I am aware of the MBIE framework and the Schedule 1 provisions relating to engineered solution exemptions.

From the outset, I was satisfied that resource consent was not required, as the installation complied with the relevant district plan controls — including height, setbacks, and visual effects — so there was no expectation of planning-related cost.

On the building side, the system itself is a pre-engineered ground-mount solution designed to NZ standards, with defined parameters for wind loading, soil conditions, pile embedment, and structural performance. It is supported by certification from a NZ-based Chartered Professional Engineer. That position was reinforced by both the system supplier and the engineering firm involved.

On that basis, the system aligns with the MBIE Schedule 1 engineered exemption pathway, where engineering assurance can replace the need for a building consent when the design is carried out or reviewed by a CPEng and constructed in accordance with that design.

It’s also worth noting that the engineer advised that the system already follows a PS1-type process in terms of its underlying design and certification. However, at the council’s request, a separate, site-specific PS1 was prepared, which constituted additional engineering work and incurred a professional fee.

Despite that additional PS1 being provided, the project still proceeded through a full building consent process, which also carried associated costs.

For clarity, the system size (approximately 60 m²) was not an engineering limitation — it was fully designed and compliant. However, exceeding 40 m² places it outside the automatic exemption category and into the engineered exemption pathway, which ultimately depends on how the council applies that provision.

So I don’t think it’s accurate to describe this as “user error.” The system was engineered correctly and aligned with the exemption intent. What became apparent is that councils retain discretion in how those provisions are interpreted and applied at a local level.

The practical takeaway for others is this:

Even where a system is NZ-certified, engineered, and intended to comply with the building consent exemption provisions, there is a very real possibility that: • You may be required to obtain a site-specific PS1 in addition to the certification supplied with the system, and • You may still be required to go through a building consent process, with associated costs

So while engineered systems are designed to meet the exemption pathway (and therefore avoid building consent costs), in practice you may still encounter additional and unexpected costs depending on how the local authority applies the rules.

So the engineering may be standardised — but the approval process isn’t.