$6000 -$7000 for a consent is bloody ridiculous !! It's just a massive rip off. Should be an admin fee based on the number of hrs it takes to look at the plans and a couple of hundred per inspection. It should NOT be a money making opportunity. Kiwis are getting ripped by Red Tape and Bureaucracy .. for what. Insanity! Also .... how stupid to allow an owner builder to build the main dwelling but not a granny flat. The world has gone MAD.
Unfortunately everything is overpriced at the moment. And I think it is world-wide, not just in NZ. I still think 6-7k in the grand total of costs for a building is nothing.
Councils all over the country are under the hammer for increases in rates. Not just in the last two or three years. Many Councils see tihs as a revenue gathering exercise with a profit margin. In New Plymouth the BC fees are based on the cost of the dwelling. Not some arbitrary figure which I understand some Councils such as Auckland do. There are certain number of inspections built into that price but I wouldn't be surprised that additional inspections at around $250? each are called for by the Council. BC fees are one thing. You'll also have a development fee which is understandable.
@@3dmaker223 Hmm .. maybe nothing to some people ..but .. when you look at a 200sqm home that you personally design and then build yourself vs getting a "builder" or other company to do it, $6-7000 becomes a much bigger percentage. Thats especially true if the council are doing 5-6 inspections plus having the plans looked at by overpaid plonkers. After all .. what are they looking at. They already instigated a licence system for designer/architects to do 99% of the job for them. When you see the dumb questions they ask (designed to make them feel important) you wonder what neanderthal you're dealing with. Maybe I just "too kiwi" and remember the way things once were before plonkers got involved. NZ has lost its way. I commend National for trying to claw back some oppressive draconian rules but it needs to go way further.
@@KiwiSkipper I trust that you have a lot experience before the lbp system was invented in 2012. I understand that 6-7k is not little money. But in this specific video, I am talking about a 60sqm granny flat and a saving of 6-7k in a minimum 170k project. Of course it will be a lot cheaper if you build it yourself as owner builder. I just made another video about this. But if you want to be exempted from BC for a granny flat, you cannot be owner builder, and therefore the project will cost about 3k per sqm for a simple design. Builders do not get out of their bed for anything less than that nowadays. Owner builder exemption on the other hand is a great opportunity for those who have the skills.
@@NigelHarrison-z5y All councils charge based on cost of building work. Same as Auckland. But they are not as cheap as what the discussion document claims ($2500-3000 for a 60sqm) latest bill I had from Thames Coromandel council was $3500 for converting a study to a bathroom with estimated building cost of $20k. It needs 3 inspections! So, a 60sqm BC fee will be about 6-7k.
I have worked in the building industry for 52 years, just retired, builder by trade,just build a 30 Sq meter my place,knowing the council proceeds, really wasn't a problem, time factor minimum at council, getting the right position on section, picking up your sewer line,and fall connection, separate sock hole for storm water,power from house meter box, make it look appealing resale .
Well that makes it as clear as mud, new rules to clear up the confusion seem to be the Govt and Councils clipping the ticket just as often. How will this bag of string alleviate the housing crisis?
Call me a cynic, I reckon the rules are going to be firmly geared to allow the easy roll out of pre fabs from Fletchers purpose built facility. Unless designers / engineers are going to be heavily relied on for compliance, the system will unfairly disadvantage those living on hill properties, flood prone areas, etc. I love the principle , it could so easily use the LBP scheme as a great resource, but alas, my thoughts are that all the chat of ‘cutting the red tape’, ‘affordable accomodation’ etc are straight out the window and it’s all about the easy pickings for fletchers prefab. I would be absolutely delighted to be proved wrong on this one 🤗
@@Tryinghardtobecreative I tend to agree. One of the options that they are proposing is: targeted promotion campaigns of Builtready and MultiProof. Let’s see if this one goes ahead, which will prove your theory…
New-build only? So at $3,500-$4,000/sq-m = $240,000 but let's say we get a great rate $2,000/sqm - $180,000 minimum. Who can afford that? Especially in rural NZ? Its really going to apply to maybe 1 out of 10 people who actually need housing.
