apollo11 wrote:

A quick search of council records shows it as a rural property. It's not a residential section.

How does it change anything i it is a residential section in a rural zone Are you saying you can't live in a rural property because it does not say residential and he is living in the property his problem lies with the fact he is trying to change the properties use which then goes against the district plan if it stays as a church he can keep on living there is that not residential in your eyes

andrewcg53 - 2021-01-10 19:54:00

andrewcg53 wrote:

How does it change anything i it is a residential section in a rural zone Are you saying you can't live in a rural property because it does not say residential and he is living in the property his problem lies with the fact he is trying to change the properties use which then goes against the district plan if it stays as a church he can keep on living there is that not residential in your eyes

He's not living in it.

sparkychap - 2021-01-10 19:56:00

Ok still does not change the fact if it stays a church no consent needed so it still meets your definition of residential

andrewcg53 - 2021-01-10 20:20:00

andrewcg53 wrote:

Ok still does not change the fact if it stays a church no consent needed so it still meets your definition of residential

No, it doesn't. If it can't be used as a dwelling, then it can't be classed as residential. Really can't see why that is so hard for you to grasp, apart from the fact that you've selected a position and refuse to budge.

sparkychap - 2021-01-10 20:25:00

residential
(rezɪdenʃəl )
1. adjective [usually ADJECTIVE noun]
A residential area contains houses rather than offices or factories.
...a smart residential area.

Synonyms: suburban, commuter, dormitory More Synonyms of residential

apollo11 - 2021-01-10 20:34:00

apollo11 wrote:

residential
(rezɪdenʃəl )
1. adjective [usually ADJECTIVE noun]
A residential area contains houses rather than offices or factories.
...a smart residential area.

Synonyms: suburban, commuter, dormitory More Synonyms of residential

There is no legal definition of residential in NZ his whole case rests of the theory there is and there is in Australia
https://nidd.co.nz/listing-detail?listing_id=26691 agent has classed it as a residential property
Here as well
https://rwinvercargill.co.nz/properties/sold-residential/sou
thland-district/ohai-9635/house/1921977

andrewcg53 - 2021-01-10 22:16:00

andrewcg53 wrote:

There is no legal definition of residential in NZ his whole case rests of the theory there is and there is in Australia
https://nidd.co.nz/listing-detail?listing_id=26691 agent has classed it as a residential property
Here as well
https://rwinvercargill.co.nz/properties/sold-residential/sou
thland-district/ohai-9635/house/1921977

hope you didn’t spend too long finding that example as it’s in residential zone where having a dwelling is permitted.

sparkychap - 2021-01-10 22:35:00

sparkychap wrote:

hope you didn’t spend too long finding that example as it’s in residential zone where having a dwelling is permitted.

Are you saying a dwelling is not permitted in a rural zone

andrewcg53 - 2021-01-10 22:50:00

andrewcg53 wrote:

Are you saying a dwelling is not permitted in a rural zone

have you read the article?

sparkychap - 2021-01-10 22:54:00

andrewcg53 wrote:

Are you saying a dwelling is not permitted in a rural zone

No.

apollo11 - 2021-01-10 22:56:00

The property has a certificate of compliance so is able to be lived in

andrewcg53 - 2021-01-11 06:06:00

andrewcg53 wrote:

The property has a certificate of compliance so is able to be lived in

Does it really? LMFAO.

OK, lets just play along for a moment. Even if it did have a CCC, it would be based on commercial and public use code, not residential.

So no, it wouldn't "be able to be lived in".

sparkychap - 2021-01-11 06:56:00

andrewcg53 wrote:

The property has a certificate of compliance so is able to be lived in

And secondly, if its able to be lived in, why is the new owner moaning bitterly that they have to get a resource consent?

sparkychap - 2021-01-11 06:57:00

andrewcg53 wrote:

There is no legal definition of residential in NZ

Rubbish.

214 Acts include the term residential, many include it in the interpretation section (including the Real Estate Agents Act 2008), probably every single District and City Plan does, and in any event the courts can interpret the term in context of the matter using the various rules available to them.

johnston - 2021-01-11 07:15:00

sparkychap wrote:

Does it really? LMFAO.

