A neighbour whose complaint led to the Dunedin City Council demanding a family tear down a much-loved tree house says she has been unfairly vilified.
This comes as the DCC defended its decision over the Mosgiel tree house, saying it had no choice but to uphold the law after the neighbour made a complaint over a loss of privacy.
Janice Norman-Oke, of Mosgiel, slammed the move as ''ridiculous'', saying the tree house had brought hours of joy for her children Ethan, Devon and Logan.
Neighbour Rachael Morris today told Stuff she felt vilified for making the complaint and said her concerns were legitmate.
"I have nothing against children having fun, [but] when they start sitting and looking into our house, blowing whistles... I was just going to see where I sit with privacy with the council."
She confirmed she had earlier made a complaint to police following an encounter with Ms Norman-Oke over her children hitting "hard" plums over the fence with a bat.
"I wouldn't let my children do that," she said.
Ms Norman-Oke said her father, Trevor Oke, built the tree house for his three grandsons three months ago.
Following the call from the neighbour, the council ruled the tree house had breached section 17 of the Building Act 2004, which stated 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 tree house required a building consent as it did not meet requirements to be classed private playground equipment, given safety railing on the structure's platform was more than 3m above ground level.
Even if the tree house'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 tree house since the ruling, but was adamant it was safe.
She was instructed by the council to tear the tree house down by the end of last month, but said her father, the only person that could dismantle it, recently had spinal surgery and was unable to help.
''[It] feels like a gigantic waste of the council's resources,'' Ms Norman-Oke said.
''I'm hoping that I'm not going to have to move it, and that the council is going to come to the party and at least tell me how I can make it compliant.''
Ms Norman-Oke said she was unsure of what was needed for the tree house to be compliant with building regulations.
''All I want is some clear instructions,'' she said.
A letter received by Ms Norman-Oke from the council on June 26 stated the tree house did not comply with four clauses of the Building Code, which included the adequacy of its structure, barriers, durability, and accessibility.
Council building solutions principal adviser Neil McLeod said in a statement the council did not make building laws but was required to uphold them.
''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,'' he said.
''The structure doesn't fit any of the exemptions under the Building Act so our staff have no option but to enforce the rules.''
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.
The council had received only one other complaint about a tree house in the past 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.''
A spokeswoman said the council would not be cracking down on other tree house owners across Dunedin, and reiterated it only responded to lodged complaints.
- By Alex McLeod
Related Stories
Comments
What a ridiculous pompous council, it is a tree house ffs.
I'm looking forward to voting you lot out.
Come on cull you are a supposed builder, you get your hands dirty and fix the tree hut for the children instead of hiding behind the 'law'.
I hope the supercilious neighbors are happy, forcing the children to become fat and blobbing on the couch in front of a screen.
Shame!.
How thou art fallen from grace O , DCC.
Whilst I do think the tree house should stay, perhaps with a little extra screening to keep the neighbours happy. I do see the irony in a "Health & Safety Consultant" battling the Council over a ruling that was no doubt put in place, after hours of time & tax payer money was spent with "Health & Safety Consultants" to find the most PC way of wrapping citizens up in cotton wool.
Also as a H&S consultant, you would think that she would have the smarts to be able to look at the building code and see where she went wrong.
Again, I think kids should be able to have the tree house, knocks, bruises, cuts & scrapes are character building and a learning tool for the young and they will become better people for it.
It's long past time to deflate this over grown, bloated council, once and for all.
She should go for a determination with MBIE.
Let them decide if it requires a building consent or not.
This is not a DCC they only administer it.
The Building act is run by MBIE
I'm with the DCC staff on this one. The law is the law. Interesting that building height from the ground has not been mentioned. I bet few people would like any kind of de facto two-storey structure built overlooking their backyard, maybe shading it and taking away their privacy. So apart from the Building Act, this structure probably doesn't comply with the District Plan either.
As much as I sympathise with the family/ kids and agree this is the kind of activity kids should get to experience I have to buck the poll trend and say the council had no choice. They would have been in deep if the complainant took it further, and even deeper in it if they turned a blind eye and something happened to the kids.
The reason we have a building code is to try and stop things like cave Creek happening. If the DCC didn't act and someone got hurt you lot would be calling for blood....
Maybe I'm getting old but isn't this the sort of thing neighbours - grown adults! - should be able to work out between themselves, without resorting to dragging the council into it?
Goodness me!