Residents of a Christchurch subdivision plan to keep using their cars to block the delivery of a controversial house to their neighbourhood.

A relocatable house was due to be delivered to a property in Travis Country Estate in Burwood on Wednesday night, but was a no show after the moving team had problems with a trailer. Residents had parked their cars around the property boundary to prevent access.

Another house was shifted to the site last week, drawing the ire of neighbours, who claimed it breached a covenant in the area.

Resident Kevin King said they would repeat the blocking process as long as they could.

"Most of the residents are overwhelmingly pleased that it didn't get there last night.

"We'll keep doing this as long as we can."

A group of residents had sent a letter via a lawyer to the land owner, King said. They would seek an injunction against the relocatable houses being allowed on site.

Residents have taken issue with the new arrival, believing it breached council consenting processes and a covenant on the area that prohibited "any dwelling house other than a new house".

"My wife and I . . . when we bought in that subdivision we sacrificed a lot," neighbour Richie Parker said this week.

"We knew what covenants were in place and we went without a lot of things . . . when we built.

"To now see them be basically ignored by whoever's bought it and the council and to have what I would consider almost a state housing prefab unit turn up next door is not flash."

Parker said he had "nothing against" the owner but was "extremely disappointed with council processes".

Shane Paul, of New Zealand Building Removals, said the second relocatable house was now due to be delivered on Monday. Police and tow trucks were on call for the delivery, he said.

Travis Country properties are subject to a covenant prohibiting "any dwelling other than a new house" on its sites. It also specifies houses must have a floor area of at least 190 square metres and not have steel garages or any fence made of, or appearing to be made of, iron.

Residents had complained to the Christchurch City Council about the apparent breach but were told it had no jurisdiction over covenants. They were also upset at not being consulted during the consenting process.

Council resource consents unit manager John Higgins said resource consents for relocated houses did not have to be notified nor residents consulted.

The land owner had been informed relocatable houses breached the Travis Country covenant, Higgins said.

"Council cannot insist on compliance as it is [a] matter outside its jurisdiction."

READ MORE:

* Second-hand house riles Travis Country residents

* Conform or don't move in here

* Red zone homes hard to shift

No building consents had been granted for the houses, he said. A council enforcement officer inspected the site on Wednesday and found foundation work had started for the first house.

"The enforcement officer is in the process of issuing a 'Notice to Fix' to stop any further works until a building consent has been issued."

The property the houses are on is understood to be owned by Anne Mackenzie, director of engineering consulting firm Build Green Ltd, which specialises in environmentally-sustainable buildings. She did not respond to requests for comment.

WHAT IS A COVENANT?

- Covenants are designed to protect the aesthetic and market value of an area by placing requirements on how houses and their surrounds can be developed. They are common in subdivisions.

- Common requirements include minimum house and floor space sizes, prescribed building materials, prohibiting relocatable houses and controls on amenities such as fences, garages and pets.

- These obligations are attached to the title of a property, which a land owner must abide by. Unlike resource and building consents, they do not fall under local government jurisdiction.

- Covenant terms can be enforced by a court if land owners pursue a dispute. Some covenants can impose a financial penalty for a breach. Land owners can seek damages for loss of value from a covenant breach. Any dispute is a civil matter.

Comments are now closed.