Key Takeaways
- Stephen and Tracey Frew were charged with carrying out building work without a consent, facing a maximum fine of $200,000 plus $10,000 per day of non‑compliance.
- The couple claimed they were unaware a consent was needed, citing a prior resource‑consent application for subdivision as the basis of their misunderstanding.
- Judge Tini Clark rejected the ignorance defence, stating the responsibility to comply with the law rested on the Frews.
- Council inspections revealed that initial exempt sleepouts were later expanded into a full dwelling, including an unconsented septic tank, and the house was already occupied.
- The judge characterised the conduct as “well‑meaning but misguided,” imposed a total fine of $13,500, and emphasized the necessity of obtaining proper building consents regardless of familial motives.
Background and Charges
Two weeks after a septic tank was installed, the property on Maungatawhiri Road, Te Mata, was already being occupied. The officer observed unmade beds, water on the shower door, clothing scattered throughout, food on the kitchen bench, and photographs on the fridge and bedroom walls. The couple appeared in Hamilton District Court this week charged with carrying out building work without a building consent, an offence that attracts a maximum fine of $200,000 plus an additional $10,000 for each day the violation continues.
Defence Claim of Unawareness
Through their lawyer, Charlotte Muggeridge, Stephen and Tracey Frew told Judge Tini Clark that the council should have engaged them more thoroughly, asserting they were unaware that the work they were undertaking required a building consent. They argued that because they had previously applied for a resource consent to subdivide the land, they mistakenly believed that any subsequent building activity would be covered under that process.
Judge’s Response on Responsibility
Judge Clark rejected the notion that ignorance excused non‑compliance, emphasizing that it was the couple’s duty to verify that their building activities conformed to the law. She stated that, regardless of any perceived lack of communication from the council, the Frews would have to face the financial consequences of their actions.
Initial Inspection (February 7, 2024)
The council’s building inspector first visited the site on 7 February 2024 after receiving a tip‑off about possible unconsented work. At the property he met an unidentified man who said he was constructing two sleepouts, each under 30 square metres and spaced five metres apart. The inspector determined that these structures fell within the exemption thresholds of the Building Act and therefore did not require a consent.
Observation of Additional Work (July 6 & July 24)
On 6 July the same inspector drove past the site and noticed that work had progressed far beyond the original sleepouts: foundations, walls, roof, plumbing and drainage were already in place. When he returned on 24 July and found the owners absent, he observed that a septic tank had also been installed. He noted that this tank lacked any building consent.
Attempts to Arrange Inspection (September‑October)
In September the inspector spent a month trying to schedule a suitable time to meet Stephen Frew for an inspection. On 8 October he and another council officer finally met Frew at the property. Frew agreed that photos could be taken, admitted that no building consent had been applied for, and said the house was intended for his son, daughter‑in‑law and young child. He authorised the work but refused to reveal the builder’s name, claimed the structure met the Building Code, said no geotechnical advice had been sought, and mentioned he had previously spent $30,000 on a declined subdivision application.
Discovery of Occupancy
After the meeting, council staff entered the house and discovered it was already being lived in. They recorded unmade beds, water on the shower door, clothing strewn throughout the rooms, food left on the kitchen bench, and numerous photographs of family members affixed to the fridge door and bedroom walls. This evidence confirmed that the structure functioned as a dwelling rather than merely a pair of exempt sleepouts.
Legal Arguments: Mistaken Belief vs Intentional Joining
Muggeridge argued that the couple’s actions stemmed from an honest but mistaken belief: because the initial pods were exempt, they thought joining them into a house would still be permissible. Judge Clark, however, found it difficult to accept that the joining of the two pods into a single dwelling could be considered a genuine misunderstanding. She noted that the Frews had previously sought a resource consent for subdivision, suggesting they were aware of regulatory processes, and concluded that the coupling of the pods was a deliberate act rather than an innocent error.
Sentencing Decision
Judge Clark described the Frews’ motive—building a home for their son and his family—as noble but labelled their conduct as “well‑meaning but misguided.” She assessed their culpability as moderate and set a starting point of $13,500 in total fines, split between the two defendants. While acknowledging the statutory maximum of $200,000 plus daily penalties, she concluded that the imposed amount reflected the seriousness of the offence while taking into account their lack of prior convictions and the absence of aggravating factors such as fraud or endangerment.
Conclusion and Reporter Note
The case was reported by Belinda Feek, an Open Justice journalist based in Waikato who has worked for NZME for 11 years and has been a reporter for 22 years. Her article details the procedural timeline, the council’s efforts to obtain consent, the couple’s defence, and the judge’s reasoning, highlighting the importance of obtaining proper building consents even when motivated by family considerations.