OK, lets just play along for a moment. Even if it did have a CCC, it would be based on commercial and public use code, not residential.

So no, it wouldn't "be able to be lived in".

Then why do you have a Code Compliance Certificate on your LIM stating building work done on a property complies with the relevant building consent and the Building Code.

andrewcg53 - 2021-01-11 09:00:00

sparkychap wrote:

And secondly, if its able to be lived in, why is the new owner moaning bitterly that they have to get a resource consent?

Because he can live in it as a church his problem is when he changes the property use from a church to a residential property he then falls foul of the district plan leave it as a church no problem
It is a simple consent to get you are only changing the use of the building but from what I have read of the story he thinks he is changing land use from rural to residential which is not the case and where he gets his 50k for a consent

andrewcg53 - 2021-01-11 09:08:00

andrewcg53 wrote:

Then why do you have a Code Compliance Certificate on your LIM stating building work done on a property complies with the relevant building consent and the Building Code.

Because I live in a house, and I have a CCC confirming that the property was build to the terms of my building consent (which was for a house, by the way) and that it complies with the residential component of the Building Act and subsequent Codes.

sparkychap - 2021-01-11 09:12:00

andrewcg53 wrote:

Because he can live in it as a church his problem is when he changes the property use from a church to a residential property he then falls foul of the district plan leave it as a church no problem
It is a simple consent to get you are only changing the use of the building but from what I have read of the story he thinks he is changing land use from rural to residential which is not the case and where he gets his 50k for a consent

no it needs a resource consent, which at this rate he won’t get granted.

sparkychap - 2021-01-11 09:13:00

sparkychap wrote:

no it needs a resource consent, which at this rate he won’t get granted.

No he does not if it stays a church it is when he changes to a residential property he then needs a resource consent as per the district plan he does not need to change the land from rural to residential which he seems to think he does he needs a consent to have a residential dwelling on less than 4ha it is there to deter people building 2 house on 1 4ha block.

Edited by andrewcg53 at 9:41 am, Mon 11 Jan

andrewcg53 - 2021-01-11 09:35:00

Yes he does. A dwelling on a <4 ha is a non permitted activity.

sparkychap - 2021-01-11 09:41:00

Plus you aren’t actually allowed to live in a church, they are classified under the Building Act as “commercial non residential”.

sparkychap - 2021-01-11 09:42:00

sparkychap wrote:

Yes he does. A dwelling on a <4 ha is a non permitted activity.

He is not changing the land he is changing the buildings use he does not need to change the land to residential

andrewcg53 - 2021-01-11 09:43:00

sparkychap wrote:

Plus you aren’t actually allowed to live in a church, they are classified under the Building Act as “commercial non residential”.

Well that is his case gone up in smoke he knowingly bought a church

andrewcg53 - 2021-01-11 09:45:00

andrewcg53 wrote:

He is not changing the land he is changing the buildings use he does not need to change the land to residential

I never said he did. He still needs a resource consent.

sparkychap - 2021-01-11 09:45:00

andrewcg53 wrote:

Well that is his case gone up in smoke he knowingly bought a church

yes he bought a church but the agent indicated it was classed as residential and had a bedroom.

sparkychap - 2021-01-11 09:46:00

yes but the ad stated it was a church the agent had information from a 3rd party the disclaimer stated to get legal advice

andrewcg53 - 2021-01-11 09:49:00

Also said it was residential. With a bedroom.

Disclaimers aren’t ass coverers....

sparkychap - 2021-01-11 09:50:00

sparkychap wrote:

I never said he did. He still needs a resource consent.

Yes as per the district plan it is a simple process

andrewcg53 - 2021-01-11 09:50:00

sparkychap wrote:

Also said it was residential. With a bedroom.

Disclaimers aren’t ass coverers....

Well it is up to the Real Estate Authority

andrewcg53 - 2021-01-11 09:53:00

andrewcg53 wrote:

Yes as per the district plan it is a simple process

no necessarily, it can be complex as you have to prove mitigation of all the reasons you want exemption from the District Plan rules. Such as the property being in keeping with the rural location - something he may struggle with now it looks like an urban graffiti jungle.

There’s no obligation for consent to be issued.

sparkychap - 2021-01-11 09:57:00

andrewcg53 wrote:

Well it is up to the Real Estate Authority

No it’s an established fact.

