The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment is seeking feedback on a Government proposal which would allow property owners to build granny flats without consents.
Many district plans already allow granny flats without resource consent, but there’s a lack of consistency and different standards across the country.
A discussion document released on Monday suggests small, self-contained and detached houses meeting certain criteria should be able to be built without application.
To avoid needing a consent a flat would need to be smaller than 60 square meters, one story, and cover less than 70% of the site area in residential zones, with appropriate setbacks.
Granny flats will be able to include plumbing, cooking and sleeping facilities, and more safeguards will be needed to manage risks associated with these features.
The exact details are open for public submissions and are only proposals at this stage. All building work must comply with the New Zealand Building Code, regardless of consent requirements.
Instead of requiring an engineer's report, the document proposes that all work must be conducted or supervised by licensed construction professionals.
Public submissions are welcomed until 12 August and any changes to the Building Act and resource management systems will aim to take effect in the middle of next year.
Making it easier to build these small dwellings was promised in the National–New Zealand First coalition agreement late last year.
Winston Peters, leader of NZ First, said the rule changes would make it more affordable for families to live the way that suits them best.
“High housing costs have a greater impact on Māori, Pasifika, and people with disabilities, as well as seniors – so unlocking the space in the backyards of family members opens the door to new ways of living,” he said in a statement.
RMA Reform Minister Chris Bishop said the announcement was part of a wider package of work to improve the building consent system and address the housing crisis.
“Removing the regulatory red tape will not only speed up the build process, it is also estimated to save up to $6,500 just in the standard building and resource consenting fees per build, not to mention all the savings in time and resource,” he said.
61 Comments
Whoop dee doo.
Btw I can report that I got a letter response from C. Bishop five months (!) after I wrote to him. I didn’t even bother to read it, deleted straight away
edit - opened it up from my deleted emails, although he has fobbed me off to his officials at least he said he likes to hear from experts with ideas 😂
Still plenty of sections in main centres big enough for this to be a goer.
Or even if smaller and empty, it'd be more viable to build a smaller main dwelling, plus a minor dwelling.
We need more dwellings, cheaper, and the other alternative is dense multi-story, which takes a lot more energy and time to produce.
If it's under 30 squares it isn't, but as has been mentioned here already, it's got a lot of caveats, and 30m2 is a bit on the small side. So currently, if you wanted to legally throw up something around 50m2, with an actual kitchen etc, a bit more liveable especially for more than one person, you're easy going to drop 2 hundy, but keep going.
christchurch city charged $4k for the resource content, $10k for services contribution, I think about $8k for all the approval and inspections, and the engineering report for the foundations was $3k, the drawings and specification was $4k, and the site survey was $2.5k,
Yes. It is not always but it regularly goes into 6 figures. Yes it is absurd.
I have been an engineer in six countries and I have never experienced red tape like Auckland.
Last year I had a client try to take her own life under the stress of getting a granny flat consented.
Rules are constantly changing but as far as I know resource consent is required for minor dwellings in several zones in Auckland.
Could easily pop a hundy grand on design engineering 2 consents and DCs.
Also interested in whether Watercare will treat it as a new connection.
All the language being used points to this being designated a "dependent family member flat" and not a separate minor dwelling. In other words, its an adjunct to the main house, can only be occupied by members of the main household, and cannot be legally tenanted out under the RTA. The building requirements are quite different between the two, so you cant just come back and turn a granny flat into a seperate dwelling.
Total waste of land.
This will lead to even more 'infill' housing.
Whereas - what we really need to doing is bowling what's there and going up.
'Going up' means larger gardens (more water absorbent) as less ground gets covered for the same number of dwellings. Overseas they have 'perimeter blocks' (i.e. no side yards) up to 6-8 stories surrounding courtyards. NZ has virtually none of these. We're a backwards country.
The hurdle to go from an extra 2 bedrooms in your backyard to large multi story is fairy high.
We are a backwards country, stuck down the bottom of the world. That's part of the appeal. If modern and cutting edge is your primary concern, we'll never be there, and there's plenty of contenders.
