What makes a new room an "official" room recognised by the council?

[John the builder]

you miss the point

the space that is being subdivided is already a habitable space.

the building code makes little distinction for haboitable and non habitable except some clauses do not apply to non habitable spaces matural light for bearthrooms etc.

The change of use regs do require upgrade but only if a change of use uccurrs.. A detached dwelling can have alterations and it is still a detached dwelling and upgrade not triggered. (this is contrary to what the council officer said. Eve the habitable spaces if changed is not a change of use. That is why a garage can be converted and no upgrade required 9for insulation and concrete floor vapour barrier etc (althoiugh these would be benificial and space must be safe and sanoitreay). It is still part of the detached dwelling (as defined in the regs)



so that council officer was wrong!

[Shalodge]

you miss the point

Really! .. I miss the point!!?

the building code makes little distinction for haboitable and non habitable except some clauses do not apply to non habitable spaces matural light for bearthrooms etc.

That's not a 'little' distinction.. Habitable space (eg a bedroom) requires a specified amount of natural light and ventilation and arranging that may not always be easy.

The change of use regs do require upgrade but only if a change of use uccurrs.. A detached dwelling can have alterations and it is still a detached dwelling and upgrade not triggered. (this is contrary to what the council officer said. Eve the habitable spaces if changed is not a change of use. That is why a garage can be converted and no upgrade required 9for insulation and concrete floor vapour barrier etc (althoiugh these would be benificial and space must be safe and sanoitreay). It is still part of the detached dwelling (as defined in the regs)

I know you have an issue about the change of use regs and converting a garage to 'habitable space' but that is not what this thread is about. The OP did not mention anything about change of use. The advice was simply around adding another bedroom and the building code requirements around doing that. Nothing about needing a consent. Nothing I can see in that advice (as posted) was wrong or misleading. I sense you have a deep mistrust of building inspectors but you are reading to much into these posts and letting your personal biases colour your opinion..

Now and then building inspectors get it wrong (and so do builders) but I spend a lot of my time defending them (because they can not defend themselves) from unjustified criticism, usually from bullies with an agenda.

so that council officer was wrong!

Really? I suspect the only correct advice a building inspector could give someone (in your opinion) would look like this:

"The Building Code is a crock of s**t mate .. just go ahead and do what you want"!

[John the builder]

this isn't an argument about what constitutes a habitable space it is about whether an upgrade is required.

There is a distinction between what is desirable (or even preferred) from what is mandatory and required.

After all said and done Code compliance is best but even that is a minimum and better may be preferred?If he said "must"


The context of change of use is that this is the only time there is an obligation to upgrade or comply with the code clauses mentioned. But if not a C of u then the requirement to upgrade does not exist and 'must" does not apply

that inspector said we are told;(my emphasis

I just talked to the council's Building Control team and was told that to call something a bedroom it must meet NZ Building Code sections E3 (moisture), E4 (ventilation), G7, G8 (light) and H1 (energy efficiency). Rumpus room on the other hand doesn't need to meet these controls because it is not deemed an inhabitable space.

(BTW E4 should be G4)

but he is wrong (if he said this) as there is no change of use and therefore he may advise that these clauses would be better if met but he is wrong to say must.

I know you have an issue about the change of use regs and converting a garage to 'habitable space' but that is not what this thread is about.

no it is about a lesser example of a bedroom being divided to create two. But the same rules apply

The OP did not mention anything about change of use.

as above the mandatory requirements are only triggered when a C of U occurs so the "must" implies a change oif use and is misleading.

The advice was simply around adding another bedroom and the building code requirements around doing that.

if tou want to be code compliant then go ahead but that inspector said "must" that is wrong and misleading

Nothing about needing a consent. Nothing I can see in that advice (as posted) was wrong or misleading.

I didnt either but if he said must then he was misleading.............and the upgrades he suggested may need consent.

I sense you have a deep mistrust of building inspectors but you are reading to much into these posts and letting your personal biases colour your opinion..so that council officer was wrong!Now and then building inspectors get it wrong (and so do builders) but I spend a lot of my time defending them (because they can not defend themselves) from unjustified criticism, usually from bullies with an agenda.

my mistrust is from years of this sought of misinformation coming from council officers who should know better. i spend an inordinate amount of my time defending owners from overzealous and power crazed council officers enforcing the same distorted interpretations of the Building act as stated above. If this was only poor advice then that would be not so bad but owners are being criminalized by this turkey's colleagues for not much more (and in some cases less) and owners being made to spend significant money that is not required...

