Real client story · Cambridge, Waikato
For Andrei Szabo, a 70 m² secondary dwelling meant much more than choosing a floor plan. ArchSolutioNZ helped connect site feasibility, flood and stormwater evidence, steel-frame design and council documentation—then continued supporting him as the project moved into construction.
The outcome so far
Waipā District Council issued the small-standalone-dwelling PIM on 2 June 2026. The project has since progressed through excavation, slab construction and steel framing. ArchSolutioNZ is helping compile the professional and trade records for submission to council when the work is finished.
Status confirmed by ArchSolutioNZ for this story: construction remains in progress. A PIM is not final building approval or proof that every exemption condition is met. The issued documents retained site-specific flood-hazard qualifications.
The client behind this story
Cambridge granny-flat client. Read Andrei's original email responses below, or visit his LinkedIn profile to learn more about the person behind this project.
In the client's own words
“He provided much more than just drawings, he helped me understand the whole process, identified potential problems early, coordinated specialists when needed, and guided me through what could have been a very confusing and stressful project.”
Andrei Szabo · Cambridge granny-flat client
An excerpt from Andrei's email questionnaire, 22 June 2026. His feedback describes his experience, not a guarantee of another project's cost, approval or outcome.
The real client problem
Andrei wanted a practical, affordable secondary dwelling with future rental potential. Before committing to detailed work, he needed to understand the site restrictions, the possible pathway and the technical questions that could change the project.
His concerns were familiar to many granny-flat owners: hidden requirements, uncertainty over who needed to be involved, and the risk of discovering a major problem after plans and specialist work were already underway.
ArchSolutioNZ's role was to turn those separate questions into a coordinated sequence: check the site, develop the layout, obtain the right specialist information, prepare the documents and keep supporting the owner as the build progressed.
Challenge 1 · A home that fits the site and the brief
The first concepts prompted useful feedback. Andrei wanted the main openings at the front and rear, privacy from neighbouring overlooking, convenient parking and bedrooms connected to outdoor space. We revised the design around those priorities while checking the relevant site coverage, landscaped and impermeable areas, setbacks, outlook and outdoor-living requirements.
The May planning assessment recorded compliance for the proposal assessed at that time. Later location or design changes still needed to remain consistent with the relevant requirements; the initial assessment was not a permanent approval for any future arrangement.
Challenge 2 · Flood uncertainty and foundation levels
Council advised that the available flood information was indicative and should not be relied on for detailed design. That uncertainty mattered: an assumed flood level could affect the floor height, foundation design and future risk. ArchSolutioNZ sought specialist input, coordinated proposals for Andrei to consider and brought the flood and stormwater assessment into the architectural and engineering workflow.
The civil specialist assessed flood and stormwater matters; the structural engineer designed the foundations. ArchSolutioNZ coordinated their information with the architectural plans and explained why reliable finished-floor-level set-out mattered before building. We do not present those independent specialist assessments as reports authored by us.
Challenge 3 · Services without a public stormwater connection
The new dwelling needed an on-site stormwater proposal rather than an assumed public stormwater connection. The specialist assessment informed the soakage arrangement shown on the architectural drainage plan. Separately, the wastewater proposal connected the new fixtures to the existing line. Keeping these systems clear helped the owner understand the evidence and trades required.
Challenge 4 · Steel framing is more than a material swap
Andrei chose steel framing after considering construction options. ArchSolutioNZ liaised with the supplier about opening sizes, frame and truss heights, bracing information and the relationship between the framing and architectural details. Thermal breaks, cladding interfaces and the foundation connection had to be considered as part of the building—not left as disconnected supplier information.
The project journey
2025 · Feasibility and concept design
ArchSolutioNZ reviewed the planning constraints and developed multiple concepts. The layout evolved around privacy, parking, front-and-rear openings, bedroom access and usable outdoor space—not simply the maximum floor area.
Late 2025–early 2026 · Technical coordination
Geotechnical and foundation information informed the slab strategy. We coordinated with the steel-frame supplier on openings, heights, bracing documentation and the relationship between structural framing and the architectural details.
April–May 2026 · Flood and stormwater work
Council's indicative flood information was not suitable for detailed design. We sought specialist proposals, coordinated the stormwater and flood assessment and integrated the resulting information with the foundation and drainage documents.
May–June 2026 · Pathway and PIM
An initial building-consent application was withdrawn after the owner reviewed the available pathways. ArchSolutioNZ submitted the small-standalone-dwelling PIM application on 18 May. Council's planning assessment followed on 29 May, and the PIM was issued on 2 June.
July–October 2026 · Construction support
Set-out questions led to updated architectural plans and coordination with survey information. Later correspondence addressed construction records and building separation, which ArchSolutioNZ confirms was subsequently clarified through the client's video.
Current stage · Build in progress
The slab and steel framing are built, and construction continues. ArchSolutioNZ is compiling the relevant professional and trade documents and will help Andrei submit the completion package to council once the project is finished.
The council milestone—and its limits
The issued PIM was a real milestone for Andrei. It was also a document to read carefully. The accompanying information identified inundation and warned that a building consent, amended preliminary plans or both might be needed to adequately protect the land, work or other property. We have not represented this as council certifying the finished dwelling or conclusively approving every exemption condition.
ArchSolutioNZ confirms that the later building-separation query was resolved using a client-supplied measurement video. We are continuing to collect the relevant design, engineering and trade records and will help Andrei submit the final documents to council once the build is complete. No completed dwelling, final council acknowledgement or CCC is claimed in this story.