@@kimjin6450 and that's really cheap by today's standards - www.google.com/search?q=average+residential+building+cost+nz+2024&rlz=1C1CHBF_enNZ1012NZ1012&oq=average+residential+building+cost+nz+2024+&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIHCAEQIRigATIHCAIQIRigATIHCAMQIRigAdIBCjI3OTMzajBqMTWoAgiwAgE&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
That was an interesting and balanced discussion, thank you. One question we have about this is what happens if you get a complaint to the Council from an neighbor? They might, for example, say you have not build according to code. Who says you have or have not, and who pays for the professional advice? Thanks.
@@dorothyinnes6429 no worries! well, you still need to let the council know before you start building and provide them with indicative plans. Also, all the design and building work must be done and signed off by licensed professionals. Same as if you were getting a building consent. And everyone will be liable for the part of the work they do. If a non lbp person carries out restricted building work, such as design or building, they will get fined. Owner is responsible to make sure to use lbp professionals.
Get an engineer to oversee your project. Build it to spec and get engineer to do a couple of inspections, foundations and framing etc. Build it. Get electrician to wire it from main house, write out a electrical cert. Or just solar power it. Water from roof to tank. Get drainage ps3 for sewer and storm. Done.
@@mooselee902 Get an Engineer to do the plans as well. They are out there, look around, sit down with one, at his office, talk it through. Big money saved if you can do the work yourself. Electrical, always get an electrical cert. Solar is simple. I would be doing solar.
@@mrFizzboat you would be surprised to see how many sections are in more than high wind zone throughout the country. Most high wind zone and below are in city centre areas that are e sheltered. But then the sections in these suburbs are so small and high density that this rule will not be of any use for them.
The wind zones relate to structural design not fire design. Each individual site needs to be assessed for wind zone . You can’t rule out a region based on a generic wind zone.
@@joannebrown7921 you are right, it is not region base. It is site based and you can find out about the specific site wind zone from the local council plans or Branz maps. Some sites do not have enough information on these maps and have to be assessed by an engineer.
Thanks for the video, so all and all its not as great as it sounds, you still need to follow all the building rules, let the council know, have approval etc.. its all the same crap as we have to go through now!!
We will still need to deal with the council, but I think the resource consent part of it will be helpful. The resource consent process is frustrating and costly and time consuming, BC is normally straight forward. I think for the investment, it is safer to get a BC anyway. RC does not affect valuation. Also, you still need to pay the contribution fee- with or without building and resource consent. The contribution fee for a minor dwelling in rural Thames is $10.5k for example and the only service they are providing to rural is rubbish collection (wheelie bin tags paid separately!). Contribution fee for a one bedroom studio to connect to sewer and storm water in west Auckland is $20K. So, the big bills still exist!
My argument against, very simple, at present LBP only required to carry PI insurance for 10 years for the build, however building code B2 requires minimum 50 years for a build, who carries the liability for the remaining 40 years.
I do not think you can hold anyone liable for 50 years. Even the 10 year liability is ridiculous in my opinion. The B2 requirement is for the way the structure is design to withstand the environment for 50 years. It is not about holding the builders liable. Everyone is liable for their property. That is why due diligence and insurance exist.
This is the exact text from the MBIE website: "The net floor area in a building is measured to the inside of the enclosing walls or posts/columns." It is unclear if they mean framing or lining. But then we have the definition of net internal floor area from Auckland Unitary plan which says: "The floor space between the finished surfaces of internal walls between rooms". So I believe net floor area is measured to the lining. And yes, every small thing matters!
@@3dmaker223 Yeah traditionally it's always been to the framing but I guess this is why it's a discussion document right. Different Councils have different rules.
@@peterelliott2914 there are lots of gray areas in the definitions and also across the building codes. Council officers also like to interpret the rules and definitions the way they like. Sometimes you get two different opinions from two officers in the same council. When we measure the net lettable area, it is to the lining.
@@themidlifeapprentice here is a link to one of my listings. Please watch me as I am going to have a massive sale next week because I am releasing a new design: www.trademe.co.nz/building-renovation/portable-cabins/auction-4895952752.htm
still far too complicated and expensive for the average family with a mortgage to afford. Builders and tradesmen as councils will simply charge their usual inflated fees so where is the savings or incentive for the owner? This will not be an effective solution to the housing crisis in NZ.
@@gideonporter537 Yes but paying rent is dead money. Buy a section, put a small garage on the section. Live in it, build the house over 3 years from the sleep out(garage).. Or just stay in the sleepout and save money.
