Post by Brent George on Oct 28, 2019 23:16:55 GMT
The concept of people wanting to live in tiny homes is not new.
Certainly, in post-earthquake Christchurch there has been some impetus given to a greater number of people wanting to explore the tiny-house option as an alternative to building a fixed structure on land that may again be susceptible to liquefaction etc.
Enter the Rules.
I have been keeping a general eye on the circular arguments surrounding the interpretations of a "tiny-house" on wheels (or able to be moved) being a fixed structure or not -with Council's generally saying that if they are permanently occupied that they are buildings and therefore subject to Building Act regulation and Council's requiring connections to services etc.
Forgotten are the initial arguments that this type of housing solution offers maneuverability and flexibility, and a different way of living that often is in conjunction with minimalist consumerism - therefore being positive for the planet..
So when this report was posted today - Stuff - Business:: 28-Oct-2019 - it seemed that it was a perfect example of the circular argument.
Just because there are current Rules that must be applied - but don't seem to fit properly - shouldn't necessarily mean that the Tiny Home concept is bad or should not be allowed.
And because this movement is a growing national issue, why can't the "Rules" be sorted? It'll only take central and local government to get together with stakeholders (tiny home providers and tiny-home communities/wanna-be's) to discuss; resolve and regulate....*
* - OK - asked and answered...
Certainly, in post-earthquake Christchurch there has been some impetus given to a greater number of people wanting to explore the tiny-house option as an alternative to building a fixed structure on land that may again be susceptible to liquefaction etc.
Enter the Rules.
I have been keeping a general eye on the circular arguments surrounding the interpretations of a "tiny-house" on wheels (or able to be moved) being a fixed structure or not -with Council's generally saying that if they are permanently occupied that they are buildings and therefore subject to Building Act regulation and Council's requiring connections to services etc.
Forgotten are the initial arguments that this type of housing solution offers maneuverability and flexibility, and a different way of living that often is in conjunction with minimalist consumerism - therefore being positive for the planet..
So when this report was posted today - Stuff - Business:: 28-Oct-2019 - it seemed that it was a perfect example of the circular argument.
Just because there are current Rules that must be applied - but don't seem to fit properly - shouldn't necessarily mean that the Tiny Home concept is bad or should not be allowed.
And because this movement is a growing national issue, why can't the "Rules" be sorted? It'll only take central and local government to get together with stakeholders (tiny home providers and tiny-home communities/wanna-be's) to discuss; resolve and regulate....*
* - OK - asked and answered...
