• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

9.2.9 Allowable encroachments

steely

REGISTERED
Joined
Feb 6, 2025
Messages
2
Location
Newcastle NSW Australia
Hi,
I am after some clarification regarding 9.2.9 Allowable encroachments
Does this section refer to external walls of the building, as in stairs attached to the house?
I have a set of stairs that are not attached to the house going down a retaining wall for shed access.
These stairs run parallel to my fence line that faces a road and are 600mm off the fence.
My certifier has flagged this as an issue and sited this part of the NCC
9.2.9 Allowable encroachments
3 - Encroachments allowed within 900 mm of an allotment boundary or within 1.8 m of another building, or its vertical projection, on the same allotment are—non-combustible fascias, gutters and downpipes; and light fittings, electricity or gas meters, aerials or antennas; and pergolas, sun blinds or water tanks (see Figure 9.2.9a); and unroofed terraces, landings, steps and ramps, not more than 1 m in height.
Just wanting to confirm if there is an issue or a misinterpretation of the code.
Thank you
 
Since you are probably our first Aussie since our inception in 2009, it might take a while to get a response, if any at all. If you can get enough of your countrymen to start posting here, I can create a separate section just for Australia. I don't think many of us are familiar with your building codes.
 
Hi,
I am after some clarification regarding 9.2.9 Allowable encroachments
Does this section refer to external walls of the building, as in stairs attached to the house?
I have a set of stairs that are not attached to the house going down a retaining wall for shed access.
These stairs run parallel to my fence line that faces a road and are 600mm off the fence.
My certifier has flagged this as an issue and sited this part of the NCC
9.2.9 Allowable encroachments
3 - Encroachments allowed within 900 mm of an allotment boundary or within 1.8 m of another building, or its vertical projection, on the same allotment are—non-combustible fascias, gutters and downpipes; and light fittings, electricity or gas meters, aerials or antennas; and pergolas, sun blinds or water tanks (see Figure 9.2.9a); and unroofed terraces, landings, steps and ramps, not more than 1 m in height.
Just wanting to confirm if there is an issue or a misinterpretation of the code.
Thank you
At least you got one that cited a code section, that is a good sign that he probably knows what he is doing.

As an American, and only looking at the section you cited, I think that since the issue appears to be about fire spreading from one building or lot to another, if the steps are over 1 m in height, it would be a violation whether it was attached to the building or not.

I would call a few neighboring jurisdictions and ask what they think, to try to establish if there is a consensus on this issue. They are the ones who would be most likely to know.
 
Is it an encroachment at all?

Forgive my ignorance on your codes, but reading this section, and your description if it faces a road.....
1738938340756.png
 
By the way, I love digging around in other codes. I bookmarked yours, first I have seen it. Welcome to the forum. Our codes are a very different format, but in the quick reading I just did it seems the ideas are pretty similar. Without understanding how they are laid out I can't be sure, but the web access seems pretty easy to navigate.

I often ask myself how others do it, interpret it, or cite it. Now I have another source.
 
When Canda becomes a state
We will see pigs fly, it will rain cats and dogs, the sun will set in the east, the cows will come home, frogs will grow hair, monkeys will fly out of my... and hell will freeze over. It'll be great for snowballs and cat farmers though. Also, I will finally get that lightening in a bottle and find that needle I've been looking for.
 
From Facebook:

"A Letter from Canada to Donald Trump.....
"Your plan to create ‘the United States of Canada’ is brilliant." By John Manley
[Deputy Canadian Prime Minister and Minister of Finance in PM Jean Chrétien’s government].

Dear Donald Trump,
My mentor and former boss, prime minister Jean Chrétien, has dismissed your suggestion that Canada and the U.S. merge.

Do not despair. My point of view differs somewhat from his (sorry, Boss). I think we may be able to make this work if Canadians fully understand your proposal.

Imagine what the “United States of Canada” could be. We would marry American ingenuity and entrepreneurship to Canada’s natural resources, underdog toughness and culture of self-effacing politeness to create a powerful, world-dominating country.