But yes, the full details of the case will come out eventually including what other communications occurred between agent and buyer.

sparkychap - 2021-01-11 09:58:00

andrewcg53 wrote:

Well it is up to the Real Estate Authority

The Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal have ruled on disclaimers.

Here, the agent has likely negated the disclaimer by representing the property.

Edited by johnston at 10:11 am, Mon 11 Jan

johnston - 2021-01-11 10:09:00

sparkychap wrote:

No it’s an established fact.

But yes, the full details of the case will come out eventually including what other communications occurred between agent and buyer.

I am picking we are getting less than half the story there has to be more to it the a resource consent change in its self is a simple process

andrewcg53 - 2021-01-11 12:09:00

andrewcg53 wrote:

I am picking we are getting less than half the story there has to be more to it the a resource consent change in its self is a simple process

it’s not a given at all - if it were it would make a mockery of the plan - but the new owner may struggle to argue that they are maintaining the rural character of the area with his spray painted buildings, especially as one is under council heritage protections.

sparkychap - 2021-01-11 13:01:00

sparkychap wrote:

it’s not a given at all - if it were it would make a mockery of the plan - but the new owner may struggle to argue that they are maintaining the rural character of the area with his spray painted buildings, especially as one is under council heritage protections.

Yes I can't see them being happy about the paint job but it also leads to the question did he ever seek any advice from anyone including the agent before the sale.

andrewcg53 - 2021-01-11 13:35:00

andrewcg53 wrote:

There is no legal definition of residential in NZ his whole case rests of the theory there is and there is in Australia
https://nidd.co.nz/listing-detail?listing_id=26691 agent has classed it as a residential property
Here as well
https://rwinvercargill.co.nz/properties/sold-residential/sou
thland-district/ohai-9635/house/1921977

The first one has this disclaimer { PLEASE NOTE this building does not have bathroom facilities. The websites state '1 bedroom & 1 bathroom' as this is a minimum requirement for advertising residential properties on the websites} end quote.

The second one has the disclaimer, quote { NOTE: For residential listing purposes the property must include a bedroom and bathroom, these rooms need to be completed}

Is a Church still a Church when it's been deconsecrated ?

Edited by marte at 1:45 pm, Mon 11 Jan

marte - 2021-01-11 13:43:00

andrewcg53 wrote:

Yes I can't see them being happy about the paint job but it also leads to the question did he ever seek any advice from anyone including the agent before the sale.

It really leads to the question why you steadfastly refuse to engage with the discussion in any meaningful way. If you dropped the attitude you might actually learn a few things.

In the meantime you merely appear incapable of addressing the real issues with any proper focus.

Edited by johnston at 2:53 pm, Mon 11 Jan

johnston - 2021-01-11 14:39:00

If you remove the zoning or whatever of church or religious use it reverts to the underlying zoning. In urban areas this will often mean it it is residential zoning. There would be conditions about living in a church to do with water, sewage etc etc bathrooms etc. In this one about protection of the historic designation.

I am picking, as others have said, that once the zoning of church or religious use is lifted in this case the zoning it would revert to might be rural. Separately from the rural zoning the existing buildings may be protected from demolition, alteration etc. So you could apply for it to be zoned rural residential or something like that.

A huge jump by the real estate agent to say, as it has a bathroom and a room that could be slept in that it is able to be used for residential purposes.

While the purchaser has acted foolishly by not making appropriate investigations, including the obtaining of a LIM and appears to be a fool, even before the purchase, he may have been led by his foolish nose by the wording of the advertisement.

Sometimes even fools have bad things done to them and are entitled to seek remedies to right them.

As far as the colour scheme is concerned, while 'on trend' often in graffiti prone urban areas he may have not won friends in his new neighbourhood.

shanreagh - 2021-01-11 17:45:00

marte wrote:

......
Is a Church still a Church when it's been deconsecrated ?

I think one can safely say 'it depends'

Deconsecration is a religious process and is carried out according to religious processes and procedures.
'is the act of removing a religious blessing from something that had been previously consecrated by a minister or priest of that religion. The practice is usually performed on churches to be rendered to non-religious (secular)'

Once nonreligious the land & buildings are free to be used for activities other than religious premises. The church owners have decide to sell the land & buildings.

