Owners told to trim house extension

The Environment Court has found a house extension at Blandswood is a prohibited activity under the district plan and has recommended the owners remove part of the room.

Property owners RS and J D Palmer had gone to the court appealing an abatement notice issued by the Timaru District Council, which would have seen them remove an extension to their dwelling at 184 Blandswood Road, Peel Forest.

The Palmers bought the property in 1993 and in 2004 Mr Palmer extended the house by adding a room at the rear. No building consent or resource consent was obtained from the council. Prior to the work being carried out he received written notice from council staff that in their opinion any extension to an existing dwelling in the Recreation 1 Zone would be a prohibited activity under the district plan "if it was not constructed so as to reduce likely flood damage ie [by] raising the floor height".

The extension was at the same floor level as the rest of the dwelling.

The property is separated from the Kowhai Stream by the road. The stream is subject to flash flooding, with four children having been killed in a flood there in 1986 while staying at a bach on the banks of the stream.

The council had consistently told the Palmers the activity did not constitute flood mitigation and so did not result in discretionary activity status. It was a prohibited activity under the plan and could not be the subject of a retrospective resource consent application.The district plan allows for exceptions where the extension does not increase the floor area of an existing household by more than 20 per cent.

The extension equated to 25.2 per cent of the total floor area including the veranda, and 29 per cent of the floor area excluding the veranda.

The Palmers claimed while the alterations were not specifically for the purpose of reducing flood damage, they provided more structural soundness and could be said to contribute to the building's ability to withstand flood damage.

Judge Jon Jackson found the council's prohibited activity rule to be a response to a clear and present danger and accordingly was not bureaucratic overkill.

Judge Jackson did not consider it would be unfairly onerous to the Palmers to have to remove a portion of the extension so that it complied with the less than 20 per cent extension exception. He suggested they do so, which would allow the abatement notice to be cancelled and a certificate of code compliance issued.

- © Fairfax NZ News