Executive summary

A graph detailing the submitter spread in a pie chart format.

A full list of submitters:

• Homeowner, 32%
• Not identified, 25%
• Builder, 17%
• Architect/designer, 11%
• Council, building consent authority and building control officer, 4%
• Industry/organisation, 3%
• Engineer, 2%
• Developer/surveyor, 2%
• Planner, 1%
• Advocacy group, 1%
• Real estate, 1%
• Iwi/hapū/Māori, 1%

• Most submitters agreed with the problem definition (just under three quarters) and proposed outcomes and principles (almost two thirds) contained in the discussion document.

• Homeowners provided consistent feedback that existing council processes were too onerous and were acting as an unnecessary barrier to building.

• Industry and council submitters generally agreed with the problem definition, stating that housing affordability was a major issue in their respective regions. However, submitters in these groups were concerned that the proposed outcomes could not be achieved by enabling granny flats as the cost of consenting only made up a small fraction of the cost of building.

• Iwi, hapū and Māori noted their general support for the intent of the proposal and specifically for its potential benefits for intergenerational living. Māori communities cite the need for more than one additional dwelling and refer to the need for new national direction for papakāinga.

• Most submitters either agreed or partially agreed with the identified risks (83%). Some homeowners commented that the risk to building safety was overstated, as granny flats involve relatively low-risk building work. A notable exception to this sentiment came from councils, who generally did not find all relevant risks had been identified. They were particularly concerned with increased costs to ratepayers to account for increased monitoring and enforcement, and that a failure to notify councils of this work was likely and would lead to incomplete record keeping.

• There has been a very high level of interest in the proposal and the options that support improved housing affordability.

• Homeowners and industry are broadly supportive of the proposal, but there are some concerns about appropriately managing the risks of building failure in light of the removal of council oversight. 

• Councils, while largely supportive of the objectives of the proposal, are not supportive of options to make it easier to build granny flats that do not involve some form of building consent. Councils submitted that to sufficiently manage the risk of building failure, there must be a building consent, pointing to residential inspection failure rates as evidence of this. They are further concerned about having to manage impacts of any poor-quality building after construction.

• Some submitters provided feedback on how to improve the workability of the current proposal, such as adjusting exemption conditions that may exclude large portions of the country from accessing the exemption. Other submitters stated their preference for alternative options under the Building Act 2004, such as a fast-track consent for granny flats, or making better use of the existing MultiProof and BuiltReady schemes.

• There is general support for the proposal to make it easier to build granny flats under the resource management system, although there are risks and limitations. While many submitters agree with the national environmental standards approach, councils considered the status quo, or a national policy statement, would be more appropriate and less complex.

• Most submitters agreed with the focus of the policy being on granny flats and supported excluding matters of national importance, subdivision and regional rules. Most submitters considered accessory buildings (such as garages and sheds) up to 60 square metres should also be allowed.

• There is general support for the proposal to apply to all rural and residential zones as proposed, and in addition also apply to Māori purpose and mixed-use zones.

• Generally, most councils considered existing district plans are more appropriate than some or all of the proposed standards. 

• Submitters have raised concerns regarding the inconsistencies between the Building Act conditions and the proposed national environmental standards and consider these must be aligned.

• Many submitters consider both the limit of one granny flat per site and the definition requiring a granny flat to be ancillary to a principal dwelling are barriers to this policy and consider that these should be more enabling.

• Infrastructure providers have raised concerns about reverse sensitivity^[1] and safety issues. 

• Many councils are concerned the policy does not align with other national direction policies including the medium density residential standards and the National Policy Statement on Urban Development (2020) which provide much greater development opportunities.

Note
[1] Reverse sensitivity effects can impact on the operation of existing uses which have significant adverse effects such as noise, vibration and odour on sensitive uses like residential areas.

• A large majority of responses acknowledged a need, in principle, to notify councils on construction of a granny flat on the property, though opinions differed as to when this should happen, or what form it should take. Many homeowners, but also industry groups, preferred a simplified approach, leaving it to the owner or licensed building practitioner to submit a notification, either by letter or email, to the council directly on completion of works. 

• Of the two proposed options, most responses preferred the compulsory Project Information Memorandum under the Building Act, on the advantage of it being an established, known system, as compared to a Permitted Activity Notice under the Resource Management Act 1991. Some councils submitted that they have no preference for either of the proposed options, noting that neither would sufficiently enable the collection of development contributions.

• A slight majority of submissions favoured the status quo: councils retaining the ability to charge development contributions for granny flats, to contribute to the cost of council infrastructure. There is also a large group of submitters who oppose the idea of paying as they consider a granny flats’ impact on infrastructure is negligible. Responses vary widely between the groups; homeowners in particular oppose the idea.

• Submitters generally considered the policy supports Māori housing outcomes to an extent through reducing consenting costs, supplying more housing and creating social and economic benefits for Māori.

• There is concern that the policy will not provide for the needs of Māori communities who are more likely to need more than one additional unit per principal dwelling or site. The ‘minor residential unit’ definition also does not provide for land held in multiple ownership on whenua Māori (Māori land). 

• Some submitters considered the policy will exacerbate existing issues including poor quality housing and health outcomes.

• Many submitters considered Māori housing should be addressed through a separate policy and some submitters, including several councils and iwi/hapū/Māori, support a separate papakāinga national direction.