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
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
Comment