新西兰園子裡放集裝箱

在新西兰

這種集裝箱自住需要consent嗎？合法的嗎？

要是合法的話誰還住旅行車呢⋯⋯⋯⋯

不懂求解答

http://China2au/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=3611750&extra=page%3D1%26filter%3Dtypeid%26typeid%3D16%26typeid%3D16


评论
北岸saddleback rise这路中间，单号的房子，门前一条小溪，牛比的集装箱就架在上面，横跨小溪。

评论
目測需要 至少不能過密度 覆蓋率等要求

评论
政府的地是不能放的

评论
人家是卖集装箱的，不是卖consent的
。
有住人就需要consent  自己解决

评论

我沒說他不對啊。我也沒說他違法啊。什麼玩意啊⋯⋯就問問要不要consent、我不懂問問還不行。莫名其妙的

评论
還想著如果不需要consent就買一個。我真是想的太美了。。。

评论

不是说底下有轮子可移动就不需要么？
装几个轮子很容易吧。

评论

谁说的呢？至少奥克兰已经不是这样呢 不管临时还是永久结构 现在看的是高度 超1.5米的都当成是建筑覆盖率了

另外还要看这些房子的用途是什么呢 如本身是用来住人 里面五脏俱全 那不管你有没有轮子都要当成是dwelling 来处理

评论

那岂不是房车也不行了？
假如买了个超过1.5高的房车，成年放那不动，就是睡人。也算建筑？

评论

汽车是建筑物吗？ 为什么房车是用来睡人呢？

不过你要是这样钻牛角尖也未尝不可  Unitary Plan 说这也算啊 反正用作是dwelling 的structure 超过1.5米高的 永久的 临时的 都可以是building  (当然也有下面要视乎其使用会不会超过一年32天之说) - 下面是UP的定义 没说什么轮子不轮子  你觉得呢？






天






评论

你是专家，我只是问问么。

我记得谁讲过，有轮子就算动产了。unitary plan根本管不着。

评论



可能以前是某旧district plan 有过这样的说法  但现在不是了 都归 unitary plan 旗下 UP是管我上面说的建筑覆盖率这些的 市政府也是根据它来处理报批和执法  在奥克兰 当然管得着啦

评论

我鄰居總把旅行車caravan停driveway上。我覺得那車裡面有住人啊。但他是停在自己的driveway上。算合法嗎？我以前也見過有廣告。在找能讓停caravan的後園。那人願意付租金。也不知道合不合法

评论
那你的想法是什么   想在后院放一个吗

评论
学习了谢谢香港人

评论

你是在奥克兰是吧？那就看我上面说的定义咯 （当然是不是合法还不止看它是不是‘建筑物’ 和算不算‘dwelling’ 还有其他 还有building code 的要求） 如果有怀疑那就打电话给council 投诉吧 -  搞不可能好他们已经有consent 呢

评论

Caravan 的尺寸是有相应规定的，但肯定不是 Dwelling 啊，这个属于灰色地带？

评论


为什么你说肯定呢？ planning 法律来说 他们不会按一般人的理解逻辑来看 只要它是个结构 用来住人的 有煮食空间和洗手盆 就算它不是一般人理解的建筑物  法律上都可以算是一个 "dwelling"

评论

好吧，查了一下，貌似 Caravan 还真的是 Dwelling by definition

Dwelling' (England and Wales) Under English law, a dwelling is defined as a self-contained 'substantial' unit of accommodation, such as a building, part of a building, caravan, houseboat or other mobile home. A tent is not normally considered substantial.

