Questions 25 and 26
On this page
What was proposed
The discussion document contained two alternative options for changes to the Resource Management Act and the Building Act to require the relevant council be notified of a granny flat.
Option 1 – Permitted Activity Notice under the Resource Management Act
Create a ‘Permitted Activity Notice’ (PAN) tool to record a new granny flat that would not need resource consent. This would be a new tool under the Resource Management Act and would require an amendment to the Local Government Act 2002.
Option 2 – Project Information Memorandum under the Building Act
Under the proposed Building Act option, a tool similar to a Project Information Memorandum (PIM) is proposed to be required before construction. This is intended to support appropriate design and create a record of the building, involving less process, time and cost than a building consent would. This option would also require an amendment to the Local Government Act.
As part of the proposed Building Act option, notification to the council is proposed once work has been completed.
What was asked
Question 25: What mechanism should trigger a new granny flat to be notified to the relevant council, if resource and building consents are not required?
Question 26: Do you have a preference for either of the options in the table in Appendix 3 and if so, why?
Summary of feedback
In total, 762 submissions were received in response to question 25. The largest proportion of submissions stemmed from homeowners, as well as industry groups, particularly builders and architects or designers. In response to question 26, 493 submissions were received. Approximately half of the submitters preferred option 2, a project information memorandum. Some submitters had no preference of the two options or recommended an alternative approach.
Preferences for notification mechanisms varied significantly between the different response groups.
Homeowners
Feedback on notification mechanisms
Most homeowner responses indicated a preference for a simplified notification process, often involving options outside of the proposed options such as a simple email or letter to the council, or the use of a register or some other notification system integrated into the council website and services. Notification would be through the owner, typically with a signature by the licenced building practitioner, or directly through the relevant licensed building practitioner.
Alternatively, a code compliance certificate, or some other certification by the responsible tradesperson on completion of works, was cited by many homeowners as a potential notification mechanism, despite current requirements that the building work must be compliant with the building consent for a code compliance certificate.
There were a few submissions in support of no notification requirements, or only voluntary notification to the council on either planning or completing works for a granny flat structure.
Options proposed in the discussion document
Homeowners showed a clear preference for option 2 as the notification mechanism to councils for this work. Most often, submitters noted that this is an existing form and process that appeared simpler and faster than the proposed alternative. Submitters commented that this option would provide a more complete record of work and therefore enable better infrastructure planning and service provision. Following on from this, homeowners submitted that the information contained in a project information memorandum would be beneficial for insurers, lenders and future owners.
Some homeowners preferred option 1 because they perceived it to be a cheaper and more straightforward approach than the alternative. Further, homeowners were concerned that the cost and time associated with a form under the Building Act would be a barrier to entry.
Iwi, Hapū and Māori
Feedback on notification mechanisms
In response to question 25, only a couple of responses were received from Māori or iwi affiliated organisations on this question. One suggested that no notification should be required where no council services are provided, the other submission was in support of the licenced building practitioner undertaking the work to hold responsibility for notifying council and providing a certificate of completion and any documents supporting building compliance to the relevant council.
Options proposed in discussion document
The majority of iwi, hapū and Māori submitters preferred option 2. Submitters noted that information contained in the project information memorandum would become part of the associated property file and would be valuable for future owners. Some submitters suggested that the processing fee should either be minimal, or not apply at all.
One submitter suggested that a project information memorandum should only be required in residential settings where the dwelling would utilise council services.
Councils
Feedback on notification mechanisms
Council submissions, for the most part, set out concerns about the implications of the removal of building consent requirements, and that notification of works should be mandatory and happen as early as possible in the process. Some submissions also suggested limitations within the proposed options, such as the Permitted Activity Notices only providing a notice of work and would not provide council any ability to require amendments where proposed work is not fit for purpose or does not consider wider infrastructure implications.
Options proposed in discussion document
Councils were largely opposed to option 1, with only Waitomo District Council submitting their preference for this approach. Kāpiti District Council recommended that both options should be available. Some councils noted that neither of the proposed options were suitable and that there was a risk that homeowners would choose not to inform councils of their work unless notification is either incentivised, or non-compliance is sufficiently penalised.
Council submitters generally preferred option 2 as it already exists, and councils were familiar with the processing requirements. They echoed the statements of industry that the project information memorandum is used to identify key information relating to the land, which is important for building, prior to construction.
Additionally, some councils submitted that the project information memorandum process may provide an opportunity for councils to send guidance, information or a voluntary check-list to help ensure exemption conditions are met.
One council noted that the information under the project information memorandum is more likely to be sufficient to make a fair and accurate assessment for the purpose of charging development contributions.
Industry
Feedback on notification mechanisms
Builders, architects and designers were by far the largest response groups within the industry sector, accounting for 12% of all submissions on this topic.
Similar to the homeowner submissions, a large number of industry trade submissions focussed on a simplified notification process outside of the proposed options, preferably featuring some form of online register or logging system with the council, or a national system that would feed notifications back to relevant councils, at no additional cost to the notifying party. Many responses suggested the completion of works by the registered tradesperson as a suitable trigger point for notification, while others focussed specifically on the connection of services. Some suggested responsibility should lie entirely with the owner, and a few submissions speculated that removing building consent requirements would likely see no notification efforts in any case.
Among architects and designers in particular, infrastructure planning concerns were common. A few submissions suggested the use of simple tick box forms outlining resource use in terms of sewage, power, parking, water, and even road use, at fair or minimal fees, and ideally early in the planning stage. Many submissions did suggest that notification should involve evidence of compliance with both the Building Code and local district plans.
Options proposed in discussion document
Architects and designers submitted that notification via the Resource Management Act was more appropriate given that the notification relates to the impact to society and infrastructure demands that are addressed by planning standards.
Other concerns were raised that if the council was asked to review a form via the building consent system, it would be obliged to support the indicative design and would likely be looped into compliance implicitly.
Like other submitters, builders, engineers and architects emphasised their preference for option 2 given it is a process that already exists and building professionals are familiar using. Further, submitters stated that the project information memorandum would provide information vital for building work to take place, such as site-constraints and natural hazards, prior to construction commencing. This was considered to increase the likelihood of building work meeting the code.
Some submitters noted that the cost of the process would need to be set at a minimal price so that the benefit of the proposal wasn’t put at risk.
The Natural Hazard Commission stated that while the project information memorandum provides information to homeowners, it does not sufficiently mitigate the risk of building in high risk or high hazard zones as it does not contain a formal approval process from the council.