind framed walls. This is a crucial part of the thermal envelope and helps to keep a home
warm and dry by providing a non-rigid barrier designed to support the wall insulation. NOT THIS HOME

Photo 19 shows an example of a framed wall which does not have building wrap installed NOT THIS HOME BUT DOES NOT
REQUIRE BUILDING PAPER UNDER THE BUILDING CODE.

6.4. Inspection records dated 7.03.17 noted that a minor variation was required for the proposed changes
for deletion of strap and lining to block walls to garage as per detail 01 page 401. This detail has not been
checked / confirmed. N/A

6.5. The plans show a cavity and drainage channel behind the timber framed wall in front of the block
retaining wall; I can see no evidence that this channel has been formed.
16
Operation Jigsaw
Photo 20 A drainage channel (behind framed wall, also refer photo 19 above) which has not been properly formed
(photo not this site) NOT THIS HOME

6.6. Flat strap bracing panels have been used extensively throughout the development. The material is
quite thin and flimsy; information on Council files shows this product has been imported from China.

17
Operation Jigsaw
Photo 21 Flat strap bracing panels have been used extensively throughout the development NOT THIS HOME

6.7. It is recommended that invasive testing is carried out to identify whether any of the issues found on
other properties exist on this one. Agreed, however testing was done on this home.

Implication of non-compliance
6.8. I conclude that framing and construction:
evidence disproves this.
evidence disproves this.
t the requirements of clauses B1 Structure and B2 Durability of the NZ Building Code.
evidence disproves this.

7. Cladding
7.1. This building is relatively simple in terms of its cladding; timber weatherboards and concrete blocks
have been used throughout. However, have a couple of issues that may affect its weather tightness.

Photo 22 Stonebloc is surcharging against block wall and trapping any moisture between it and the block wall.
Unclear how timber is protected from concrete block. How Can this be surcharging against the house when the
Interblocks weight is downwards, not sideways.

18
Operation Jigsaw
Photo 23 Stonebloc is surcharging against block wall and trapping any moisture between it and the block wall.
There is a gap between the Interblocks and the block wall so water does not get trapped. The blocks between the
fence and the house in the photo cannot be surcharged against the block walls.

Photo 24 Ground levels are too high on right hand side of entry and paint is peeling off weatherboard.
Claymark had a problem with the primed coatings due to weather. This is a remedial problem not systemic problem
on all the homes.

Photo 25 Ground levels are too high; 225mm clearance is required. This needs raked and landscaped.

7.2. The concrete block exterior walls of the basement must be sealed and painted to prevent moisture
migration. The block walls of this building have not been sealed or painted. Foundation walls do not need
sealing.

19
Operation Jigsaw
7.3. NZS4229:2013 Clause 2.3 Surface coatings states… ‘All external masonry walls must be protected by
a surface coating. The completed coating system must be resistant to water entry. Dirt, mould and other
organic deposits must be removed and all cracks and defects repaired and made waterproof.’ These are
foundation walls; the blocks are part of the foundation.

7.4. Electrical penetrations

7.4.1. Penetrations in the building envelope have not been sleeved or flashed

Photo 26 No flashings have been fitted to electrical or plumbing penetrations in this development
NOTE PHOTO 26, THIS IS NOT THIS HOME, MISREPRESENTATIVE.

Implication of non-compliance
7.5. I conclude that the cladding systems:

Durability and E2 External Moisture of the NZ Building Code. DECEPTIVE

8. Deck construction
8.1. It is critical to prevent moisture penetration that deck joists are fitted with saddle flashings, as per
Figure 4 below to dispel any moisture; in most cases, saddle flashings have not been installed. Over time,
this will mean that moisture will penetrate the cavity behind and affect the structural integrity and durability
of this material. All flashings were fitted and inspected according to the building consent plans.

20
Operation Jigsaw
Figure 4 Shows how a saddle flashing should be installed
FALSE

Photo 27 The balcony above the garage entrance is enclosed therefore I cannot determine whether saddle flashings
have been fitted. All flashings were fitted and inspected according to the building consent plans.

21
Operation Jigsaw
Photo 28 The balcony above the garage entrance is enclosed therefore I cannot determine whether saddle flashings
have been fitted. All flashings were fitted and inspected according to the building consent plans

8.2. The deck on the front of the house is supported by a glulam beam; glulam beams should not be
exposed to the weather. Laminations have started to open up in the beam. SEE DIAGRAM BELOW.

