Tiny home ruling will be ‘fought to the death’ by manufacturer

Tuesday, 11 March 2025

The Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment has agreed with a council that tiny homes consisting of units at right angles are buildings and need building consents.

Hurunui District Council said the tiny homes consisted of combined non-moveable units and were not vehicles.

The manufacturer, Eco Cottages NZ, estimated there are some 500 similar tiny homes around the country and has vowed to fight the Ministry’s decision “to the death”.

A ruling that states tiny homes consisting of two units joined at right angles are immovable buildings will affect more than 500 tiny home owners around the country and will be challenged “to the death”, their manufacturer says.

The owners of two tiny homes on wheels have been told they need a building consent because the wheels of the units that have been joined to make the tiny homes are at right angles and the structures are “non-moveable”.

Both cottages were built by Eco Cottages NZ, which is owned by Colin Wightman.

The tiny homes, in different locations in Hurunui, North Canterbury, were inspected by staff of Hurunui District Council last year and their owners were issued notices informing them that they needed building consents.

Both homes consist of two tiny units on wheels that have been joined together to form T-bone shaped cottages.

The units are on wheels, meaning the wheels, like the units, are at right angles.

After being delivered to the properties the units were joined together by ratchet straps and a rubber pads, creating a “pressure fit”, with silicone used as a sealant where the walls join and an adhesive rubber strip to seal the roof joins.

After they were put in place, sewer and stormwater systems were installed, connecting the units to council pipes.

In late March last year the council told the owners they had carried out building work without the required building consent.

The owners were told the trailers were connected and were not moveable, and they had to apply for a Certificate of Acceptance, or remove the illegal building work within four weeks.

A consultant acting on behalf of the owners told the council the cottages were connected by “quick release straps” and that the units were on trailer bases designed to be towed and each had “a removable tow bar ready for use at any time”.

The consultant also told the council that its notice implied the cottages were created on the site, but they weren’t.

The owners accepted they needed a Certificate of Acceptance for the drainage and plumbing work, and this was subsequently carried out.

When council staff made a further inspection in April they found various things such as carpet, sealant and tape that prevented the units from moving apart easily.

The council told the owners when the units were joined together they became a single structure that was a “a combined non-moveable unit that is not a vehicle” and, because they were being occupied, would be defined as a building.

The council noted the cottages consisted of units with “the wheels of one unit at 90 degrees to the wheels of the other unit”.

In May last year Wightman wrote to the council saying the units sat on timber blocks that rolled away when the units were towed, and that there were “no bolts, rivets, screws, weld or glues that hold these units alongside one and the other”.

“They are simply stropped below to bring one alongside the other where silicone [not glue] offers a weather proofing between both vehicles,” he said.

“Silicon is not a glue and is therefore not a connective component… when we move these units to new sites… we don’t even cut the silicone bead because it simply pulls away when we release the strops to tow each unit away. As does the sticky back rubber membrane [“sill tape”] on the mono pitch roof between both mobile homes,” Wightman said.

The council applied to the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment seeking a determination on its view that the cottages were defined as buildings and were immovable.

The owners opposed the application on the grounds that the cottages were not a building, but rather “two vehicles that are not immovable”.

In a recently released decision the Ministry’s principal advisor of determinations Rebecca Mackie traversed previous determinations and case law, and concluded that despite the design features that made the units easily detachable, they were still considered a building under the Building Act.

Mackie also found that it was clear that some building work had been carried out onsite and that this work meant the council had grounds to issue the notices.

However, she found that the notices issued by the council hadn’t been sufficiently clear because they did not stipulate what building work was undertaken by the owners that contravened the Act.

For that reason she determined that while the council had grounds for issuing the notices, they were to be reversed because they did not include sufficient information.

The council’s building and property manager Kerry Walsh told Stuff the council was “currently reviewing the determinations before deciding on the next steps”.

Wightman said he would be appealing the determination.

He said there were “probably 500” tiny homes around the country that were similar to the two in Hurunui, made with two units at right angles.

“The decision is wrong. They’re still movable and maintain their vehicular status which is the requirement. We’ve been going for eight years now and have moved many of these units for clients who have either onsold them or moved them to a new site,” he said.

“That’s the whole idea of a mobile home; that you haven’t committed to the land, that you have a chattel that you can move when you like. It’s the same in America, England and Australia. It only takes about half an hour to get one of these T-bone homes ready to tow away.

“Basically they’re putting barriers in the way of affordable housing for people. The thing is that mobile homes like these ones are probably half the price of the equivalent as a fixed foundation home.

“All they’re doing is making it harder for people to find a solution to their housing needs. I’ll fight it to the death.”

Wightman cited the case of Alan Dall who in 2020 won a landmark court battle after appealing a Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) determination that sided with Hurunui District Council in determining his caravan was a building.

Christchurch District Court Judge Mark Callaghan was satisfied Dall’s structure was a vehicle because it was registered and warranted, and was not immoveable.

The owners of the cottages could not be reached for comment.