18/01/2026
SCHEDULE 1 TINY HOMES AND THE PUBLIC COMPLIANCE DEBATE - BALANCING SAFETY, RESPONSIBILITY AND FAIRNESS IN NEW ZEALAND'S HOUSING CONVERSATION
Tiny homes and Schedule 1 building pathways have become a major point of discussion across New Zealand. Talkback radio, social media, and mainstream news all reflect the same question:
Should Councils be involved in all compliance because the industry can’t be trusted?
It’s an important conversation — but the answer isn’t straightforward. There are legitimate pros and cons to both sides, and the public debate is often missing critical context about how our building system works, who carries risk, and who ultimately pays when things go wrong.
The Pro-Council Position: Consistent Oversight & Public Safety
Supporters of mandatory Council oversight argue that Council inspections provide:
✔ consistency
✔ standardisation
✔ quality control
✔ public safety assurance
They point to historical failures, including weather-tightness issues and poor workmanship, as evidence that independent oversight reduces risk and protects building occupants.
From this viewpoint, Council inspections serve as a check against industry shortcuts and create a baseline of public trust. It is a reasonable concern — no one wants unsafe or non-durable homes built in New Zealand.
The Alternative Position: Ratepayer Liability & Private Responsibility
What’s missing in much of the public conversation is the reality that Council is not a private compliance agency. Councils are owned by the ratepayers and residents of each district, which means that when things go wrong, the public carries financial responsibility.
The leaky building era proved this vividly. Councils paid millions of dollars in remediation for buildings that the ratepayers:
• never owned,
• never lived in, and
• never benefited from.
Meanwhile, many building companies, architects, and designers dissolved before liability could be enforced. Those who remained often carried disproportionate blame — but ratepayers funded the rest. That money came directly from local rates and indirectly through reduced investment in:
• roads
• parks
• drainage
• transport
• community facilities
When compliance is placed solely on Councils, private building risk becomes public financial exposure.
Where Schedule 1 Fits into the Debate
Schedule 1 does not “remove regulation.” It reallocates responsibility.
Under a Schedule 1 pathway, liability sits primarily with:
• the homeowner, and
• the registered trades and designers involved in the project —
not the ratepayer.
If a tiny home fails, it is not the public who pays for remediation. It is the builder, designer, or trade who performed or specified the work. This keeps private risk private, rather than socialised across the community.
Importantly, Schedule 1 is optional. Homeowners can still choose to apply for a traditional building consent if they want Council involvement or if the project would benefit from it. Choice is the key difference.
Housing, Social & Practical Benefits of Schedule 1 Tiny Homes
Beyond liability, Schedule 1 tiny homes offer real social and economic advantages:
1. Intergenerational Living
Retirees can build a small dwelling on their property, allowing them to stay close to family while the main house supports younger generations.
2. Better Use of Underutilised Land
Sections that would otherwise remain idle can be activated without adding unnecessary congestion to Council pipelines.
3. Reduced Council Bottlenecks
Delays in planning, inspections and CCC (Code Compliance Certificates) can add weeks or months to traditional projects. Schedule 1 pathways reduce these delays.
4. Lower Compliance Cost for Homeowners
Council processing overheads are rate-funded. Private pathways reduce both direct fees and indirect administrative costs.
5. Faster Housing Supply
When registered trades and proper documentation are used, homes can be delivered faster without sacrificing quality or accountability.
6. Earlier Capture of Liability
Trades and designers are identified at the beginning — and liability is contractually and legally traceable without waiting for CCC sign-off.
“No Consent” Does Not Mean “No Rules”
This is a critical point that often gets lost in media discussion.
Under the Building Act, the same ten-year warranties and liability provisions apply whether a building consent is lodged or not. Correctly executed Schedule 1 tiny homes still require:
• architectural documentation submitted for a PIM
• declared LBPs and registered trades
• documented QA during construction
• final producer statements and certificates lodged with Council
This structure protects homeowners while reducing the need for ratepayers to underwrite private building risk.
The Bottom Line: A More Balanced and Fair System
Schedule 1 tiny homes represent a more efficient and fair allocation of responsibility. They allow:
🏠 choice for homeowners,
⚖️ protection for ratepayers, and
📈 increased housing flexibility,
without undermining quality or accountability.
As deregulation and innovation continue in the housing sector, New Zealand needs credible pathways that maintain performance, durability and safety while avoiding unnecessary public liability.
H&M Homes will continue contributing to this national conversation, because building compliance is not just a technical issue — it affects how we house families, how communities grow, and how fairly we distribute risk.