@@markcleaver6573 I agree - but isn't this about an additional dwelling unit on an existing property? Your case is different - and wouldn't be allowed in many councils?
Worth noting the use of the phrase ".. the measure of it's own height..." in the actual regulations and the graphic representation shown which conflicts with the intent of that phrasing. That phrase is often altered to "a building's height" or (as you said) "a building's overall height". There is a reason for the specific wording. The "measure of it's height" refers to the point at which a height measurement is taken and it cannot be closer to a boundary (or other building) than that measurement, at that point. The low-side wall of a pitched roof building can be closer to the boundary that the high-side wall or the ridge. If this was not the case, the regulations would say "A building's overall height". It doesn't, "the measure" is the thing being referred to.
I would like to interpret the wording same as you as it makes more sense. However, their diagram in the guide (for 30sqm- they do not have a diagram for 60sqm yet, but their wording is the same) shows the building's overall height.
@@3dmaker223Yeah it’s not just me. I have seen previous articles that explained the height requirements as well as previous District Plans (Wellington specifically) where height planes and building setbacks are illustrated. Not sure if I have copies on my desktop but my working with this goes back 20 years. MBIEs pdf guide of exemptions has several mistakes where they try to interpret the regulations into their version of plain English (one of them relates to the exemptions for verandahs). I would absolutely stick to my interpretation. Again, there’s a fundamental reason they chose those words. Words matter especially in legalese.
@@3dmaker223The fundamental reason for the measurement thing is potential damage from a structure falling over. A failing (then falling) building component can really only fall the distance of its own height, and consequently cause damage to a neighbour or other building. Setting back, say, a 2.4m wall of a building 3.5 meters away from a boundary simply because another wall is 3.5m high makes no rational sense. And despite what many loopies think the building code and regulations are deeply rooted in rational sense.
@@DiscoFang Yes, I have found mistakes too. Also NZS3604 and BRANZ having discrepancies. I would like to stick to my interpretations too, but (most) council officers are so annoying to deal with and you cannot have a sensible argument with them. I try to avoid it as much as I can.
I don’t think the council will be giving a code of compliance . They probably will require a statement from the designer and builder stating that it complies with the building code .
@@3dmaker223Thank you very much for this content. I am not in the industry but have a house with a backyard which could accommodate this, I was rubbing my hands now I’m rubbing my head, but knowledge is valuable for good or for ill , I appreciate your replies too with other, more learned commenters than myself. 🤗
@@brianna56ism this exemption is different from the 30sqm exemptions. Under this proposal, you are allowed to have plumbing without a building consent. If you are on a septic tank, you need to get a consent for the septic tank, but not for the plumbing in the house.
If the definition of insanity is doing the same experiment and yet somehow expecting different results, then one would be unwise to suggest that the nz government " has got this"
if I’ve picked you up correctly on how you explained it this is no cheaper than getting a building consent all the other costs are still there and of course you run into a raft problems on a small section with a septic tank by the time you go through the environmental authority and then the council you are looking for a large cost to me there is no advantage it’s just lipservice from the government and council as usual but they still get their pound of flesh
@@davidboyd8113 that is what I think. All the costs are still these apart from bc application. But if the council is not involved, the lbp people involved are more liable. Why would they do it for same price? Each lbp will increase their price a little bit to cover their insurance. And the owner will end up paying same money with a building that doesn’t not have the same value if it had consent.
$160,000-$180,000 is actually a lot of money for a normal family. Thanks for your video, do you know how much does it cost to build a 30sqm under the current rule in Waipa? Thanks
It is really hard to put a number down based on the size of the building. Prices vary between 2k per sqm for a very basic owner builder up to 7k or more per sqm for hi spec buildings. Unfortunately properties are the most expensive expense for families and it is only getting worse. That is why most people have to take a 30 year loan to be able to buy a property.
Thank you so much, it's not so much of a lifesaver as it first seemed! Do these rules override the 30sqm builds or is this just from above 30sqm and up to 60 sqm?
I believe it is a good rule depending on the project. But as I mentioned in the video, I would still apply for a BC. Probably not a RC. This will be a new rule and does not override any previous exemption. They have not said anything about the minimum area yet, so it can be for anything under 60sqm. Note that you cannot alter an existing building. So, if you have built a 30sqm and want to convert it to a granny flat, this is not exempted.
