- UID
- 268023
- 热情
- 16940
- 人气
- 19069
- 主题
- 160
- 帖子
- 56241
- 精华
- 0
- 积分
- 46360
- 分享
- 0
- 记录
- 0
- 相册
- 2
- 好友
- 3
- 日志
- 0
- 在线时间
- 15496 小时
- 注册时间
- 2010-12-7
- 阅读权限
- 30
- 最后登录
- 2025-3-4
 
升级    31.8% - UID
- 268023
- 热情
- 16940
- 人气
- 19069
- 主题
- 160
- 帖子
- 56241
- 精华
- 0
- 积分
- 46360
- 阅读权限
- 30
- 注册时间
- 2010-12-7
|
August 10, 2014 at 9:20 am#1061
Wee Make Change
Participant
I understand there are two ways to approach laws and regulations.
1. fly under the radar for the build and while living.
2. find out all the rules from some like the local council and keep them in the loop and maybe pay fees.
What are the rules for tiny houses in NZ? I have heard that mobile houses are exempt from ‘normal’ housing regulations because they are not permanent.
I love the idea about of a tiny house on a trailer but find it hard to justify a trailer cost of $8-9k if you are going to move it say once a year. A 3.5 tonne load requires a specialist vehicle which in my case I would rent or get and a company to do the move. So was thinking why not build a box that can be lifted and transported by truck prob for a similar cost to tow a trailer. This way your you save a lot of money by not having a trailer. I only reason I can think of why the box idea would not fly is it is classed as permanent and needs building inspections, fees, hooked up to mains etc.
I am torn as to whether involve the council and risk restrictions and money but could gain good info or fly and the radar and do it now I want.
What do you guys know? Anyone had dealings with local council on the matter?
Thanks Mike
August 11, 2014 at 7:18 am#1089
BRYCE
Keymaster
Hey there. Regulations around Tiny Houses in New Zealand fall under a certain grey area at the moment. The first Tiny Houses in Auckland have council consent and fortunately the councils around the country seem to be taking a very progressive stance, viewing them as something that is necessary in our current housing climate. We are hoping to produce a full video on this subject later on (but are of course well occupied with our build at the moment, so it may be a while).
I understand your thinking behind the trailer. It is certainly an expense, but in my opinion unless you own land it’s something that makes your home simple to move, and quickly relocate. In the end it does really come down to your personal circumstance. You may require a heavier towing vehicle (especially if you build at the larger end of the spectrum) but I have seen a number of Tiny Homes constructed that come in under 2500kg’s, which is simple to transport with a common vehicle such as a Hilux.
In the end the cost of transporting a trailer will usually be a lot more affordable. I believe Cedric the Tiny House which doesn’t have a trailer beneath it (and Lucy, correct me if I’m wrong about this) cost well over a thousand dollars to move).
Ultimately it’s something that you have to work out for yourself in terms of what works best for your situation. Personally, not owning land, a the trailer option what what really resonated with me.
August 12, 2014 at 11:53 pm#1107
JOHN
Participant
Hi Mike,
Thats something I’ve been thinking about a lot. I’ll probably build a tiny house at 10m2 and use another cabin as a bedroom, to save on the cost of a trailer. There’s a company in NZ who sell and rent cabins on wheels but deliver them on a truck, it might keep the council happy to see it’s movable without the expense of a roadworthy trailer, you could put axles on a timber skids.
John
September 10, 2014 at 1:15 am#1238
MICHAELS
Participant
Hi Bryce, my wife and I have lived in our house truck for 13 years and would not go back to living in a regular house. Our truck is roadworthy and we use it for traveling as well as living. For people who don’t want to travel, however, isn’t it a bit crazy that the regulations force you to invest in a trailer to give the illusion that it is mobile? Forcing people who wish to live in small spaces on their own land to be “mobile” not only incurs the expense (and wastefulness) of wheels, tires, brakes etc, but also deprives them of solid foundations in the event of earthquake or high winds. Contrast a modest suburban section with a) boundary to boundary house or b) a tiny house plus fruit trees and vege garden – I know which I would prefer. I can understand that councils have a mandate to ensure that houses are structurally sound, properly connected to water and sewerage etc but to dictate that we all have to live in large houses and force those who don’t wish to to resort to subterfuge does nobody any favours.
September 12, 2014 at 12:05 am#1244
SAM
Participant
Interesting article:
HTTP://WWW.STUFF.CO.NZ/NATIONAL/6038757/BUILDING-CONSENTS-NEEDED-FOR-CARAVANS
September 12, 2014 at 12:06 am#1245
SAM
Participant
Also
HTTP://WWW.BRANZ.CO.NZ/CMS_SHOW_DOWNLOAD.PHP?ID=44B7ED0C5A471C002925CE7D1E5C1283F57FDCEA
September 12, 2014 at 12:18 am#1246
SAM
Participant
@Wee Make Change
HTTP://WWW.STUFF.CO.NZ/DOMINION-POST/NEWS/6058322/IS-IT-A-VEHICLE-OR-A-BUILDING
Note the Napier City Council stance.
September 13, 2014 at 9:33 pm#1249
BEACH
Participant
The law still seems very gray in this area of what consitutes a dwelling and why carnt all councils have the same rules it seems if you are not road legal you come under there rules i can live with that.Now if i want to live on my own section in my road legal dwelling where do i stand.
