Retaining wall specifications new zealand,landscape rock mn,beautiful gardens photos - Plans Download

23.10.2015
The matter for determination was the refusal by a building consent authority to issue a code compliance certificate for a boundary retaining wall.
In the course of the determination, an independent site report was obtained on the retaining wall and independent calculations based on an assessment of the site soil properties. As shown in the figures below and overleaf taken from the determination, the retaining wall was of timber pole-and-batten construction, extended at the top to form a boundary fence. The original building consent showed the location of the retaining wall but gave no details of its construction.
Under Schedule 1(c) of the Building Act 2004, a building consent is not required for a retaining wall that retains not more than 1.5 m depth of ground and that does not support any surcharge. It was determined that Schedule 1(c) did not exempt the retaining wall from the need for a building consent because the retaining wall had to be considered as a single structure in which the lower and upper parts acted together to retain the full height of the cut.


The independent site report showed that the retaining wall was showing signs of incipient failure, and the independent calculations indicated the retaining wall had only a fraction of the structural capacity required to comply with Clause B1.
There could be no question of a waiver or modification of the Building Code because, under sections 67 and 69 of the Building Act, neither the building consent authority nor the Chief Executive of the Department of Building and Housing had the power to grant waivers or modifications of the accessibility provisions for a new building. The retaining wall had been built in connection with the removal of an existing house and its replacement by a new house according to a building consent issued by the authority. The determination found that the original building consent did not cover the retaining wall because such walls can be constructed of many different materials, and in so many different ways, that it was unacceptable to claim that a building consent had been issued for a retaining wall without any details as to its 'design, height, etc' having been included in the plans and specifications1. Accordingly, it is acceptable for a cut to be retained by a series of 1.5 m retaining walls above each other provided that no higher wall imposes a surcharge on a lower wall.
The difference in approach reflects the fact that plumbing is usually installed according to generally-accepted practice whereas retaining walls involve structural considerations depending on site soil properties.


The building consent was subsequently amended to include the strengthening of the retaining wall as it had been built. As the retaining wall did not comply with the building consent, it was not entitled to a code compliance certificate.
There must therefore be a certain horizontal distance between the walls, depending on the particular soil properties of the site. In this case, the horizontal distance was minimal, so that the upper wall imposed a load ('surcharge') on the lower wall.



Winter landscapes for sale
Easy backyard landscape ideas
Decking ideas for round above ground pools
Common landscaping plants used in minnesota


Comments to «Retaining wall specifications new zealand»

  1. EXPLOD writes:
    Was priceless, dilemma solved, he no longer gets to park.
  2. Santa_Banta writes:
    For the grandchildren to plant in the rooms??in the outside area if there shrubs and.
  3. DoDaqDan_QelBe writes:
    Photographs I took of some of the designs (telephone.
  4. LanseloT writes:
    Compost delivered expenses about $70 per delineates the firepit location, keeping the shape.
  5. ADRENALINE writes:
    Introduced for growing cities like Ottawa and Vancouver.