When owners get a Notice to Fix or a fine they don't have the resources of council (sorry that should read access to ratepayers money) to defend their position let alone engage the expert and legal help that they need.

The council are supposed to know and most accept their view....

So who are the bullies in those cases??

Council forget they are the servants of the ratepayers and when they are asked for advise it should be informed, professional, impartial and reliable. The advise as stated was poor and indicated a bias that was in the end misleading.

Really? I suspect the only correct advice a building inspector could give someone (in your opinion) would look like this:

"The Building Code is a crock of s**t mate .. just go ahead and do what you want"!

You are completely wrong and I have the utmost respect for the code and the building act which are complete and well balanced documents when read correctly and applied as intended.

But I defend and owners' right to decide what they do to their building and how they choose to use it as long as it is within that law and not something imposed by misinformed or misleading ignorant statements designed to uphold some council policy or personal agenda and not the law.

[Davo36]

So JTB, do you do this work professionally? Like can people pay you to go into bat with the council?

[Perry]

Council forget they are the servants of the ratepayers and when they are asked for advise it should be informed, professional, impartial and reliable.

On the presumption that you meant council staff, [rather than "council"] you are quite wrong. It is a common misconception. Perhaps even one that is fostered by some?

Council staff are not elected. They are appointed. Appointed to serve the people they are answerable to. That being their supervisor [team leader ] and - in turn - the council CEO.

Ultimately to the elected Councillors.

In theory, at least.

In practice, not so.

Certainly, council staff are not "servants of the ratepayers."

[John the builder]

yes but I have someone who I recommend

[John the builder]

Certainly, council staff are not "servants of the ratepayers."

Civil servants surely?

are not councils civil authority's (oxymoron accepted?)

[Shalodge]

JTB seems to be saying that if you don’t need building consent ,and the change of use regs are not triggered, then any building work required to divide a bedroom doesn’t have to comply with the Building Code? i.e. You can create a new bedroom without a window. I reject that. All building work on a dwelling that is creating a habitable space, must be built to code. The advice given to the original poster seems to be reasonable and accurate in my view and it is hard to see what else the building Inspector could have said?

This post has now shifted to a wider issue and it seems that there is not a clear understanding of roles and responsibilities of BCAs (Building Consent Authorities). An outline of these can be found here: https://www.building.govt.nz/building-officials/roles-and-responsibilities-of-councils/

Councils no longer have a monopoly on Building Inspections although they still have a role. All BCAs including Council are required to undergo an accreditation process and regular reviews in order to be able to issue BCs. If Council were to fail (and many do) then they can’t issue BCs and have to contract out those services. Some Councils struggle to keep good inspectors who are lured away by the prospect of settingup their own private BCA.

I am able to speak more freely on this matter because I don’t work for a Council and can only be ‘sacked’ by the voters. It doesn’t mean that the CE will like it though! That said the following is my view and not necessarily the view of my Council.

Quite frankly I don’t want my Council to be a BCA. It causes no end of strife and conflict with builders, developers and home owners. JTB is by no means an extremist! I get lobbied hard over BuildingConsent matters and have to have a reasonable understanding of them. Remember I have been doing this for 13 years now..

A comment was made earlier that it is unfair that Councils can defend their position using ratepayer’s money. Well that works the other way too. Councils are often seen as an easy target for litigation/compensation as they are subject to political pressure and often settle early. They are left holding the baby for many leaky homes simply because they are the last man standing and have deep pockets. Try that with a private BCA with litigation insurance and see how you get on!

The biggie for me though is ratepayer subsidies. Yes you heard that right. In most Councils the cost of running the BCA is not recovered through fees and charges and a large percentage is recovered via the general rate.

The costs of running a BCA are high due to constant pressures to achieve better compliance and avoid another leaky houses situation. The fear of liability is also driving costs as plans and proposals are peer reviewed and more complex and ‘edgier’development proposals are submitted. I won’t even mention natural hazards and climate change or this post will turn into a book!

Ratepayer subsidies allow Building Inspectors to provide ‘free’advice and also reduce the cost of compliance for developers, which most Councils encourage. It’s not popular with ratepayers for obvious reasons although many see the benefit of encouraging development and the ratepayer’s base in struggling communities.

So are Building Inspectors public servants? Under the accepted definition (employed by the public sector) then yes they are.. but that is changing and fast.

