Post by Brent George on Jan 14, 2024 18:48:13 GMT
Three year Battle over Ponga Retaining Wall sees MBIE Rule in Council's Favour
Stuff - Taupo:15-Jan-2024
In December 2021, a landowner began erecting a ponga log retaining wall on the boundary of his property on Rokino Rd. The 5.6 metre-long wall was replacing a similar wall that had collapsed.
The neighbour was concerned about the new wall being erected and alerted Taupō District Council, which sent a staff member to inspect the wall in January 2022.
The landowner was told he would need a building consent or a certificate of acceptance because it was a retaining wall over 1.5m high.
He disagreed and carried on building the wall, which comprised two horizontal wooden rails to which the ponga logs were attached with wire.
In March 2023, the Council applied to the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment for a determination as to whether the structure was indeed a retaining wall and a building, and whether it met Building Code requirement
The Ministry’s Principal Advisor of Building Determinations found that the ponga wall was a retaining wall because it had been constructed to retain or hold the earth that would go behind it.
He also found that the ponga wall was a permanent and immovable structure that met the definition of a building in the Building Act. (!!)
[and is it "ponga" or "punga" ??]
Stuff - Taupo:15-Jan-2024
In December 2021, a landowner began erecting a ponga log retaining wall on the boundary of his property on Rokino Rd. The 5.6 metre-long wall was replacing a similar wall that had collapsed.
The neighbour was concerned about the new wall being erected and alerted Taupō District Council, which sent a staff member to inspect the wall in January 2022.
The landowner was told he would need a building consent or a certificate of acceptance because it was a retaining wall over 1.5m high.
He disagreed and carried on building the wall, which comprised two horizontal wooden rails to which the ponga logs were attached with wire.
In March 2023, the Council applied to the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment for a determination as to whether the structure was indeed a retaining wall and a building, and whether it met Building Code requirement
The Ministry’s Principal Advisor of Building Determinations found that the ponga wall was a retaining wall because it had been constructed to retain or hold the earth that would go behind it.
He also found that the ponga wall was a permanent and immovable structure that met the definition of a building in the Building Act. (!!)
[and is it "ponga" or "punga" ??]