Yes. I spent time in Korea. they don't have much land available for housing, being half mountains, in a country the size of the South Island with 30m people. Only the very poor live in detached houses. Apartments are very well done - a whole small town could be a double complex of 3 buildings 26 storeys. And I've been to some very nice 3 bedroom apartments all with underfloor heating, plenty of light and good sound insulation. Like a house with not as many windows. And the amenities were fine - plenty of parks etc.
They have some interesting building methods in Sth Korea, some of it extremely standardized (i.e. what could be a 4 component process on site in NZ is pre-manufactured in Korea).
We wouldn't want their landlord system though, you pay up to 80% of the property's value in rent, in advance, which your landlord takes to buy another property with.
Ironically, as Auckland seems to be the main place where they've made building a minor dwelling hard, once unlocked the prices of these smaller homes will sky rocket.
I built a minor dwelling (granny flat) 80sqm for all up under 150k. 100k was the house. That extra 50k was mostly services connecting, more power so new transformer box needed 9k or something.
That company got popular and prices have doubled, granted during high inflation on all building materials.
Builders build what makes them money.
Hence the skewe towards mcmansions. Bigger profit margin.
I'm just saying builders/tradies won't waste there time building and hooking up a 60sqm house - although for the right price they might - so all minor dwellings will be more expensive as demand increases with limited supply that will want to do it.
A "granny flat" is not a minor residential dwelling. Its a "family flat" which is an adjunct to the main household, like a sleepout, and can only be occupied by members of that household. Once its not being occupied anymore it is supposed to be removed, or have its kitchen decommissioned, or apply to turn it into a minor residential dwelling if it meets the resource and building consent conditions.
https://ccc.govt.nz/consents-and-licences/resource-consents/resource-co…
So it cannot be rented out to non-family members under the RTA. It would be better if going to all that expense, that the distinction between the two is removed, and people can build granny flats to rent out. There must be lots of people who would be happy to rent a self contained unit on someone else's property - singles, single parents, the elderly. Not everyone is a family.
Everything I've read so far refers to "family members" and not "tenants". So if they don't eliminate the distinction between the two, then a granny flat remains a family flat, with the designation actually placed on the house title. Other councils may treat them differently, but that's how CCC treats them. Its quite possible that Willis doesnt understand that there is a difference between a minor dwelling that can legally be rented under the RTA, and a family flat that cannot. Or that she meant a landlord can charge a higher rent because they are renting to a larger family (eg. what was a 3 bedroom house is now a 4-5 bedroom house).
Resource Management Act
The focus of this policy under the Resource Management Act (RMA) is to enable small, detached, self-contained, single storey houses for residential use. Under the RMA, the term 'minor residential unit' (MRU) is defined in the National Planning Standards as "a self-contained residential unit that is ancillary to the principal residential unit and is held in common ownership with the principal residential unit on the same site". The proposal is to focus the policy in the RMA on enabling MRUs.
From here https://www.building.govt.nz/getting-started/building-system-reforms/gr…
“Minor residential unit”. This will override the council crap.
Nothing in the government’s discussion document mentions family members. But the phrase ‘ancillary to’ is ambiguous. Just get rid of it. Just say a second residential dwelling is permitted provided it satisfies X, Y and Z standards (incl. the 60 sq. M floor area maximum)
I'm picking stormwater is going to be an issue. Assuming most minor dwellings are going to be put on the back lawn (which has natural soakage) your now going to have 60m2 of impervious roof area collecting stormwater which you then have to discharge somewhere. I dont think many council are going to be keen on this going into existing networks... so your back to applying for consent, either to connect to the council networks or to build a soak pit to take care of the additional volume of stormwater you are collecting.
So this would mean the 'Tower of Otara' wouldn't need a consent. Thats progress for you.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/kea-kids-news-goes-inside-the-tower-of-ot…
In 45 years in the building industry, I have observed a few certainties:
1. No change in Govt policy has ever resulted in reduced costs
2. No change in Local Authority policy has ever resulted in reduced costs
I am fairly certain this proposed change will also not result in reduced costs
This could benefit landlords more than anyone.
Eg. Joe Landlord has an existing 3 bedroom house on a 650 square metre site. He builds a 55 sq m granny flat for $150k at the back of the site. He rents the granny flat out at $600 pw. Pretty good return on that investment ! 20% gross!!!! He might only have to drop the rent on the existing house a little, if at all
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.