Councils Holding the Country to Ransom

[Perry]

Here's a good one for you, David.
From everyone's chums @ DBH.
(Don't choke)

Building consent authority (BCA) update - October 2008

Pre-lodgment meetings for building consent applications

Many building consent authorities now offer building consent applicants (or their agents or designers) the option of meeting to discuss their building project before they actually lodge their building consent application.

The Department fully supports and encourages building consent authorities providing this option to their customers - provided they are used in the right circumstances and add value to the consenting process. Such meetings will not always be needed to help process every building consent application, but many applicants and building officials have found them to be a big help in ensuring consent applications entered into the system have sufficient information, are of adequate quality, and are processed efficiently, but also comprehensively, in terms checking compliance with the Building Code.

Should "add value to the consenting process"
be taken to mean more fees for Councils?

This whole 'customers' thing is such a farce.
In my definition custom is discretionary. I can
give my custom (and become a customer of)
whomsoever I choose. Not an option, here. All
Councils have their ratepayers over a barrel,
because they operate in a statute-backed,
non-competitive, regulatory-function fashion,
with Draconian enforcement powers to boot.
A developer cannot go anywhere else.

[Davo36]

Perry, around 6 months ago I went to a meeting at Papakura Council where the managers of resource consents and building consents for Auckland (the 2 top people) gave a talk around how things would proceed under the super city.

And the building consent guy talked about these meetings and what a good idea they were. How helpful it was to find out everything at the start and so on (these meeting cover resource consent stuff too). Of course they charge for these meetings.

And then a couple of people stood up and said how they had done them and they were a waste of time. The sentiment from the audience was with them. The reasons for this may be:

• Whatever was said at the meeting didn't transpire. So the council says "This is the way to go" and then later "Oh no you can't do that..."
• You end up dealing with different staff with different ideas to those at the initial meeting.
• Initially they downplay everything, say it's all good, that's what they want, it won't cost much and will pass through council easily etc. But then it turns out to be a very costly drawn out exercise.

I think the council staff really do think they are being helpful by offering these meetings. In a lot of ways they really think they are helping at all stages actually. But their world view is very different from anyone else's.

[Shalodge]

Here's a good one for you, David.
From everyone's chums @ DBH.
(Don't choke)
Should "add value to the consenting process"
be taken to mean more fees for Councils?

This whole 'customers' thing is such a farce.
In my definition custom is discretionary. I can
give my custom (and become a customer of)
whomsoever I choose. Not an option, here. All
Councils have their ratepayers over a barrel,
because they operate in a statute-backed,
non-competitive, regulatory-function fashion,
with Draconian enforcement powers to boot.
A developer cannot go anywhere else.

The legislative 'clock' starts when the BC application is lodged and CAs are penalised if they take too long to process .. so they start early..

[Davo36]

NOW they are penalised. Up until very recently they could take as long as they liked. Just put on hold and ask more questions. And what could you do? Sue a council?

Took 4 1/2 months to get my building consent. Will be about the same to get CCC from the time it's lodged.

[Perry]

The legislative 'clock' starts when the BC application is
lodged and CAs are penalised if they take too long to
process .. so they start early..

Doubtless they have 'outs' aplenty to wiggle their
way out of being caught with any penalty. And it's
not as if they suffer personally, in any way. Any
penalties for inefficiencies or ineffectiveness will
be paid for by the hapless ratepayers, collectively,
as a constituency. The mantra is the same, most
everywhere:
Don't worry - it's OK
The ratepayers can pay.
.

[Perry]

Friday on Campbell Live
Building and renovating is a costly and sometimes frustrating experience, and
when it comes to getting consents from a council, each city is different. We
investigate the city where you'll be charged almost $20,000 for the privilege
of building a new house.

You starring in the show, David?

[Davo36]

Only $20k that's nothing. Most places spend a lot more than that with the council.

Still, it'll be interesting to see the article.

[Davo36]

Wasn't on tonight Perry, must have been bumped for the update in the Scott Guy murder story.

[Viking]

About Tauranga. As the Mayor who is interviewed says,you actually need to start by comparing apples with apples and not listening to interests that twist the tale and leave out all the facts.

http://www.sunlive.co.nz/news/12312-mayor-happy-villain-casting.html

[Perry]

This comment seemed to ring a bell . . .

If the $18,0000 is towards Council facilities, what are the rates for then?
Does this mean that if your not a home owner, i.e. tenant, then you get
everything in the City for free, courtesy of those who wish to build their
own home. Doesn’t seem too fair!

Now which forumite does that sound like?

[flyernzl]

Now is your chance.

If you are a resident or ratepayer in Auckland, get on to your local councillor and demand that they do something about this rort.
Remind then that they work for us.
Demand performance from them at this meeting on Monday.

Details of your local Auckland City Councillors are here:
http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/E...uncillors.aspx

The meeting, held by your elected Councillors deciding how to spend your money has been held in secret so that you cannot find out what is going on.

Here is the Herald's record of those who voted for secrecy and those who voted for openness:

11 FOR SECRECY
Mayor Len Brown, Deputy Mayor Penny Hulse, Arthur Anae, Sandra Coney, Alf Filipaina, Michael Goudie, Ann Hartley, Richard Northey, Noelene Raffills, Wayne Walker, Penny Webster.
9 FOR OPENNESS
Cameron Brewer, Cathy Casey, Christine Fletcher, Mike Lee, Des Morrison, Calum Penrose, Sharon Stewart, Sir John Walker, George Wood.


Bear that listing in mind when the next Council elections come around.

[Perry]

Wasn't on tonight Perry, must have been bumped
for the update in the Scott Guy murder story.

Seems that it's been re-scheduled for tonight's
gripping viewing episode.

[Davo36]

Didn't see it but checked the web after and it didn't seem to be on again...

[Davo36]

From SideSwipe this morning:

Cafe staff on wind alert
In what sounds more like a Monty Python sketch, cafe owners in Edinburgh who offer al fresco tables have to carry out a full "wind assessment" every morning. The cafes must display information showing at what wind speed staff would have to bring in umbrellas, gazebos and canopies. To do this, they need either to buy an anemometer or ask staff to judge wind speed using a chart drawn up by council officials. The chart says a "strong breeze", of 25-31mph (40-49km/h), can be indicated by "larger tree branches moving", while a gale, at 39-46mph, would be indicated by "whole trees in motion and resistance felt when walking against the wind". A council spokesman said: "This is about raising awareness of the need to plan ahead, ensuring that any temporary structure be properly constructed and suitable measures taken to mitigate against the dangers of high winds."


Source

[Perry]

Eureka! Next, councils will issue
proceedings against the weather.
Failing a reasonable response,
then maybe action against the
Met Office could be taken?

Sequel:
The Council That Sued Gawd.

(I was relieved that wind alert
did not include staff flatulence
forecasts for the day)