[John the builder]

i never mentioned consents

I did not say the wall didnt need to comply. The discussion was around whether dividing a room triggrered up grade requirements and this is where i objected to the officers advise

the discussion should really have been called when can a room be called a "bedroom". This doesnt need official recognition but is self evident

is there adequate room for bed and movement?

is there a window?

if not it is a bedroom without a window or may be a small one

your point on BCA's is a side iss=ue to this discussion

[Davo36]

JTB seems to be saying that if you don’t need building consent ,and the change of use regs are not triggered, then any building work required to divide a bedroom doesn’t have to comply with the Building Code? i.e. You can create a new bedroom without a window. I reject that. All building work on a dwelling that is creating a habitable space, must be built to code. The advice given to the original poster seems to be reasonable and accurate in my view and it is hard to see what else the building Inspector could have said?

This post has now shifted to a wider issue and it seems that there is not a clear understanding of roles and responsibilities of BCAs (Building Consent Authorities). An outline of these can be found here: https://www.building.govt.nz/building-officials/roles-and-responsibilities-of-councils/

Councils no longer have a monopoly on Building Inspections although they still have a role. All BCAs including Council are required to undergo an accreditation process and regular reviews in order to be able to issue BCs. If Council were to fail (and many do) then they can’t issue BCs and have to contract out those services. Some Councils struggle to keep good inspectors who are lured away by the prospect of settingup their own private BCA.

I am able to speak more freely on this matter because I don’t work for a Council and can only be ‘sacked’ by the voters. It doesn’t mean that the CE will like it though! That said the following is my view and not necessarily the view of my Council.

Quite frankly I don’t want my Council to be a BCA. It causes no end of strife and conflict with builders, developers and home owners. JTB is by no means an extremist! I get lobbied hard over BuildingConsent matters and have to have a reasonable understanding of them. Remember I have been doing this for 13 years now..

A comment was made earlier that it is unfair that Councils can defend their position using ratepayer’s money. Well that works the other way too. Councils are often seen as an easy target for litigation/compensation as they are subject to political pressure and often settle early. They are left holding the baby for many leaky homes simply because they are the last man standing and have deep pockets. Try that with a private BCA with litigation insurance and see how you get on!

The biggie for me though is ratepayer subsidies. Yes you heard that right. In most Councils the cost of running the BCA is not recovered through fees and charges and a large percentage is recovered via the general rate.

The costs of running a BCA are high due to constant pressures to achieve better compliance and avoid another leaky houses situation. The fear of liability is also driving costs as plans and proposals are peer reviewed and more complex and ‘edgier’development proposals are submitted. I won’t even mention natural hazards and climate change or this post will turn into a book!

Ratepayer subsidies allow Building Inspectors to provide ‘free’advice and also reduce the cost of compliance for developers, which most Councils encourage. It’s not popular with ratepayers for obvious reasons although many see the benefit of encouraging development and the ratepayer’s base in struggling communities.

So are Building Inspectors public servants? Under the accepted definition (employed by the public sector) then yes they are.. but that is changing and fast.

I agree with pretty much all you say Shalodge. Council having to deal with building consents must be the bane of their existence.

The people I don't like in councils are planners. Arrogance personified. But the building inspectors are generally pretty decent blokes.

With planning it all comes down to what council officers think you should do and/or what they feel they can make you do. You can drive a truck through the gaps in the various rules they write e.g. "Any development in this zone shall be of high visual amenity" which they can take to mean anything they like (or don't like) from time to time.

Last time I tried to develop something (never again) there was no second option for building inspections, or any other part of the process. Resource consent = council. Building consent = council. CCC = council. And they knew it and abused it.

So I hope more of that can be outsourced. Councils would probably like that too.

[Davo36]

i never mentioned consents

I did not say the wall didnt need to comply. The discussion was around whether dividing a room triggrered up grade requirements and this is where i objected to the officers advise

the discussion should really have been called when can a room be called a "bedroom". This doesnt need official recognition but is self evident

is there adequate room for bed and movement?

is there a window?

if not it is a bedroom without a window or may be a small one

your point on BCA's is a side iss=ue to this discussion

JTB, are you able to give examples of where you and/or consultants you know have been able to go to the council on behalf of clients and get earlier (wrongful) decisions overturned?

[Shalodge]

Davo36 you may already know this but the process to challenge BCA/Council decisions or policy is via the determination process. https://www.building.govt.nz/resolvi...eterminations/
Have a look and you will see a link to search previous determinations.. (Try "bedroom" or "sleepout" as key words). You can have many happy hours reading that stuff and if you do you will see that Councils mostly win these arguments. The rulings are binding and set precedents.