These buildings look like old time churches. I have seen such buildings bought and used as a wedding venue with the ceremony carried out in the main church and the reception being held in the older church. These are often the type of places that marriage or funeral celebrants work in.

Other cases I have seen either the local authority buys the buildings and uses them for meetings (hall) and lets out the church for funerals/marriages, baby naming etc.

Then people buy them to live in.

I think that the current zoning would only support use for religious observance that is carried out in a consecrated church ie by another religious entity. So say the local Methodists etc could buy it and re-consecrate it.

Any sale & use for community purposes, functions, residential would not be supported by the zoning for church or religious purposes.

If the underlying zoning is rural then perhaps a local farmer could have bought it and used the undesignated former church as a hay shed or rural ancillary use. Yeek.

Rates are tied in to use/zoning. Back in the day churches used to get some sort of rates differential. This was tied to the zoning and use and would not be available, as of right, once the church orreligious zoning has been lifted.

Edited by shanreagh at 6:19 pm, Mon 11 Jan

shanreagh - 2021-01-11 18:15:00

All the buyer has to do is altar the district plan. But I suspect be's too nave for that.

sparkychap - 2021-01-11 18:49:00

The buyer's a hymn so nothing would be too steep(le) for hymn.

shanreagh - 2021-01-11 19:58:00

Pffff Sparky, Shan... Don't give up your day jobs.

mechnificent - 2021-01-11 20:02:00

mechnificent wrote:

Pffff Sparky, Shan... Don't give up your day jobs.

Aisle be the judge of that.

sparkychap - 2021-01-11 20:20:00

sparkychap wrote:

Aisle be the judge of that.

That one is clever and the funniest.

kacy5 - 2021-01-11 22:24:00

Our much loved converted rural church was deemed residential , we paid ‘ normal ‘ rates and never worried about getting a lim , however made sure we could insure her before going unconditional .
Advertised as one bedroom as most are .We actually had three bedroom areas if we had so wished to use the mezzanine .
Our wardrobes were the confessional , the altar our kitchen , the vestry we could hunker down on extreme cold nights with a low ceiling , amazing fire .
A fabulous adventure , but not for the faint hearted.
Not sure about the graffiti style paint job this guy has chosen ...but it is his to do as he pleases .

jbsouthland - 2021-01-11 22:54:00

jbsouthland wrote:

Our much loved converted rural church was deemed residential , we paid ‘ normal ‘ rates and never worried about getting a lim , however made sure we could insure her before going unconditional .
Advertised as one bedroom as most are .We actually had three bedroom areas if we had so wished to use the mezzanine .
Our wardrobes were the confessional , the altar our kitchen , the vestry we could hunker down on extreme cold nights with a low ceiling , amazing fire .
A fabulous adventure , but not for the faint hearted.
Not sure about the graffiti style paint job this guy has chosen ...but it is his to do as he pleases .

it is heritage listed property there are rules about what can and can't be done inside and out, I think the paint job is going to add to his issues

andrewcg53 - 2021-01-11 23:25:00

sparkychap wrote:

All the buyer has to do is altar the district plan. But I suspect be's too nave for that.

Is that not what the resource consent is doing

andrewcg53 - 2021-01-11 23:29:00

andrewcg53 wrote:

Is that not what the resource consent is doing

No, it's not. Clearly I need to spell this out in a very large font.

sparkychap - 2021-01-12 06:37:00

sparkychap wrote:

No, it's not. Clearly I need to spell this out in a very large font.

A resource consent is a formal approval required if your proposal or activity does not comply with a rule/s of the Waimakariri District Plan or the Resource Management Act 1991. Resource consent is also required when subdividing your land.

andrewcg53 - 2021-01-12 06:41:00

andrewcg53 wrote:

A resource consent is a formal approval required if your proposal or activity does not comply with a rule/s of the Waimakariri District Plan or the Resource Management Act 1991. Resource consent is also required when subdividing your land.

Really, I never knew that (insert sarcastic face).

But they're not "altaring" the District Plan, they're getting Resource COnsent for a non-complying activity.

sparkychap - 2021-01-12 07:06:00