评论

我只是按unitary plan 的定义来说  还没去查English law 呢 呵呵 不过Council 可真不是用一般人的角度来看这些的 最主要还是看用途本身到底是什么

评论

是在奧克蘭。caravan按一般人的理解還真不覺得是dwelling...這樣說來我鄰居大概也不知道違法了。這council很難執法啊。比如我要去投訴啦（事實我也不會去。。）。那在council來之前caravan的人先進屋子裡待著。那caravan就單純的是一輛不住人的、停在後院的caravan. 等council的人走了。他們再回去住就行了啊

评论


那council 也可以进去这台车看什么情况  要求完全回复这台车的内部  或者干脆移走

最严重的个案council 是可以找人将它移然后向业主追讨费用的  当然这些权力真的是最极端情况才会使用  (例如结构有即时危险 卫生条件非常差等 )

Council 不是没牙啦 看其用不用而已 也要走很多程序....

评论
如果怕是裡面什麼都有的會違法，那麼就分拆出來幾個部分，廁所一個，睡的一個，煮的一個，哈哈哈

评论

August 10, 2014 at 9:20 am#1061

Wee Make Change
Participant
I understand there are two ways to approach laws and regulations.

1. fly under the radar for the build and while living.
2. find out all the rules from some like the local council and keep them in the loop and maybe pay fees.

What are the rules for tiny houses in NZ? I have heard that mobile houses are exempt from ‘normal’ housing regulations because they are not permanent.

I love the idea about of a tiny house on a trailer but find it hard to justify a trailer cost of $8-9k if you are going to move it say once a year. A 3.5 tonne load requires a specialist vehicle which in my case I would rent or get and a company to do the move. So was thinking why not build a box that can be lifted and transported by truck prob for a similar cost to tow a trailer. This way your you save a lot of money by not having a trailer. I only reason I can think of why the box idea would not fly is it is classed as permanent and needs building inspections, fees, hooked up to mains etc.

I am torn as to whether involve the council and risk restrictions and money but could gain good info or fly and the radar and do it now I want.

What do you guys know? Anyone had dealings with local council on the matter?

Thanks Mike

August 11, 2014 at 7:18 am#1089

BRYCE
Keymaster
Hey there. Regulations around Tiny Houses in New Zealand fall under a certain grey area at the moment. The first Tiny Houses in Auckland have council consent and fortunately the councils around the country seem to be taking a very progressive stance, viewing them as something that is necessary in our current housing climate. We are hoping to produce a full video on this subject later on (but are of course well occupied with our build at the moment, so it may be a while).

I understand your thinking behind the trailer. It is certainly an expense, but in my opinion unless you own land it’s something that makes your home simple to move, and quickly relocate. In the end it does really come down to your personal circumstance. You may require a heavier towing vehicle (especially if you build at the larger end of the spectrum) but I have seen a number of Tiny Homes constructed that come in under 2500kg’s, which is simple to transport with a common vehicle such as a Hilux.

In the end the cost of transporting a trailer will usually be a lot more affordable. I believe Cedric the Tiny House which doesn’t have a trailer beneath it (and Lucy, correct me if I’m wrong about this) cost well over a thousand dollars to move).

Ultimately it’s something that you have to work out for yourself in terms of what works best for your situation. Personally, not owning land, a the trailer option what what really resonated with me.

August 12, 2014 at 11:53 pm#1107

JOHN
Participant
Hi Mike,
Thats something I’ve been thinking about a lot. I’ll probably build a tiny house at 10m2 and use another cabin as a bedroom, to save on the cost of a trailer. There’s a company in NZ who sell and rent cabins on wheels but deliver them on a truck, it might keep the council happy to see it’s movable without the expense of a roadworthy trailer, you could put axles on a timber skids.
John

September 10, 2014 at 1:15 am#1238

MICHAELS
Participant
Hi Bryce, my wife and I have lived in our house truck for 13 years and would not go back to living in a regular house. Our truck is roadworthy and we use it for traveling as well as living. For people who don’t want to travel, however, isn’t it a bit crazy that the regulations force you to invest in a trailer to give the illusion that it is mobile? Forcing people who wish to live in small spaces on their own land to be “mobile” not only incurs the expense (and wastefulness) of wheels, tires, brakes etc, but also deprives them of solid foundations in the event of earthquake or high winds. Contrast a modest suburban section with a) boundary to boundary house or b) a tiny house plus fruit trees and vege garden – I know which I would prefer. I can understand that councils have a mandate to ensure that houses are structurally sound, properly connected to water and sewerage etc but to dictate that we all have to live in large houses and force those who don’t wish to to resort to subterfuge does nobody any favours.

