A self-employed Te Puke builder twice convicted for allowing an implement shed to be lived in without resource consent has been censured by the Building Practitioners Board.

The board described John Murray Addison as taking a “cavalier response” to its investigation and showing a “disregard for regulation”.

Addison was granted consent to build the 167sqm implement shed with a lunchroom, toilet and hand basin on his lifestyle property in 2008.

The Bay of Plenty Times previously reported he had been prosecuted twice by the Western Bay of Plenty District Council for allowing people to live in the shed, resulting in Environment Court fines of nearly $7900 in 2010 and nearly $29,000 in December last year.

In December he was also convicted by Chief Environment Court Judge David Kirkpatrick of breaching a 2010 order not to use the shed as a dwelling without resource consent. The offence carries a maximum penalty of two years in prison.

As a result of the 2023 conviction, the Building Practitioners Board launched an inquiry into Addison’s fitness to carry out or supervise building work.

‘I can rent it to anyone I want’

The board’s recent written decision said Addison was invited to give a written response to the board’s disciplinary inquiry.

The decision reported that instead, Addison told the investigator he was unsure why the board had opened the complaint against him, and that: “It has nothing to do with JMA Construction Limited, it is a trust where the shed is on, and I can rent it to anyone I want, and it has nothing to do with you guys”.

The investigator described Addison “as having a displeased tone of voice and using ‘strong negative language’”.

The board noted Addison initially told the council during the second investigation the shed was “just being used as a smoko room” but later said he had tenants and thought the rules had changed to make this “alright”.

The board said it was satisfied it had “sufficient evidence” including Judge Kirkpatrick’s sentencing notes to decide that Addison’s conduct had breached Section 317 of the Building Act and censuring him was the appropriate penalty.

A censure is a “formal expression of disapproval”. It was among the lesser disciplinary options the board could take under the Act against any licensed building practitioner convicted of an offence punishable by six months’ or more imprisonment if it was satisfied the offence reflected badly on fitness for building work.

‘A disregard for regulation’

The board said while Addison’s conduct was at the “lower end of criminal offending”, his belief that he could still rent the shed as a dwelling and lack of insight into his offending after two prosecutions showed a “concerning pattern” of non-compliance.

And given Addison’s “cavalier response” to its inquiry, the board said it was “not convinced” he could be trusted to meet the duties expected of a licensed building practitioner, which included complying with an extensive code of ethics.

“There is a pattern to the respondent’s behaviour which demonstrates a disregard for regulation. This is not an acceptable attitude for a licensed building practitioner and the public should be aware of the respondent’s behaviour.”

In censuring Addison, the board said from a licensing perspective there was an “unacceptable risk” concerning the need to protect the public, maintain public confidence, and minimise the risk of future misconduct or harm” to the licensed building practitioner regime.

These factors, combined with Addison’s convictions, meant he was “not a fit person” and “reflected adversely” on his fitness to carry out or supervise building work or building inspection work.

The board decided to censure Addison and ordered him to pay costs of $875.

The board said its disciplinary decision would be recorded in the Register of Licensed Building Practitioners for three years.

-Bay of Plenty Times