Battling an entrenched myth over relocation consents

[sidinz]

When I approached my local council about relocating an additional house onto my property, they outlined some requirements. They included a resource consent and a building consent. For the building consent, they further required a re-site report (to ensure that no old rubbish is brought in) and based on that report, they would specify some upgrades and take a $10K bond that would be returned when signed off within the set time frame. Talks with banks and brokers also established that they would need to see the resulting CCC before they would lend on the 'new' house.

However, I have since discovered (thanks to thsi forum) that the MBIE does not consider relocating a house to be 'building work'. Only associated new construction (e.g. foundations, drainage) is, and therefore only this new work requires a consent. I have found three determinations and a reference to a newsletter that state this). It therefore follows that the council cannot enforce its requirement for a re-site report, upgrades or a bond.

Being the stubborn and bolshy girl that I am, I do not want to pay for reports and the interest on the bond money if I don't have to. I would also want to do any upgrading at my pace, as and when the money is available, not theirs.

But I don't want to get them offside to the point that they make getting the resource consent or building consent for the foundations and drainage, difficult. I will also need to convince the bank that a CCC is not needed, when I want to refinance.
How should I proceed?

[John the builder]

I thought the resite reports were part of Resource management? There may be planning rules that require a council building inspection and this could impose conditions such as insulation and upgrades that building act cannot require under s112.

The determinations deal with new prefabricated buildings and a reused house is different if it is considered second hand materials? The only mention i am aware of to second hand materials in the building act is in respect to warrantys that LBPs/builders give but this only requires disclosure in contract if "not new" (s362I)

If under the building act then the Bluff act must be the act applied?

The building consent is for the "building work" you do not the "building" (unless it is a new build on site). You will have a CCC for that work which could be desribed as "resiting the dwelling" but the building work will be foundations and waste /stormwater connections.

[sidinz]

I will look into your first point. I must admit I'm surprised, as I had thought that planning related to density and town layout, rather than the quality/condition of the buildings, which was where the code came in.

Two of the determinations that I have seen did involve prefabs and one related to shipping containers used as storage. But I don't believe that that indicates that a pre-used house is any different.

For one thing, the determinations quoted a section of the Building Act that would apply equally to a full-sized house. From memory, it defined that a consent was required for construction, demolition and removal of a building, but did not mention the relocation of one. It is therefore permissable by omission. One determination further stated that it was presumed that the appropriate building consents would have been sought/issued when the building was originally constructed (if required at that time).

For another, it is more likely that people would relocate a small prefab onto land without permission as many people believe that if it has wheels on it, it's not a building (and some manufacturers perpetuate this). While for a full house, they would just do what the council told them was necessary, without looking further into it. Therefore it's to be expected that determinations would centre around 'tiny houses'.

I've heard of a couple of people who've done it - made their case and only got consents for the new building work - the foundations and drainage. Nick tells me that Hype on here has, so I'm hoping he will wade into this thread.

Don't know what you mean by the Bluff Act?

[Davo36]

Being the stubborn and bolshy girl that I am,

A girl after my own heart

Most on here know I hate councils. And I have said many times they often go beyond their remit.

And they might well be this time too.

But to be fair, I'd expect to get a resource consent and building consent as part of moving a house onto a section.

The problems start when they put all sorts of silly conditions in their resource consents.

[Don't believe the Hype]

when we recently relocated a number of houses (5 in 10 months from breaking ground to tenants in the doors) we had a number of challenges from different areas.

Resource team at council had no concern if the houses were new or 2nd hand the just take longer than the 20 days legislated. Right now we have the clock on one 2 lot subdivision for 2 relocatable houses sitting at around 50 days.

Building Consent - they were interested in the building work as JTB says - drainage/water and foundations and in our case retaining walls AND how the houses were tied back together where they were a 2 piece move. One of the BC muppets at council got a bit ahead of himself and tried to claim that the bearers on the house were not to code so needed to be changed. When challenged as to why this one house out of 5 had this issue he said his colleagues weren't as diligent as he was, he was right we needed to change. Turns out that house needs to meet the building code of the time of construction and the current building code is not relevant unless changes are being made. So the bearers stayed as is.

Banks - we got funding from the time the houses were tied to the foundations in the form of construction loan. The bank did change their mind mid project saying the houses were not new so the funding went from agreed at 80% of the total cost of the project to 60% - don't you love surprises like that.


When it came to getting Code of Compliance for us to tenant the houses we had no issues till the last one where the RC guys tried to put pressure on the BC inspectors to not issue CoC until the RC conditions had all been met but and 223/224 processed - this would (could) mean a 10-20 week delay in getting tenants in to the property. I had to bluff here and threaten legal action because i'd heard somewhere - don't even know if it's true - that a RC team can't hold up the BC signoff ... well it worked and we got sign off and funnily enough 7 months later still don't have the subdivision confirmed but I'm getting rent and not paying rates on 2 separate properties so I'm happy to wait for that.

[John the builder]

The Buff Act is the act that allows officials to impose council policy over the law. It is sef perpetuating and subject to yearly review, It is not written but "this is what the law requires" seems to cover most sections.

Sidinz
The district plan rules need to be considered and some subdivisions have covenant to stop it occurring. Hard to change a roof line to get under HIRB for example.

Dave
if you simply park the house then building consent isnt needed but you could be infringing a district plan rule? The building consent s for the "building work" done on site! Building work is a defined term and means the work you do to a building but not the building.(unless it is a new building)

[sidinz]

Hype - did they try to do what many other councils do and require a re-site report, upgrade works and a bond? Which council? Also which bank(s) and did they try to ask for a CCC (for the building/whole project)?

I'm not subdividing and will (at least initially) be living there myself, so a last-minute LVR change shouldn't factor. As for funding, there's equity in the property that will cover the bulk of the project, but not all. Interesting that you got a construction loan. Did you do the trenching/services after it was tied down? That sounds like a good option for me to look into.

[Don't believe the Hype]

I’m not familiar with a resite report. So I’m guessing I didn’t do one. I did have my planners do the RC submission and architect do the BC submission so there may have been something.

no request for bond - the bond I’ve seen be enforced at kapiti council but I’d tell them to GGF. Especially if the property was in a low-mid socioeconomic area. If it was in a high end location I could understand but the assumption behind requiring a bond is that you won’t complete the work to a reasonable standard so they enforce it by holding your bond to ransom.

trenching and services after house on site and tied down. The house moving company won’t want their trucks going over freshly dug and backfilled trenches.

Why not subdivide? The value will stack up better for the bank and ensure you can future projects - the downside is higher rates but it’s minor in the scheme of things. It also ensures no issue with consent to subdivide down the track. If you’re already getting RC why not include subdivision as part of the plan?

[John the builder]

bonds are also for footpath damage and services/berms damage

[Don't believe the Hype]

JTB - thanks... is it a regular/standard thing? We weren't asked for one. Might be that these things were required as part of sign off for subdivision.