Illegal dwelling _ Rights for tenants

[Shalodge]

Every situation is different and there are different planning rules for different Councils and for different zones within a council area. What we are talking about is a generalised situation concerning second dwellings on an individual title in a residential area.

This is not generally permitted ... The rule is one title - one dwelling. (Specific high density areas, unit titles, bulk flats etc excepted) If the density and other rules allow for a subdivision then that is the preferred way to go. This rule seeks to address issues around the social and environmental effects of higher density housing.

Some councils permit minor dwelling as ancillary to the main dwelling for family or 'grannies' in recognition of the social benefits of families supporting each but there are rules to minimise the potential adverse effects as I have previously described. These rules often seek to prevent these 'family unit' becoming a true second dwelling and being let. Conditions include only being occupied by a 'family member' or being very close to the main dwelling.

However what we are talking about is in relation to permitted activities. Council's reserve the right to allow a second dwelling if the applicant can satisfy them that the effects will be minor or can be mitigated and again in reference to the adverse social and environment effects that can occur with high density housing. Have a look at slum housing overseas to see what could occur.

Some of the effects I am taking about could be:

Parking: Is there enough room for more vehicles on the section or will the tenants want to use the street and when your visitors arrive they have to park hundreds of meter
away and walk in the rain.

Privacy: Can people see into neighbours private areas including yards and bedrooms?

Light: Will unreasonable shading occur?

Site coverage: Will there be any space for grass and trees and people to play?

Services: Is there enough water, power and wastewater disposal for the extra people that weren't anticipated when the streets were designed. Who will pay to increase that capacity? How will that be collected? (ie. Development contributions/reserve contribution).

I could go on and on.

Anyone on this forum who thinks they have a god given right to create a second dwelling on a residential section, without resource consent, to be let out to make a buck, is dreaming.

Sure there may be lots of people getting away with it and chipping away at the amenity in the area but does that make it right? What Mrsaneperson is advocating from behind a nondeplume is irresponsible and selfish (In my opinion). Sure there are 'loopholes' because it is hard to make rules for every situation but no one likes it when an insurance company (for e.g) wriggles out of an obligation because of a 'loophole'.

Another way of putting it maybe... "Your obligation to be a good neighbour is greater than your right to make a buck"!

Russell ORR

[TheLiberalLeft]

A lot of that is so typical of bullshit council-speak, though, Russell. None of the above issues make any difference whether an extended family member lives in the unit or not. Grannies drive. Grannies can be feral, too. It annoys me that councils think they can social-engineer this way. Just get on with the job of running the community's facilities. Collect my rubbish. Mend my broken footpath and streetlights. Do not tell me that it's social and "right" to have extended family living alongside and that that is preferable to a good, quality tenant who just happens to not be family.

[Shalodge]

Fair enough TLL but aren't you looking at the issue through a very narrow lens?

Exceeding 100Kph is illegal .. it is there for the safety of others .. but often it is quite safe. The rule has to be applied in a wider sense.. we cant make rules for every meter of the highway like we cant have a rule for every section in the country.

That is why we have consent procedures .. If the specific situation is different then make a case for an exemption and it will usually be granted.

Russell

[Shalodge]

Do not tell me that it's social and "right" to have extended family living alongside and that that is preferable to a good, quality tenant who just happens to not be family.

Its called give and take. There will be adverse effects from having higher density living (in general) but these can be offset against the social good of having 'granny' living along side and not in a resthome. There is no such social gain from letting to the public only a financial benefit to the landlord at the expense of the community.

Russell

[mrsaneperson]

Its called give and take. There will be adverse effects from having higher density living (in general) but these can be offset against the social good of having 'granny' living along side and not in a resthome. There is no such social gain from letting to the public only a financial benefit to the landlord at the expense of the community.

Russell

That reeks of socialism.Whats mine is yours BS.We know socialism & communism are flawed & failed systems.But again it shows illogical thinking because taxes are payable on any rental incomes generated.I have not advocated doing anything illegal . I fully understand that 2nd kitchens must be consented & that councils do have the authority to issue abatement notices to have them removed if they are not consented. However there are no legitimate legal powers that council have to say that i cannot rent out my basement unit separately even though the dwelling may be designated as 1 dwelling only...No legitimate legal powers tell me i am not allowed to rent out the granny flat to anyone other than extended family. Its a nonsense ; council know this and have never issued abatement notices in regard to these specific situations & never will because they understand fully that it is legally unenforcable & logically flawed.
You are unable to show me one!
Whether one has extended family living downstairs or someone unrelated does not impede any differently on council infrastructure & services .If a house designated as 1 dwelling but rented out to 2 families, again it makes no difference in use on council infrastructure services & any difference in safety issues remain unquantifiable.

