8 In his evidence in chief, the defendant identified a receipt for a construction certificate from the Council. He explained that he had not done the building work himself, but had hired a builder. The builder had made suggestions as the work was carried out. The builder had suggested that they raise the basement. The defendant asked the builder about the possible consequences. The builder told him that maybe he would get a fine of $1000 or $1500 and not be able to get a final inspection certificate. The defendant thought that was OK and told the builder to proceed. The defendant knew that these works were not in accordance with his consent. As the building was going up, other changes were made, involving the same process. Now the defendant regretted his actions. He was a cook, not a builder. He only got involved because it was his own house. He would stick to cooking from now on. He had lodged a new development application after getting legal advice, the effect of which (if approved) would be to block access to the basement level and make other changes to bring the building into compliance with the consent, insofar as practicable. The house was still not occupied. Had the defendant not breached the consent his family could have moved in by now. His neighbours did not object to the building. One neighbour provided a letter to this effect, which was tendered. The other told the defendant they had no objection and wanted the house finished. The defendant believed that, in total, the delay had cost him about $120,000, calculated from the time he stopped building to date.