Dunedin City Council's demand that a family tear down a much-loved treehouse over safety concerns has been slammed as "ridiculous" by a Mosgiel mother.
Janice Norman-Oke says the council called on them to remove the treehouse after a neighbour complained it was affecting their privacy.
She said her father Trevor Oke built the treehouse for his three grandsons three months ago. It had brought hours of joy for her children Ethan (12), Devon (10) and Logan (6).
Following the call from the neighbour the council ruled the treehouse to have breached section 17 of the Building Act 2004, which states that all building structures must comply with the building code.
The council has defended its actions saying it was obliged to follow up once a complaint had been made and had "no choice" but to uphold building laws.
Under the Building Code, the treehouse required a building consent due to the fact that the safety railing installed on the structure's platform was over three metres high.
Even if the treehouse's height was within the legal limit, it did not "meet building code requirements around structural integrity and safety from falls'', the council said in a statement.
Ms Norman-Oke, a health and safety consultant, said she had made no progress on saving the treehouse since the "ridiculous'' ruling, but was adamant it was safe.
She was ordered by the council to tear the treehouse down last month, but said her father, the only person that could dismantle it, recently had surgery on his spine.
Nevertheless, Ms Norman-Oke said she would be willing to work with the council to help make the structure compliant with the Building Code standards, but she was unsure of what was needed for it to comply,
"They need to tell us what to do to stay compliant. I'm hoping they allow it to stay.''
"The DCC doesn’t go looking for issues like this, but we received a complaint about the tree house which we were obliged to follow up.
"The structure doesn’t fit any of the exemptions under the Building Act so our staff have no option but to enforce the rules," he said.
In a statement provided to other media, the council said it would have been happy to provide "further clarification" over the breach.
While the original complaint was about privacy, this was not a factor in the council's decision.
"Although we were not concerned about privacy issues, once staff were aware of the tree house they were obliged to follow up on the issues relating to the Building Act and the Building Code."
The council had only received one other complaint about a treehouse in the last three years.
"This was investigated and the structure, which did not meet building code requirements or set back requirements under the Dunedin District Plan, had to be removed."
- By Alex McLeod
Related Stories
Comments
Didn't rad the article but watched the video I usually bag the DCC and Cull whenever I can however this time I feel they are within there rights, sure 20-30 years ago tree huts where accepted, but now the society plays the blame game -its everybody fault except mine, sure the owner said she is a health and safety person ex lawyer, her children will not get hurt etc etc but they also said the neighbourhood children think its awesome have climbed it all want one too. Well if those same children fall, break a limb the platform breaks or worse, what will the owner say then? The DCC being the higher power here, knows of this and can't turn a blind eye to it if it said it was ok as a tree hut saw the building code and a accident happened then the owners or parents of a hurt child would go the DCC - so the DCC are eliminating that from happing by saying it has to go .- We only have our PC brothers and sisters to blame and we now have to deal with things like this - so have a cup of concrete lady, harden up and remove the tree hut.
Would have said 'No', but for the outdated trope 'PC gone mad'.
In the 'Culture Wars', PC was deemed 'mad' when a rightist lobby group devised the term 'Politically Correct'.
I very really understand anything you say, what type of jargon is it?
Hope all is well, we miss you come back
A bunch of wallies! We are forced to pay 8% rates increases to fund these guys! Some heads should roll for not being able to think in a PC world gone mad. What have they become?- rule book following robots? Think for petes-sake, or is that too much for our local authority -may be another $865m in another 10 year plan will solve it?
The neighbour can plant a tree or two if they are so concerned with a few kids having fun can affect their privacy.....
These people are insane, a visit to a psychiatrist is in order it would seem
"Council building solutions principal adviser Neil McLeod said in a statement the council did not make building laws but was required to uphold them".
That old chestnut, just doing my job.......yeah right.
Dumb City Council you are beyond a joke and I relish the chance to vote you out.
It is not rocket science - No matter what council is in the answer will still be the same, we are a cotton wool society and blame others, if the DCC say its OK then they are in the firing line if a child gets hurt, because they are aware of the tree hut now they can not say nothing else except remove it, They can't approve it to stay because it is not to code. if the owner doesn't remove it and the DCC let it slide if and when an accident happens the blame rests with the DCC because they never followed it up to make sure it was gone. Really the owner needs to remove it and re build it at a later stage to keep everybody happy that is until the neighbour complains again. -We only have ourselves to blame because we have let this PC BS runaway and allowed the idiots to keep increasing the PC BS. So we are at a stage where our hands are tied.