Councils Holding the Country to Ransom

[flyernzl]

Which of course gives them two options:

- add 50% to the current fees immediately, so they don't mind a bit being chopped off
- on their 19th day reject all applications that have not completed processing regardless of their merit.

We shall wait and see.

[Perry]

Ministry for the Environment officials attended council presentations in all regions to explain the new regulations. Dr Smith said feedback from the sessions indicates that councils are now considering how to improve their timeliness.

I'll bet they're more considering what procedural
or statutory excuses they can dream up/find.

Of course, a reduction in permit fee income means
an increase in rates, as Councils are in a win/win
statute-backed situation with captive payers.

More political flim-flam & window-dressing.
.

[Perry]

But it put more weight on the effects on the natural character of the coastland environment and its outstanding natural landscape.

One needs to reflect on that a moment or two.
Who are they who will see (as Eri says) all that
outstanding natural character landscape?

I've seen this happen locally, where farmers
were prevented from certain activities on the
'outstanding natural land' (which they owned),
so the townies could - get this - enjoy the view!

My submission to the council was to use resource
rentals. I.e. all building windows which looked to-
wards the view were to have opaque covers with
meters on them. Anyone who wanted to look out
had to pay. The farmers would receive the net
proceeds.

If the farmers made the view less desirable, their
revenue would decrease, so they'd respond to the
community's dismay and restore the quality of
the view.

The other alternative was simple. If the community
wanted the view on that land to remain the same,
it should stump up the money and buy the bl**dy
land, instead of trying to tell the owner what to do
with it!

A plague be upon damned socialists!
.

[muppet]

Refresh my memory, Dave, how much over time did it take the Council to pass your consent?

[Davo36]

Resource consent wasn't too bad, a tad over the 20 working days (although the council count it differently so would say it was slightly under - they will happily argue black is white). But it took say 3 weeks to get the application ready prior to that. And time before that to have drawings drawn by the architect, accoustics report done and so on.

You actually have to have quite a lot of stuff ready to make your application. This all takes time and money. Probably around 3 months and 10 grand all up for me, for resource consent.

Building consent then took a lot longer and cost a lot more.

[Davo36]

Sandcastle trip to US 'money well spent'

There are 2 things about this situation which I thought were wrong: 1) Why does the Christchurch City Council need to organise a sandcastle building competition? and 2) Why does that necessitate a trip the US?

But the worst thing is how it's being defended. The councillor in question won't even consider the fact that she should have been more responsible with ratepayer money. This is the way most council people are IMHO, they have an entitlement mentality. They actually seem to feel that the money is theirs, and theirs alone. And they should be able to spend it however they like without interference from the general public.


Sandcastle trip to US 'money well spent'

By Jarrod Booker
5:30 AM Friday Aug 13, 2010
Christchurch city councillor Gail Sheriff. Photo / Simon Baker


A besieged local body politician insists a ratepayer-funded trip to see a sandcastle competition in the United States was worth every cent.
However the vitriol from some ratepayers, including hate-filled calls to her family, has convinced Christchurch city councillor Gail Sheriff not to stand again at the coming elections.
The councillor of 15 years is also calling for a rethink of the public's access to politicians after one caller to her home wished her flight back to New Zealand would crash.
"It just saddens me that people can be so nasty. There's no need for it."
Ms Sheriff returned on Wednesday from Imperial Beach, 24km south of San Diego, where she got first-hand insight into the "US Open Sandcastle Competition". She was seeking inspiration for a similar event, Sandcastles Down Under, to be held in Christchurch next March.
The $3958 trip was paid for from a ratepayer-funded discretionary fund.
Ms Sheriff said the trip was money well spent for the international media attention alone.
She was interviewed by local and national media in the United States about her visit, and the Discovery Channel planned to follow American sand sculptors to Christchurch in March.

Source

[Davo36]

Christchurch City Council Adding to Repair Costs

Oh those evil developers. Imagine wanting to build houses for people to live in!

But the real issue I have with CCC at this time is that they're not just allowing people to repair buildings to the standard they had before the quake, they've passed new rules meaning they have to be strengthened even more than before.

This is done in the name of safety. But really it's about the council covering their arses in case this happens again.


Christchurch earthquake: City tried in vain to stop developers

By Jarrod Booker and Edward Gay

Christchurch Mayor Bob Parker. Photo / Greg Bowker



Developers built on land that could turn into murky soup after an earthquake, despite legal opposition from the local council, says the Mayor of Christchurch.
Bob Parker said that for the past 30 years his council had insisted that Land Information reports record if homes were built on sandy soil deposits and subject to liquefaction.

The council has pushed through an urgent change requiring earthquake-damaged buildings undergoing repairs to meet a higher standard of structural safety.
In an extraordinary meeting yesterday, the council resolved to adopt a policy whereby earthquake-prone buildings would have to aim for a goal of 67 per cent of building code levels rather than the existing 33 per cent.
The new standard would bring older buildings up from about 10 per cent of the strength of a brand new building to about 50 per cent.
"What we are trying to do is make sure buildings don't fall on people," said Christchurch City councillor Sue Wells.
"What we have learned through the last little while is that buildings which are strengthened to 33 per cent of the [building] code will not provide the security that we are needing."
Mayor Parker said the city had a "duty of care" to the people and the council had to react to the quake.