Rates determinations are based on number of dwellings , council increase their coffers substantially through this means, they are sitting pretty so sure they dont want to rock their own boat & face massive protests & lose their existing charging mandate .

[Shalodge]

Well it makes for a good debate anyway..

I could show you plenty of abatement notices from my Council re unconsented dwellings but I wont as that is not public domain stuff. (not a prosecution)..

Many of these go on to become consented retrospectively and the appropriate Development contribution paid if applicable.

I guess I could try to get some stats that don't include personal info but I really cant be bothered. Just let me have the address of any unconsented dwelling you know of and watch what happens?

I guess its Socialism .. but guess what.. we live in a socialist democracy. Most of the debate on this issue revolves around the social contract and the unwillingness of people of late to be bound by it.

That's a whole new debate..


Russell

[mrsaneperson]

Well it makes for a good debate anyway..

I could show you plenty of abatement notices from my Council re unconsented dwellings but I wont as that is not public domain stuff. (not a prosecution)..

Many of these go on to become consented retrospectively and the appropriate Development contribution paid if applicable.

I guess I could try to get some stats that don't include personal info but I really cant be bothered. Just let me have the address of any unconsented dwelling you know of and watch what happens?

I guess its Socialism .. but guess what.. we live in a socialist democracy. Most of the debate on this issue revolves around the social contract and the unwillingness of people of late to be bound by it.

That's a whole new debate..


Russell

I dont see anyone suffering. I see people benefitting all round ,tenants , landlords & the taxman .The abatement notices you refer too would be in regard to unconsented kitchens. I dont know of any unconsented dwellings using illegal 2nd kitchens but know most people who have "granny flats" will be renting them out to anyone...And basement dwellings not deemed as a separate dwelling yet made separate & rented out can be as simple as putting a deadlock on a door.How can these be rationally declared unconsented activities?Yet not an abatement notices in site.

[Shalodge]

To a degree councils have an informal policy of not looking for unconsented dwellings. The reasoning is that if they are not on the radar, then as you say, the adverse effects cannot be that great? Generally if a landowner does something on his land that effects others they will squeak, hence the reactive approach to enforcement of unconsented dwellings.

In many areas a 'granny flat' is a permitted activity subject to conditions over who may live there and size and location requirements. It is common that second dwellings for general occupation are a discretionary use.

As I have said in this thread previously ... Putting in a second kitchen is not a resource consent issue (just a building consent issue) but creating a separate living area is, if it breaches plan rules particularly regarding who may live in it (eg family member). Your argument that the effects are the same is valid but as I have previously said the difference is in the 'trade off' of effects verse social need and public good.

Unregulated residential development is the pathway to slums. People tend to think of their own needs before they consider the wider public issues and the Council end up playing the role of referee with the unpopularity that can bring and sometime a red card is needed.

It is ironic that in regard to leaky buildings people have been demanding to know why there wasn't more regulation?

Russell

[Maccachic]

Russell whats the deal with hotel accomadation in a residential property? Realise answer may vary Council to Council but getting sick of kiwifruit workers being packed into the house behind mine - including sleeping / living in the garage which is the issue as parties in there keep us (probably the otehr neighbours) awake at night. Will contact the Hotel but was wanting some clout (BWOF/ Fire issues etc).

[Shalodge]

Yes it does depend on the plan rules for the area. These rules state will what is 'permitted as of right" and are set to the "worst case, greatest effects" situation.

There is no doubt that packing a whole lot of seasonal workers onto a residential section will create some adverse effects, many of which I referred to in earlier posts.

If it is not a permitted activity (and I doubt it will be) then it will require consent which means effected persons (you) can have input and planners can look carefully to try and predict effects (potential effects) and will require steps to mitigate them (conditions) or refuse altogether if there is no way to mitigate the effects.

From your post it seems that a hotel business is accommodating guests in a residential house? I doubt that operating a guest house in a residential zone is a permitted activity due to the potential effects such as you are experiencing. A check of the appropriate plan will confirm .. Is it Western Bay or Tauranga city and the address is needed to confirm the zone rules applicable.

This is a pretty good example of the need for Resource Consenting really. The behaviour of people in a guest house situation is likely to be very different to a residential situation. There is also the health and safety aspect and as you say BWOF and fire protection/escape are issues involved, particularly if there are overcrowding issues within the accommodation.

Again nothing happens unless someone feels that they are adversely affected and complains. The effects are more valid when the issue of public good verse private gain is considered? (Maybe?) Is it being done to make a buck or is there a community good to be found somewhere?

If you want me to have a closer look, pm the address to me. You can chose to talk to the hotelier and they may offer to talk mitigation directly with you.. (some compensation or rules or whatever), or you can ask the council to look at it. The result then will likely be an abatement notice particularly if no compromise can be found that satisfies you or the other effected parties.