@@gosekinz the proposal is for a new section of the building act for this type of dwelling. Technically a tiny house can’t meet the building code when on a trailer, it needs engineered foundations to support and hold the trailer, which kinda defeats the whole point of a trailer.
@@Tryinghardtobecreative I agree with you. They might add a section in schedule one or introduce a new section. Either way, these exemptions do not apply to tiny homes on trailer.
Granny flat is just a term. Minor dwelling is the more proper name. It is just a dwelling that it's size is limited to 60sqm. Anybody can live in them.
@@paulchristensen2573 the government has already announced a few times that they want to make it happen, so it will go ahead. But, I think you are right. It is likely going to be so many conditions to meet that almost no one will qualify for the exemption.
Caravan option always existed, but is it really a replacement for a house? specially for older generation who need more accessibility and comfort? Also, let's not forget that a building is an asset and appreciate in value but a caravan depreciate in value. Afterall, depending on the personal circumstances, caravan might be the better solution or choice for some. Looking at livable caravan prices, they are not a cheap solution either.
$6000 -$7000 for a consent is bloody ridiculous !! It's just a massive rip off. Should be an admin fee based on the number of hrs it takes to look at the plans and a couple of hundred per inspection. It should NOT be a money making opportunity. Kiwis are getting ripped by Red Tape and Bureaucracy .. for what. Insanity!
Also .... how stupid to allow an owner builder to build the main dwelling but not a granny flat. The world has gone MAD.
Unfortunately everything is overpriced at the moment. And I think it is world-wide, not just in NZ. I still think 6-7k in the grand total of costs for a building is nothing.
Councils all over the country are under the hammer for increases in rates. Not just in the last two or three years. Many Councils see tihs as a revenue gathering exercise with a profit margin. In New Plymouth the BC fees are based on the cost of the dwelling. Not some arbitrary figure which I understand some Councils such as Auckland do. There are certain number of inspections built into that price but I wouldn't be surprised that additional inspections at around $250? each are called for by the Council. BC fees are one thing. You'll also have a development fee which is understandable.
@@3dmaker223 Hmm .. maybe nothing to some people ..but .. when you look at a 200sqm home that you personally design and then build yourself vs getting a "builder" or other company to do it, $6-7000 becomes a much bigger percentage. Thats especially true if the council are doing 5-6 inspections plus having the plans looked at by overpaid plonkers. After all .. what are they looking at. They already instigated a licence system for designer/architects to do 99% of the job for them. When you see the dumb questions they ask (designed to make them feel important) you wonder what neanderthal you're dealing with.
Maybe I just "too kiwi" and remember the way things once were before plonkers got involved. NZ has lost its way. I commend National for trying to claw back some oppressive draconian rules but it needs to go way further.
@@KiwiSkipper I trust that you have a lot experience before the lbp system was invented in 2012. I understand that 6-7k is not little money. But in this specific video, I am talking about a 60sqm granny flat and a saving of 6-7k in a minimum 170k project. Of course it will be a lot cheaper if you build it yourself as owner builder. I just made another video about this. But if you want to be exempted from BC for a granny flat, you cannot be owner builder, and therefore the project will cost about 3k per sqm for a simple design. Builders do not get out of their bed for anything less than that nowadays. Owner builder exemption on the other hand is a great opportunity for those who have the skills.
@@NigelHarrison-z5y All councils charge based on cost of building work. Same as Auckland. But they are not as cheap as what the discussion document claims ($2500-3000 for a 60sqm) latest bill I had from Thames Coromandel council was $3500 for converting a study to a bathroom with estimated building cost of $20k. It needs 3 inspections! So, a 60sqm BC fee will be about 6-7k.
I have worked in the building industry for 52 years, just retired, builder by trade,just build a 30 Sq meter my place,knowing the council proceeds, really wasn't a problem, time factor minimum at council, getting the right position on section, picking up your sewer line,and fall connection, separate sock hole for storm water,power from house meter box, make it look appealing resale .
Well that makes it as clear as mud, new rules to clear up the confusion seem to be the Govt and Councils clipping the ticket just as often. How will this bag of string alleviate the housing crisis?
@@rickhicks2445 agree! But then that is what government and councils do: creating more confusion…
Wonderful News! Thanks a lot.
It can be a life saver for some!
Call me a cynic, I reckon the rules are going to be firmly geared to allow the easy roll out of pre fabs from Fletchers purpose built facility. Unless designers / engineers are going to be heavily relied on for compliance, the system will unfairly disadvantage those living on hill properties, flood prone areas, etc.
