Marlborough Express - Weekend Express
Neighbours rat out ‘ugly’ tiny homes
More tiny home owners in Marlborough are being dobbed in for their ‘‘ugly’’ builds than following the law, prompting a council to release new advice.
A pamphlet has been drawn up by the Marlborough District Council after the number of small dwellings caught floating building consents rose in the region, with six ordered to bring up to regulation last year after complaints.
It detailed when a building consent was required and the implications not having consent could have on tiny house owners, to prevent them facing unexpected costs when neighbours turned them over to authorities.
Council advocacy and practice integration manager Barbara Mead, who compiled the pamphlet, said people often called to criticise ‘‘that ugly thing over there’’ or the new ‘‘second dwelling’’ overlooking their garden.
"That’s commonly a trigger point, or it could be also a genuine concern around the safety of the home ... They haven’t necessarily thought about whether or not it [the tiny home] is lawful. That’s why they ring you,’’ she said.
Tiny homes included converted containers, purposebuilt constructions and converted out-buildings, such as sheds. Tiny house owners in
Marlborough either sought a ‘‘simplified’’ lifestyle or an affordable solution to housing.
But council building control group manager Bill East said compliance officers had seen some ‘‘shockers’’ over the years, as had other regions.
A common reason tiny home builders avoided building approval was the current building act made it ‘‘quite problematic’’ to prove compliance, he said.
‘‘But this is also about the Kiwi handyman who thinks he can just get a container and whack a window in it and say, ‘I’ve got a house’."
Mead said confusion on whether the buildings needed consents was also a factor, as people thought buying a tiny house was like buying a caravan.
‘‘That’s where our education needs to be focused,’’ she said.
The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) often ruled immoveable dwellings were buildings, and subject to building consents, but were debating whether small, movable dwellings were buildings or a vehicle.
The pamphlet said accommodation dubbed a ‘vehicle’ could still need a building consent if the owner wanted water, drainage or power, or a resource consent for vegetative clearance, water or construction near a riverbed.
East said information was compiled from the Resource Management Act, the Building Act, and Building Code advice from MBIE determinations.
‘‘The ramifications of getting one of these structures appears to be really simple. Grab it, pick it up, put it on your site. But actually, because of the law, it isn’t. There’s a huge amount of considerations to be made,’’ East said.
Education was the council’s first port of call once a building without consent was found, but this could escalate depending on the severity of the tiny home’s non-compliance, with prosecution being the ‘‘end level’’, he said.
East said the council tried to avoid putting undue bills and stress on people who could have invested ‘‘everything they’ve got’’ into the smaller house.
The council last year fined a builder $8500 for building five ‘‘small dwellings’’ on his Blenheim property and connecting them to a wastewater system.
Mead said the pamphlet could have been used as part of the council’s prosecution if it had been available at the time, as evidence of attempts to educate, but she wasn’t sure how this might have affected the outcome.
The council would soon attend a hearing about a tiny house on wheels with MBIE, who decided the council’s notice to fix was inadequate, and Eco Cottages, who built and supplied the tiny home. A date had not yet been set.
The pamphlet was available on the council’s website.
Are you a tiny house owner? What do you make of the council’s new pamphlet? Email chloe.ranford@stuff.co. nz.