Transportable home

[LianaG]

Hello
I am looking for recommendations for transportable homes that DON'T need council consent.
The specifications that the council have made are the following:
When building consent is not needed:

If a tiny house is built on wheels it is classed as a vehicle and must comply with the Land Transport Act 1998 (with registration and a warrant of fitness). As a vehicle, it will not need a building consent at the time it is built so long as the tiny house:

• possesses wheels, chassis, axles, brakes, lights, drawbar and trailer hitch; and
• the trailer has, and maintains at all times, a valid registration and WOF; and
• the tiny house is incapable of being fixed (i.e. the “superstructure” can’t be removed from the trailer); and
• the tiny house is self-contained in terms of all services (like a campervan); and
• the design of the tiny house enables relocation with relative ease

Could anyone recommend these types of tiny houses in the BOP please?
Looking to put on a lifestyle block

Thank you

[Perry]

I am looking for recommendations for transportable homes that DON'T need council consent.

I doubt that these provisions are enforceable, depending on the circumstances.

* the trailer has, and maintains at all times, a valid registration and WOF.
(It may be possible to put the rego 'on hold,' being a NZTA option, in which case a current WoF is redundant. That can be done with cars - not sure about trailers.)

* the tiny house is self-contained in terms of all services (like a campervan)

Not BoP, but I suggest you have a look at Coastal Cabins. I've purchased three from them.

Be warned, though. Their book was full last time I puchased one.

[John the builder]

Most of what council say is BS

the building act simply says that a vehicle is not a building as long as it is not immovable AND permanently occupied.

While a vehicle that is road worthy and has a WOF is easier to move the lack of same does not make it immovable. This is a matter of court proceedings in the past and ongoing. MBIE determinations under building act.

The test should be 'can be moved' and 'not fixed to land' . which is when a chattel becomes a building (and part of the title under property law as well.

Be prepared for challenges from the bureaucrats!....................

You need to check planning rules as well but bare in mind that a structure is by definition in RMA fixed to land so the rules likely only apply to structures and vehicles are not structures but there are moves to include caravans as dwellings in national planning standards being imposed by wellington.

[RollingCloud]

You are best to join the facebook group NZ Tiny House Community and ask the question there. You will hopefully have an answer from people much more experienced in this sort of thing than here. Best to mention what council you fall under as well. And... some/most council rules only allow a transportable parked up on land for a certain amount of time, say 3 months of the year (being lived in), this will be in their district/city plan. A moveable tiny and or caravan does not automatically allow you to live in it full time on the land. A lot of people just do it and it only becomes a problem if someone narks on them.

[Property Developer]

I've actually looked into tiny homes quite deeply. As a former lawyer, I was able to speak with a prosecuting council for a council on this matter of tiny homes, and then obtain a judgement on the matter, read it, and then discuss it further with that partner in a law firm. It's nice to be in the club sometimes.

Nothing you wrote is accurate. Legally. Nothing tiny home builders say is true about the legal state of them.

At a basic economic level, tiny homes are a terrible idea. They aren't cheap, houses are cheaper to construct, and have better returns on investment.

It's a stupid fad, that for some reason people fall into.

You can build a two bedroom house for about 30-40k, and a 3brm, for about 45k. And, you can do that without ever talking to the council until it's time to secure it to the land, if it's done in a very particular way and has no linings, or cladding, or ceiling until it's secured. Using recycled materials in certain places. It's also legal for the land owner to build it entirely.

A tiny house, is 60-100k. Or more.

The tiny home fad, is for people that find it too hard to learn how to build things, can't cope with the small stress of dealing with a council, and just want to avoid a problem that isn't real.

It will be the worst investment of your life. Don't do it. Buy a transported house. It's cheaper and smarter. Buy some tools, and learn how to build things. It's not even a physical strength thing now days with the equipment we have, and the skill gap can be easily filled with youtube.

[John the builder]

PD
what you don't factor in is that you need land to put a building on and it becomes fixed to that land so if you don't own the land you don't own the building. Great for PD's like you but crap for occupiers.