I love the principle , it could so easily use the LBP scheme as a great resource, but alas, my thoughts are that all the chat of ‘cutting the red tape’, ‘affordable accomodation’ etc are straight out the window and it’s all about the easy pickings for fletchers prefab.
I would be absolutely delighted to be proved wrong on this one 🤗
@@Tryinghardtobecreative I tend to agree. One of the options that they are proposing is: targeted promotion campaigns of Builtready and MultiProof. Let’s see if this one goes ahead, which will prove your theory…
New-build only? So at $3,500-$4,000/sq-m = $240,000 but let's say we get a great rate $2,000/sqm - $180,000 minimum. Who can afford that? Especially in rural NZ? Its really going to apply to maybe 1 out of 10 people who actually need housing.
Sorry I’m an amateur. Is $2,000/sqm floor area or others?
$2,000 x 60sqm = $120,000?
@@kimjin6450 and that's really cheap by today's standards - www.google.com/search?q=average+residential+building+cost+nz+2024&rlz=1C1CHBF_enNZ1012NZ1012&oq=average+residential+building+cost+nz+2024+&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIHCAEQIRigATIHCAIQIRigATIHCAMQIRigAdIBCjI3OTMzajBqMTWoAgiwAgE&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
That was an interesting and balanced discussion, thank you. One question we have about this is what happens if you get a complaint to the Council from an neighbor? They might, for example, say you have not build according to code. Who says you have or have not, and who pays for the professional advice? Thanks.
@@dorothyinnes6429 no worries! well, you still need to let the council know before you start building and provide them with indicative plans. Also, all the design and building work must be done and signed off by licensed professionals. Same as if you were getting a building consent. And everyone will be liable for the part of the work they do. If a non lbp person carries out restricted building work, such as design or building, they will get fined. Owner is responsible to make sure to use lbp professionals.
Get an engineer to oversee your project. Build it to spec and get engineer to do a couple of inspections, foundations and framing etc. Build it. Get electrician to wire it from main house, write out a electrical cert. Or just solar power it. Water from roof to tank. Get drainage ps3 for sewer and storm. Done.
How much does an engineer cost? is it cheaper than going through council?
@@mooselee902 Get an Engineer to do the plans as well. They are out there, look around, sit down with one, at his office, talk it through. Big money saved if you can do the work yourself. Electrical, always get an electrical cert. Solar is simple. I would be doing solar.
@@markcleaver6573 I think it would be easy for you Mark (and all credit to you) but how many people do you know who that would apply to?
@@gideonporter537 Well building it yourself is the key to saving a lot of money. So how clever are you ?
Hemp houses are fire resistant. Incinerator toilet? Partial off grid? Thanks for the break down.
Great information. Wellington region might be out for this given it it in a very high wind zone.
@@mrFizzboat you would be surprised to see how many sections are in more than high wind zone throughout the country. Most high wind zone and below are in city centre areas that are e sheltered. But then the sections in these suburbs are so small and high density that this rule will not be of any use for them.
The wind zones relate to structural design not fire design. Each individual site needs to be assessed for wind zone . You can’t rule out a region based on a generic wind zone.
@@joannebrown7921 you are right, it is not region base. It is site based and you can find out about the specific site wind zone from the local council plans or Branz maps. Some sites do not have enough information on these maps and have to be assessed by an engineer.
Thanks for the video, so all and all its not as great as it sounds, you still need to follow all the building rules, let the council know, have approval etc.. its all the same crap as we have to go through now!!
We will still need to deal with the council, but I think the resource consent part of it will be helpful. The resource consent process is frustrating and costly and time consuming, BC is normally straight forward. I think for the investment, it is safer to get a BC anyway. RC does not affect valuation. Also, you still need to pay the contribution fee- with or without building and resource consent. The contribution fee for a minor dwelling in rural Thames is $10.5k for example and the only service they are providing to rural is rubbish collection (wheelie bin tags paid separately!). Contribution fee for a one bedroom studio to connect to sewer and storm water in west Auckland is $20K. So, the big bills still exist!
My argument against, very simple, at present LBP only required to carry PI insurance for 10 years for the build, however building code B2 requires minimum 50 years for a build, who carries the liability for the remaining 40 years.
