Originally posted by Shalodge
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Councils Holding the Country to Ransom
Collapse
X
-
But this is the logical destination of your previous post. You have the council trying to control how many people live in a property by counting kitchen sinks (or buckets used as sinks). This is no less silly than having a bedroom inspector
Bathrooms could also be used but probably not quite as good a proxy for individuality as kitchens?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Shalodge View PostNo .. A bedroom can be any room really .. but a kitchen is pretty essential and is more specifically equipped. You can change rooms around without any consents but not the kitchen.. It becomes a proxy for 'dwelling units' and while it is not perfect it is the best way. There is some argument as to what defines a 'kitchen' given that you can have a fridge and pantry etc anywhere but the sink is a plumbing fixture that requires BC to install and is the logical definition point.
Bathrooms could also be used but probably not quite as good a proxy for individuality as kitchens?
Comment
-
Its not perfect but no one has come up with a better way of defining multiple dwellings and the pubic have been very clear that they want councils to exercise control over this aspect to protect the amenity of residential areas.
Sinks are not the definition point, kitchens are. A sink by itself (in a laundry or wherever) doesn't constitute a kitchen and lack of a sink doesn't mean that a kitchen is not a kitchen (but its a good trigger for the assessment process.)
Russell
Comment
-
Originally posted by Shalodge View PostSinks are not the definition point, kitchens are. A sink by itself (in a laundry or wherever) doesn't constitute a kitchen and lack of a sink doesn't mean that a kitchen is not a kitchen (but its a good trigger for the assessment process.)
Comment
-
Poe's Law?
Case study:
In 2015 a local rural 'lifestyle' block owner made a submission to our District plan review. He requested that council stop trying to control peoples lives and that as a land owner he had the right to do pretty much whatever he wanted on his property.
A week ago I get this email:
xxxxxxxxx, we have just been notified that a quarry for pumice is proposed to go in next door, they are later to landscape and plant kiwi fruit, as you can appreciate we live in a quite part of the country, and this will destroy our world, proposed is 800,000 cubic metres for removal, over 6 year peroid,
it is in for resource consent now, the property is xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
can you help in anyway ?
Also who is the legal IWI in this area as we believe they wont be impressed?
Property has become the battlefield upon which the selfish slaughter the selfless in the name of greed.
Russell
Comment
-
Perry .. I am totally against Council control. We are over legislated, over planned and over bylawed IMHO but it has happened because of self interest and greed. I would do away with the District plan and the RMA tomorrow but that would leave people with few options to prevent greed driven pillage of our environment. I make no excuses for my language and I place the blame directly at the feet of populist Governments and Councils only concerned with their own trough and reelection prospects.
Russell
Comment
-
A sink by itself (in a laundry or wherever) doesn't constitute a kitchen and lack of a sink doesn't mean that a kitchen is not a kitchen (but its a good trigger for the assessment process.)
The answer must be that the RMA should control the use of the building not how a household family manages itself. As long as this is one family or household under single ownership or single tenancy what is the problem? Instead planners make up the interpretations to suit their own policy.
Use should be based on intended use not a planners worst nightmare?
Comment
-
so we dont even know what defines the problem?
1. Why are we doing this?
2. Is it the best way of achieving the outcome we are seeking?
The rule we are talking about is this.. (Paraphrased for clarity and simplicity)
Rule: *** In certain zones only one household unit per lot is permitted as of right as long as the building isn't too high or too close to the neighbours boundary and there is room on the site for it. A second household unit is also permitted if it is small and can be accommodated on the site and is inhabited by someone with a relationship to the main unit.
1. Why is this rule necessary? (Why are we doing this).
A. Infrastructure planning is based on formulas assuming certain level of service and demand based on household units in an area. If unit numbers are not controlled overloading and congestion may occur. Neighbourhood amenity is also reduced if excessive units are being created.
2. Is this rule the best way of achieving the purpose.?
A. Yes because it can be enforced by defining a household unit and by setting an appropriate threshold for Council intervention.(The point at which a consent is required) In other words a mechanism to achieve a balance between the rights of the property owner to build a home and live in peace and the rights of the rest of the community to have a pleasant and uncrowded neighborhood with congested infrastructure and services..
So then we have a definition of Household unit ... They are many and varied this one is copied direct from the old Rodney plan...
House hold Unit ....means a room or rooms used or intended for habitation by one independent HOUSEHOLD, and which in each one contains one set of dishwashing facilities (including a combination of a kitchen sink [including double sinks] and dishwasher including pairs of dish drawer type dishwashers) in the same kitchen, and includes any dwelling house, flat, home unit or townhouse. (See also SINGLE HOUSEHOLD UNIT and Multiple HOUSEHOLD UNIT.)
