Following an investigation, property owner Michael Douglas Bryant pleaded guilty to one representative charge of carrying out unconsented building work.
He was sentenced in December last year, however, suppression orders that prevented reporting on the case have only just lapsed.
Judge Louis Bidois’ sentencing notes said the 40sq m cabana and 36sq m garage amounted to “substantial” improvements to the property that involved construction, plumbing and electrical work.
The judge sentenced Bryant in the Tauranga District Court, and said the work presented well and was “fitting of the property”, which is 925sq m and 100 metres from the beach at Pāpāmoa.
Bay of Plenty man Michael Bryant has been fined for unconsented building work at his property 100m from the beach at Pāpāmoa.
The work, which was completed between 2020-23, was not code-compliant and has since been removed through remedial work.
The summary of facts noted that the council’s valuation of the property at the time was $2.4 million.
Bryant told council workers in May 2023 that he was aware the garage and sleepout, and the kitchen in the cabana, did not have building consents.
He said he thought the cabana itself was consented, and his engineer was responsible for getting the pool signed off.
Council officers saw photos of the property listed for sale, and noticed the non-compliant pool fencing and unconsented cabana.
An inspection by council officers found the 40sq m cabana had “a kitchen, pizza oven, dining area and lounge area”.
The carport had been enclosed to form a garage, and a separate 36sq m standalone garage had been built containing a sleepout, toilet, shower and basin.
There was also a building with a sauna and outdoor shower.
The summary says the pool area was non-compliant as there was no pool fence with a “self-locking gate”. A “large gate on rollers” separated the house from the pool, but it had “no lock and did not self-close”.
The “standalone shed”.
Another issue for the council was there was no fence or locked gate between the cabana and pool.
The council estimated that if Bryant had engaged builders to carry out the unconsented work, under a building consent, the total cost of the building work would have been about $300,000.
In May 2023, Bryant was issued with a notice to fix, which required him to either apply for a certificate of acceptance, or remove the buildings by August 2023.
By November 2023, no application had been made, and the unconsented buildings at the property remained.
The summary of facts noted there had been a compliance issue at another Pāpāmoa property owned by Bryant, where a large shed/garage was under construction without a building consent.
After discussions, Bryant had removed the framing erected and applied for a certificate of acceptance for the poured concrete slab.
In sentencing Bryant, the judge noted the original intention for the development of the beachfront property was for Bryant to stay there long term with family.
Circumstances changed, however, and the property was put up for sale.
The judge noted Bryant was “involved in the building industry”.
“From his experience, he knew without a doubt there was a need to get consents,” said Judge Bidois.
“His failure to do so was deliberate and he carried out the work, with other tradies involved, and they would have had a clear expectation that the necessary consents had been obtained.”
Judge Bidois said this was “unprofessional” and “placed others at risk of being involved in unconsented work”, and he viewed Bryant’s culpability as being in the “high range”.
The judge noted Bryant, at the time of sentencing, had “removed most of the work” and the council was happy with his progress and compliance.
He said the relevant matters to consider were the duration, scale, nature, purpose and permanency of the work, degree of potential harm, and the defendant’s attitude.
He noted the need for deterrence.
“As to the extent, the photos speak for themselves,” Judge Bidois said.
He said the value of the work was speculative, as it was done by Bryant and his associates, but the property was valuable, given its seaside location, and the improvements fitted the “quality property”.
While the property had received publicity, Judge Bidois said “the prudent path” may have been to avoid this as Bryant knew it had substantial unconsented work.
From a sentencing starting point of a $30,000 fine, Bryant was given a 25% discount for his guilty plea and 10% for co-operation, remorse and background matters.
That left an end fine of $19,500 plus costs, 90% of which went to the council.
Bryant sought name suppression, but was not successful in that application, nor in a subsequent appeal of Judge Bidois’ decision to the High Court.
Hannah Bartlett is a Tauranga-based Open Justice reporter at NZME. She previously covered court and local government for the Nelson Mail, and before that was a radio reporter at Newstalk ZB.