I do not think you can hold anyone liable for 50 years. Even the 10 year liability is ridiculous in my opinion. The B2 requirement is for the way the structure is design to withstand the environment for 50 years. It is not about holding the builders liable. Everyone is liable for their property. That is why due diligence and insurance exist.
Is the floor area to the framing or the lining? I know it's a small difference but everything matters right... Thanks!
This is the exact text from the MBIE website: "The net floor area in a building is measured to the inside of the enclosing walls or posts/columns." It is unclear if they mean framing or lining. But then we have the definition of net internal floor area from Auckland Unitary plan which says: "The floor space between the finished surfaces of internal walls between rooms". So I believe net floor area is measured to the lining. And yes, every small thing matters!
@@3dmaker223 Yeah traditionally it's always been to the framing but I guess this is why it's a discussion document right. Different Councils have different rules.
@@peterelliott2914 there are lots of gray areas in the definitions and also across the building codes. Council officers also like to interpret the rules and definitions the way they like. Sometimes you get two different opinions from two officers in the same council. When we measure the net lettable area, it is to the lining.
Where do you sell your plans on TradeMe pleaee?
@@themidlifeapprentice here is a link to one of my listings. Please watch me as I am going to have a massive sale next week because I am releasing a new design: www.trademe.co.nz/building-renovation/portable-cabins/auction-4895952752.htm
still far too complicated and expensive for the average family with a mortgage to afford. Builders and tradesmen as councils will simply charge their usual inflated fees so where is the savings or incentive for the owner? This will not be an effective solution to the housing crisis in NZ.
I think with the way they have over-complicated and heavily regulated building in New Zealand, there is not an easy way to make it affordable.
You are wrong. Container homes are tanking right now.
@@markcleaver6573 any home? Costs of build just making it too difficult.
@@gideonporter537 Yes but paying rent is dead money. Buy a section, put a small garage on the section. Live in it, build the house over 3 years from the sleep out(garage).. Or just stay in the sleepout and save money.
@@markcleaver6573 I agree - but isn't this about an additional dwelling unit on an existing property? Your case is different - and wouldn't be allowed in many councils?
Worth noting the use of the phrase ".. the measure of it's own height..." in the actual regulations and the graphic representation shown which conflicts with the intent of that phrasing. That phrase is often altered to "a building's height" or (as you said) "a building's overall height". There is a reason for the specific wording. The "measure of it's height" refers to the point at which a height measurement is taken and it cannot be closer to a boundary (or other building) than that measurement, at that point. The low-side wall of a pitched roof building can be closer to the boundary that the high-side wall or the ridge. If this was not the case, the regulations would say "A building's overall height". It doesn't, "the measure" is the thing being referred to.
I would like to interpret the wording same as you as it makes more sense. However, their diagram in the guide (for 30sqm- they do not have a diagram for 60sqm yet, but their wording is the same) shows the building's overall height.
@@3dmaker223Yeah it’s not just me. I have seen previous articles that explained the height requirements as well as previous District Plans (Wellington specifically) where height planes and building setbacks are illustrated. Not sure if I have copies on my desktop but my working with this goes back 20 years.
MBIEs pdf guide of exemptions has several mistakes where they try to interpret the regulations into their version of plain English (one of them relates to the exemptions for verandahs).
I would absolutely stick to my interpretation. Again, there’s a fundamental reason they chose those words. Words matter especially in legalese.
@@3dmaker223The fundamental reason for the measurement thing is potential damage from a structure falling over. A failing (then falling) building component can really only fall the distance of its own height, and consequently cause damage to a neighbour or other building. Setting back, say, a 2.4m wall of a building 3.5 meters away from a boundary simply because another wall is 3.5m high makes no rational sense. And despite what many loopies think the building code and regulations are deeply rooted in rational sense.
@@DiscoFang Yes, I have found mistakes too. Also NZS3604 and BRANZ having discrepancies. I would like to stick to my interpretations too, but (most) council officers are so annoying to deal with and you cannot have a sensible argument with them. I try to avoid it as much as I can.
I don’t think the council will be giving a code of compliance . They probably will require a statement from the designer and builder stating that it complies with the building code .
That makes sense and is very likely to happen.
