Thames-Coromandel Council opposes ‘granny flats’ legislation

In Thames, while the majority of the existing housing stock was of low quality, its value continued to rise, due to a lack of supply. The key failure in the market was therefore an overall lack of supply, the Thames-Coromandel District Council said.

Removing or reducing consent requirements will have minimal impact on the cost of building a small secondary dwelling, the Thames-Coromandel District Council says.

The council has joined Hauraki District Council in voicing its opposition to a Government proposal to allow construction of “granny flats” as a permitted activity not requiring consents under the Building Act and Resource Management Act (RMA).

A draft submission to the Government has been prepared and will be presented to the council at a scheduled meeting on Tuesday.

Hauraki District Council has already signalled it does not support removal of building consent requirement while it supports removal of resource consent, saying resource management issues would be covered off in the proposed National Environmental Standard.

Thames-Coromandel District Council principal strategic adviser Sian Smith, in a report to the council, said removing or reducing consent requirements would have minimal impact on the cost of building a small secondary dwelling as the consenting costs were a very small component of the total cost.

The Building Act proposals did not sufficiently address building safety risks, including site-specific risks such as natural hazards and infrastructure needs.

There were also existing processes in the act that landowners could use to “fast-track” their consents.

The Government has proposed a National Environmental Standard, a document under the RMA, which would say that “minor residential units” are a permitted activity, meaning they would no longer require resource consent.

The flats would need to comply with “permitted standards” such as maximum building coverage and minimum permeable surface requirements, which will be needed to manage stormwater runoff and flooding risks.

The discussion document includes a range of options for requiring a setback, which is the amount of space between the flat and the boundary. One of the options is requiring no minimum setback, maximising the space someone could potentially build on.

Smith said the RMA proposals should be limited to dwellings in residential zones because most sites in rural zones would be unsuitable for those structures due to natural hazards, reverse sensitivity or infrastructure needs.

Most existing district plans (including the Thames Coromandel District plan) already permitted small secondary dwellings in residential zones, so it was not difficult for landowners to build them.

The proposal for notification of the construction of 60m2 secondary dwellings would create costs for local authorities that would need to be met by ratepayers and likely also lead to landowners incurring costs for re-work they had not known or budgeted for.

In the submission, council staff recommended partially disagreeing with the definition of the problem because the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment had provided no evidence to support it and lack of supply of 60m2 secondary dwellings was not considered to be the key problem in the housing market.

The council opposed establishing a new schedule in the Building Act to provide an exemption for simple stand-alone dwellings up to 60 m2, but recommended fast-track consenting options be developed.

It disagreed that housing affordability was a problem, rather a symptom of housing market failures.

In Thames, while the majority of the existing housing stock was of low quality, its value continued to rise, due to a lack of supply. The key failure in the market was therefore an overall lack of supply.

“There is no evidence in the discussion document to show that demand for 60m2 secondary dwellings is currently unmet; the problem definition appears to pre-suppose a lack of 60m2 secondary dwellings is the main concern in order to justify the Government’s proposals and provide a superficial housing policy ‘quick win’.”

A landowner would only save a few thousand dollars and maybe a couple of months of time, depending on the quality and completeness of a building consent application.

The small cost and time savings did not justify the increased risks of sub-standard construction and the health and safety impacts on people who lived in 60m2 secondary dwellings.