Unconsented 90s carport conversion with laundry

[TheLibrary]

Hi. In the 90s an existing carport was converted to fully enclosed garage with a laundry, but it was never permitted. Now it needs significant work. Can anyone guide me as to how to address this. Because of the plumbing, my research tells me it indeeds needs a consent, and I am guessing a builder will not touch it unless a consent is in place.

[donna]

My guess is 'yes' it would need consent. Whether a builder would touch it without consent - I'll leave that question to another PTer - like 'John the builder'.

So there's building consent and then CCC (code of compliance) - ideally, you'd want both for resale.

However, not everyone is a stickler for the CCC. If the 'carport/garage' does not touch the house that's beneficial. I know a builder who has semi-enclosed his carport and built a large shed or lean-to at the back of it. It may become a laundry or at least have the dryer as well as other stuff like a freezer and some tools. No resource consent, but the additional outbuilding would add value to the property.

cheers,

Donna

[TheLibrary]

Thanks, I think the risk now is the council say no, and there is no practical way to return the laundry inside the main house.....not without undoing an old internal renovation. Someone advised to apply for a COA after the event which may be the best option all things considered.

[John the builder]

If it was pre 1993 then strictly a CoA isnt an option as no consent existed then,

you are entitled to treat this work as existing building and maintain it as such. It doesn't sound like it is doing any harm.

You have obligation to maintain is a not dangerous or insanitary condition and it sounds like the condition is poor at present?

At the end of the day you have useful amenity that may be 'unauthorized' but lawful (it is allowed to exist) and still adding value. I would simply retain it as is (and do the maintenance) on that basis?

[TheLibrary]

If it was pre 1993 then strictly a CoA isnt an option as no consent existed then,

you are entitled to treat this work as existing building and maintain it as such. It doesn't sound like it is doing any harm.

You have obligation to maintain is a not dangerous or insanitary condition and it sounds like the condition is poor at present?

At the end of the day you have useful amenity that may be 'unauthorized' but lawful (it is allowed to exist) and still adding value. I would simply retain it as is (and do the maintenance) on that basis?

The main issue now, is that it is not watertight due to some of the cladding not been installed correctly. The plumbing seems fine, but ultimately we do want to rework it and do it correctly. Its early 90s for sure, but no records. I sense retaining it and doing it up correctly is the best way forward. Thank you.

[donna]

Let us know how you get on - this information is always of interest to us TheLibrary.

cheers,

Donna

[John the builder]

The benefit of doubt should be with the owner at the time.

If pre 1993 then a safe and sanitary report can be placed on council file (different councils have different processes on this) but first get it safe and sanitary. Insist that the work is originally pre 1993.

[McDuck]

...Insist that the work is originally pre 1993.

Yup, what council are you with?

Check out the link below.

Once you get used to the multi choice, flow chart type thinking of the process,
it is helpful.

Anything to do with council is done this way now.

Pretty annoying, everything fits in a tidy box (yea right).

And once you can translate and ignore the Maori words and mythology that are being forced into a basically practical piece of text.. but more about that inappropriate language use another day..



https://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/...s/default.aspx

[John the builder]

McD
The council website is wrong!

it states you need a consent to repair a carport attached to a building. This is incorrect and repairs can be undertaken under exemption 1 of schedule 1. This includes total replacement if required. This is good example of council overreach and misinformation.

I have made a complaint and will let you know when I hear back.

[TheLibrary]

Thanks everyone. Great advice. We will indeed assert it was pre 1993 and move foward that way. Once its all over, will post the outcome.

[McDuck]

Thanks everyone. Great advice. We will indeed assert it was pre 1993 and move foward that way. Once its all over, will post the outcome.

One other thought, a plumber is not responsible for the whole building being compliant, just his plumbing work.
He may have to start again on the plumbing, but he's not going to check the wall stud distance.

What you need to consider is throwing good money after bad, should you eventually want full building documentation and compliance.

Should you want full structure compliance, then because of the strict foundation requirements, my guess is that you may as well tear it down and start again.

There is a council form, a pdf.. that tells you the criteria for your structure being accepted in retrospect.

HERE VV

https://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/...k-assessed.pdf

https://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/...ng-consent.pdf

[McDuck]

McD
The council website is wrong!

it states you need a consent to repair a carport attached to a building. This is incorrect and repairs can be undertaken under exemption 1 of schedule 1. This includes total replacement if required. This is good example of council overreach and misinformation.

I have made a complaint and will let you know when I hear back.

Yup, if they are going to get all "flow diagram" with their web page, the first step in the instruction should be exclusions. But every moron with a word processor thinks they can write good process flow diagrams. Takes brains not just flingers.

[John the builder]

McD

AC1805 How unauthorised building work is assessed (aucklandcouncil.govt.nz)

is actually more a document on "how to be tricked into using our CoA punitive process, so we can screw you"

the truth is the reference to pre 1993 work also applies to recent work and COA ia a voluntary process that owners do not have to submit to. (with only limited exceptions for work under urgency)

[McDuck]

McD

AC1805 How unauthorised building work is assessed (aucklandcouncil.govt.nz)

is actually more a document on "how to be tricked into using our CoA punitive process, so we can screw you"

the truth is the reference to pre 1993 work also applies to recent work and COA ia a voluntary process that owners do not have to submit to. (with only limited exceptions for work under urgency)

Yup. It sure looks useless.

The only advantage is access to finance.?

What about resale?

Would that work in the sellers favor?

[McDuck]

McD

AC1805 How unauthorised building work is assessed (aucklandcouncil.govt.nz)

is actually more a document on "how to be tricked into using our CoA punitive process, so we can screw you"

the truth is the reference to pre 1993 work also applies to recent work and COA ia a voluntary process that owners do not have to submit to. (with only limited exceptions for work under urgency)

Yup. It sure looks useless.

The only advantage is access to finance.?

What about resale?

Would that work in the sellers favor?