Building consent plans show Glulam beam.

22
Operation Jigsaw
Photo 29 Laminated joints have started to open due to moisture. Installed according to consented plans.

Photo 30 One of the boundary joists has been notched and is supported on the beam; the other is unsupported. No
mechanical connections visible. Unable to confirm as independent builders have not been able to get access to the
site.

23
Operation Jigsaw
Photo 31 The end joists are not housed in joist hangers and attached to the stringer as they should be
Unable to confirm as independent builders have not been able to get access to the site.

8.3. The deck has not been constructed in accordance with the approved plans and lack proper fixings.
Unable to confirm as independent builders have not been able to get access to the site.

8.4. The barrier on the large deck has not been secured to the building at the top edge.
Unable to confirm as independent builders have not been able to get access to the site.

Even if the points above are confirmed remedial work is very simple to rectify if these issues apply.

24
Operation Jigsaw
Photo 32 The top of the barrier is not attached to the building. The balustrade does not need mechanical fixings at
the top of the handrail.

Implication of non-compliance
8.5. I conclude that the decks:

from Falling of the NZ Building Code. All passed by Council, However this needs further inspection to
confirm.

9. Stonebloc landscape retaining walls

9.1. Stonebloc landscape walls have been used to retain ground. They are a relatively fast and cheap way
of retaining ground; however, need to be installed as per the manufacturer’s specifications. Natural stone
retaining walls are use in this way though out the Lakes development.There is probably no defifference
between natural stone and manmade concrete blocks.

9.2. The walls require a footing where greater than two blocks high and should be reinforced with a steel
bar secured in place with a galvanised nut and washer. They should also be backfilled with free draining
metal protected with geotextile fabric. N/A

9.3. Stonebloc walls should not be placed against the houses as they create a surcharge on the concrete
block walls, trap moisture and can potentially damage the tanking membrane. membrane is not behind the
blocks.

Photo 33 Blocks are hard up against the side of the house damaging the tanking membrane. Refer above.
25
Operation Jigsaw
Implication of non-compliance

9.4. I conclude that the Stonebloc retaining walls systems:

Refer above.
Refer above.
requirements of clauses B1 Structure, B2 Durability, E1 Surface Water and E2 External
Moisture of the NZ Building Code. Refer above.

10. Drainage
10.1. Throughout my many visits to the subdivision, I saw drains and services that had been exposed
because of rain and erosion. N/A

10.2. Storm water and sewer drains in many instances are too high and have inadequate protection form
foot and vehicular traffic. A minimum clearance of 450mm is required in gardens and landscape areas and
600mm in driveways. This is a gully trap under the building code must be above the surface of the ground.
Clearly some landscaping needs to be completed were it would invariably place according to the code.

Photo 34 Lack of cover and protection to drain. This is a gully trap that has been passed by Council.

10.3. None of the drains in this subdivision had been laid on compacted bedding fines as required by the
Building Code. This meant that when it rained, and the soil washed away, pipes were left suspended in
mid-air without adequate support. Not this site.

Photo 35 Bedding fines were not used to support drains (Photo not this site) Not this site.

26
Operation Jigsaw
10.4. The provision of drainage services has in most cases resulted in the footings and slabs being
undermined. Not this site.

10.5. In two instances, I saw pipes that had been encased in concrete, which means that they are unable to
move as intended and will break. Not this site.

Photo 36 Drain encased in concrete restricting its ability to move (Photo not this building) Not this site.

10.6. Sumps where provided are not placed in the best position for catchment; are often too small to be
effective; are not connected or have an inlet pipe without an outlet pipe.

Photo 37 Sump not working Not this site.

10.7. There is no drainage metal or drain coil behind any of the Stonebloc landscape walls and many of the
block retaining walls although fitted with drain coil were full of silt.

Photo 38 No free-flowing drainage behind wall Photo 39 blocked drain coil

(Photo not this building) Not this site. (Photo not this building) Not this site.

27
Operation Jigsaw
10.8. During light rainfall, I noted that the sump located between 3 and 5 Aneta Way was ineffective with
surface water running past it.