September 12, 2014 at 12:05 am#1244

SAM
Participant
Interesting article:
HTTP://WWW.STUFF.CO.NZ/NATIONAL/6038757/BUILDING-CONSENTS-NEEDED-FOR-CARAVANS

September 12, 2014 at 12:06 am#1245

SAM
Participant
Also
HTTP://WWW.BRANZ.CO.NZ/CMS_SHOW_DOWNLOAD.PHP?ID=44B7ED0C5A471C002925CE7D1E5C1283F57FDCEA

September 12, 2014 at 12:18 am#1246

SAM
Participant
@Wee Make Change
HTTP://WWW.STUFF.CO.NZ/DOMINION-POST/NEWS/6058322/IS-IT-A-VEHICLE-OR-A-BUILDING

Note the Napier City Council stance.

September 13, 2014 at 9:33 pm#1249

BEACH
Participant
The law still seems very gray in this area of what consitutes a dwelling and why carnt all councils have the same rules it seems if you are not road legal you come under there rules i can live with that.Now if i want to live on my own section in my road legal dwelling where do i stand.

September 13, 2014 at 10:49 pm#1250

SAM
Participant
Unfortunately I bear bad news! Sorry guys I think this is almost a game breaker, the determination they refer to as particular use at the particular time. Seems to make your trailer a building. However I haven’t figured out how the hard services effects the implication of the tiny house.

HTTP://DBH.GOVT.NZ/CODEWORDS-15-ARTICLE-9

“Vehicle or building?

The Chief Executive took the view that the words ‘moves or is moved’ in the Land Transport Act were not to be read as meaning ‘is capable of moving or being moved’. The phrase was to be read literally as applying to a particular time and not as applying at all times while the units were equipped with wheels.

It followed that while a building equipped with wheels was being put to a use in which it moves or is moved, it was a vehicle and came under the Land Transport Act.

However, while it was being put to a use in which it does not move, it was a building and came under the Building Act. In other words, a structure with wheels was a vehicle while it was being used as a vehicle, and a building while it was being used as a building.

The units ceased to be vehicles when they had been manoeuvred into the positions in which they were to be used as buildings. As they were not vehicles, it therefore made no difference whether or not they were ‘immovable’ or ‘occupied by people on a permanent or long-term basis’.

The placement of a unit could not properly be called the construction of a building for which a building consent was required. However, once the unit became a building, any alteration to it would require a building consent (unless specifically exempted). Attaching the building to foundations and utilities amounted to alterations for which building consents were required.

The Chief Executive of the Department of Building and Housing determined that the notice to fix was to be modified to the effect that the owner was to apply to the territorial authority for a certificate of acceptance for each unit. “

September 13, 2014 at 10:51 pm#1251

SAM
Participant
*However I haven’t figured out how the hard services effects the implication of the tiny house. In regards to going off grid, this may cause a change technically in definition that might be a loop hole to exploit.

September 13, 2014 at 11:00 pm#1252

SAM
Participant
So I think I was a bit premature with my comment before about game breaker.
This may be quite helpful:

HTTP://DBH.GOVT.NZ/CODEWORDS-15-ARTICLE-9
note this was in 2006

Guidance information on structures that are both vehicles and buildings

Although the decision turned on the finding that the units were not ‘vehicles’ at the relevant times, the determination also discussed structures used both as vehicles and as buildings, such as caravans, house-buses, and the like.