JTB... In the end all we are really discussing is whether the BI was issuing a direction or giving advice. I say he was giving advice because he had no formal consent application in front of him so that was all it could be, and I also say that advice was good and reasonable in the circumstances..

Davo.. I hear you re planners. As you know that is my prime area and it drives me nuts. I know that our planners read the stuff I write here because I get hints now and then and I don't care. I totally understand the issue and I can summarise it for you.:

Building Inspectors work to a specific set of rules and have little or no discretion. You know where you are with them. Planners OTOH have huge discretion (delegated by Council) to make decisions on resource consent matters. Discretion is supposed to simplify things but it doesn't work like that in practice. For instance what is a 'minor effect'? If you create an effect on someone that is "more than minor" the consequences can be costly. So who decided.. well the planner does and there is no easy way to challenge that short of a Judicial Review in many cases. (e.g notification decisions).

As an illustration imagine if we tossed out the Transport Act and replaced it with a law that simply said:

"It shall be unlawful to do any thing that could endanger anyone as determined by a Police Officer." The penalty shall range from $50 to 20 years imprisonment depending on the circumstance as as decided by the said officer".

On one hand everyone says, great .. If I am doing 120Kph on a deserted highway then I will be sweet, no ticket.. no one to be endangered. Except who decides that? See the problem..

My thinking in relation to Council consultants goes like this:

You have a blocked heart valve and are very sick. Your Dr refers you to 2 surgeons (Consultants).

The first one says.. " I have studied medicine since I was 5, and have attended Harvard Medical School and graduated with distinction. I have completed many papers on the subject of blocked heart valves and have lectured around the world. I had a go at an operation but it didn't turn out so well.. Wasn't my fault mind. Never tried since".

The second one says .. " I got a medical degree from an unknown university in Africa and have been working in hospital my entire life doing mostly heart surgery. I have done hundreds of these operations and my success rate is 99%.

So which one would you chose?

Which one do you think Councils choose?

(If you ask i can even tell you why).

[Davo36]

Yes I agree re building inspectors working to a well defined standard - and planners working to a vague district plan they and their peers created.

I even gave a speech to the councillors and elected officials at Papakura District Council in 1999. I tried to tell them that a vague plan doesn't help things. They actually need to spell out what can and can't be done in each area (when looking to lease property for intance) otherwise people will look at the resource consent area and just go "Oh it's too hard" and go elsewhere - such as Manukau City, where they did have a more prescriptive district plan at that time.

They listened politely and then in the local paper a few days later, was a quote from the then mayor, George Hawkins saying something like "what we have here is a real estate agent wanting everything rubber stamped...".

So you know, it's an impossible fight.

And yes, the council chooses the most expensive highly qualified consultants possible. I am guessing this is so that they can't be challenged in court?

[Shalodge]

I am guessing this is so that they can't be challenged in court?

Give that man a chocolate fish! In the battle of the experts in court credentials are everything..practical ability counts for nothing..

I tried to tell them that a vague plan doesn't help things

Two chocolate fish .. a new record. Exactly right .. As you know I chaired a District Plan Hearing Committee that went on for 18 months. That exercise was not about developing or drafting the plan, it was just about mediating or deciding conflicting arguments once the plan had been drafted and notified. The Plan (as all plans are) was developed by Council Planners , or more accurately consultant planners. (See above re consultants). While we begged for a plan that provided certainty we ended up with a plan that compromised on important objectives and policies just to avoid expensive litigation at the cost of uncertainty and excessive planner discretion.

Key players and major stakeholders in any plan go to extreme lengths to ensure that they retain, via careful wording, enough wriggle room to give them leverage in any development proposal. I personally maintain that a large part of the problem is the RMA but that is whole nuther book for another day!

[John the builder]

Shalodge i appreciate the perspective you bring to this converstaion

JTB... In the end all we are really discussing is whether the BI was issuing a direction or giving advice. I say he was giving advice because he had no formal consent application in front of him so that was all it could be, and I also say that advice was good and reasonable in the circumstances..

does it matter whether it was a wrong directive or wrong advise?

we dont really know the circumstances and perhaps the listener has not conveyed the conversation accurately but on the basis of the facts we are presented with the advise was at best inadequate if not misleading. How many develop,ments of buildings have been stopped by similar exaggerated requirements being expressed?

as for the doctors above i would want the one who had the operation experience, what is your point?