Photo 40 showing the sump that was largely ineffective when it rained. this is standard and passed by Council.

28
Operation Jigsaw
Photo 41 There is no curb or channelling at the end of the driveway to prevent surface water runoff causing damage
to the slope behind the drive The driveway is sloping away from the edge and water runoff will track into the sump
close by.

Photo 42 The cesspit is too small for the volume of surface water coming down the drive. Passed by Council.

Photo 43 The downhill effects of not controlling storm water runoff; bank is scoured. Agreed.
Council were in discussions with home owners over retaining walls one week (Dec 17) after Bella
Vista going into liquidation. This report was done in April 2018. This sould be rectified to prevent
any further deterioration.

29
Operation Jigsaw
Implication of non-compliance
10.9. I conclude that the drainage system:

Code. So much erosion has taken place with the time laps that drainage systems would undoubtedly have
been affected.
11. Vehicle access and manoeuvring
11.1. Aneta Way is accessed via a shared right of way, which serves six properties; five properties have so
far been built. The driveway is quite steep and appears greater than 1:4. This driveway was constructed by
the previous developer.

11.2. Quite a lot of surface water runoff comes off the shared ROW; runoff also comes off the undeveloped
section at 1 Aneta Way (refer also previous section on Drainage).

11.3. At present, there is a 3-4m un-retained cut at the bottom of the driveway; in heavy rainfall, surface
water runoff pours off the driveway onto the properties below.

Photo 45 showing the un-retained cut at the bottom of the driveway. This photo is deceptive of the actual site.

30
Operation Jigsaw
11.4. In addition to the issues identified above, there is also an issue of safety in terms of the possibility of a
vehicle accidentally driving over the edge of the driveway. Landscaping is needed.

Photo 45 There is no barrier or bollard at the end of the drive Landscaping is needed.
Implication of non-compliance
11.6. I conclude that the driveway:
Building consent has been followed according to the
consented plans.
-fall and inadequate provision for drainage which impact on
clauses D1 Access and E1 Surface Water of the NZ Building Code. Building consent has been followed
according to the consented plans.

11.7. There is also an issue in respect to non-compliance with the City Plan. Building consent has been
followed according to the consented plans.

12. Siting
12.1. At an inspection on 15.09.16, the inspector noted that Harrison Grierson Surveyors were to provide a
finished floor level (FFL) and siting certificate. This has been actioned and completed.

12.2. A survey certificate is on file but does not confirm compliance. The FFL is 600mm higher than was
proposed; this creates an issue for Daylighting angles. It also creates an issue in terms of the building
consent because an amended plan should have been provided showing changes to construction (due to
increased wall height). This has been actioned and completed.
Implication of non-compliance
12.3. I conclude that the FFL and daylighting angles of the building:
This has been actioned and completed.

12.4. There is an issue in respect to non-compliance with the City Plan. This has been actioned and
completed.

13. Retaining wall on driveway between 3 and 5 Aneta Way

13.1. A retaining wall has been erected on the common boundary between 3 and 5 Aneta Way. Not this
property.

31
Operation Jigsaw
13.2. The footings at the southern end of the retaining wall have become undermined as a result of erosion
and lack of surface water control measures being put in place.

Photo 46 The footings at the southern end of the timber pole retaining wall are exposed and have been
undermined. Remedial work will be required once the ground along this boundary has been properly retained.
Not this property, the retaining wall is on 3 Antea Way as per Council requirements.

13.3. Soil has been used as back fill and there is a lack of storm water control measures in places. See by
photo above that nova coil and SOCK has been used as per building code.

13.4. In addition, as presently constructed, this wall will impose a further surcharge on the proposed wall
that will be erected along the boundary between Aneta and Lakes Boulevard. This has nothing to do with 5
Aneta Way.

Implication of non-compliance
13.5. I conclude that the retaining wall:
Passed by Council.

Surface Water of the NZ Building Code. N/A

32
Operation Jigsaw
14. Inspection history and documentation

14.1. This house is completed and occupied but does not have a CCC; the inspection history is as follows:
due to
height difference and location of wall 1 being higher than approved plans);

work to;
nts to complete, can recheck items next inspection
– rechecked 16.02.17 passed;

-line plumbing 01.03.17 passed;

-line building 07.03.17 failed (minor variation required for proposed changes for deletion of strap and
lining to garage block walls);

e of final inspection);

er Statement statements on file

from the geotechnical engineer for the ground conditions or the structural engineer for the footings.