As mentioned above, under the Building Act such a vehicle is a building if it is ‘immovable and occupied by people on a permanent or long-term basis’. To help readers of the Determination to use the Determination in similar contexts, the Chief Executive took the view that:

a vehicle such as a caravan can properly be described as ‘immovable’ if it is either:
– no longer supported solely by its wheels, or
– attached to the ground or to utility services and the like
permanent occupancy is when there is an intention that the occupancy will be for an indefinite period, which could in the event be comparatively short
long-term occupancy is when the occupancy will be for a definite period that can properly be described as ‘long’ in the particular circumstances.

Full determination document:
HTTP://DBH.GOVT.NZ/USERFILES/FILE/BUILDING/DETERMINATIONS/2006/PDF/2006-72.PDF

September 13, 2014 at 11:31 pm#1253

WEE MAKE CHANGE
Participant
Hi Sam, thanks for all the research you are doing. Very interesting reading.

Have you come across this case?

article
HTTP://WWW.INTEREST.CO.NZ/PROPERTY/71745/TRANSPORTABLE-HOME-UNIT-KAIKOURA-BUILDING-LOCAL-COUNCIL-SAYS-IT-GOVERNMENT-SAYS-IT-IS

Summary
HTTP://WWW.DBH.GOVT.NZ/CODEWORDS-ISSUE-062?UTM_SOURCE=LICENSED+BUILDING+PRACTITIONERS&UTM_CAMPAIGN=73BB9D2B32-CODEWORDS_AND_LBP_ISSUE_62_AUGUST_2014&UTM_MEDIUM=EMAIL&UTM_TERM=0_F5E29B74AC-73BB9D2B32-46510589#DETERMINATION-2014-025

Full report
HTTP://WWW.DBH.GOVT.NZ/USERFILES/FILE/BUILDING/DETERMINATIONS/2014/2014-025.PDF

September 13, 2014 at 11:39 pm#1254

WEE MAKE CHANGE
Participant
This is another camp ground movable home case where the camp ground lost.

Thames-Coromandel District Council v Te Puru Holiday Park Limited


HTTP://WWW.BROOKFIELDS.CO.NZ/PUBLICATIONS/ITEM/COURT-OF-APPEAL-RULES-TRAILER-HOME-IS-A-BUILDING

September 14, 2014 at 12:43 am#1255

BEACH
Participant
Thanks for the links some very interesting reading so what this does is push people to live on the fringe and be more nomadic at lest now i wont be buying a section unless i get board and want to jump in the sand pit with the council they need to address the real isues in there towns.

September 14, 2014 at 9:22 am#1256

SAM
Participant
@we make change – i quite liked the TCDC vs campground article.
It provides some simple instructions on what not to do. To avoid 10k fines.

Author
Posts
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 25 total) 12→
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Log in / Register

Follow Us on FacebookFollow Us on TwitterFollow Us on YouTubeFollow Us on PinterestFollow Us on InstagramFollow Us on Google +Follow Us on E-mail




Zyia Pictures

Copyright © 2013 - 2017 'Living Big in a Tiny House ' - Zyia Pictures Ltd


评论

tiny house nz
Tiny House Legalities NZ
- A tiny house is officially by law a load on a Trailer.

​

​

- Maximum size on the road without the need for special permits is 2.5m wide, 4.2m high from the ground, and 12m long.

​



-The weight must not exceed 3.5 Tonne all up, the size can be oversize and still allowed on the road with permitted limitations for transport but the weight is fixed.  

- Under the Building Act of NZ a load on a trailer which is mobile is not deemed to be a building and is therefore exempt from the building code and Council laws relating to buildings.

​



- Officially Tiny houses built on certified road trailers is a vehicle and is entitled to be used under the laws of vehicles.

​



-The Council laws for your car boat van truck trailer or any vehicle are the same as for a tiny house on private property and on the road.

Is a Tiny house a build or a dwelling?
Tiny House Legalities NZ



Vehicle class, type and standard
legalities click here
(TB) Light trailer specification:
legalities click here
​size and safety requirements
legalities click here
Tiny House Nz  Information.pdf
  Info Pack>
© Tiny House Nz



Contact 0272720764