Pointers for starters...
☆ We would be the largest land mass in the world.
☆ We would be self-reliant in every respect (food, energy, minerals, water).
☆ We would attract the world’s most talented people.
☆ We would truly be “the best country in the world,” to use Mr. Chrétien’s words.
☆ We would dominate international hockey competitions.

Your idea is truly brilliant.
As you know from your corporate experience, for any successful merger, the devil is in the details, but I have some suggestions.

(1). Canada could never simply be the 51st state. You see Canada consists of 10 states (we call them “provinces”) and three territories.

Each of our provinces exists for historical reasons and citizens feel a deep loyalty to their province.

So we would need to be the 51st to 60th states. With two senators for each state, of course.

Therefore, our 20 senators will no doubt bring fresh ideas to the institution that will help make the United States of Canada truly great!

(2). Some issues that cause division and frustration in your country are considered settled by political parties of all stripes in Canada, so I suggest adopting Canadian consensus in the interest of making this deal work.

☆ For example, there is no argument in Canada over women’s reproductive rights. There! That hot-button issue is resolved for you! (You can thank me later.)

☆ All Canadian politicians support our single-payer health care system because no one is refused treatment for their inability to pay and no one goes broke because they suffer a catastrophic illness.

In effect, all of our citizens have lifetime critical illness insurance provided by the government. And while it’s expensive, our system costs considerably less than yours, with 100 per cent of the population covered!

Your citizens will love it, I promise.

☆ I would also observe that Canadians have long preferred to live with many fewer firearms than are tolerated in the United States. The result is a drastically lower rate of deaths and injuries caused by gun violence in Canada. Our gun laws would make the country safer than it is, and safer is definitely greater!

☆ We have some other innovations that you may wish to consider.

Our Canada Pension Plan, equivalent to your Social Security, is fully funded and actuarially sound. This requires higher contributions but it pays off with solvency.

I believe your Social Security runs out of money in the near future. (That’s not great, is it?)

☆ Lower personal income taxes paid in the U.S. are a great attraction.

☆ But our programs to support both seniors and young families to reduce the worst cases of poverty among them help make society more cohesive and fair. That’s one of the reasons our taxes have been higher.

☆ Oh, and we must consider how we fund government expenses. We’re struggling to bring our deficit back down, but it wasn’t that long ago (2015) that our budget was effectively balanced.

In fact, for more than a decade prior to the global financial crisis, Canada ran surplus budgets. In addition to spending discipline, our national value-added tax, the GST, was key. You definitely want to adopt that! In fact, you will love it! (Canadians don’t love it, but their governments do. And it beats borrowing money from the Chinese.)

There are many smaller details that I am sure we can work out.

☆ You will enjoy the simplicity of the metric system for weights and measures, for example. Oh, but we’re not crazy, you can keep yards for football! And you will love that sport even more when you play it on a bigger field with only three downs.

I am so excited about this, Mr. Trump. You are truly a visionary leader to have come up with this idea.

I can already see the 60 little maple leaves on the flag with 13 stripes!

I am ready to throw myself into this great project of making the United States of Canada great again! (Oh, that’s too long. Let’s just call our new country “Canada.”)

Respectfully, as I dislodge my tongue from my cheek,

John Manley

About the Author:
John Paul Manley PC OC (born January 5, 1950) is a Canadian lawyer, businessman, and politician who served as the eighth deputy prime minister of Canada from 2002 to 2003. He served as Liberal Member of Parliament for Ottawa South from 1988 to 2004. From January 2010 to October 2018 he was president and CEO of the Business Council of Canada. He is currently the chairman of the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (CIBC) and serves on the advisory board of the Leaders' Debates Commission."
 
Let us be frank, Republicans surely do not want Canada to join the United States. We are so left wing compared to Americans that our electoral college votes would prevent modern Republicans from winning the presidency for the next couple decades.
 
Back
Top