Question 10
On this page
What was asked
Question 10: What barriers do you see to people making use of this exemption, including those related to contracting, liability, finance, insurance, and site availability?
Summary of feedback
Overall, 708 submitters answered this question. Homeowners made up 34% of responses, with builders and architects/designers being the next largest groups, at 20% and 17% respectively. Feedback is summarised by barrier areas below.
Finance and insurance
The main barrier raised relates to the ability to finance or insure a granny flat, without it receiving a building consent and associated code compliance certificate. It was a widely stated that insurance companies would find this sort of project difficult to insure and banks would find it difficult to finance, as neither would have their normal assurances regarding compliance. It was emphasised that the project may not be feasible, unless the banks and insurance companies are committed to providing services for buildings that have a Licensed Building Practitioner sign-off only.
One suggested amendment was to create an additional sign-off or certificate for the purpose of insurance and finance. Otherwise, the issue of higher premiums may offset any costs saved in the consenting process.
Homeowners were very concerned about insurance and finance and wanted an obligation in place for insurance to apply. Councils were primarily concerned that insurance would either simply not be provided, or if it was it would cost too much to obtain. Some builders and architects raised that, due to insurance premiums, it may end up cheaper to get a consent than the current proposal. Iwi, hapū and Māori echoed the concern that finance and insurance will be difficult to obtain without a building consent.
Regulatory processes
Another barrier raised was that regulatory processes at the council level may act as a barrier to the use of the exemption. Concerns were mostly submitted by homeowners, who commented that if there was any opportunity for councils to be involved in the granting of an exemption, this would be used to block individuals from using it. Homeowners and industry submitters noted that under the current system, district plan rules often act as a barrier to this form of development.
Another concern raised was that any forms or documents that were required to go via the council would have high fees associated with them and that this may reduce the benefit of avoiding consent fees on these dwellings.
Liability and other barriers
Liability for poor quality work was a concern stemming from the increased risk that buildings would not be compliant with the Building Code. Councils were concerned with where liability would fall in this instance. Some councils commented that liability should be better proportioned than is currently outlined, as it will disproportionately affect homeowners of smaller homes and those with less financial means.
Another theme raised by councils was that the resale price of a property would be negatively affected and that there would be no consumer protection in place to mitigate this.
Builders and architects were concerned that a lack of available land suitable for both a primary dwelling and 60 square metre granny flat would act as a barrier to the proposal. Submitters commented that this barrier is exacerbated by the condition of buildings being required to be a certain distance from the boundary.