@@3dmaker223Thank you very much for this content. I am not in the industry but have a house with a backyard which could accommodate this, I was rubbing my hands now I’m rubbing my head, but knowledge is valuable for good or for ill , I appreciate your replies too with other, more learned commenters than myself. 🤗
@@janineclarkson3991 I am glad you find it helpful. I will release another video once we know the exact limitations around this exemption.
You still need plumbing and drainage and power that will need council to approve
@@brianna56ism this exemption is different from the 30sqm exemptions. Under this proposal, you are allowed to have plumbing without a building consent. If you are on a septic tank, you need to get a consent for the septic tank, but not for the plumbing in the house.
If the definition of insanity is doing the same experiment and yet somehow expecting different results, then one would be unwise to suggest that the nz government " has got this"
Can you make some designs for 60 sqm tiny house to these regulations please ❤
great info, thanks.
agree, this is good
I am glad you find it helpful!
if I’ve picked you up correctly on how you explained it this is no cheaper than getting a building consent all the other costs are still there and of course you run into a raft problems on a small section with a septic tank by the time you go through the environmental authority and then the council you are looking for a large cost to me there is no advantage it’s just lipservice from the government and council as usual but they still get their pound of flesh
@@davidboyd8113 that is what I think. All the costs are still these apart from bc application. But if the council is not involved, the lbp people involved are more liable. Why would they do it for same price? Each lbp will increase their price a little bit to cover their insurance. And the owner will end up paying same money with a building that doesn’t not have the same value if it had consent.
$160,000-$180,000 is actually a lot of money for a normal family.
Thanks for your video, do you know how much does it cost to build a 30sqm under the current rule in Waipa? Thanks
It is really hard to put a number down based on the size of the building. Prices vary between 2k per sqm for a very basic owner builder up to 7k or more per sqm for hi spec buildings. Unfortunately properties are the most expensive expense for families and it is only getting worse. That is why most people have to take a 30 year loan to be able to buy a property.
@@3dmaker223 thank you for your reply. I will take that as $60,000 to $210,000. Thanks
@@3dmaker223 that does seems very achievable for owner build basic. I guess that price include all the cost of designing and materials etc?
Thank you so much, it's not so much of a lifesaver as it first seemed! Do these rules override the 30sqm builds or is this just from above 30sqm and up to 60 sqm?
I believe it is a good rule depending on the project. But as I mentioned in the video, I would still apply for a BC. Probably not a RC. This will be a new rule and does not override any previous exemption. They have not said anything about the minimum area yet, so it can be for anything under 60sqm. Note that you cannot alter an existing building. So, if you have built a 30sqm and want to convert it to a granny flat, this is not exempted.
Hi wat is the website she is using please?
The information are on both building.govt.nz and mbie.govt.nz website.
wonder how they compare to a tiny house on a trailer.
Compare in what way?
@@Tryinghardtobecreative how easy it is with regulations.
@@gosekinz the proposal is for a new section of the building act for this type of dwelling.
Technically a tiny house can’t meet the building code when on a trailer, it needs engineered foundations to support and hold the trailer, which kinda defeats the whole point of a trailer.
@@Tryinghardtobecreative I agree with you. They might add a section in schedule one or introduce a new section. Either way, these exemptions do not apply to tiny homes on trailer.
Hi do you have a link for trade me plans
Here is a link to one of my listings: www.trademe.co.nz/a/marketplace/building-renovation/portable-cabins/listing/4908174942?bof=xogP8nBe
Our birthrate is way below replacement so once the boomers are gone who will live in all these granny flats?
Granny flat is just a term. Minor dwelling is the more proper name. It is just a dwelling that it's size is limited to 60sqm. Anybody can live in them.
Immigrants are flooding in. If Kiwis don't reproduce or continue to leave the country has to keep growing.
Birthrate isn't the only metric, immigration is also significant.
Your dreaming, willnot happen with consent, sorry .
@@paulchristensen2573 the government has already announced a few times that they want to make it happen, so it will go ahead. But, I think you are right. It is likely going to be so many conditions to meet that almost no one will qualify for the exemption.
what a complex kerfuffle. best just to get a big caravan
Caravan option always existed, but is it really a replacement for a house? specially for older generation who need more accessibility and comfort? Also, let's not forget that a building is an asset and appreciate in value but a caravan depreciate in value. Afterall, depending on the personal circumstances, caravan might be the better solution or choice for some. Looking at livable caravan prices, they are not a cheap solution either.
@@3dmaker223 Well said.