14.2. In 2012, the government introduced Restricted Building Work (RBW). The purpose of this regime was
to place accountability with the practitioners that undertook critical elements of design and construction.

14.3. A residential building, which is less than 10m in height, is classified as being RBW.

14.4. The regime includes a design class; the Designer provided a memorandum of work when the building
consent was submitted.

14.5. The regime also includes several licence classes for tradespeople known as licensed building
practitioners (LBPs); these include:

14.6. Under s.88 of the Building Act 2004, on completion of the RBW the LBP must supply a record of work
to the Council. In most cases, these records have not been provided presumably because the contractors
have not been paid.

14.7. Under s.94 (3) of the Building Act 2004, the electrician and gas fitter are also required to provide
energy works certificate for their part of construction. Failure to provide an energy works certificate is
sufficient grounds for the Council to refuse the issue of a CCC.

14.8. In addition to the above documents, other statements are supplied by contractors performing work
such as the drain layer who will provide an as-built drainage plan and the person applying the tanking
membrane typically provides a Producer Statement construction although the latter document is of no
relevance in this instance as it has now clearly failed.

14.9. Records of work exist for:

33
Operation Jigsaw
Trade Record of
Work on
file
Carpentry7 Yes
Foundations No
Brick and block laying Yes
Slab Yes
Roofing (cladding) Yes
External plastering (cladding) N/A

14.10. Under s.94 (3) of the Building Act 2004, the electrician and gas fitter are also required
to provide energy works certificate for their part of construction. Failure to provide an energy
works certificate is sufficient grounds for the Council to refuse the issue of a CCC:

14.11. Although a survey certificate has been provided, it does not confirm compliance with
the building consent. FFL is shown as being 600mm higher than what was proposed.
Daylighting infringements also occur as a result of the increased height.

14.12. In addition to the above documents, other statements are supplied by contractors performing work
such as the drain layer who will provide an as-built drainage plan and the person applying the tanking
membrane typically provides a Producer Statement construction

Documents Record on file

Drainage as-built Yes
Truss plan / framing Yes
Tanking (PS3) Yes
Insulations (PS3) No
Pressure test Yes
(plumbing)
Concrete docket No
Safety glass PS3 Yes
(shower)
Safety glass PS3 Yes
(barrier)
PS4 Ground bearing No
/ fill8
PS4 Foundations No
PS4 Blockwork Yes

14 above is a work in progress, some of the comments are inaccurate. Full accounts of
inspections are available. Some opinions by this report in number 14 are irrelevant and factually
wrong.

34
Operation Jigsaw
15. Conclusions
15.1. My initial brief was to provide Council with a list of defects that were required to be rectified in order
that Council may be able to issue Code Compliance Certificates (CCCs) on the houses that were complete
or nearing completion.

15.2. Section 49 of the Act discusses the granting of a building consent, which is also important in this
situation because it sets the scene for s.94.1.a.
49 Grant of building consent

1) A building consent authority must grant a building consent if it is satisfied on

reasonable grounds, that the provisions of the building code would be met if the
building work were properly completed in accordance with the plans and
specifications that accompanied the application.

15.3. Sections 91-95 of the Building Act 2004 pertain to the issue of CCCs.
94 Matters for consideration by a building consent authority in deciding issue
of code compliance certificate

1) A building consent authority must issue code compliance certificate if it is

satisfied, on reasonable grounds: -
a. That the building work complies with the building consent.

15.4. The test therefore is whether Council can be satisfied on reasonable grounds that the work that has
been completed complies with the building consent, which in turn means that the work that has been
completed complies with the Building Code.

15.5. In my professional opinion, the short answer to that question is NO

15.6. The individual buildings are subject to defects that may not be easily remediated and in the
subdivision context of poor tanking and drainage, un-retained slopes and access problems it may not be
feasible or cost-effective to undertake remedial work.

15.7. Further, given the nature of the soil and the problems associated with uncontrolled fill and subsurface
erosion, I believe remediating the land and repairing the foundations and slabs to be virtually impossible.

The comments on 15 are not specific to number 5 Aneta Way.

35
Operation Jigsaw