The council suspected that the shed with bedroom and kitchen was not just for storage

A Marlborough couple who vowed to no longer live in their renovated shed had construction documents rejected after the council suspected it would still be used for more than storage.

The Marlborough District Council told the couple that their “easiest option” was to return the shed, with a bedroom, living room and kitchen, to its “original state” by removing the internal linings and insulation they had installed.

The shed owner, who declined to be named, said he was also told to remove the drywall from inside the walls, which he declined to do because it would cost a lot.

The couple, who live on the outskirts of Havelock, asked last year to do the two “shop [or] offices “in his shed they complied after being” tricked “by someone into living in it.

READ MORE:
* The owners accuse the Porirua City Council of losing the construction certificates, preventing the sale of homes
* Small house maker gathering troops for a hikoi on the steps of Parliament
* It was discovered that a small house was being built in the Bajo Moutere that requires consent

“Once they called us [for living in the shed] then we decided that we had to comply with what the city council said ”, said the owner.

Inspectors visited the site in August last year and noted that the shed was being used as a makeshift “break”, a violation of Building Code standards.

The couple said the following month that the rooms would be used for storage in the future. The council later rejected his request for a certificate of acceptance, saying the shed was low risk to human health and “not suitable for human habitation.”

The council revealed earlier this year that it was increasing the number of tiny homes, or ‘tiny houses’, that were caught breaking building rules. Tiny houses included converted shipping containers, specially designed constructions, and converted exterior buildings, such as sheds.

While the jury was still out on whether mobile homes were buildings or vehicles, real estate homes were buildings and consent was required before renovations could take place.

Works completed without consent could be legalized with an acceptance certificate if they comply with the Building Law.

The couple requested the opinion of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) last October, to settle the matter.

In their evidence to the ministry, the couple admitted that they had lived in the shed while building their home, but said they had since moved into a trailer and wanted to save the shed.

They had realized that living in the shed was “not legal” even though there was a licensed shower and toilet on their property.

But the council argued that the use of the shed as an office, one of the two uses the couple originally requested, changed it from an “annex building” to a “commercial building” that had “very different” compliance rules and was still habitation. human.

He also said there were other reasons the application was rejected, such as items that did not meet construction standards.

The ministry’s determinations manager, Katie Gordon, said in her judgment that while the council was “correct to be concerned” about human habitation, its denial was incorrectly based on how the shed would be used, rather than compliance. .

His refusal also did not make it clear to the couple that the council thought the use of the shed had changed. It also inappropriately described which construction sites they were not complying with.

The council and the couple must agree on what the shed will be used for before the application is reevaluated, Gordon said.

A spokesperson for the council said the owners received a certificate of acceptance in August this year after the council had completed its evaluations, according to the determination.

The owner said he had framed the ministry’s determination and hung it on a wall.