Unconsented sleepout on property

[em720]

Hi all, we've recently purchased our first home which is very exciting, after a year of searching, 60+ open homes, and 3 previous attempts at buying.

The house has a storage shed that has 'evolved' into a teenage sleepout. It is unconsented as a sleepout, which we knew about when purchasing.

Ideally we'd like to get rid of it and then move a prefab dwelling onto that spot, less than 55 sq metres in size so it comes within the Upper Hutt City Council rules on this.

Has anyone had any experience with these secondary dwelling types?

Am assuming we will need consent to removed the 'storage shed', and then consent to get a pre-fab dwelling onto the property, but I just wanted to hear other people's stories on this type of work first.

Are there any other rules that I should know about, apart from it having to be less than 55 sq metres in size, and it only being able to be used as famly accomodation?

Also if anyone has had any good experiences with any pre-fab companies in the Wellington region (or bad!) I would love to hear.

Thank you.

Edited to add: There is a land covenant in place which says we cannot erect or move onto the property a caravan, hut or shed to be used as a dwelling.

However, if we wanted to build a family flat, which by definition is:

"a self-contained dwelling unit no more than 55m2 in floor area, on the same property and in the same ownership as the principal dwelling (and not leased to another party), for the purpose of providing ancillary accommodation. For clarity, a family flat which exceeds the 55m2 limit will be considered as a dwelling and will be assessed against the appropriate rules"

Then surely we can do this, as long as it was less than 55 m2 in floor area, so therefore wouldn't be counted as a dwelling, and therefore we would not be breaching the land covenant?

[eri]

presumably the current shed is bigger than the 'non-consent' rules?

[em720]

presumably the current shed is bigger than the 'non-consent' rules?

No its pretty small - less than the 55 sq m rule, definitely.

But it still needs to be consented because its a conversion from a storage shed to a dwelling, according to our lawyer.

Also, I probably should've added - there is a land covenant in place which says we cannot erect or move onto the property a caravan, hut or shed to be used as a dwelling.

However, if we wanted to build a family flat, which by definition is:

"a self-contained dwelling unit no more than 55m2 in floor area, on the same property and in the same ownership as the principal dwelling (and not leased to another party), for the purpose of providing ancillary accommodation. For clarity, a family flat which exceeds the 55m2 limit will be considered as a dwelling and will be assessed against the appropriate rules"

Then surely we can do this, as long as it was less than 55 m2 in floor area, so therefore wouldn't be counted as a dwelling, and therefore we would not be breaching the land covenant?

[eri]

sounds like you're trying to get around a covenant

specifically written

to stop you doing what you're trying to do....

in such cases common sense goes right out the window

and only the advice of; lawyers, council and people who have done it before

has any value

so i'll stfu now;o)

[em720]

sounds like you're trying to get around a covenant

specifically written

to stop you doing what you're trying to do....

in such cases common sense goes right out the window

and only the advice of; lawyers, council and people who have done it before

has any value

so i'll stfu now;o)

I'm just trying to just work out what we can and cannot do. If it's in breach of the covenant, then we will not do it, obviously.

But if the covenant says "you can't build a dwelling", but then upper hutt city council says that a dwelling has a different definition to a family flat, then why could we not build a family flat? It would be used for visiting family and friends.

I have consulted the lawyer on this matter, and she said she wasn't sure how the covenant vs council consent could impact on one another. Who gets the final say, in the end? the development company behind the covenant, or the council? It sounds like quite an unusual one if our lawyer could not confirm either way.

[eri]

https://home.howstuffworks.com/real-estate/buying-home/is-there-way-out-of-restrictive-covenant.htm

[em720]

https://home.howstuffworks.com/real-...e-covenant.htm

Thanks for the link. Very thankful that none of those crazy strict covenants apply to us!

I'm still not trying to breach a covenant in the hope I can just get away with it though... I'm assuming that the covenant was put in place so people couldn't put multiple large dwellings on their properties. Which makes sense. I'm trying to get to the bottom of how the land covenant defines a 'dwelling', and if this is the same definition as the council's definition. Because, if it is the same, then building something under 55 m2 doesn't count as a dwelling, and therefore would not be at all in breach of the covenant. But I just can't seem to get to the bottom of it, and as I don't want to break the rules, I won't be doing anything until I have confirmed what I can and cannot do.

Hoping someone on here might know.

[eri]

why not ask the people who wrote the covenant?

[em720]

why not ask the people who wrote the covenant?

I have googled the name of the development company and cannot find any trace of them to contact them. I’ve asked the lawyer to dig around again to get some contact details as there seem to be none online!

[Bob Kane]

The house has a storage shed that has 'evolved' into a teenage sleepout. It is unconsented as a sleepout, which we knew about when purchasing.

Lateral thinking time:
You have a shed which is nothing but a shed.
A previous owner may have used it as a sleepout - but it's still a shed.
No consent needed.
Just get rid of it.
As you would any other shed.

But it still needs to be consented because its a conversion from a storage shed to a dwelling, according to our lawyer.

Stop using the word sleepout/dwelling.
You have a shed.
Strip out anything that that might suggest it's being live in.
Then remove your shed.

[Bob Kane]

I have googled the name of the development company and cannot find any trace of them to contact them. I’ve asked the lawyer to dig around again to get some contact details as there seem to be none online!

If the people who wrote the covenant can't be found, then who will complain if you breach it?

[em720]

Lateral thinking time:
You have a shed which is nothing but a shed.
A previous owner may have used it as a sleepout - but it's still a shed.
No consent needed.
Just get rid of it.
As you would any other shed.


Stop using the word sleepout/dwelling.
You have a shed.
Strip out anything that that might suggest it's being live in.
Then remove your shed.

Thanks Bob, but I think the council requires us to have consent to remove the shed. The owners got consent to move the shed onto the property, and on the website it mentions anything greater than 10 m2 in size needs consent. So I’m assuming we would need consent to pull it down. Why on earth we need consent to pull down a shed I don’t know, seems ridiculous. I guess this is my first intro into the world of council rules.

[em720]

If the people who wrote the covenant can't be found, then who will complain if you breach it?

The neighbours who I’m guessing also have to abide by the same land covenants. However, the shed has been there 15 years, and has been used as a sleepout for probably that long too, and the neighbours drive past it every day, so I doubt they would complain.

But my goal is to try and do this without breaching anything!

[John the builder]

the covenant was probably the original subdivision to stop people siting caravans and devaluing the area?

talk to council

dont demolish the sleepout you are entitled to use it as is.

[em720]

the covenant was probably the original subdivision to stop people siting caravans and devaluing the area?

talk to council

dont demolish the sleepout you are entitled to use it as is.

Thanks John, I will chat to the council, I think that's a good place to start. The old owners are also happy to meet us as well so I will chat to them too about the land covenant when I go and meet them.