Seeking legal advice on what a rumpus can be used for

[RK_NZ]

Thank you John for the info and the links. I've had a few friends mention that they knew of instances where the council enforced removal of plumbing and oven from illegal/unregistered (?) home and income units. I am not actually sure whether it was because the kitchen was not approved or related to how the unit was tenanted out (with internal doors connecting the unit and the house completely locked or blocked).


I can't seem to find the new plan of my house so I have asked the architect to send me a copy. Hopefully everything is in there. If not, would you advise of the most cost effective and time efficient way to go about getting the kitchenette added to the plans? * I am also kind of asking for a friend who recently got a new kitchen without any permits (her builder said everyone does it that way and there's no point of wasting money on approvals/permits etc). She is however considering getting one just in case and is getting quite concerned about the possibilities of complications after hearing about what I had been through with my neighbour.


TIA

[John the builder]

Ok people listen up

The planners use the second kitchen to make the case for a second dwelling. Depending on the words in the district plan and the definitions it is arguable but that is life. It should be ok for a family member or same household but the reality is planazis are a law unto themselves but you may be able to argue minor dwelling, so ok?

Buildingi nspectors often try and enforce the planners by invoking the building act but this doesnt allow for removal of work. They will try and also do the separate unit thing but if pitched as a granny flat this is OK Assuming it has a kitchen.

Planners can make you remove adverse effects ... building cant if safe and sanitary/./

You can convert garages to bedrooms if you move plumbing from house the re is no need for consent If you increase the number of fixtures then this needs a consent or if already there then a CoA but councils are generally difficult with these.

If they dont play ball go for a determination for building issues at MBIE (old DBH)

there should be a similar resort under the RMA (there isnt) but dont be afraid to go to environ,ment court for a ruling

[elguapo]

The reason councils get away with this shit is;
1. because owners are ignorant of the law
2. shoot themselves in the foot by setting things up so that they are outside the law
3. owners think that the council should know and therefore are always right (and the opposite is true)
4. owners lack the resources or the understanding of how to fight the bast...ds and councils have legal departments and unlimited access to barristers and lawyers at the ratepayers expense.

Exactly. They get away with it mostly because people let them get away with it.

[elguapo]

I am also kind of asking for a friend who recently got a new kitchen without any permits (her builder said everyone does it that way and there's no point of wasting money on approvals/permits etc). She is however considering getting one just in case and is getting quite concerned about the possibilities of complications after hearing about what I had been through with my neighbour.

\

You do not require consent for a kitchen. The only thing you need a consent for is the sink. You can have as many kitchens in your house as you like.

[Shalodge]

there should be a similar resort under the RMA (there isnt) but dont be afraid to go to environ,ment court for a ruling

Seriously?!! The Building Act isn't my area of interest but the RMA certainly is.

Planning law is complex and often difficult for the layman to understand. If you are presented with abatement notices or requirements to remedy and you are not happy with the Council explanations then get some professional advice before running off to court.

I would be the first to admit that Council don't get it right every time .. no one does. But they are right most of the time and bend over backwards to find a way forward that keeps everyone happy. Sometimes they just cant!

Rules and permitted standards in planning documents are often subservient to other documents and are also subject to objectives and policies which basically say that if there is a dispute as to the interpretation of a rule then the interpretation that best achieves the object of the plan will be prefered.

The RMA and Building Act are often the weapons of choice of neighbours at war. That is not what it is supposed to be for. It is the communities rules for managing development and use of our resources including land.

There is a strong argument to be made that we have not used our residential land very efficiently and it is now getting too expensive to build houses on. Many are calling for more land to be made available for residential use. Presumably the current uses of this land are not needed? (Even bush and natural landscape and feature is a use) Well we only have a finite amount of the stuff so take care.

Russell

[John the builder]

But they are right most of the time and bend over backwards to find a way forward that keeps everyone happy. Sometimes they just cant!

That is usually the problem the council think they are right, they have the power,so they feel bound to use it.

When it comes to councils they tend to shoot first and ask questions later.

Auckland Council in particular like to issue the enforcement notice ASAP so that the owner then has to prove their innocence and then council start the questions......

owners are forced to compromise to make the thing go away. The determinations process is a useful avenue for the building act but is there anything similar in the RMA?

[Davo36]

But they are right most of the time and bend over backwards to find a way forward that keeps everyone happy. Sometimes they just cant!

Not my experience AT ALL.

Speaking to someone the other day who wants to build a house on a farm in the rurual Auckland areas. He met a council planner on site and was told it will take 6 months to get the resource consent through (the 20 days only applying if they don't want to ask more questions) and he'd also need a separate full resource consent for a pipe to go under the to-be-formed driveway.

Now, how on earth can you write that councils bend over backwards to help people?

[John the builder]

The only thing you need a consent for is the sink

if you substitute something else then this may not be the case (e.g. laundry tub becomes a sink and it can be moved within the house)

The issue is that planners see the sink as an attempt to provide another residence They forget that occupancy densitys (which is the adverse effect being avoided) is a relationship between bed spaces not cooking spaces.

[John the builder]

Now, how on earth can you write that councils bend over backwards to help people?

agreed
My experience is that rather it is councils who make owner bend over (and then they get them the what for...up the....(public decency stops me from defining the action further))

[Shalodge]

" It's my property and I will build what I F***n well like on it".

If I had $1 every time I heard this I would be almost be able to afford the deposit on a cardboard box under the symonds st bridge!

Many folk just don't understand property law and tenure and think of their property as a material object able to be 'owned'.

It is this believe that drives the conflict between councils and property 'owners'. If you think our councils in NZ are bad try the UK ones .. My English relative in the building industry over there thinks our councils are pussycats!

[Wayne]

A mans home is his castle - but only in his mind!

[elguapo]

It is this believe that drives the conflict between councils and property 'owners'. If you think our councils in NZ are bad try the UK ones .. My English relative in the building industry over there thinks our councils are pussycats!

The UK planning system operates largely on an 'nothing is allowed, nothing can change' basis. Unless your a large scale developer who has the legal muscle to make something happen that is. The UK is in just as much of a mess as NZ from a housing cost/supply point of view.