‘Blindness’ over consent for conversion of sleepouts earns prosecution for Waikato couple

Thursday, 2 July 2026

Joining two sleepouts together to make a home for their son and daughter-in-law proved an ill-advised move for a rural Waikato couple who did not get the council’s okay to do so.

But whether they deliberately ignored their obligations or were somehow ignorant of them is a moot point.

Tracey and Stephen Frew were sentenced in the Hamilton District Court on Wednesday, after pleading guilty to charges of carrying out building work without a building consent.

The pair, who live on a property on Maungatawhiri Rd, a hilly rural area between Raglan and Te Mata, drew the attention of the Waikato District Council about two years ago.

A council building inspector had initially visited the property in February 2024 after being advised that unconsented construction work was potentially being carried out there.

During this visit an unknown man had told the inspector he was building two sleepouts that would be less than 30 square metres in area, and 5m apart.

The inspector made some measurements and, eventually left satisfied that was was happening met the requirements for an exemption from the red tape of the Building Act.

That might have been the end of the matter but for the fact that five months later the inspector happened to drive past the property again.

To his surprise, concrete foundations, a timber floor and sub-floor, timber walls with external cladding, a ceiling, a roof, and a kitchen had all been built in what was meant to be the gap between the two sleepouts.

Inside the sleepouts themselves, a bathroom, ensuite and laundry were also being constructed.

It was later found that a septic tank and associated plumbing had also been installed on the property.

Eventually, in October of that year, a building inspector and a monitoring officer met with Stephen Frew at the property. Frew admitted no contact had been made with the council prior to the work getting started, which he had authorised.

He had also not sought any geotechnical advice about the property, which was on the crest of a hill with steep banks on the sides.

Frew said he reckoned the work complied with the Building Code, but he declined to reveal the identity of the builder who had carried it out.

Looking inside, the council staff found evidence people were living inside the newly-constructed abode: There were unmade beds, water on the shower door, cereal and other food on the kitchen bench, and photos of people stuck to the fridge door.

The maximum penalty for the charge of carrying out building work without building consent is a fine of up to $200,000. Ultimately, Judge Tini Clark fined the couple $6750 each.

Judge Clark described the situation as “akin to willful blindness … asking no questions [that] results in a situation where there is plausible deniability.”

As the agreed summary of facts on their case revealed, Frew had sometime previously applied to subdivide land on the property. That process had cost him $30,000 - however the council had declined the application.

In court, Judge Clark queried both the council’s lawyer Christine Pidduck and the Frews’ counsel Charlotte Muggeridge over just how culpable the defendants were.

Muggeridge said her clients had an honest belief what they were doing was within the rules. A “notice to fix” should also have been issued by the council, which had instead moved straight into prosecution mode.

Pidduck countered, saying that because the two “initially identified” sleepouts were exempt from the act, there was no requirement on the council to issue a notice to fix.

In her submissions, she said it was the contour of the land that had concerned the council, along with the potential for the safety of the dwelling’s occupants to be compromised, due to the unknown nature of the construction.

Judge Clark also noted that in May this year the defendants had belatedly lodged an application for consent for the septic tank, “which at least puts them on the correct pathway for getting the septic system into compliance”.

She ruled there had been no misunderstanding by the Frews and their culpability was at a “moderate” level.

While their desire to build a home for their son was “noble … it is the home owners who had an obligation to make sure what they were doing was right”.