EDIT: Sorry for the false alarm. The Building Act 2004 already has this defintion. Nelson is simply adding the same definition to their plan. From my not-a-lawyer perspective, it seems that this is a benign change and there is no threat to people living in Tiny Houses.
Original Post:
Submissions close today at 4pm on Nelson’s Plan Change 29. One new passage in Chapter 2 Meanings of words quietly redefines vehicles as buildings:
In the Residential, Inner City, Suburban Commercial and Industrial zones, a building includes a vehicle or motor vehicle (including a vehicle or motor vehicle as defined in section 2(1) of the Land Transport Act 1998) that is immovable and is occupied by people on a permanent or long term basis.
You can make a submission here: https://shape.nelson.govt.nz/plan-change-29
This kinda sounds like it’s closing a loophole where you could park your campervan somewhere permanently, and not have to deal with planning permission cos it’s technically a vehicle?
Yeah, it is technically a vehicle. They are proposing to classify it a building.
If I drive my camper van onto a piece of land, jack it up, take the wheels off, build a foundation around it and connect it to the water supply, is it not a building?
This doesn’t mean that every car on the road is technically a building - only if they are “immovable”. If you can get a tow truck in to move it, then it’s movable
I mean, my house is movable with the right equipment, so the tow truck argument may not work.
that is immovable
I’d say you’re right, if it can move you’re free and clear.
This is definitely written with Tiny Homes in mind. A lot of them up that way… Actually seems pretty generous compared to some councils (the immovable clause gives some leeway)
