Is a tiny house a structure under the RMA?

Is a tiny house a structure under the RMA?
Wednesday 1 April, 2020
Tiny houses are becoming popular throughout New Zealand. In a recent decision of the Environment Court, Judge Dwyer considered whether a tiny house being constructed in Hutt City was a “structure” that required resource consent under the Resource Management Act 1991 “RMA”.
In Fadi Antoun v Hutt City Council [2020] NZEnvC 6 the owner of a tiny house appealed against an abatement notice issued by the Council requiring him to remove the house as it contravened the provisions of the district plan. The appellant argued that the tiny house was a vehicle, and that it was not a structure as defined by the RMA.
The tiny house measured eight metres long, 3.2 metres wide and 4.5 metres high. It was a two-storey timber construction on a steel base. The house was uncompleted, but was intended to have bathroom/laundry, kitchen and living areas on the ground floor with a mezzanine bedroom. While services such as electricity, water and drainage were not yet connected, the plans showed an intention to do so.
The appellant argued that the tiny house was a vehicle and therefore could not be considered to be a structure under the RMA. On this issue the Judge found that, while the appellant had two unconnected axles and separate wheels which he had apparently registered as a trailer, there was no evidence that the tiny house could be incorporated into a roadworthy vehicle. He found “the contention that the tiny house is a vehicle to be a flight of imagination advanced to justify the failure to apply for any necessary consents to construct it.”
The Judge then considered whether the tiny house fell within the definition of “structure” in section 2 of the RMA as follows:
“…any building, equipment, device or other facility made by people and which is fixed to land;”
The Judge traversed a number of definitions of “fixed to land” and the cases which have considered these words. He decided that, in this case, the tiny house was fixed to land in such a way as to be a structure as defined in the RMA for the following reasons:
- The appearance, design and capacity of the tiny house as a dwelling house capable of being used for permanent occupation;
- The intention to connect the tiny house to services;
- The method of construction and that it sits firmly on the land in a stable position; and
- That the tiny house was not a vehicle and could not be converted into a trailer or loaded onto a vehicle.
Accordingly, the tiny house was required to comply with the rules of the district plan.
Unfortunately for the Council, the Court declined to confirm its abatement notice issued under s322 of the RMA as the notice referred to the incorrect subsection of s322, and it failed to allow adequate time for the tiny house to be removed. This is a warning to Councils to make sure that abatement notices are carefully worded and meet all of the requirements of s322 of the RMA.
This case can be contrasted to Alan Dall’s case before the Christchurch District Court which found that his self-built tiny house at Amberley Beach was a vehicle as it was registered and warranted, and was not immoveable. While Mr Dall’s case has been reported in the media, we have not yet had a chance to review the full decision of the Court.
For questions relating to this article, please contact one of our experts below.
Related Articles

Councils challenge to transfer of water services rejected in High Court
Thursday 30 March, 2023

When the rubber hits the road - All aboard Aotearoa's challenge
Tuesday 11 October, 2022

Operative plans and proposed plans: what to do when there is a significant policy shift?
Wednesday 30 March, 2022

Notices of requirement are relevant for resource consent applications
Wednesday 30 March, 2022

Avoidance policies reign in the wake of King Salmon, but what do they require?
Wednesday 30 March, 2022

Court gives guidance on consultation and decision-making process
Wednesday 30 March, 2022

Cultural evidence and the continued draw of the overall judgment
Tuesday 21 December, 2021

Will new housing density rules increase contributions for developers?
Thursday 28 October, 2021

Lease of Wanaka Airport set aside due to insufficient consultation
Tuesday 15 June, 2021

What if an abatement notice requires you to breach the Resource Management Act?
Tuesday 15 June, 2021

“No ‘wine-ing’ covenants” declined for a subdivision consent in Gibbston Valley
Tuesday 15 June, 2021

From car parking fine to judicial review of a council’s code of conduct
Tuesday 15 June, 2021

Making a counteroffer: what to know before you sign on the dotted line
Thursday 22 April, 2021

Councils remain liable for compliance of contractors with the RMA
Thursday 18 March, 2021

Randerson Report released: New Direction for Resource Management
Wednesday 5 August, 2020

Could companies be liable to the public for the harm caused by their emissions?
Tuesday 10 March, 2020

Avoiding double penalties when sentencing a company and director
Thursday 23 April, 2020

Can an easement be granted over an esplanade reserve for a commercial activity?
Thursday 12 December, 2019

Draft National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2019 for consultation
Thursday 3 October, 2019

Local authority requiring monetary contributions on designations
Thursday 20 June, 2019

Bella Vista: MBIE Report highlights failure to perform statutory functions
Tuesday 9 April, 2019

Recent decision on "affected persons" highlights the importance of context
Wednesday 28 November, 2018

Court upholds sensible approach to local authority works on private property
Tuesday 24 July, 2018

Must Councils accept an assertion that a person is ‘suitably qualified'?
Friday 9 March, 2018