Russell


When you bought your property you paid for the residential amenity you enjoy and Council will try and maintain that through planning rules.

[Shalodge]

Maccachic ... I got your PM ...Where you are the local council through the District plan process and consultation have decided that visitor accommodation is a permitted activity. The only restriction is that any person staying under this provision cannot stay longer than 3 months.

visitor accommodation
Means land or buildings which are occupied as
a residence on a temporary (periods of up to
three months continuous occupation during any
12 month period) basis and includes bed and
breakfast establishments, backpackers'
accommodation, homestay facilities, motels,
hotels, tourist lodges, holiday flats, tourist
cabins, motor inns and ancillary workrooms,
reception areas and accessory buildings or
ancillary activities on the site. This definition
includes property held in common ownership
where ownership by each owner is limited in
duration to less than three months during any
12-month period. This definition does not
include activities defined in the plan as
independent dwelling unit, shared
accommodation or residential activity.

Since this appears to be operating as a business we have to look at the definition of business and whether that is permitted in a residential zone and we find that:

business activity
Means retail, professional, social,
administrative, educational, technological,
storage, distribution or manufacturing, services
(including tourist services) or related activities,
carried out on a site principally for commercial
gain. For the purpose of this definition,
business activity does not include visitor
accommodation.

So I was wrong .. your Council has decided that Visitor accommodation is exempt from whatever restrictions there may be on operating a business in your area. This is unusual and would only apply given the nature of the location where you live. The result of all this is that the operator does not appear to need a resource consent to accommodate people in a house in a residential area, as part of his business, as long as they are only there for a max or 3 months in the year. It is a "permitted activity".

This does not exempt the operator from requirements under the building act to ensure that where a dwelling is used for a commercial purpose it complies with those rules, which will include fire alarms, and WOF , max occupancy etc. This is not my area of expertise but you can certainly ask your Council Building Inspectors to confirm that the property complies.

Other than that there are amenity rules for your area that apply no matter what the use(such as noise). You should contact noise control if there is a problem.

Russell

[Maccachic]

Interesting thanks!

So in this situation renting short term - a granny flat or basement would be acceptable, provided consents were in place?

[mrsaneperson]

Interesting thanks!

So in this situation renting short term - a granny flat or basement would be acceptable, provided consents were in place?

Irrational

[Shalodge]

Interesting thanks!

So in this situation renting short term - a granny flat or basement would be acceptable, provided consents were in place?

Yes. .the rule is designed to accommodate anyone wishing to rent out their home over the holidays for eg.. Or if you were lucky enough to have a consented minor dwelling (called an accommodation unit where you are) then you can let it permanently or run it as a 'visitor accommodation' business.

In the example you have given I assumed that the workers were being accommodated in a primary dwelling house and maybe using ancillary buildings such as garage or toolshed etc as sleepouts (i.e no kitchen).

In the definitions in the plan which applies to this area we find:

accommodation unit
Means a building, or part of a building designed
or used for living accommodation. For the
purposes of the plan, units that are selfcontained
in terms of kitchen and ablution
facilities will be counted as one accommodation
unit. Where accommodation is not selfcontained,
each area of 65m² of gross floor
area (GFA) of all habitable rooms shall be
counted as one accommodation unit.


To construct a second dwelling (accommodation unit) in this zone you will need some space .. The rule seems to be .. One accommodation unit per 315 sq meters. There will be other rules around lighting and shade and privacy. If you could comply with them all then you could build a second unit as a permitted activity and let it out permanently or as a visitor accommodation business. This may be reduced in other zones where a higher density is allowed.

The point is that secondary dwellings or accommodation units on a title are not an automatic no no .. It is just that they normally would not be able to comply with all the rules and would become discretionary and require consent.

If you think that you can build a secondary dwelling within the rules applying to your location, (a permitted activity), then you can submit your proposal to the council and ask for a certificate of compliance. This is not the same as applying for a resource consent and confirms that (as long as you build it as per the proposal) it is permitted and legal and does not need resource consent, (although it will still need a building permit.)

Russell

[lawt]

There is no such social gain from letting to the public only a financial benefit to the landlord at the expense of the community.

Really?
Surely the tenant perceives a benefit or they wouldn't rent it or are people being forced to rent these places against their will?
If the alternative is higher (less affordable) rents due to lower supply and higher demand would this (even if illegal) not be of benefit to the tenant and a better social outcome?
If the alternative was living in a substandard garage or packed 6 to a bedroom - or renting a granny flat that has been converted, would this not be a better social outcome?

In fact it could well be argued that the Land Lord is a martyr for selflessly providing a much needed service in times of great difficulty for many whilst doing so at great risk (of being caught) for only a modest stipend.

Not condoning breaking the law and I do have a place with a minor dwelling on it separately tenanted, but with resource consent and code compliance.
All for a debate, but let's keep it real.