Russell
Comment
-
my point is that I agree that when separate households are formed they should be treated as another residential unit and i accept that this is stated in the rule as 1 per site This is desirable so that each separate household has amenities and parking etc so they can independently enjoy their surroundings. This also impacts on neighbors to some extent but if the areas are provided I done see a problem It comes back to numbers.
the definition of household unit is where we depart company;
."means a room or rooms used or intended for habitation by one independent HOUSEHOLD" is the key if the member belongs to the same house hold or family they are not independent. (Other definitions use separator and exclusive). The planners say that because the member is independent then they are another independent household I say that if they are family or in the same house hold they are the same independent household.
This is consistent with the building act that allows self contained facilities in the same household unit
There are no adverse affects for the same household if extra kitchens are provided .
What the planners do is start with what a household needs which is the later part of the definition and work back when commonsense is that you should first understand "independent" as being separate and exclusive.
In this case the lady is clearly a family member and has relationship with her family.
This should be the end of the story!
Comment
-
ninnies in auckland council powerless to stop
nimbys preventing more housing construction
so national has to come sort out the supercity
Dr Smith said it was the first time an Environment Minister had joined a local planning case since a case in rural Canterbury in 1999.
"I am taking this unusual step of joining proceedings to support the Auckland Council and Fletcher Residential because of the size and significance of the project and to make a firm stand in favour of these sorts of plan changes that are needed to address Auckland's growth and housing problems," he said.
He said Fletchers wanted to build 1500 homes worth $1.2 billion over eight years, housing 4000 people.
Government steps into a local planning appeal for the first time in 17 years to back Fletchers' planned housing development in the Three Kings quarry in Auckland.
it's not build it and they will come
they're already here
and more are on the way
not cost hungry refugees either
but returning kiwis, skilled migrants + unskilled migrants prepared to do work unemployed kiwis feel is too hard or to poorly paidLast edited by eri; 01-02-2016, 06:05 PM.have you defeated them?
your demons
Comment
-
I am about to start a bit of a reno on my bach to turn it into my semi-PPOR. Had to have plans to council by the 20th of Nov for 20 working days before Christmas which we did. 19th Dec they came back with a couple of minor quibbles which were sorted and architect was confident that we’d have approval by the 23rd of Dec. Got info back to them in plenty of time then… nothing. Okay Christmas, not a problem. New Year, sure take some time off. By the 18th of Jan still no word. Oh the inspector is away on holiday. He’s back next Monday and will have your consent done on his return.
25 Jan, nothing. End of last week, got some info. The only issue is that they are not happy with the footing/concrete wall that would be supporting part of the top storey. So last Friday revised plans were submitted with concrete block wall instead. Inspector still not happy. Architect spoke to him Monday, wall meets all code requirements but inspector still not happy with it despite it being to code! (Now he is just being an arse- IMO). Architect then took it to his manager who agreed that the wall in question, the only issue, indeed met the code and they’d get back to us shortly.
We heard nothing from them for the rest of the week. I have builders ready to go but am waiting while this jumped up bureaucrat gets off his arse and does his job.
This morning architect contacted the council:
Greetings XXXXXX
The final matter under discussion on this application was resolved by our email of 9.40 am Mon 1 Feb 2016.
This application was lodged on 20 Nov 2015. Nineteen working days were allowed to pass before the initial response from Council on 17 Dec 2015. That response was answered on 21 Dec 2015. Subsequent requests from the Council have been attended to promptly given that some research time has been required.
Council has not responded to our emails of 1 Feb 2016 and 4 Feb 2016.
Please assist in having this Consent issued without any further delay...
************************************************** ***********
Response from the Council in question:
Good morning,
Apologies for not getting in touch sooner. Unfortunately XXXX is on leave this week but will be back on Tuesday. The last correspondence from him to you I can see on the file is dated Jan 27, so if he has been in touch since then I have no way of knowing. I will put this file on his desk for immediate attention when he returns next week.
I am really sorry I can’t do anything more today, as even our manager is away.
**********************************************
Where is the manager you might ask? Oh probably at the bureaucrats wedding!
So what would you do from here?
Am annoyed and feel maybe laying a complaint may be in order.
CraigLast edited by Courham; 05-02-2016, 10:09 PM.
Comment
-
Craig, this is all pretty normal unfortunately.
Councils are full of people who work at about 50% the speed of anyone in the private sector. They are also 'no' people as opposed to 'yes' people elsewhere.
They're often away on holiday, away sick, have their phones on voicemail etc etc.
Nothing you can do but keep pushing them.Squadly dinky do!
Comment
Comment