Great Barrier Island man convicted over home alterations without building consent

“I understand that your whānau have lived there for some 600 years,” the judge noted in the August 20 decision.

Aotea Great Barrier Island, where illegal modifications were made to a home in Katherine Bay. Photo / Eleanor Hughes

In 1983, he built the house, according to plans that had been approved by the council and inspected and confirmed to be compliant.

In addition to providing a warm and dry home for himself, he wanted enough space to accommodate his nine children and spouses, 32 grandchildren and two great-grandchildren whenever they came back to the land (whenua) to be with him, the decision said.

In 1985, the Māori Land Court determined the dwelling, together with a bakery building in which he now lives, belonged solely to him.

He then left to work overseas.

In the three decades he was away, the house was left unoccupied and was stripped, vandalised and storm damaged.

Sydney Henare Davis was convicted and sentenced at Auckland District Court. Photo / NZME

This decade, he made modifications.

At no stage did he check with the council about whether he might need building consent for this project.

He used savings to refurbish the house so it would be a warm, dry place to use as a retirement home, as well as a place where whānau could stay when visiting.

He worked on the project for some years. His cousin, a builder, provided on-site work supervision.

Davis followed the same building plans that were used for the original dwelling, although he made some extensions.

This dwelling on Aotea Great Barrier Island was built in the early 80s before being refurbished and extended this decade. Photo / Auckland Council

Council officers identified several matters of non-compliance:

No barriers or fencing for the decks; Gaps in the external stair handrail wide enough for a child to be able to fall through; No handrail for the internal staircase; Bowed posts at the rear of the building; No apparent proper means for collecting, concentrating and dispersing stormwater; and larvae in a gully trap, evidencing lack of drainage or blockage.

The judge said it is not known whether:

Preparatory site works were done to a proper standard; The foundation pouring was sound; The framing met the Building Code structural and durability requirements; There was adequate watertightness beneath the cladding.

Davis is not a licensed building practitioner and there was no evidence work was done by or supervised by one.

The judge said the owners’ expression of whanaungatanga came with a duty of care to ensure that his moko (grandchildren) and their parents live in a whare (house) that is safe and sound.

A case at Auckland District Court heard council officers identified several matters of non-compliance with a building on Aotea Great Barrier Island. Photo / Nick Reed

The fact the building is on land he personally owns on Māori freehold land in a remote part of Aotea Great Barrier Island means relatively few people were put at risk of harm by the offending.

“Yet most those you put at risk were your precious whānau,” the judge said.

Davis expressed remorse and stopped work when the council intervened.

He and his wife had spent the past two winters living in an old, uninsulated bakery building. Davis suffered from influenza twice and got an infection in his right foot that resulted in part of it being amputated.

The judge said he inferred Davis suffered grief from using all his savings on the project, only to have produced a large building with compliance problems that must be overcome for his vision to be realised.

He acknowledged he did major works and the judge said the maximum penalty for this was $200,000.

A conviction was a sufficient penalty so no fines were imposed and no costs orders were made, nor did he have to pay for court costs.

“I am satisfied that conviction would be a sufficient penalty in itself. I have confidence that you will be resolved on behalf of your whānau to have them return to the whenua in a way that does not put them in jeopardy with an unsafe or unsanitary whare,” the judge said.

“I accept that your offending on this occasion was aberrant in an otherwise unblemished record, including involving significant community service.”

Anne Gibson has been the Herald’s property editor for 26 years, written books and covered property extensively here and overseas.

Stay ahead with the latest market moves, corporate updates, and economic insights by subscribing to our Business newsletter – your essential weekly round-up of all the business news you need.