Christopher Luxon is in Peru, weather has affected many hoping to run in the Queenstown marathon today and Brian Tamaki prepares to hold a 'Make New Zealand Great Again' rally.
The requests by Thames Coromandel District Council to rectify the unconsented work date back to 2016 when acomplaint was made about the Puriri property.
At the time, occupants Steve Hart and Martina Petru did not own the 5.2ha but were living on it with their three daughters, now aged 12, 10 and 8. The fourth, now 6, was born there.
Hart’s unconsented building work included a wastewater disposal system, a fireplace, a separate two-storey structure on wheels that also has a fireplace and sanitary facilities, and another structure that Hart claimed was the children’s treehouse.
The house at Puriri on the Hauraki Plains belonging to Steve Hart and his family.
The council issued 11 notices to fix over a seven-year period to no avail.
In May 2022 it wrote to the owner and Hart, as the occupier and person who carried out the work, putting them on notice of legal action.
When the pair did not comply the council applied for a court order in November that year, authorising it to carry out the building work - effectively partial demolition.
The day before the matter was due to be heard, Hart took over ownership of the property and he and his company Puriri were joined to the proceedings.
Earlier, Steve Hart and his family had until lunchtime next Monday to vacate their home and remove their belongings to allow the Thames Coromandel District Council to remove the unconsented structures.
According to the decision of Judge Peter Spiller last month, Hart told the court he was exempt from the council’s policies and immune from any civil or criminal liability.
He claimed the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 required the council to obtain his written consent before commencing any action against him and said the council had engaged in criminal activity and breached his rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.
Hart, 70, argued therefore, because the council had no standing to pursue a claim, the court had no jurisdiction to adjudicate it.
Hart, who calls himself an ecology architect and unsuccessfully ran for Thames Coromandel mayor in 2022, also said he was qualified and competent to carry out the building work.
Judge Spiller said Hart’s stance was akin to the “sovereign citizen” position, which was that someone can’t be subject to the jurisdiction of the state without his or her consent, and seeks to avoid or defeat any state, regulatory or other obligations recognised by law.
But the judge said the Court of Appeal and the High Court both held that such submissions could not succeed, because they were an abuse of process.
He said Hart’s claims the council had engaged in criminal activity and breached his rights were not backed by credible evidence and his claim the proceeding was not governed by general law of contract was not valid.
“The present proceedings are governed by the Building Act 2004,” the judge wrote.
Earlier this week, Hart’s partner Martina Petru told the Herald the council’s threat to remove the structures was “brutal”.
The act enabled the council to apply for an order authorising the necessary work, he said.
“This court finds that there is no basis to any of Mr Hart’s assertions that this court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the application brought by the council.”
The order was granted with demolition day set for November 18, however Hart and Petru made public pleas for supporters to turn out on the day to form a human chain.
Petru said the couple just wanted to live off the grid with their children, whom they homeschooled, and cultivate their edible garden.
She said if they lost the dwellings they would be forced to live in a tent or caravan and could lose their livelihood because they supplied salads to people in Thames from the garden.
But a spokesperson for the council said a fire in the unconsented chimney was just one of the safety risks posed by the unconsented work, which had not been completed to Building Code requirements.
“We have issued multiple notices to fix in an attempt to direct and encourage the property owners to remedy the non-compliant building work themselves.
“The property owners did not comply with the direction notices and council reluctantly sought orders from the court to carry out work to remove the safety issues on the property.”
Since the court decision, however, the spokesperson said a productive dialogue had begun.
“Council staff attended a meeting at the property (Friday) morning that was cordial and positive and there is hope that agreement on the compliance issues can be reached.
“Council has reserved any final decisions until we hear back from the property owners early next week.”
He said the council’s preference had always been, and remained, that the property owners rectified the issues themselves without further action being needed by council staff.
Sign up to The Daily H, a free newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