September 13, 2014 at 10:49 pm#1250
SAM
Participant
Unfortunately I bear bad news! Sorry guys I think this is almost a game breaker, the determination they refer to as particular use at the particular time. Seems to make your trailer a building. However I haven’t figured out how the hard services effects the implication of the tiny house.
HTTP://DBH.GOVT.NZ/CODEWORDS-15-ARTICLE-9
“Vehicle or building?
The Chief Executive took the view that the words ‘moves or is moved’ in the Land Transport Act were not to be read as meaning ‘is capable of moving or being moved’. The phrase was to be read literally as applying to a particular time and not as applying at all times while the units were equipped with wheels.
It followed that while a building equipped with wheels was being put to a use in which it moves or is moved, it was a vehicle and came under the Land Transport Act.
However, while it was being put to a use in which it does not move, it was a building and came under the Building Act. In other words, a structure with wheels was a vehicle while it was being used as a vehicle, and a building while it was being used as a building.
The units ceased to be vehicles when they had been manoeuvred into the positions in which they were to be used as buildings. As they were not vehicles, it therefore made no difference whether or not they were ‘immovable’ or ‘occupied by people on a permanent or long-term basis’.
The placement of a unit could not properly be called the construction of a building for which a building consent was required. However, once the unit became a building, any alteration to it would require a building consent (unless specifically exempted). Attaching the building to foundations and utilities amounted to alterations for which building consents were required.
The Chief Executive of the Department of Building and Housing determined that the notice to fix was to be modified to the effect that the owner was to apply to the territorial authority for a certificate of acceptance for each unit. “
September 13, 2014 at 10:51 pm#1251
SAM
Participant
*However I haven’t figured out how the hard services effects the implication of the tiny house. In regards to going off grid, this may cause a change technically in definition that might be a loop hole to exploit.
September 13, 2014 at 11:00 pm#1252
SAM
Participant
So I think I was a bit premature with my comment before about game breaker.
This may be quite helpful:
HTTP://DBH.GOVT.NZ/CODEWORDS-15-ARTICLE-9
note this was in 2006
Guidance information on structures that are both vehicles and buildings
Although the decision turned on the finding that the units were not ‘vehicles’ at the relevant times, the determination also discussed structures used both as vehicles and as buildings, such as caravans, house-buses, and the like.
As mentioned above, under the Building Act such a vehicle is a building if it is ‘immovable and occupied by people on a permanent or long-term basis’. To help readers of the Determination to use the Determination in similar contexts, the Chief Executive took the view that:
a vehicle such as a caravan can properly be described as ‘immovable’ if it is either:
– no longer supported solely by its wheels, or
– attached to the ground or to utility services and the like
permanent occupancy is when there is an intention that the occupancy will be for an indefinite period, which could in the event be comparatively short
long-term occupancy is when the occupancy will be for a definite period that can properly be described as ‘long’ in the particular circumstances.
Full determination document:
HTTP://DBH.GOVT.NZ/USERFILES/FILE/BUILDING/DETERMINATIONS/2006/PDF/2006-72.PDF
September 13, 2014 at 11:31 pm#1253
WEE MAKE CHANGE
Participant
Hi Sam, thanks for all the research you are doing. Very interesting reading.
Have you come across this case?
article
HTTP://WWW.INTEREST.CO.NZ/PROPERTY/71745/TRANSPORTABLE-HOME-UNIT-KAIKOURA-BUILDING-LOCAL-COUNCIL-SAYS-IT-GOVERNMENT-SAYS-IT-IS
Summary
HTTP://WWW.DBH.GOVT.NZ/CODEWORDS-ISSUE-062?UTM_SOURCE=LICENSED+BUILDING+PRACTITIONERS&UTM_CAMPAIGN=73BB9D2B32-CODEWORDS_AND_LBP_ISSUE_62_AUGUST_2014&UTM_MEDIUM=EMAIL&UTM_TERM=0_F5E29B74AC-73BB9D2B32-46510589#DETERMINATION-2014-025
Full report
HTTP://WWW.DBH.GOVT.NZ/USERFILES/FILE/BUILDING/DETERMINATIONS/2014/2014-025.PDF
September 13, 2014 at 11:39 pm#1254
WEE MAKE CHANGE
Participant
This is another camp ground movable home case where the camp ground lost.
Thames-Coromandel District Council v Te Puru Holiday Park Limited
HTTP://WWW.BROOKFIELDS.CO.NZ/PUBLICATIONS/ITEM/COURT-OF-APPEAL-RULES-TRAILER-HOME-IS-A-BUILDING
September 14, 2014 at 12:43 am#1255
BEACH
Participant
Thanks for the links some very interesting reading so what this does is push people to live on the fringe and be more nomadic at lest now i wont be buying a section unless i get board and want to jump in the sand pit with the council they need to address the real isues in there towns.
September 14, 2014 at 9:22 am#1256
SAM
Participant
@we make change – i quite liked the TCDC vs campground article.
It provides some simple instructions on what not to do. To avoid 10k fines.
Author
Posts
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 25 total) 12→
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Log in / Register
Follow Us on FacebookFollow Us on TwitterFollow Us on YouTubeFollow Us on PinterestFollow Us on InstagramFollow Us on Google +Follow Us on E-mail
Zyia Pictures
Copyright © 2013 - 2017 'Living Big in a Tiny House ' - Zyia Pictures Ltd
|
|
发表于 2018-6-14 13:30:39
分享
收藏
好吧，查了一下，貌似 Caravan 还真的是 Dwelling by definition