Did that "judgement" have a rigorous defense or was it a case of city-hall (with all the rate payers resources (our money)) vs the little guy (who gets hammered yet again?)

[RollingCloud]

Mr former lawyer, that's an interesting perspective you have. 2 bedroom 30-40k? Yeah right. Oh OK, sure, build it yourself!! Sure I'll just go get my LBP licence or find a sucker LBP to sign off my You Tube inspired work! Anyway the enquirer didn't say they owned the land the tiny is going on, and this could be the case. You criticised the information the enquirer gave but did not provide anything remotely useful.

[Property Developer]

Mr former lawyer, that's an interesting perspective you have. 2 bedroom 30-40k? Yeah right. Oh OK, sure, build it yourself!! Sure I'll just go get my LBP licence or find a sucker LBP to sign off my You Tube inspired work! Anyway the enquirer didn't say they owned the land the tiny is going on, and this could be the case. You criticised the information the enquirer gave but did not provide anything remotely useful.

You do not need to be a licensed builder, if you own the land, and the home is for you. Read the law, it's easily available on this cool thing called google. If your not lazy and can read.

I didn't wasn't critical, of the information, I clearly called it inherently false and legally wrong. So, I went quite a bit further.

I provided quality advice. I think issue is, you just didn't like it or didn't understand it. I'm guessing you can't build huh ?

If you could build, you would know that a building the size 1-2brm house is about 1-2k in foundations, 3-4k in subfloor, 2.5k in flooring, and 8k in structure. But, that would take knowledge.

[Perry]

The tiny home fad, is for people that . . . . can't cope with the small stress of dealing with a council, and just want to avoid a problem that isn't real.

From my experience, you materially understate the stress factor.

Having taken councils to the Planning Tribunal, District and High Courts, I tell you that such is far from a small stress.

[Property Developer]

PD
what you don't factor in is that you need land to put a building on and it becomes fixed to that land so if you don't own the land you don't own the building. Great for PD's like you but crap for occupiers.

Did that "judgement" have a rigorous defense or was it a case of city-hall (with all the rate payers resources (our money)) vs the little guy (who gets hammered yet again?)

Meh, no land, no place to put tiny house. Moot point.

Oh it was a case of someone trying to do the tiny house thing, getting caught up in the fad, gettings lots of indicators from a council this wasn't ok, and eventually losing a legal fight they tried to drag everyone else including the tiny home building company into.

So, yep, .. it was a case an inept land owner doing something inherently foolish, and joining the tiny home fad without being fully informed.

[Perry]

You do not need to be a licensed builder, if you own the land, and the home is for you. Read the law . . .

Is the option of building a transportable home - DIY - a useful compound solution?

[Property Developer]

From my experience, you materially understate the stress factor.

Having taken councils to the Planning Tribunal, District and High Courts, I tell you that such is far from a small stress.

A small new building, is a different matter, it's straight forward.

[Property Developer]

Is the option of building a transportable home - DIY - a useful compound solution?

That's what all tiny homes are. That's every housebus too

The tiny building company isn't governed by construction rules. That's part of the councils issue, a small part.

[John the builder]

You need to have a LBP involved if you want to do without consent under schedule 1?

you can build yourself with consent and under a owner-consent exemption not RBW but then you are hooked into consent and planning rules etc the focus of this poster was transportable without consent.

As a lawyer when do you say a TH or transportable is not a building?

[Property Developer]

As a lawyer when do you say a TH or transportable is not a building?

There's an intention test, in the building act. It's in a subsection, clause? I think. It's super clear. If it's intended to be lived in, it must meet the building act, so consent, construction test, etc.

There's no getting around it. The judgement went through it carefully, tiny homes are covered, as are parked house buses. Or semi trailers, or ... Etc
Consent on the last 2brm new build house I did was 4k. Including all site visits.

Seriously, if the money is an issue, like, not affording an actual house, a tiny house isn't a solution. A house bus might be. Or a Nissan .. civilian ? That 7m car license one .. about 15k usually. Already set up as live aboard. Or a caravan ?
Locked down with kids, so bowing out for the rest of those questions, and this post.