Andrei's own email
Andrei answered these questions on 22 June 2026, after PIM issue and before the construction stages shown above. Question headings are shortened; responses retain his wording with minor formatting tidied. His belief that he was among the first applicants is his personal perspective, not a verified ranking claim.
“I wanted to build a granny flat/secondary dwelling that could eventually become an investment property and generate additional income while keeping the project affordable and compliant with council requirements.”
“The most stressful part was understanding all the council requirements, potential hidden costs, and whether the site was actually suitable for building before spending a lot of money.”
“It was extremely important. I didn't want to spend thousands of dollars on plans and consultants only to find out later that the project couldn't proceed or would require expensive changes.”
“Alejandro explained the council rules in simple terms and checked the site restrictions early in the process. This gave me confidence that we could design the project to avoid resource consent and the extra costs and delays that come with it.”
“Yes, definitely. Knowing these checks were completed before moving forward made me feel that the project was being managed properly and reduced the risk of expensive surprises later.”
“He listened to my ideas, discussed different options, and helped develop a design that suited both my needs and my budget.”
“He explained each step of the process in a way that was easy to understand and were always available to answer questions when I was unsure about something.”
“It was very helpful because I was considering different construction options and didn't have the technical knowledge to coordinate everything myself.”
“Yes. Alejandro helped identify potential issues early, particularly regarding the flood hazard and drainage requirements, and coordinated the right specialists to find practical solutions.”
“Alejandro explained the problem really clearly and walked me through getting the right info to keep the project moving. He even helped find a few companies for me and took care of asking them for quotes.”
“Very valuable. It prevented us from proceeding with incorrect assumptions and potentially having to redesign the foundations later, which would have cost both time and money.”
“It was extremely helpful because it saved me from having to coordinate several different professionals myself and ensured everyone had the correct information.”
“Very important. Without his guidance I would have struggled to understand what was required and who needed to be involved.”
“He organised all the necessary information and applied on my behalf, which made the PIM application process much easier than I expected.”
“It was a huge relief and gave me confidence that the project was finally moving in the right direction.”
“Yes, budget has always been one of my biggest concerns. He helped me make the right decisions on different materials and guided me on which products and materials to choose so they were cost-effective but still good quality. Overall, he helped me understand where money needed to be spent and where more cost-effective options were available, which allowed me to make better decisions.”
“Very helpful. Having different options and understanding the pros and cons of each one allowed me to make informed decisions and control the overall project costs.”
“Yes. Whenever I had questions or needed clarification, he was available to answer my calls, and we had excellent communication over WhatsApp, where he could share images and documents to help me understand the next steps.”
“The communication was professional, friendly, and responsive. I always felt informed about the next steps and supported throughout the process. At first I knew very little, but now I feel knowledgeable and confident about the whole process.”
“Yes, I would. He provided much more than just drawings, he helped me understand the whole process, identified potential problems early, coordinated specialists when needed, and guided me through what could have been a very confusing and stressful project. I was probably one of the first in Cambridge to apply under the new PIM rules, and while others advised against it, Alejandro made it possible and helped me save a lot of money on the project.”
These are redacted images of the supplied email, not recreated review cards. The date, response context and client name remain visible. Contact details, street and application identifiers, private signature information and unrelated correspondence are removed. The images stay within this page and are not clickable.
What this experience offers other owners
We connect the intended use, privacy, layout and outdoor space with the actual site constraints.
We identify where a general assumption needs site-specific civil, geotechnical or structural input.
We help connect supplier information, construction questions and the records needed for the next council step.
Send your property information, existing plans and ideas. Our NZ Registered Architect-led team can help assess the pathway, prepare the architectural design and documentation, coordinate specialist inputs and support the council journey within an agreed scope and fixed fee.
services@archsolutionz.co.nzNo. A PIM supplies site and project information; it is not a building consent, a Code Compliance Certificate or confirmation that every exemption condition is satisfied. In this story the PIM was issued, and construction remains in progress.
Do not assume it can. Natural hazards need project-specific assessment, and all exemption conditions must be satisfied. This project's PIM expressly identified inundation and warned that amendments and/or building consent might be necessary. A specialist report and PIM issue are not blanket proof of eligibility.
The flood and stormwater questions and the structural foundation design are different tasks. The specialist assessment provided site-specific information that had to be coordinated with the architectural levels, drainage proposal and independent structural design.
No. The frame supplier's information needs to fit the site, foundations, openings, insulation, cladding, services and professional responsibilities. This project shows the coordination needed around the kitset, not just the purchase of it.
For Andrei, support has included set-out and finished-floor-level discussions, updated plans, checking a separation question and collecting professional and trade records. The agreed project scope governs the service; builders and specialist professionals retain responsibility for their own work.
Send the property information, any existing plans or council letters, your intended use, approximate size and preferred construction method. ArchSolutioNZ can help identify the site constraints, likely pathway and specialist information needed before detailed design progresses.
Architect-led design and documentation for the appropriate pathway.
Understand the constraints before committing to a design.
Understand the conditions and why site-specific checks still matter.
Start organising the information for a professional review.
Help assembling the site and project information for council.
The consent pathway where an exemption does not fit.
Prepared by Alejandro Hidalgo, NZ Registered Architect, ArchSolutioNZ. Based on our direct project involvement, design correspondence, architectural documents, council PIM and planning records, the original client email and construction photos. Published 15 October 2026. Current construction and separation status confirmed by ArchSolutioNZ for this account. Public location is limited to Cambridge, Waikato.
For the general responsibilities, see MBIE's homeowner guidance. Exemption conditions, natural-hazard obligations and Building Code compliance still apply; a building consent is required if the applicable exemption conditions are not met. This story is not a completed-building certification or advice that another site qualifies.