EDIT: Sorry for the false alarm. The Building Act 2004 already has this defintion. Nelson is simply adding the same definition to their plan. From my not-a-lawyer perspective, it seems that this is a benign change and there is no threat to people living in Tiny Houses.
Original Post:
Submissions close today at 4pm on Nelson’s Plan Change 29. One new passage in Chapter 2 Meanings of words quietly redefines vehicles as buildings:
In the Residential, Inner City, Suburban Commercial and Industrial zones, a building includes a vehicle or motor vehicle (including a vehicle or motor vehicle as defined in section 2(1) of the Land Transport Act 1998) that is immovable and is occupied by people on a permanent or long term basis.
You can make a submission here: https://shape.nelson.govt.nz/plan-change-29
Yeah, it is technically a vehicle. They are proposing to classify it a building.
If I drive my camper van onto a piece of land, jack it up, take the wheels off, build a foundation around it and connect it to the water supply, is it not a building?
This doesn’t mean that every car on the road is technically a building - only if they are “immovable”. If you can get a tow truck in to move it, then it’s movable
I mean, my house is movable with the right equipment, so the tow truck argument may not work.