Source

[muppet]

"In a number of cases this has resulted in court cases and on some occasions the council has lost those court cases."

Would be interesting to know why the councils lost these cases.

[One]

Would be even more interesting to know whether those places suffered badly in the quake.

I sympathise with building owners who'll have to strengthen their buildings more when rebuilding, but (1) won't insurance cover the extra cost and (2) why on earth would you want to rebuild to a standard that means it'll fall down again in the next quake?

The alpine fault is waaaaay overdue to go. Chances are very high Christchurch will get another nasty quake in the next few decades.

[Viking]

Question;
Why are there concrete floors that have split in half.
Answer1. insufficient cement. i.e 75 mpr instead of minimum 100.
2. the practice of using plastic reinforcing supports to lift the mesh up.. Usually in a line and weakening the concrete at that point.
All passed by the BIA once again.

[eri]

have a friend that recently tore down and replaced a holiday house on a slope with a view

the traditional foundations in this area are rubbish but it was the best they could do with the knowledge and equipment they had when these old baches were built

for the rebuild though the soil engineer signing off on the foundations was unhappy with just pouring concrete onto to topsoil on a slope

so a big drilling rig was bought in and told to drill down 15? large bore holes until each one turned up clay, some went down as far as 5mtrs

then the columns were filled with concrete and rebar, and when set the normal foundations were built on this

the whole operation probably added an extra un-budgeted $50,000? to the cost of the new house

if similar had been required on the bexley homes built on sand they might have been ok

foundations can be built for virtually any location, but at a cost

in some places that extra cost is simply uneconomic

if the leaky mess is anything to go on home owners will now be looking at ways to sue developers to rebuild with such foundations, developers will be looking at folding companies to avoid this, councils will be preparing legal teams to defend their sign off's and central gov. will be looking at what programs need to be cut and where taxes can be raised if they/we are left holding the very big bill can....

[Davo36]

Hangover for ratepayers

By Kieran Nash 5:30 AM Sunday Sep 19, 2010
Rodney Hide. Photo / The Aucklander



Ratepayers will be paying for the new Super City to sue itself from November, when outstanding legal disputes between councils are transferred to the new Auckland council.
Although all councils will be merged into one, any unresolved legal disputes will be left for the Super City to resolve - with ratepayers footing the bill.
In the past year more than 300 legal actions cost ratepayers an estimated $10 million.
A spokeswoman for Local Government Minister Rodney Hide said: "One of the benefits of having a unitary council is ... we will no longer see independent entities having their own different views and fighting it out in the courts."
By Kieran Nash | Email Kieran

Source

[Davo36]

Aah, Apparently the Council didn't Oppose Development in Christchurch

So one minute the bad developers sued the council to build in inappropriate places in Christchurch, and then another, they didn't...
No intention to mislead, says Parker
By CHARLIE GATES - The Press Last updated 05:00 21/09/2010
Canterbury earthquake
Christchurch Mayor Bob Parker admits he may have been mistaken in claiming the city council resisted development on land liable to earthquake damage.
Parker has claimed the council rejected housing schemes on land vulnerable to quakes but developers overturned the decisions in the Environment Court.
New Christchurch subdivisions such as Pacific Park in Bexley were hit hard by the September 4 quake.
The ground liquefied, pushing silt and water into the streets and badly damaging many homes. Cr Chrissie Williams said Parker's claims were "blatant lies", but Parker said he did not intend to mislead anyone.
Williams said: "I have asked council to give me a list of these cases and they have said there are none.
"It bewilders me. There are other examples where Bob comes out with these very simple statements and he repeats them so much they become urban myth. They become fact, and that worries me.



Source

[One]

Boy, this makes me mad. Our mayor gets lots of nice political kudos during a disaster by lying and blaming the nasty property developers.

*Fume*

[Davo36]

Consent Article

This all sounds really positive:
Bruce Kohn: Consistency, speed key to consents


The building industry hopes greater transparency and faster processing will mean fewer delays. Photo / Dean Purcell



Auckland's building industry has been upset for many years by inconsistencies in approach and time delays in the processing of consent applications by different councils in the region.
The region's building industry sees the controls area as a litmus test of the success of the Super City.
Rodney Hide's reforms have opened the door to a more efficient and less costly system. Can the new council walk through it?
A more customer-focused approach is promised. With this should come a much better understanding of requirements between the Auckland Council processing team and the designers, builders and material suppliers who have to deal with it.
Industry cannot put a dollar figure on the costs of delays provoked by different rulings on the acceptability of products and varying demands for information. The hope is today's problems will quickly become history.
Doug McKay, interim chief executive of the Auckland Council, has said the building control and resource consent areas are ones in which the whole ethos of greater connection and responsiveness will be delivered.
Source